Slashdot Mirror
US Law Can't Keep Up With Technology -- and Why That's a Good Thing (newsweek.com)
HughPickens.com writes: In the 1910s, the number of cars in the US exploded from 200,000 to 2.5 million. The newfangled machines scared horses and ran over pedestrians, but by the time government could pass the very first traffic law, it was too late to stop them. Now Kevin Matley writes in Newsweek that thanks to political gridlock in the US, lawmakers respond to innovations with all the speed of continental drift. New technologies spread almost instantly and take hold with almost no legal oversight. According to Matley, this is terrific for tech startups, especially those aimed at demolishing creaky old norms—like taxis, or flight paths over crowded airspace, or money. "Drone aircraft are suddenly filling the sky, and a whole multibillion-dollar industry of drone making and drone services has taken hold," says Matley. "If the FAA had been either farsighted or fast moving, at the first sign of drones it might've outlawed them or confined them to someplace like Oklahoma where they can't get in the way of anything too important. But now the FAA is forced to accommodate drones, not the other way around." Bitcoin is another example of a technology that's too late to stop. "But have you heard the word bitcoin uttered once in any of the presidential debates? Government doesn't even understand bitcoin, and that's been really good for it." Uber and Airbnb show how to execute this outrun-the-government strategy. By the time cities understood what those companies were doing, it was too late to block or seriously limit them.
My own city fines purveyors of airbnb offerings on a per night basis.
"But have you heard the word bitcoin uttered once in any of the presidential debates? "
Obviously not. What we did hear, is that politicians have still problems understanding email and that's technology in their 30ies.
Why should laws keep up with technology? Laws should be written in such a way that the technology involved doesn't matter. Typically laws should be about an outcome more than a method. There are already so many laws on the books that the first thing to look at is if an existing law applies. If not, is there a law that should be amended to cover the new technology?
Example: Highway speed limits are for all motor vehicles and not just a specific type of vehicle. It does not matter how many wheels (car, motorcycle, tractor trailer, etc) the car has, what type of the engine (gas, diesel, electric) is under the hood, what kind of transmission (auto, manual), or if if has some fancy new electronic accessory ... the speed limit is the speed limit.
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
If by taxis you mean Uber, no. They're ignoring the law in a number of places. It'd be better if the government were to address this issue. And that's not even dealing with "employee"-relations either.
I figure Airbnb is okay except for a couple things. Some jurisdictions have hotel taxes, and that probably needs to be addressed. There's also the issue of illegal subletting, but that's more with people violating their lease agreement than any government-doing.
Drones can be dangerous. I mean, is it not dangerous to have pounds of metal potentially flying over people's heads? Let alone the blades and potential privacy invasion given cameras.
until the government ruins the fun and free spirit
> Uber and Airbnb show how to execute this outrun-the-government strategy.
If you can outrun the government, it is no government, just a joke. A real GOVERNMENT would stop Uber overnight, by rounding up the drivers and shooting every 3rd in public. Whoever protests is also shot. The remaining would back down for fear of life.
That kind of government went out of fashion after 1990 in many parts of the world, but could return very quickly since the populace gets fed up with the anarchy. People want order and stability in life, not "liberty" (anarchism secretly run by masons). The USA is an abnormal exception, not the rule.
> Bitcoin is another example of a technology that's too late to stop.
If you think the NSA doesn't have a virgin leather-bound, gold-leafed folio with hexadecimal printout of every single possible bitcoin inside, I have an ethernet bridge to sell you... On the other hand, we can only theorize why they don't just dump all possible bitcoins on the net, thereby instantly annulling its value.
Please also consider that even the government can't create non-radiocative silver, gold or platinum, even they have to rely on mining what Mother Nature has created eons ago. That's what gives inherent value to the precious, something crypto-nerds lack.
Once again this drivel from a worshipper of The Church of Invisible Hands and Shrugging Atlases.
I do agree that laws are not always for the best. But there ends our agreement. The worst laws are those bought by "whole multibillion-dollar industr[ies]". The shrugging (should I say bribing?) Atlases.
let me get my cheerleader outfit
hah, poor Oklahoma.
