Why the Latest FISA Release By Google Et Al. Means Squat 131
Nerval's Lobster writes "Google, Yahoo, and other tech firms are offering some updated statistics about government requests for data. There's just one problem: under revised guidelines issued by the federal government, those companies can still only report a range, rather than a definitive number, for those requests. If that wasn't fuzzy enough, the range can only be reported after a six-month lag. Between January and June 2013, Google received between 0-999 FISA
'non-content' requests on 0-999 user accounts; it also fielded between 0-999 'content' requests for between 9000 and 9999 user accounts.Yahoo actually received a larger number of FISA queries than Google: for the first six months of 2013, the federal government made between 0-999 requests on between 30,000 and 30,999 user accounts hosted by the company. ... These companies have little choice but to advocate this new information release as a huge step forward for transparency. Unfortunately, restricting government data requests to a broad range isn't very helpful: for example, a range (rather than a single numerical value) makes it difficult to determine trends, such as whether government requests are gradually increasing over the long term."
Classic Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
This is off topic, but I'm getting a warning at the top of Slashdot that classic is going to be going away soon (looks like in 4 months).
How many people will leave if they cut it off completely...?
Re:Classic Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously considering it, yes.
Me too. I've tried the new look, and its more of a mess than the current version.
Re:Classic Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not understand what they're attempting to fix and how they think this new version resolves those issues.
Re:Classic Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not understand what they're attempting to fix and how they think this new version resolves those issues.
The problem: Their hosting costs are too high, caused by too many visitors.
The answer: Drive the users away.
???
The result: Profit!
Re:Classic Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Presumably like most UI redesigns, they're attempting to fix "looking like they aren't doing anything". The new version fixes that by making it quite clear that they did something. (Like most UI redesigns, "breaking everything horribly" is a pretty good indicator of having done things. Just not *useful* things.)
As the old saying goes - if it's not broke, fix it 'til it is.
is this a big deal? (Score:1, Informative)
I didn't like the redesign at first a couple months ago, but it was half baked. a quick glance at it now and it seems fine. you look at stories, read comments, then make comments. this still seems to be the case. the biggest problem I see is a scandalous mix of serif and sans serif fonts.
yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Browsing by rating is also really deficient. Sure, you can filter by rating, but there isn't a button that can be used to navigate to a post's parent, or display its children. Headline-only display is also not supported.
Typically I browse at something like +4 for full comments, and maybe +1 for headlines. Then if a thread is interesting I can expand and read more of it. When looking at a post I can easily hit parent and find its parent even if not displayed.
The new UI allows none of this.
Also don't understand the complaining. (Score:2)
I think the flat design is fine. I've been on slashdot since the 90s - it was time for a change.
Re:is this a big deal? (Score:5, Informative)
Well threading is broken, try following a large thread. you can never figure out where it ends.
Post limits are gone..( browse at zero unless I am mod. to see AC's but not just trolls)
It uses about 10% of screen real estate. I mean come one there is so much white space you can use your monitor as a light source.
Poll's are on every page, because well everyone wants to read the current poll all the time right? and on really long threads that poll section goes all the way to the bottom.
The only thing I really like. is the new moderate button. that works and looks good.
Re: (Score:3)
logged in to comment. am i the only one that goes blind trying to read the text on my monitor? i like the layout for my tablet, but not for my computer. i will be leaving once classic slashdot is terminated
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Classic Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Is everyone e-mailing feedback@slashdot.org to tell them? I hope so.
Re:Classic Slashdot (Score:4)
Seconded!
Re: (Score:2)
Thirded!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I try to restrict myself to one futile gesture per day.
And since I'm at work, I've already burned through my entire 2014 allocation.
So, no.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not giving them my email address, fuck no. They can read the comments (probably the first time they've actually ever read the site) or not. Once I'm forced onto Beta I'm done with Slashdot completely. I just don't get why they want to fuck it up so bad. They could easily coast on the current system for another decade and still get their SEO and paid advertising work done with the page rank Slashdot provides.
Though I wouldn't mind them fucking /. up, then I wouldn't come here anymore and I recover some t
Re: (Score:1)
Best answer: Make every story have a prominently off-topic highly rated comment about "PLZ NO BETA KTHX" until they relent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they could just fix unicode support if they wanted to look like they are doing something, but no DICE is going full metal retard on this one.
Re:Classic Slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed, the classic system is IMO the best comment board on the web today. Why not focus on incremental improvements, getting mobile to work properly, etc? Look, I understand that the beta site has been someone's baby for the past couple years but it's just not a step forward from what exists today. Pushing it to all users would be a mistake.
