Let me say this again more clearly, why should it degrade when instead they shouldn't have any of your data IN THE FIRST PLACE. You don't have to degrade what you don't have.
This advice doesn't make sense. Why should it degrade? They shouldn't record it in the first place! What private information do they need to "improve their service"? If they don't sell our personal data, then they shouldn't record it!
I'm definitely looking for something long term. I didn't know that Windows used a proprietary format, I just thought they had finally started supporting the standard.
This seems ok, but doesn't look like there's much capability to group and tag multiple photos at once. It would take a long time to tag all 7000 by hand:(
I'm surprised anyone would look for these things after learning about how bad they are. Not even counting the security and privacy issues, there's the medical problems with them tunneling through the skin under certain types of medical scanners and the link between RFID chip implants and cancer found by various researchers.
Of course, I very rarely see anyone suggesting that THEY themselves get one, it's usually "oh we should put those in... those other people (immigrants, alzheimer's patients, Aids patients) etc.
Assuming he already knows how to do "hello world" (in other words, he knows the basic syntax and structure of the language and how to make stuff run), then the next step is easy.
I didn't read the other comments so sorry if someone already said this, but the easiest way is to find a project. Something that he'd like to make a computer do for him.
Once he has a project, just turn him loose. Show him where help can be found online and answer any questions he has when he has them. Other than that, leave him alone!
Or it might send a message that when you lie cheat and upset the balance of power in the government all for your personal gain/pride, there are consequences. How is that a bad message?
Here's a better question. Why do they need the key for even 60 seconds let alone 6 months? They can serve up your results, store only search statistic information for the betterment of their services and not keep ANY personally identifying information at all!
Seriously, does anyone know what possible reason they could have to store the information other than to profile you and sell you crap?
The first thing I thought of was how easy that will make it to drug people without their knowledge. Sticking someone with a needle is pretty obvious, but this? Ugh.
He's the only one who's even close to saying what needs to be said. Of course, I'd respect him more if he'd flat out call Bush a criminal and call for his impeachment, but that's another story.
No kidding! It's so stupid to even debate this. As long as the ad blocking only gets rid of "Ad services" and rotating banners, I don't disagree with it at all. If it starts to block my individual ads (which are always simple links to sites that have products that I ACTUALLY recommend, then I'll have a problem. So far, so good.
Not doing a enough to differentiate their sponsored links? Of all the search engines around, they're the ones who differentiated it the most with a different font and background color. It seems strange to accuse them of this when they (at one time) were the only search engine to bother making the difference obvious.
Interesting to note though... After reading this article, I checked google and there are NO sponsored links anywhere.
Like I said, Credit Freezes (as long as your state supports it anyway). A second alternative is to get your free credit report every three months to monitor it for free. Granted it's not as fast, but it's free.
http://www.jeremyduffy.com/top-issues/credit-secur ity-freezes/
From http://www.jeremyduffy.com/money-credit/credit-mon itoring-ripoff/ :
* It doesn't stop ID theft, it just let's you know that it's happening faster than you would otherwise.
* It's worse than insurance - At least with Insurance, you can control your level of risk. For example, if you don't drive much, your risk of an accident is much lower than someone who delivers pizzas. But you have no way to know if you are at more or less risk for ID theft. So you'll pay and pay and might never see any benefit from the money lost.
* There's a free alternative available - With the new law requireing that the credit companies give you one free credit report per year, if you stagger them to get one every three months, you will be able to constantly see your credit report anyway. While this is not as good as monitoring would be, it's better than paying $150 or more per year for the "service". Remember that there is only ONE legitimate site to get your free reports!
* It's a type of fear-based extortion - The credit companies are the reason the problem exists in the first place, but they will let you pay them "protection money" to stop it. Oh wait, they don't stop anything. That's right, now you're paying them protection money, but they don't protect you (If at this point you want to point out the ID Theft insurance included with the plan, don't even bother).
* Credit monitoring is big money - Did you every wonder why there are SO many outlets for credit monitoring? Here's a hint: why were there so many outlets for home-equity loans? Because people are making money hand over fist on it. Any time you see some financial service that seems to have a million knockoffs seemingly overnight, (e.g. payday loans), you can bet that something is wrong.
* They charge WAY too much for the service - So you get an e-mail any time your credit file changes. There's almost no cost associated with this! If you subscribe to the RSS feed off this site, then any time I make an update to this page, you will know. What does it cost me? Nothing. What does it cost you? Nothing.