I don't think bitcoin is the best example to use for technology in a presidential debate. It isn't used by enough people. It does represent a way that something existed that there wasn't a law for and the fact that a presidential debate isn't the place to discuss these kinds of matters highlights the real issue: Representative democracy.
Now this is what the presidential debate should really be focused on, aside from all the other populist agendas on show, how do we use technology to create and electoral process for both national economies and the globalized world that is fair, secure and MORE EFFICIENT.
I'm a bit of a Luddite when it comes to technology despite reading slashdot several times per day, I don't have the time or the energy these days to go exploring every interesting new thing the way I did when I was a teenager and had a few hours free time per week at the expense of my parents. I've been using Linux all my adult life and have become used to being isolated from many newest and greatest new things, and subsequently became used to viewing the mainstream from a different perspective in other ways - essentially I am aware that politically I am a minority. This means the current electoral systems don't really give a result I see as valid, both in the sense of counting my input but really in even discussing the matters I think are important.
Social media allows us to form groups and follow topics and even hierarchies within these. The reality is that this is where most of the topics you want discussed about technology will occur. Only once a group is powerful enough (by numbers), or credible enough (has proven they are experts on the matter) will they be able to effect change. What needs to be taken out of all political systems is the ability to influence change with money. Democracy as I understand it was about giving equal say to equal people. The use of money in a political system is a clear statement that you are not equal, as an individual.
Bitcoin seeks to take the power away from governments using the very thing that has corrupted the political system, however this is also one of the very reasons it is unlikely you will ever see bitcoin discussed based on merit - if it is discussed it will be based on fear or as a weapon to dominate some other sovereign market.
It would be nice to have a system where daily several simple questions about current events, economics and technology for example were delivered to you to vote on in a form of unofficial direct democracy and truly representative detailed analysis of these subjects were discussed by the various departments/ministries in a detailed manner months before the election as the very first step towards the campaign trails. Instead of campaigns based on political spin it would anchor the politicians to the people and force them to discuss topics that mattered and allow the people to search for data and ask relevant questions that interested them along the way.
Modern democracy acknowledges our different views but technology has not yet delivered us a way to deliver it more effectively or even sort our views before delivering the vote. In reality an election should be a 3 hour multi choice exam. Some of it should be sections you have because you opted in due to interest, some of it should be sections you're qualified to answer and if you want you can abstain or just pick a proxy to vote on your behalf. This is what political parties are proxies with a predefined set of views. There are not just two views. Stating there are just to views on the myriad of topics that concern a government and its people is ridiculous. It is not efficient and it proves that in reality democracy is just one vote away from dictatorship, you are merely voting in the puppet leader, or assessing their performance, not actually having a say.
Further reason why esoteric technology discussions have nothing to do with politics.
And I haven't even begun to discuss the difficulty of legislating for things that do not yet exist.
Don't feel so smug, fellas
Right now the laws cannot catch up to the advancement of technology because almost every sentence of the laws has to be written by one human or another
By the time they invent the robotic lawyers which are easily upgradable to robotic law professors they can churn out new laws 24/7, and by that time, we human will be permanently enslaved, not by the robots, but by the laws the robots write
... until they discover computer-assisted legislation (CAL).
The only thing these tech startups usually teach us is that those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it.
These kinds of things are occurrence all around us. The technology has produced hundreds of startups funded by billions of dollars of investment. The good thing is the rules can’t stay With Technology. Find here if you are searching for perfect academic assistance.
It's called taxing it to death, which they will once they get their greedy little fingers into the honey pot.
These kinds of things are occurrence all around us. The technology has produced hundreds of startups funded by billions of dollars of investment. The good thing is the rules can’t stay With Technology.
It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. This is true with any sort of bureaucratic management system.
The only caveat is, it had better truly be an awesome thing that you're doing that will have the masses behind it. If it is something that just pisses off management/government, you have just stepped on your own dick wearing cleats, and will be screwed in short order.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
Nope.
There is a long history (in New York anyway) of unlicensed gypsy cabs. Sometimes they get caught and are hit with heavy fines. I don't see how Uber is any different.
There is one way Uber is different - they are spending millions on lobbying governments. Take this job ad for example: https://www.uber.com/jobs/6280...