Re:Classic Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
The one and only thing I don't like about classic is moderating. bring the beta's moderate functionality to classic and bamn your done.
though i don't think the feedback teams even care anymore. I think slashdot corporate overlords are pushing new web synergies to modernize, and (insert buzzword bullshit here).
That is why they keep trying and keep failing. Slashdot is supposed to be content and random posts (some from trolls, some from wannabe, and some from insightful people). you make it not about the discussions and the people will leave.
Re: (Score:3)
or fixing unicode support. without complete "redesign" ;)
Re:Classic Slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)
Interestingly, the things they need to fix are not fixed in the Beta: Like Unicode handling. Its not like this is an international site or anything.
Re: (Score:3)
I do not understand what they're attempting to fix and how they think this new version resolves those issues.
For the same reason TV execs will change the format of a successful show - they think that unless they're "innovating" every season, they're losing ground.
Of course, it's a ridiculous assumption - the reason The Tonight Show has lasted for 60 years is because it gives the audience something they want, in a format they're accustomed to.
Dear Slashdot Decision-Makers - Be like The Tonight Show, not like Survivor.
Re:Classic Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
I once heard a TV exec who talked about the "New Guy Syndrome." Every time a new network head was brought in, all the existing shows on the network (with the exception of the REALLY successful ones that were vital) were put on the chopping block and everything in development was cancelled. The reason being that the new guy couldn't claim credit for any of the existing stuff, or anything in development that broke out and became a success. So new guy comes in and immediately wants to gut everything and put in all his own stuff, so that he can claim credit to the board for anything successful going forward.
UI redesign (Score:3)
I'm growing more of the opinion that UI design isn't really about any kind of improvement in usability.
I think it serves two purposes. The first is simply fashion-oriented -- showing that they "look" up to date and modern.
The second is really to disorient people enough that users no longer drive their own interest or usage out of the site but instead but instead through obfuscation, feature changes, etc, the people who control the site basically manipulate you into using the site they want, which basically
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they're trying to fix the problem of all of us being here.
Re: (Score:2)
i'm not pulled in yet, but i took a quick look from that popup at the top.
"fancy" design, more pics, more wasted vertical space, more objects that distract from the stories, worse usage of the horizontal space.
oh, and it's all ajaxy or something, which makes it notably slower than current version.
probably aimed at general public than the original auditory. i suspect the content will decrease in quality afterwards (yeah, yeah, some will claim nothing new in there)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I said the same thing. I have no idea what drug the people were on when they considered redesigning nbcnews.com, but if ever there was a drug that needed to be outlawed, that is the one.
Who in their right mind could possibly think that making a web site look like Windows 8 was a good idea?
Re: WHY DOESN'T BETA JUST MAKE THE RE: ITSELF? FUC (Score:1)
I can't even get classic Slashdot to load correctly. It sits there for 15 seconds, then finally loads it without any CSS. A format that is still better than the beta site.
Re: (Score:1)
In the future, I might forget and type it in due to muscle memory. However, as soon as I find that I cannot go back to "classic," I close the browser. I don't need /.'s crappy UI. As it is, I rarely go on /. on my mobile device because of that.
*gasp*
[conspiracyhat]
Maybe they are trying to pull a Metro UI on us.
[/conspiracyhat]
re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I went there to see what the fuss was about, it was stories over 33% of the width, ads and other sidebar content 25%, and massive amounts of whitespace in between and at the sides.
Re:Classic Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
I've sent them an email telling them that the minute they make it mandatory, I'm gone.
Maybe someone should submit this a story. Let's see if the editors are willing to let the community do a little "meta" bitching.
Re: (Score:1)
I just got downmodded. Apparently the posting public has no right to comment on the horror that is the Slashdot Beta.
Re: (Score:2)
You probably wouldn't get downmodded if you were to explain WHY you would leave as soon as it is mandatory instead of just saying it.
You contributed nothing important to the conversation (slashdot cares about you as a means of making money, but the mods don't care about you leaving), and as such your post has been downmodded to make room for the more relevant posts.
Re: (Score:3)
So the editors should give us a proper venue to vent. Until they do, we'll just keep using the mediums made available to use. The Beta site must die or Slashdot will be a lot quieter place.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it already sad how few comments there are these days, compared to the heyday? Remember when you used to see stories with over 1,000 comments every day? I scroll down now and the most popular story I see barely breaks 300 comments.
Re: (Score:2)
Netcraft confirms it, Slashdot is dying...
Re: (Score:3)
In Soviet Russia, Slashdot betas you!
