Intel OEM Private Key Leak: A Blow to UEFI Secure Boot Security

Until their PCs get hacked and their medical and psychiatrists' notes about them become front page news.

Sorry, what? This literally happened, THIS YEAR, and not a single one cared beyond saying "oh no, this is terrible, if only there was something we could have done!"

https://apnews.com/article/congress-data-breach-hack-identit...

Alternatively: Stuff is going to be leaked anyways, so we might as well also make it easy for law enforcement to do their job.

Their job is not what you think it is.

It's to maintain the status quo no matter how corrupt or abhorrent it is. The word enforcement says it all.

Right. There'll be more, eventually something truly salacious will turn up. When it does keep well away from fans.

Of course that's their job. The police force is not designed to be a vehicle for social change nor for justice.

The way the system is supposed to work is that engaged citizenry actively overhaul unjust laws and apparatuses, and the police then enforce those new laws.

Unfortunately we have abysmally low civic engagement in most of the western world which leads to the mess we are currently in.

I like to make fun of the French as much as anyone else but I really respect and admire the French people's propensity for protest and to stand up for what they believe. That's advanced citizenship in action.

The generation currently in charge thinks psychology is a dirty word. And even if they would do us all a favor and get some help, they probably wouldn’t use an app to get it.

By the time millennials and gen z are running the place, we’ll have moved on to misunderstanding AI or something like that.

If "something truly salacious will turn up", I would bet the source politician will deny it and would want the whole thing to be forgotten as quickly as possible, not to work on a bill against it to pass it bipartisan, because he was an embarrassment case of a leak.

Source: observing last 25 years of US politics.

Remember when the CIA hacked the Senate? No?

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/world/senate-intelligence...

I'm pretty sure a lot of lawmakers still take this shit seriously.

I thought you were referring to Australia’s hack.

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/11/medical-data-h...

Maybe some of them, in committee roles.

The weak link is the campaigns.

If they wait a few years they can just say it's fake news created by rogue unlicensed language models

I was unclear in my original post, and now can’t edit it. I do not support this stance, I’m saying that this is what they might argue, given the incident the OP posted.

Any leaked, salacious stuff will just be termed as Russian disinformation.

Advanced citizenship is about not needing revolutions, it is a sustainable governing process existing, one that integrates citizens in their daily lives. So far, I've seen shittier governments take out better ones, because they have more might. I don't think what is currently on Earth is by any means close to ideal because governments spend so much resource on worrying about other governments taking them out.

I'll agree that the citizens of France feel empowered while Americans feel disempowered. And empowerment is a natural consequence of identification with control of larger structures.

Most Americans don't feel like they have any control over larger structures in their countries.

The French aren't protesting for good things, they all believe in 100 different conspiracy theories at the same time and are protesting that the government won't reveal Qanon is real.

It's also completely ineffective, because the government can just ignore them when they get bored, and they don't actually get voted out or anything.

> Most Americans don't feel like they have any control over larger structures in their countries.

This is called "working the refs" or "talking their book".

Americans' main interest in local government is blocking new housing project to pump their property values. So no matter what happens they just say there weren't enough meetings about it and the project needs to be cancelled because it didn't get community input.

You don't have to believe them on larger political topics for the same reason you don't have to believe them here.

The weak link is the voters.

We continue to elect charismatic fools (and sometimes charismatic criminals) because we're charmed, or scared, or bewildered, or just too damned tired to care.

Until that stops, there's really no justification for expecting anything rational to come from our leadership.

>The French aren't protesting for good things

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Democratic systems of government are messy, and that's okay. It's not for you or me to decide what's a "good" thing to protest.

What do protests have to do with democratic government?

It's not part of the process, nobody has to listen to you.

->"I'll agree that the citizens of France feel empowered while Americans feel disempowered"

Ironic considering the gun narrativr

Like what? Another homophobe southern republican politician gets outted as a pedophile?

A half dozen people testifying that our last president was a serial rapist?

The head of the Supreme Court whining that when congress appoints a probable rapist to the court, the double standard is that the court should be above politics, and not comment on such things, but the press covers it anyway?

At least two of those things actually made the news yesterday.

I’m really not able to think of anything sufficiently salacious to get any more shit on the fan.

It worked several times before (Clinton email server, Hunter Biden laptop, various examples from other countries) so no reason why this argument would not work again.

It worked against Democrats because the Republican base does not care about facts and just need a reason, fact or fiction, to justify the outrage they are told to feel.

So, your claim is that protests, whose purpose is change public opinion and to inform leaders of the public opinion, has no part in a democratic process, a system in which a government’s authority derives from public support? Am I understanding your claim correctly?

Yes. There is no part of the official process where anyone is required to listen to or respect the opinion of a protest. That's kind of obvious.

If you want a rep to know your opinion on something you can call them.

The point of a protest is for when they're not listening to you, which is why they feature more in not-officially-democratic politics like dictatorships. But for that to work, it has to be so large they can't ignore you. (Otherwise, if they're small and still work through being annoying it's minority rule, which isn't democratic. But like I said that doesn't happen because you can just ignore them.)