Lawmakers think that the role of government is to set explicit, concrete boundaries on every avenue of human action. Instead of abiding by a principle for government's role, like the defense of individual rights, they debate "what percentage tariff should be imposed on imported TVs from South Korea this year, so as to maximize competition and minimize harm to domestic labor unions." Or something equally disintegrated.
The latter mentality will never be able to keep up with the pace of change, and this will become increasingly evident as change accelerates. It will shine a bright light on how the "control everything" principle is fundamentally flawed, and how a principled approach to government's role is the only way to maintain a modern civilization.
someplace like Oklahoma where they can't get in the way of anything too important
Q) Why doesn't Texas fall off into the Gulf of Mexico?
A) Because Oklahoma sucks.
To say the least.
If the powers that be want something illegalized, they will just do it and be damn with the consequences.
Beware.
To be honest: O only have read the summary, but that was already dumb enough.
First regarding drones: for them apply more or less the same rules as for manned air crafts or more precisely all the secondary regulations regarding low flying stuff like kites, hobbyist baloons etc.
New regulation is IMHO only needed where small crafts are an anoyance ir dangerous and no current ruling (or common sense of the operators) keeps them in order.
Secondly, regarding bitcoins: there is big difference between a BitCoin and a hand written Cheque. If I give you a handwritten Queque, which is more or less a payment order to my bank, handing out the money either to the named person on the Cheque or to the owner, then depending how people trust you or me, that Cheque might flow freely from person to person.
In north Afrika you find hand written cheques floating around that are decades old, usually in frensh francs or itallien lira, but also pound sterling.
They are not that 'anonymous' though, as often when handing over the cheque to the new owner, the old one 'signes' it again on the backside.
BitCoin is a little bit more than an electronic cheque transfer mechanism, but not that much more.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
One of the poorest arguments I've recently heard is that I have a "bias". This is very childish and gives the one that speaks it a very simpleton air.
Communists say capitalists have bias; capitalists say communists have it, too.
Everyone who disagrees with you has a bias, because he/she doesn't have _your_ bias.
Every time someone comes up with these themes, I cannot help but facepalm myself. Nobody wants the state to become gargantuan, but the other extreme is certainly undesirable. People who are gaining the life race -- for whatever reason: competence, luck etc. -- will want a minimal state, because the state was devised exactly to protect the weaker and to keep things within a minimal order.
Wanting a minimal state is wanting anarchism. And anarchism is useful for all those who want a new way to govern... a new -archy. Or perhaps they want a feeble creature which, because it's so weak, can be tamed to do whatever trick they demand in exchange for food -- including not doing what it is naturally conceived to do: protect the citizens.
I know this is old and beaten but this is the mentality which seems to pervade all these great ideas of "let's profit while we can before the government catches up with reality". Of course, such things must come to be because everything has a lag -- but should we really throw parties that we're free from responsibilities?
A too powerful government becomes paralyzed but a too weak one is manipulated by the powerful to create laws which make a citizen life miserable -- or can be more easily bent by a tyrant e.g. to wage a war without impediment.
Learn that there is an optimum and that is neither small nor huge but it lies in the middle.
I know it fits perfectly inside the wet dream of what Americans think the US is all about, but I'm not sure that allowing the flying of drones without some regulation is a good idea.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
So what is the assertion here- the government will stop technology as soon as it gets a whiff of what's going on? Are you sure you're not mixing up the government with your parents?
The government has no interest in stopping the forward movement of technology, nor do they have a historical record of trying to do so. The idea that they *might have* stopped the automobile or drones or bitcoin is just that, an idea you have for some reason. It's a historical counterfactual injected to frame the government as technologically regressive.
I see no evidence that the government is ideologically technologically regressive. If your point is that politicians think the internet is a like a bunch of old fashonied vacuum tubes through which messages get sent (which actually is not a terrible analogy) then consider that about as many older movie stars and writers and artists don't use or *get* modern technology as politicians, who skew heavily upwards in age.
Just recalling instances from one day's reading and listening Richard Gere isn't on Twitter and Richard Ford writes his novels longhand without a computer. So it goes.