Re: HOW DO I MAKE IT AUTO-RE:? NO IDEA! (Score:1)
Why does the comment section always show me a "Load More" button, even when there is nothing more to load? Completely useless.
Re: (Score:1)
How many people will leave if they cut it off completely
I just clicked on the link and - ye gods; I recall seeing that monstrosity ages ago, but I figured the massive outrage had killed it off.
Well, it's been nice trolling/occasionally making valid points with you all, but it looks like Slashdot is Versioning the Digg*.
(* Similar to 'Jumping the Shark', but with less sharks and more news aggregator suicide.)
Re: (Score:2)
Digg is a great example. Start out strong, then get cocky, then try to over-expand and be something you're not because you want to "grow," forget and ignore your base while focusing on new users who never come, lose your base, die. Kevin Rose went from the posterboy of Business Week to the posterboy for fucking-up.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I have been looking for an excuse to kick the habit (1000 comments in the last year, been here 10+ years), and the beta site might be just annoying enough to do it...
Re: (Score:2)
Sad, but it is mostly muscle memory that drives me here. The new interface is barely usable, especially from my phone, and when it becomes the only choice, I'll probably stop.
Re: (Score:2)
I might stay if there's a browser plugin that fixes some of the design issues like the white-out colors.
Why does every modern site have to limit the color palette to white, off-white and very-light-gray?
Re: (Score:3)
I'll stop posting, but not stop visiting.
It's all so unnecessary. They don't have to ditch classic at all and plenty of other sites carry a legacy mode. That'd be all I'd ask - that way I wouldn't need javascript just to load comments, or put up with the sidebar taking up half of my screen width.
It's a shame. The editing is sometimes sketchy and occasionally completely incorrect, the stories can be hysterical or just plain rubbish, but it doesn't matter. The point is that /. often has brilliant contribution
Re:Classic Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Classic Slashdot is mundane, functional, utilitarian. It does the job without much chrome or flash. Geeks love it because it is the epitome of function over form, although to takes some time to read all the comments to get the most out of it. It's a website for hobbyists and the grunts in the field.
Beta Slashdot is the opposite. It attracts the eye, and is more about the summaries than the comments. It is quick tidbits of tech info that can briefly be skimmed by busy professionals. The comments are less visible because they intended to be a less important part of the place. It changes Slashdot from a community where the bulk of its value comes from the users - which Dice does not own, has no control over and cannot ensure the quality or quantity thereof - and more one where the editors are the ultimate source of the information and content. In other words, it is the sort of site at C-level execs whose message will ultimately be controlled by Dice.
From where I sit, it looks as if Dice's ultimate goal - and the reason behind its redesign of Slashdot - is not because they want to make it more useful to its current users but because they are trying to orient it more towards CIO and "business intelligence" types. Of course, what makes Slashdot worth visiting is the comments and people interested in the articles have far better choices available to them than Slashdot BI. Dice is sacrificing its current user base in hopes of attracting a more lucrative set of customers. I don't think it will work. Their current base will migrate away to more geek-friendly websites and the hoped for C-levels have little reason to visit this corner of the Internet in the first place.
All in my opinion, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Dice is sacrificing its current user base in hopes of attracting a more lucrative set of customers.
They should ask Digg if that worked for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like an insightful analysis. No real surprise, given the ever present desire corporations have to increase profits. And increasing *profit* from slashdot while maintaining or increasing quality for the current user base would be hard. I would like to see it - the quality around here could really use a boost. But I think a Dilbertesque attempt at sacking the name for short term gains is more likely, possibly followed by a sale of the mangled corpse. Maybe we will read about it on The Daily WTF [thedailywtf.com], assumin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I knew when they first started touting the beta that one day they would force it down our throats. It must have really pissed them off when they went to all that effort for a flashy new design and so many users stayed on the classic UI instead. I guess they could have used that response to wisely decide to either rethink the new design or allow users to choose for themselves. But no, that would be too smart. LET"S FORCE IT ON THEM!!!
Re: Classic Slashdot [And why the !@#$% do I have (Score:1)
I just sent the following to the feedback address:
Folks,
I've been around on /. from before there were UIDs and I actually have a 3-digit one.
You managed to make me stop logging in years ago with a series to totally broken UI updates that did not get fixed despite people complaining; by adding ever more space wasters; and by what I consider to have been "ruining the discussion system".