All politics depends on popular support because your subjects can either leave the country or have you killed if they really don't like you. Democratic politics means there's official channels for exercising this by voting instead of having to do this.

Wasn't there a list of elected officials on Alzheimer's Drugs that was supposed to have been floating around that got shut down hard?

Also if you need another recent example you could reference Dianne Feinstein.

Ironic that you would confuse your emotionally felt bias, for a fact. There are many good and decent people, who are firmly rooted in reality and facts, that count themselves as part of the Republican base. We need to return to political argument, rather than vilification.

> I like to make fun of the French as much as anyone else but I really respect and admire the French people's propensity for protest and to stand up for what they believe. That's advanced citizenship in action.

You'll be disappointed then. The French are protesting for benefits and not for social change. Aka, they are not better than the police they are engaging with.

> There'll be more, eventually something truly salacious will turn up.

Have we lived in the same past few years? At this point, if one of them turns out to be an actual baby-eating reptilian, he'll still get keep his fucking seat next election, as long as he has the right letter next to his name, while the party that professes to hate baby-eaters will keep voting for him.

If you have no shame, scandal slides off you like water off a duck's back.

I didn't realize that Hunter Biden, or his laptop were running for an election, or for a cabinet position in 2020.

And I don't recall anyone calling the Clinton emails a Russian anything, unless you think that the people building the case against her were compromised.

I do recall that someone ran on a campaign of prosecuting her for it, but somehow, that was forgotten right as soon as the words left his mouth...

>You'll be disappointed then. The French are protesting for benefit

What's wrong with that?

Just because people are "good and decent" doesn't mean that the outcomes they support are thus.

As for facts even without the recent "alternate facts" the truth is you can easily come to radically different conclusions even based on the same facts.

Facts aren't facts basically :)

Not all that charismatic, more like empty social climbers.

Especially the unethical and downright criminals, who put all their effort into putting on a fake legitimate facade.

That's all fodder for valid political debate. My objection is the denigration and condemnation of those with differing opinions. It's immature and toxic.

> Just because people are "good and decent" doesn't mean that the outcomes they support are thus.

That's exactly what many on the right think of leftist policies. That the bulk of sustainable and healthy solutions should come from the grassroots, and that many government interventions are unsustainable and have profound unintended negative consequences that aren't fully appreciated by the calculus of the left.

I had nothing particular in mind. But we only have to look at the long line of past political scandals to know others that are sufficiently newsworthy will soon turn up—ones politicians wouldn't want exposed.

Despite my comment I'm not in favor of deliberately exposing private medical records of anyone, politicians or otherwise. My point is that the fixed and blinkered view of politicians won't change until they're personally affected or harmed.

> There are many good and decent people, who are firmly rooted in reality and facts, that count themselves as part of the Republican base.

I'm sure that's true, but those people aren't being voted for. Those people aren't in power and as long as people are voting for literal Nazis there is no discussion to be had. Can't have a rational discussion with people who don't believe you should even exist.

Yes, but:

The most recent research suggests partisanship, esp negative partisanship, is rooted in identity. Which is to say facts, beliefs, positions are besides the point.

There have been many more recent follow ups, but the two books I read were Democracy for Realists by Achen and Bartels, and Why We're Polarized by Ezra Klein.

As a recovering activist, this has been very hard for me to accept and adjust to. What hope is there if discourse and persuasion don't, can't work? I have no clue.

So I just focus on the work.

YMMV.

> There is no part of the official process where anyone is required to listen to or respect the opinion of a protest. That's kind of obvious.

Actually, I think there is one - government media. CBC/BBC/etc should cover these instead of covering them up. If they represented the citizens voices honestly, they might not feel they have to blockade parliament to get their point across.

> Democratic politics means there's official channels for exercising this by voting instead of having to do this.

That breaks down a bit when your media only presents one side of certain issues.

There's no requirement for corporate media to be honest, but for state media paid for by the citizens that's basically its only purpose.

> If you want a rep to know your opinion on something you can call them.

You can contact them, but if you can't do it in public others won't know and they can basically kill issues by just ignoring them.

"no, no, but NEXT time will be different!" said the fairy tale.

In the French case, media does interview the protestors, which is why we know they're not upset about economic unfairness or whatever but instead think the government is suppressing that the pyramids were built by Jews to mind control you.

https://unherd.com/2021/09/how-france-fell-for-qanon/

https://rips-irsp.com/articles/10.5334/irsp.556

That story appeared in 2017 on both NPR [1] and in the New York Post.[2]

[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/old-school-pharmacy-hand...

[2] https://nypost.com/2017/10/11/pharmacist-hints-some-congress...

This is exactly what the media does, point to the craziest and imply that the group shares all their views. Even if everyone in the group was a conspiracy theorist they can still be right that workers are feeling the strain more than others.

We need to steelman the views of our countrymen, not mock them.

Think of what they'd say about your side if the tables were turned.