I think a better idea would be have it change the password/wipe data in the event that you do not log in within X amount of time (Think Lost). Keep your mouth shut for X time and there is nothing you can do to help them.
Speaking out my ass (IANAL) this is a deadman meant to protect against any attacker not necessarily law enforcement, this might be enough to keep you away from destruction of evidence charges.
It's ridiculous to think of the DPRK as a threat at it's current level but allowing such an antagonistic state to research ICBMs is a long-term threat. Personally I would rather us a take them down now then let them fall apart in 50 years when they have the capability to nuke Seoul.
Right, but imagine that you're the head of the DPRK military and you're reading this comment as the general attitude of America. Now you think that you have to get nukes ASAP, and you're risking US invasion at any time until you do (look what happened to Saddam!).
Once you have nukes, you think, you'll have a shred of leverage over the US since you'll have the capability to nuke Seoul. With that leverage, you can ensure that your glorious people's republic will continue to prosper without another devastating war. Who cares if you throw the economy under the bus until you're nuclear-armed - that's just the price you have to pay for security.
I personally don't think that the DPRK has any real intention of starting a war - they know that there's about five minutes between hostilities being declared and Pyongyang turning into a radioactive parking lot.
Pyongyang will almost certainly never be nuked by the US, even if the DPRK used nukes first. The reasons are manifold, and include the political costs (domestic + international) of using nuclear weapons against a captive and largely innocent people, as well as the actual nuclear fallout that would effect nearby neighbours.
Tom Nichols delves deeper into the topic in both article [0] and book [1] forms.
> Pyongyang will almost certainly never be nuked by the US, even if the DPRK used nukes first. The reasons are manifold, and include the political costs (domestic + international) of using nuclear weapons against a captive and largely innocent people, as well as the actual nuclear fallout that would effect nearby neighbours.
On second thought, if the DPRK were to nuke New York or something, I can't see how the US could afford not to nuke back without looking weak. At the same time, that would probably trigger a nuclear apocalypse scenario pretty quickly with retaliation from China and the like.
A strong response would definitely be necessary, but that response is unlikely to be nuclear in kind. The USA and its allies have enough conventional firepower to permanently end the DPRK regime without needing to resort to nukes. Nichols spells it out in more detail.
One would hope that in this case, the US had enough restraint and humanity to not nuke a city in retaliation but launch a decapitation strike against the leadership and the military - perhaps nuking a couple of the larger bases and military ports.
As I understand it, the main reason that we and/or South Korea haven't moshed all over NK like we did in Afghanistan and Iraq is that they've got enough ancient, obsolete, but still quite explosive artillery aimed at Seoul to do at least Hiroshima levels of damage to it.
It'll only get worse once they've got actual nuclear capability, but it's not like you can just declare that you've decided to sacrifice SK's capital and largest city because bad stuff might happen in the future.
Well the big reason the US hasn't "moshed" all over NK is because they have nothing we want. They don't have any really significant resources that I'm aware of, and certainly don't have any oil. They're also right next to China, and China likes to keep them there as a buffer from American-aligned nations like SK and Japan.
Basically, both China and the US are probably rather worried about the situation there, because the NK leadership is so wacky and volatile; neither side actually wants to take over NK because that'd mean having to deal with their internal problems and a giant, starving population that's been fed crazy propaganda from birth about the divinity of their leaders. No one wants to deal with that problem.
Seoul is next door, you don't need an ICBM for something that's as close as that. ICBM stands for inter-continental ballistic missiles and they are made to be able to strike anywhere on Earth.
The DPRK are a real threat. They have long range conventional artillery aimed at Seoul that could cause large loss of life there. We are talking WW2 type loss of life.
The problem is in the complexity of the problems solved at a University and a k-12 level. I think this is brilliant but it assumes that there is varied work to be accomplished by all members. Most of my projects in HS where all easy enough that it was difficult to say that more then one person was needed. Slackers could survive off their friends and the people who would get everything done on their own and then let the rest of the group copy.
