Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

caseymoz

(5,763 posts)
46. Why are you talking like that's easy?
Thu Jul 25, 2013, 11:04 PM
Jul 2013

Everything that makes a password strong is what makes it difficult or impossible to remember, and if you're over 50-60 years old, and you have accounts on eighty different sites, you're going to have to come up with a system or have weak passwords and/or nine or ten passwords for the whole group.

Maybe computer geeks find memorizing random symbols an easy thing, if so, that's only because they spend what is or becomes their "work hours" at it. People who have other professions are using computer devices because those purportedly make things easier. If those professional people are supposed to memorize page after page of random keyboard symbols, they wouldn't be using computers very much and a lot of computer geeks would be out of their jobs.

Maybe you trained yourself for those memory feats in high school or college, but the rest of us don't have time doing anything like it. You'd better hope you never get a concussion or have electro-convulsive therapy, because that ability is very actually fragile.

My opinion is if passwords are that much of a hassle, computer geeks better stop being arrogant SOB's about it and start trying to make it easier.

I have a system for managing passwords. It's not conventional, but they're all strong, and I don't have them memorized.

And I'll just add: websites and companies should practice due diligence about this, too. For one thing, I don't know why anybody should get away with brute force password cracking. If websites would limit the number of times per minute log ins can be attempted to something closer to the speed a human being could type it, that would neutralize brute force attacks. I know it presents its own attack issue (you can close a user out of an account by sending attempts), so it's not that simple, but I'm sure there are solutions. They should be thinking along those lines.

so will the worshippers still be worshipping when the feds break down their doors at midnight? nt msongs Jul 2013 #1
Maybe their worship makes them immune cthulu2016 Jul 2013 #4
You will know them by their worship sign posted on the door. "No Ram-Me Likey!" Safetykitten Jul 2013 #5
If they can't break the passwords what good is the NSA? cthulu2016 Jul 2013 #2
Since many folks use the same password across systems (when they can) The Straight Story Jul 2013 #6
Anyone stupid enough to use the same password for two different purposes deserves to be hacked. FarCenter Jul 2013 #10
What kind of elitist crap is this? People who don't use unique passwords are Ed Suspicious Jul 2013 #12
Maybe people will read a strong statement and learn - better some are outraged than poor practices FarCenter Jul 2013 #15
Why are you talking like that's easy? caseymoz Jul 2013 #46
Security also requires buy in and engagement Paulie Jul 2013 #48
you mean like older folks who maybe aren't really good at using computers or have memory liberal_at_heart Jul 2013 #14
Anyone who talks like this deserves it, actually. JackRiddler Jul 2013 #18
No, FarCenter, they do not. Fantastic Anarchist Jul 2013 #26
Even if you have many unique passwords, only one or two is really needed Bradical79 Jul 2013 #45
No intelligence agency is nearly as omniscient as people seem to think they are. Posteritatis Jul 2013 #21
Uh, I wouldn't bank on that Aerows Jul 2013 #36
yep ConcernedCanuk Jul 2013 #52
There's nothing serious about that computing power alongside modern encryption. Posteritatis Jul 2013 #65
Both ends still need a key, JoeyT Jul 2013 #70
Funny rejoinder, but this is truly scary. It's all super secret. chimpymustgo Jul 2013 #68
Perhaps the warrants ( if there are actual warrants) dixiegrrrrl Jul 2013 #71
Nothing to see here. If you are not doing anything wrong, what's the problem. Besides 'our people' Purveyor Jul 2013 #3
Even Bush did not got this far. avaistheone1 Jul 2013 #7
"The sky is falling!" whatchamacallit Jul 2013 #8
........ ohheckyeah Jul 2013 #9
I have more security on my world of warcraft account than I have at any of my banking institutions, Ed Suspicious Jul 2013 #11
Let's see: 20 passwords * 200,000,000 people * changed every 30 days dickthegrouch Jul 2013 #13
Changed every thirty days? Fumesucker Jul 2013 #17
Yeah...LOL. bvar22 Jul 2013 #69
Is it fascism yet? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #16
Nope. Obamcism. bigwillq Jul 2013 #19
they can demand all they want but those companies have lawyers who know arely staircase Jul 2013 #20
Last I read warrants were coming 200 sheets/roll for two-ply, 48 rolls in the Family size. n/t jtuck004 Jul 2013 #25
well, maybe but apparantly that hasn't happened according to the OP nt arely staircase Jul 2013 #28
Given that the court that issues them is secret, and the entity they are served on is bound by that jtuck004 Jul 2013 #29
Warrants? - who needs warrants! ConcernedCanuk Jul 2013 #53
Yeah. About that... Pholus Jul 2013 #34
Yeah, just ask that guy from Qwest. Fuddnik Jul 2013 #44
Article doesn't really give a Date or that this is a New Sweeping Request, though. KoKo Jul 2013 #22
Some passwords/combinations used: kentauros Jul 2013 #23
+1. nt bemildred Jul 2013 #66
This is beyond infuriating if true. Fantastic Anarchist Jul 2013 #24
I know right! Mojorabbit Jul 2013 #37
Yep ... a recipe for tyranny at that point. Fantastic Anarchist Jul 2013 #38
Well it is meta data zeemike Jul 2013 #41
That was my thought. Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #42
This is an interesting and fascinating artcile, well worth reading beyond the headline. arcane1 Jul 2013 #27
Why do you hate Obama? Iggo Jul 2013 #30
I don't trust CNET, as no major outlet has reported this Federosky Jul 2013 #31
If I were not to trust CNET, it would be because of a poor reputation. tuvor Jul 2013 #39
The author Declan McCullagh doesn't have a good reputation struggle4progress Jul 2013 #56
Thank you. n/t tuvor Jul 2013 #57
Can you elaborate? nt Mojorabbit Jul 2013 #58
He has a history of making stuff up. In mid-June, he misrepresented remarks of Congressman Nadler: struggle4progress Jul 2013 #60
Anything else? Mojorabbit Jul 2013 #61
He says he created the "Al Gore invented the internet" quote struggle4progress Jul 2013 #62
I know. nt Mojorabbit Jul 2013 #63
But isn't collection involving just METADATA??? Pholus Jul 2013 #32
All I can say is wow. With that they could lure whistle blowers to remote sites and kidnap them. pam4water Jul 2013 #33
It's the obstructionist congress zipplewrath Jul 2013 #35
Good for the firms that push back. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #40
Any real online company doesn't store passwords MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 #43
More ginned up outrage. randome Jul 2013 #47
Perhaps you missed other parts in the article: The Straight Story Jul 2013 #50
Who in their right mind would say that abuse never occurs? randome Jul 2013 #67
I'm tired of this shit. I'm going to Ilsa Jul 2013 #49
Oh but wait~! U.S. Postal Service Logging All Mail for Law Enforcement Purveyor Jul 2013 #51
I remember that post. I have doubts about Ilsa Jul 2013 #54
Declan McCullagh? The libertarian liar? Really? struggle4progress Jul 2013 #55
It would be nice to know who sent the request. Incitatus Jul 2013 #59
Well the state of Oregon just made it illegal for businesses (OR universities)... cascadiance Jul 2013 #64
"If it's true that Al Gore created the Internet, then I created the 'Al Gore created the Internet' DevonRex Jul 2013 #72
The author is a global warming denier, libertarian economist, Carnegie Melon grad. DevonRex Jul 2013 #73
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Feds tell Web firms to tu...»Reply #46