OTOH we fund via DARPA and other programs vast amounts of the most cutting edge science, science which if it were declassified would seem like magic to us. We're talking advances in things like human cloning and quantum computers which are mind blowing even to readers of /.
So where is this "good thing they didn't know about THIS" attitude coming from? America celebrates it's inventors, tinkerers, mavericks, oddballs. All these things you cite are products of tinkering. They're not basic science but the application of well known technologies to solve problems in novel ways.
Say what you want about America, pre-emptive legislation is not in American's DNA. If something becomes big enough to start impacting innocent bystanders, broadly considered, then Congress steps in, as is its right and duty.
Highway speed limits are for all motor vehicles But trucks used to be _much_ smaller than modern double wides or tanker-trucks for fuel and chemical delivery, so a whole new set of laws
Does Mr. Matley expect the government to anticipate the next fad and outlaw it just because? Maybe the government should have outlawed Segways, they were supposed to be game changers.
The Code of Hammurabi or the Law of Moses (in particular) could probably handle most situations arising from "being a dick and hurting someone with your toys." We settled the basic problem of how to handle actual cases of hurting people with your toys about 4k-5k years ago, we just quibble on what the punishments should be. In fact, ironically, if we stole the standards of evidence used in the Law of Moses for our own system, it would put the innocence project out of business (for good reasons) because prosecutors and cops would be scared shitless to abuse the defendant, but I digress...
Most of what TFS mentions are just regulatory decisions. These are often just "nice to haves" that have little bearing on whether you can accurately say that the courts are unable to address real harms done to real people and property. The FAA might not be able to regulate the nuances of drones now, but I'd bet good money that at any point since they became commercially available, that had you caused someone's death with one (even by accident) a prosecutor could have nailed you to the wall in any court in the union.
Why should laws keep up with technology? Laws should be written in such a way that the technology involved doesn't matter.
Kind of adorable that you think that is possible. Oh you can put a general framework out there but there ALWAYS are going to be specific details that need legislation. Congress in the 1700s could not possible have written a law that deals adequately with the nuances of radio communications 200 years later. Nobody is so smart as to be able to write laws in such a way that technology doesn't matter. Furthermore any law that is so broad as to cover everything will have innumerable corner case, loopholes and problems. You need a good framework but sooner or later you are going to have to get into the ugly specifics.
That's obviously one law that's been obsoleted since the Founding Fathers couldn't have anticipated the arrival of the submachine gun and the shoulder-fired rocket.
1. Tinkerer invents something.
2. Regulator goes to office, gets cup of coffee, reads the paper, doesn't care.
3. "Wild West" economy as millions buy and use invention.
4. Regulator goes to lunch.
5. Nine Journalists report on invention as wonderful, spectacular, world-changing.
6. Regulator does some shopping on way back from lunch.
7. Tenth journalist, beaten to punch, finds "man bites dog" story, unintended consequence of invention
8. Regulator packs briefcase for ride home.
9. Legislators get panicked calls from people either hurt by invention, or afraid they'll be hurt by invention.
10. Regulator has dinner, goes to bed.
Guess what regulator reads in the paper tomorrow morning? Guess what's in the regulator's email tomorrow morning?
As a former regulator, there's nothing sinister about either the cowboy market or the regulations, and I get weary of the memes of anti-cowboy and anti-sheriff. What is broken is risk-benefit analysis, and it's probably broken at the journalism juncture. "if it bleeds, it leads" gives journalists money if they shock us, and there's nothing more shocking than a new risk we have to worry about.
Gently reply
They're just now drafting the rules on drones. Check back in five years, drones will be a legal nightmare for hobbyists.
Is a currency, it is already regulated as are all other currencies, nothing new about it
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
"If the FAA had been either farsighted or fast moving, at the first sign of drones it might've outlawed them or confined them to someplace like Oklahoma where they can't get in the way of anything too important"
Hey, I live in Oklahoma, you insensitive clod!
On a serious note, the Panhandle is the perfect place to test drones, absolutely nothing out there.
He who laughs last is at 300 baud.
Capitalism is a law of nature,like evolution: communism is a religion, like creationism.
The Great Degeneration: How Institutions Decay and Economies Die
http://www.amazon.ca/The-Great...