* It's not necessary if you live in a state that allows credit freezes - There is nothing, NOTHING that credit monitoring buys you if you have a credit freeze on your account (as long as your personal password hasn't been compromised). That's because without your personal password that you use to thaw your account, no one can get access to your credit file.
Wait... If I don't like credit monitoring, I should look at a site about credit monitoring? My whole point is that I don't trust Abagnale's position on ID theft completely BECAUSE he endorses credit monitoring.
Sure he has some good advice, but he supports credit monitoring which is like paying protection money to the credit reporting companies. Does he mention credit freezes at all? If not, why bother listening to him. Solving ID theft is two part: lock down your credit reports and lock down your data (the much harder of the two).
I also hate the "Nothing to Hide" statement just about as much as the "If you don't like it here, then why don't you leave" (when referring to complaining about the state of America today).
Anyway, here's my basic response:
"It's a proven fact that there are more strangers than people you know. A large percentage of strangers can't be trusted to handle your private information in an appropriate way. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with keeping information to yourself. In fact, it's quite irresponsible to offer private information to just anyone."
My full posting on it is here: http://www.jeremyduffy.com/privacy-security/nothin g-to-hide/
Fingerprinting is equivalent to calling someone a criminal (or checking to see if they already are one). There's nothing wrong with making sure you're not hiring a criminal, but there's no justification for keeping them on record after that check. But even assuming there is, what will they do with the records when she no longer works there? These are the more important questions to ask.
When you point a finger, four are pointing back at you. I didn't say that they didn't have protections, just asked what protectinos they have. The tone of my comment was negative because I doubt that any protection mechanism will be strong enough to withstand year and years of technology advances and still be safe.
Just look at the RFID passports. They are issued for 10 year durations, but their security was broken within 48 hours. Now they need to recall every passport, rethink their entire security scheme and reissue all the passports. Until they do this, every passport holder is at risk.
Do you seriously think that the makers of this car have hired a team of security experts, mathmeticians, and cryptologists to make a keyless entry system secure? If so, you can have your opinion that I jumped the gun. I'm satisfied with my pessimism based on experience from all the other uses of RFID currently (RFID Passports, RFID speedpass, RFID credit cards: all of which have been hacked and abused)
More like EEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
Did anyone happen to notice it uses RFID for locks and ignition? How are you going to keep your car once you buy it? It also uses wireless transmitters for all sensors and controls. How do they prevent rogue signals? Someone hasn't thought this through.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me say this again more clearly, why should it degrade when instead they shouldn't have any of your data IN THE FIRST PLACE. You don't have to degrade what you don't have.
I resent that. I haven't pooped in weeks!
This advice doesn't make sense. Why should it degrade? They shouldn't record it in the first place! What private information do they need to "improve their service"? If they don't sell our personal data, then they shouldn't record it!
I'm definitely looking for something long term. I didn't know that Windows used a proprietary format, I just thought they had finally started supporting the standard.
This seems ok, but doesn't look like there's much capability to group and tag multiple photos at once. It would take a long time to tag all 7000 by hand :(
I'm surprised anyone would look for these things after learning about how bad they are. Not even counting the security and privacy issues, there's the medical problems with them tunneling through the skin under certain types of medical scanners and the link between RFID chip implants and cancer found by various researchers. Of course, I very rarely see anyone suggesting that THEY themselves get one, it's usually "oh we should put those in... those other people (immigrants, alzheimer's patients, Aids patients) etc.
Assuming he already knows how to do "hello world" (in other words, he knows the basic syntax and structure of the language and how to make stuff run), then the next step is easy. I didn't read the other comments so sorry if someone already said this, but the easiest way is to find a project. Something that he'd like to make a computer do for him. Once he has a project, just turn him loose. Show him where help can be found online and answer any questions he has when he has them. Other than that, leave him alone!
Or it might send a message that when you lie cheat and upset the balance of power in the government all for your personal gain/pride, there are consequences. How is that a bad message?
Here's a better question. Why do they need the key for even 60 seconds let alone 6 months? They can serve up your results, store only search statistic information for the betterment of their services and not keep ANY personally identifying information at all! Seriously, does anyone know what possible reason they could have to store the information other than to profile you and sell you crap?
I have an entire article about how wrong and stupid the "Nothing to Hide" argument is: http://www.jeremyduffy.com/privacy-security/nothing-to-hide/ If you're looking for a comeback argument, I've got several.
The first thing I thought of was how easy that will make it to drug people without their knowledge. Sticking someone with a needle is pretty obvious, but this? Ugh.