Since that moment I've considerably reduced my presence and have reduced a lot more my contributions. Over those past years I
Re: (Score:2)
If the new UI is anything like it was the last time I tried it, I'm probably just going to pull up and going to Reddit when the classic UI disappears. Slashdot has been going downhill for some time now, and has gotten worse since Dice came in. It used to be routine to see posts here with over 1,000 comments. Now it's relatively rare to see one with over 500. It's a real fucking shame. I was a subscriber for years under an old account. But now I don't even bother. I used to recommend this site to every geek
Re: (Score:2)
And why no simple formatting tools - bold, italic, add link? I get it's a shibbol
Re: (Score:1)
But my mod points....
Re: (Score:1)
One more vote for leaving if they take out the classic option.
For those in the Exodus (Score:3)
What's the alternative to awful new slashdot? To where will you be migrating?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it will fit into the 0-999 range, but i can't give an exact number.
Re: (Score:1)
If Classic Slashdot goes away, I am going away (Score:2)
I have been a regular visitor to Slashdot for around 15 years. For that, I get the checkbox to disable ads, though I browse with Javascript disabled so my browser does not slow down.
I come here for the discussions, and often read comments at +5, changing that only if I find a discussion interesting and warrants reading at a lower level.
The new beta uses JQuery for the comment threshold selector, and changes that on the fly. This means all the comments are loaded, but not visible, and processing any page wit
Re: (Score:2)
if its not broken, don't fix it.
(lesson lost on the younger crowd, who I suspect are the drivers behind this 'change').
I don't like it and I'll probably stop reading slash once they turn the switch.
it will be the end of a long era, but all things come to an end, I guess.
now, if someone comes up with a good screen scraper version that looks like the classic style, that would be welcome, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it.
Re: (Score:2)
This is off topic, but I'm getting a warning at the top of Slashdot that classic is going to be going away soon (looks like in 4 months).
How many people will leave if they cut it off completely...?
I hope hacker news is buying new servers now. Because they are going to be getting a influx of users, which may somewhat ironically end up, slashdoting them in 4 monthes.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep current /. format. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Have a good one (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, a sudden, obvious surge in requests could alert terrorist planners somebody was on to them. That's probably behind both the large ranges and six month delays.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe I missed something, but it appears that you have the first on-topic post on this story. Kudos.
I agree with you, spot on.
If given a range (Score:1)
just assume the highest number of it. Case closed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
just assume the highest number of it. Case closed.
mod up... this is the best way to handle the numbers. When looking for trends, you'll know it's trending when the range jumps. But considering the numbers should be in the 0-xxx range, and often aren't, trend analysis is kind of useless; there should already be concern just based on the static range numbers.
Even accurate numbers mean squat (Score:1)
So let's say they made 473 requests last year and 526 this year. Does it mean anything? Did they make the additional requests on accounts associated with criminals, or accounts of those who post on slashdot, or accounts of those whose sons stood up some bigwigs' daughters?
Numbers don't say anything about that, only proper auditing by people with no conflict of interest and heavy penalties for misuse will tell you if they're doing their job properly.
Guess it depends on the number and range (Score:1)
True, 0-999 is kind of BS, but 30,000 to 30,999 is only about 3% different. If that jumps to 1,000,000 to 1,000,999 then we're talking 0.1%, at which point, I would think the range hardly matters.
Re: (Score:2)
They could at least scale the ranges. Say 0-9, 10-99, 100-999, 1000-9999, etc. That would provide useful information and the same amount of obfuscation.
Re: (Score:1)
Even a range is helpful (Score:5, Insightful)
"Little Choice?" (Score:4, Insightful)
These companies have little choice but to advocate this new information release as a huge step forward for transparency.
Ah, bullshit - they very much could release the full details, but are afraid of government retaliation. That's not the same thing as "having little choice" but to engage an alternative.
You know why Paul Revere was awesome? Not because he rode a horse yelling some stuff, but because he risked his life and livelihood as a silversmith in the name of Liberty.
Re: (Score:2)
These companies have little choice but to advocate this new information release as a huge step forward for transparency.
Ah, bullshit - they very much could release the full details, but are afraid of government retaliation.
Given that releasing details could be construed as treason, and almost certainly would be construed as criminal behavior by specific individual decisionmakers (no corporate shield), I don't blame them for being afraid.
Re: (Score:2)
These companies have little choice but to advocate this new information release as a huge step forward for transparency.
Ah, bullshit - they very much could release the full details, but are afraid of government retaliation.
Given that releasing details could be construed as treason, and almost certainly would be construed as criminal behavior by specific individual decisionmakers (no corporate shield), I don't blame them for being afraid.
Funny, considering the juxtaposition of that statement against your sig.
FWIW, I'm sure Revere, Franklin, General Washington, et. al. had a fair amount of fear when they decided to commit treason and rebel against the British Empire; difference being, those men felt that the protection of Liberty was more important than their own, individual wants or needs.