From the blurb: "Our markets are hindered by overcomplex regulations that debilitate the political and economic processes they were created to support; the rule of law has become the rule of lawyers."
Learn about unintended consequences of regulations.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
>confined them to someplace like Oklahoma...
I think you mean "Kansas".
...leading to one economic crisis after the other, as essentially the same financial instruments that blew up the economy last time, are brought back through 'financial innovation' (read: legalized fraud), and used to blow up bubbles and eventually tank the economy again.
Sidestepping the law is not a good and meritable thing...though it will sure sound appealing to the Libertards, whose kneejerk opposition to anything state/regulation-based, has as its logic conclusion, complete exemption from the law, so that rampant financial-pillaging can be justified.
It is odd that the New testament speaks of the end times when we will be confounded by our complexity. Beyond that we have a situation where numerous laws can be applied to many situations and the effect is that a judge can pretty much do anything he likes which in a way is the same as having no laws at all. Then we have an issue with law makers creating laws which have severely negative effects that were unexpected. A huge example is in the creation of smart guns. The intention was to keep people in our nation a bit safer. But the law that passed actually doomed the sale of smart guns completely. The problem is linked to a law passed in New Jersey that mandated that once available on the market anywhere in the US the residents of NJ would be denied the right to purchase any regular gun and buy only a smart gun. So nobody in the firearms industry and almost zero gun owners will tolerate a smart gun being made or sold. If NJ had simply passed a law saying that a gun store must offer at least one smart gun for sale then we would have smart guns all over the nation while most gun hobbyists would still buy non smart guns. We also have a lot of laws and customs that are actually causing crimes. Allowing private bail companies and failure to provide money to hire private lawyers are causing people to commit crimes to pay for lawyers and bails. But because money is involved no progress can be made to build a decent criminal justice system.
Sorry , your response confused me. AFAIK it's conservative-libertarian spectrum who oppose regulation and "libtards" (an insult which almost made me not bother replying to you) are often accused by those same conservative-libertarians of wanting to regulate anything not nailed down.
Perhaps you're new to these ideas and you've got yourself turned around? After all, people are always coming "on line" politically speaking.
In ay case, the sane 60-80% in the middle of the polity agree that thoughtful, flexible regulation which is open to being tweaked revisited is indispensible to civilization. At the extreme ends of the spectrum and well outside the aforementioned 80% lie on the right the Ayn Randers and libertarians and on the left ideologically driven Communists and Anarchists.
Going forward, it might be worth your while to check to see if you actually have a real difference with people you think are your opponents, at least, before lobbing the insult grenade.
Cheers.
Where legislators aren't keeping up -and it's having negative impact- is in drafting appropriate legislation while understanding its implications. What logical reasons are there for email being treated differently than mail or telephony? As noted by many here, we have no shortage of legislation. There are plenty of laws that already apply to the salient bits of any new technology. All our legislators really need to do is amend existing law for clarification, like that email is just mail and our government shouldn't be able to poke around in yours without a warrant. Instead a lack of understanding has them treating it as if it's no longer private, constitutionally protected communication if the right key words are bandied about.
Airbnb and fire codes / safety issues as well.
Now if some dies in a unsafe airbnb rented place I don't think they may be able to hide under that EULA.
Ah was mixing up my insults - 'libtards' to me, represents those conservative-libertarians you mention, though I see now it's more commonly used to refer to liberals.
The issue can be remedied by a small amendment to the consitution to the effect that a technique, method, machine or device can be legally sold and used if some law allows it, a patent or monopoly has been granted. Thus the people would be able to regulate and direct the course of innovation.
There is a level of complexity the average consumer doesnt want to deal with. They want their banking secure, their cars reliable, and to not incur a risk of jail for their daily affairs. Government is not allowing criminal action (fraud, theft, harassment, etc) to be prosecuted in many cases. To my mind, an unenforced law might as well be taken off the books.
What you can say on air: can be covered by laws about printing presses (which they had at the time.) All you need is that the law isn't specific to ink-on-paper technology.
Generic laws are often not appropriate in new circumstances. While you could in principle apply the same standards for speech, it's pretty easy to show cases where that isn't really optimal in different formats. Furthermore radio communications isn't just broadcasting. There is a LOT more to it than that.