Interestingly enough this is the reason why planes really arn't safe security wise.
Just about every other industry has to worry about Compsec researchers busting in and screaming that the end is nigh. But not airplanes. You even try touching one of them and you will be in for quite a ride through the joys of bureaucracy.
It's the basis of QA, your customers will use your product in ways you never intended. It could go on to say that through your customers misuse of the product you will be able to make your product better.
But with planes, the intended use gets so much more critical and the number of people who test it gets incredibly low. If these systems aren't tested, errors wont be found. And one day someone is going to hook up to a plane and try to bring it down. And it is because of this lack of use outside of intention that an attacker will be successful.
Obviously, I never want to be on a plane next to a security researcher plugged into the aircraft, but I think the secrecy around aircraft is their biggest vulnerability. A solution that would work somewhat counter intuitively would be parking a plane at LAS this summer for all the Black Hat and DEF CON attendees to play with. The resulting publications would without a doubt revolutionize aircraft security.
Like what? Make people pay for content? The internet costs money to maintain and I'm sorry to say but much of the convenience we enjoy is provided only because we look at a thousand+ ads a day. Do you really want to pay $5 a month for every site you want to read?
At one point, I'd have said, "Yes, I would prefer that." And I think in the long run we'd be better off. People love pointing out how much of the internet is available because of ads, but they don't point out how much of it is shitty and difficult to use because of ads. I can do without clicking through 5 pages of useless blog spam looking for a real article, and stories with seven paragraphs split up over 14 pages for ad purposes. Those are business models that deserve to die, IMO.
I think a big chunk of the internet knows that going ad-free would mean they'd go from making small amounts of money off of ad clicking suckers, to making no money from anybody.
But, that said, adblocking software is so good lately, I don't mind keeping the current setup. I'm not paying, and I'm not seeing the ads, so I get the best of both worlds.
With the money that a programmer makes in the current market 150 a month is nothing more then beer money. The blog serves its purpose by acting as an advertisement for yourself, putting advertisements within an advertisement is a bit redundant. That one guy that gets turned away from the ads may be the guy willing to pay you made money.
Isn't the burden of proof on the police to prove that you are lying? So if neither side has proof it must be assumed that you did indeed just happen to lose it.
Because realistically would you write down the pass key in only one place? That's all of your data after all. Your livelihood if you're a developer etc. You may get asked what sort of things losing that password has cost you, if you're the sort of person who has that level of security that probably means you're locked out of all sorts of other systems (thanks to now not having access to private keys) so they can be subpoenaed to see if you've managed to log into your hosting account recently despite not having the private key to do so. And if you magically have preserved your private keys elsewhere why should you be believed that your passkey solely exists on a piece of paper in your wallet...
What about your friends, co-workers etc who might be compelled to testify as to having seen you work on your computer and have never seen you get your wallet out at any point.
And as soon as that isn't believed all other testimony you may give is tainted because you've just lied to the court. Good luck with any mitigation in the event of a guilty plea as well because you've demonstrated you haven't acted in good faith.
Yes, but "proof" in the legal sense isn't mathematical/logical proof; even the criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard does not involve elimination of all doubt: a fairly typical jury instruction [0] on the standard says of reasonable doubt that "[i]t is such a doubt as, in serious affairs that concern you, you would heed; that is, such a doubt as would cause reasonable men and women to hesitate to act upon it in matters of importance."
I think part of the problem with these discussions is that there are countless cases where the police won't stop just because there's a law that says so and so.
They often work hard to find workarounds or ways to charge you with other things to punish you anyway. The most obvious example is being innocent until proven guilty, and yet there are a lot of cases where the police shot someone to death because they raided the wrong home for example (which is why the tool is called SWATd I believe)
And that's the fatal flaw of Reddit. The more people it attracts the worse the content becomes. /r/iama used to be really good, but it has turned into a vapid wasteland of PR departments.
Speaking out my ass (IANAL) this is a deadman meant to protect against any attacker not necessarily law enforcement, this might be enough to keep you away from destruction of evidence charges.