I don't blame Google et. al. for being afraid; I blame them for defacto supporting an authoritarian, unconstitutional regime by virtue of their cowardice.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's right to blame others for not being willing to stand up and go to jail. I do think people who are willing to do that deserve great acclamation, and would rightly be called heroes. But heroism must be offered, it's unreasonable to expect or demand it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's right to blame others for not being willing to stand up and go to jail.
Do you also think that "I was just following orders" is a legitimate defense for inhuman acts? After all, maybe some of those Auschwitz guards might not have pushed 'undesirables' into the gas chamber if they had not been afraid of prison, so we shouldn't hold them responsible, right?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's right to blame others for not being willing to stand up and go to jail.
Do you also think that "I was just following orders" is a legitimate defense for inhuman acts? After all, maybe some of those Auschwitz guards might not have pushed 'undesirables' into the gas chamber if they had not been afraid of prison, so we shouldn't hold them responsible, right?
Depends on the details. If the alternative is getting pushed in yourself, then while I would hope a person would have the moral strength to refuse to commit murder, I'm not going to castigate someone for choosing their own life.
I teach concealed weapon permit classes in my spare time, and this is related to an issue that often comes up in my classes: you have the legal right and, some would argue, a moral obligation to defend the lives of total strangers if you have the capability to do so. However, stepp
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's right to blame others for not being willing to stand up and go to jail.
Do you also think that "I was just following orders" is a legitimate defense for inhuman acts? After all, maybe some of those Auschwitz guards might not have pushed 'undesirables' into the gas chamber if they had not been afraid of prison, so we shouldn't hold them responsible, right?
Depends on the details. If the alternative is getting pushed in yourself, then while I would hope a person would have the moral strength to refuse to commit murder, I'm not going to castigate someone for choosing their own life.
So, then, you would exonerate a person who, by their own hand, murdered thousands of innocent people, just because they give the excuse of "well, it was them or me?"
Sorry, but I think that worldview is royally fucked. Cowardice is a character flaw that should be punished, not fucking honored. Especially when the aforementioned coward has a direct hand in harming others, because of their chickenshit nature.
If yours is a majority attitude, no wonder the government bends us over and collectively ass-rapes us o
Re: (Score:2)
So, then, you would exonerate a person who, by their own hand, murdered thousands of innocent people, just because they give the excuse of "well, it was them or me?"
Is the excuse true? Would failing to kill those thousands have resulted in the person's death? If so, then I'd say the person is despicable but has not committed any crime and doesn't deserve any punishment other than having to live with themselves. The courts would agree, FWIW.
Cowardice is a character flaw that should be punished, not fucking honored.
False dichotomy. Obviously I don't honor cowardice, and I do agree that it's a character flaw but that doesn't mean it should be punished. I think a potty mouth like yours is a character flaw (as well as indicative of poor communicat
Irrelevant.... (Score:3)
The only reason they need the FISA requests, is for when they want warrants to pursue people. Having hacked into the main internet backbones the NSA doesn't need warrants to listen or collect. They listen and collect all.
The issue is that when they want to pursue some legal aspect, pass info to the DEA, etc. Then they have to use proper channels. So they solicity a FISA request and reverse engineer the evidence.
NSALM 23 (Score:2)
The overlord is the NSA, I shall be watched,
Thou maketh lies to Congress,
Misleadeth me on quiet matters
Thou hoardeth data thy stole
NSA hideth me from my rights past
for fear's sake.
Even though I browse through the darkest of nets,
I will fear thy evil,
For thou are watching me,
Abroad or home thy staff,
they watcheth me.
Thou prepares an exploit for me,
presenting me as enemies,
Thou decrypt my phone with toil,
Thy datacenter overflows,
Surely thy malice and eyes will follow me
all of the day, all of my life,
and I wi
- Cat returned my tongue - (Score:1)
What a bunch of slime-and-oil covered weasels.
Remind me again why people do what they say...
Government (n) Organized Corruption.
Loophole (Score:2)
They could publish the data per "division".
Then invent a new division per, say, 10 or 100 requests.
Re: (Score:2)
Or they could just upload all requests to wikileaks...
Isn't very helpful (Score:3)
Unfortunately, restricting government data requests to a broad range isn't very helpful
Of course it's not very helpful. It was never meant to be, nobody really expected it to be, and I'm sure they went to significant effort to ensure that no utility crept in by accident. As soon as the government allows or does anything, it is foregone that it won't be helpful or useful in any way. It is a tautology.
Re: (Score:2)