The radio spectrum itself wasn't discovered, but you could certainly have a generic law about the use & regulation of any severely limited resource that becomes popular.
That's a framework but there still are radio specific nuances that need laws for radio specific issues. What sort of frequencies can you transmit? Who is allowed? What sort of power is acceptable? How do you prevent interference? Etc. None of these issues could be covered adequately by a generic law. We have the FCC precisely because we need a neutral arbiter to keep the airwaves usable and avoid a tragedy of the commons situation.
"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)
Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...
(Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)
I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).
I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.
I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).
Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine)
APK
P.S.=> You = disgusting butthurt liar... apk
YOU say "hosts=bad" (but they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitch on admin privelege to UPDATE vs. threats:
"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Hypocrite - You use admin priv admitting it
&
How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?
---
"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!
FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!
---
Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET says hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Oliver Day (Symantec) does-> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
---
* HOW MANY SECURITY PROS DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUTTA YOU?
---
Those security pros INCLUDE me: I work w/ guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a regular basis!
I've professionally worked for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer since 1994 (Even showing you HOW to migrate a hosts across an enterprise-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES using CIS Tool (who took fixes from me http://slashdot.org/comments.p... - bonus) http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...
You told me you learn from guides?
I write good ones that MILLIONS USE & was PAID FOR IT http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn...
+ WARES TO PROTECT USERS that are endorsed & hosted by security pros -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
You did all that? No!
(& that's ONLY a SMALL part of what I could put out)
APK
P.S.=> You're all TALK -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & a "ne'er-do-well" in security... apk
"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)
Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...
(Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)
I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).
I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.
I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).
Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).
APK
P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk
YOU say "hosts=bad" (but they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitch on admin privelege to UPDATE vs. threats:
"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Hypocrite - You use admin priv admitting it
&
How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?
---
"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!
FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!
---
Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET says hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Oliver Day (Symantec) does-> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
---
* HOW MANY SECURITY PROS DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUTTA YOU?
---
Those security pros INCLUDE me: I work w/ guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a regular basis!
I've professionally worked for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer since 1994 (Even showing you HOW to migrate a hosts across an enterprise-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES using CIS Tool (who took fixes from me http://slashdot.org/comments.p... - bonus) http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...
You told me you learn from guides?
I write good ones that MILLIONS USE & was PAID FOR IT http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn...
+ WARES TO PROTECT USERS that are endorsed & hosted by security pros -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
You did all that? No!
(& that's ONLY a SMALL part of what I could put out)
APK
P.S.=> You're all TALK -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & a "ne'er-do-well" in security... apk
Pushing 'tech' and fraud 'law'. The Jews made up bogus 'government', the jews own all the major 'corporations' including 'tech', they took over the web which we built and paid for. They're behind all 'cyber' bs, their fraud 'anonymous' fronts, their bs scum in other 'countries' controlled by jews, they do the attacks then say 'need more security' so idiots choke down more fraud 'laws'. Know who owns you. Go to this thread, I have a post with mass of info and links, notice they hide my posts.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/15/11/02/1829233/anonymous-begins-publishing-ku-klux-klan-member-details-online
click load all comments, also slide bar over to show all posts. This bs article to pretend 'tech' is 'ahead' of bogus 'law' is so idiots fail to see what's been done to us already and what's going to be done if you don't get off your ass and stop them. see thread, load all comments, also slide bar over -
"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)
False positive: I've wrote 'em long ago, no response vs. 60++ REPUTABLE sources (not nobodies) below that fries you Coren22!
Is that YOUR fake site for MORE LIES Coren22?
Lying about me LIKE YOU DID HERE punk? -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ??
---
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
APK
P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:
"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)
"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)
"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)
"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)
http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
APK
P.S.=
"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)
False positive: I've wrote 'em long ago, no response vs. 60++ REPUTABLE sources (not nobodies) below that fries you Coren22!
Is that YOUR fake site for MORE LIES Coren22?
Lying about me LIKE YOU DID HERE punk? -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ??
---
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
APK
P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:
"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)
"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)
"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)
"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)