He's the only one who's even close to saying what needs to be said. Of course, I'd respect him more if he'd flat out call Bush a criminal and call for his impeachment, but that's another story.
No kidding! It's so stupid to even debate this. As long as the ad blocking only gets rid of "Ad services" and rotating banners, I don't disagree with it at all. If it starts to block my individual ads (which are always simple links to sites that have products that I ACTUALLY recommend, then I'll have a problem. So far, so good.
Not doing a enough to differentiate their sponsored links? Of all the search engines around, they're the ones who differentiated it the most with a different font and background color. It seems strange to accuse them of this when they (at one time) were the only search engine to bother making the difference obvious. Interesting to note though... After reading this article, I checked google and there are NO sponsored links anywhere.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology /spacesuit_innovations_050126.html
Thank you for pointing that out. I hate seeing bogus statistics like this get spread around
Like I said, Credit Freezes (as long as your state supports it anyway). A second alternative is to get your free credit report every three months to monitor it for free. Granted it's not as fast, but it's free. http://www.jeremyduffy.com/top-issues/credit-secur ity-freezes/
From http://www.jeremyduffy.com/money-credit/credit-mon itoring-ripoff/ :
* It doesn't stop ID theft, it just let's you know that it's happening faster than you would otherwise.
* It's worse than insurance - At least with Insurance, you can control your level of risk. For example, if you don't drive much, your risk of an accident is much lower than someone who delivers pizzas. But you have no way to know if you are at more or less risk for ID theft. So you'll pay and pay and might never see any benefit from the money lost.
* There's a free alternative available - With the new law requireing that the credit companies give you one free credit report per year, if you stagger them to get one every three months, you will be able to constantly see your credit report anyway. While this is not as good as monitoring would be, it's better than paying $150 or more per year for the "service". Remember that there is only ONE legitimate site to get your free reports!
* It's a type of fear-based extortion - The credit companies are the reason the problem exists in the first place, but they will let you pay them "protection money" to stop it. Oh wait, they don't stop anything. That's right, now you're paying them protection money, but they don't protect you (If at this point you want to point out the ID Theft insurance included with the plan, don't even bother).
* Credit monitoring is big money - Did you every wonder why there are SO many outlets for credit monitoring? Here's a hint: why were there so many outlets for home-equity loans? Because people are making money hand over fist on it. Any time you see some financial service that seems to have a million knockoffs seemingly overnight, (e.g. payday loans), you can bet that something is wrong.
* They charge WAY too much for the service - So you get an e-mail any time your credit file changes. There's almost no cost associated with this! If you subscribe to the RSS feed off this site, then any time I make an update to this page, you will know. What does it cost me? Nothing. What does it cost you? Nothing.
* It's not necessary if you live in a state that allows credit freezes - There is nothing, NOTHING that credit monitoring buys you if you have a credit freeze on your account (as long as your personal password hasn't been compromised). That's because without your personal password that you use to thaw your account, no one can get access to your credit file.
Wait... If I don't like credit monitoring, I should look at a site about credit monitoring? My whole point is that I don't trust Abagnale's position on ID theft completely BECAUSE he endorses credit monitoring.
Click the link. The article explains why I don't like credit monitoring.
Sure he has some good advice, but he supports credit monitoring which is like paying protection money to the credit reporting companies. Does he mention credit freezes at all? If not, why bother listening to him. Solving ID theft is two part: lock down your credit reports and lock down your data (the much harder of the two).
I also hate the "Nothing to Hide" statement just about as much as the "If you don't like it here, then why don't you leave" (when referring to complaining about the state of America today). Anyway, here's my basic response: "It's a proven fact that there are more strangers than people you know. A large percentage of strangers can't be trusted to handle your private information in an appropriate way. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with keeping information to yourself. In fact, it's quite irresponsible to offer private information to just anyone." My full posting on it is here: http://www.jeremyduffy.com/privacy-security/nothin g-to-hide/
Fingerprinting is equivalent to calling someone a criminal (or checking to see if they already are one). There's nothing wrong with making sure you're not hiring a criminal, but there's no justification for keeping them on record after that check. But even assuming there is, what will they do with the records when she no longer works there? These are the more important questions to ask.
Just look at the RFID passports. They are issued for 10 year durations, but their security was broken within 48 hours. Now they need to recall every passport, rethink their entire security scheme and reissue all the passports. Until they do this, every passport holder is at risk.
Do you seriously think that the makers of this car have hired a team of security experts, mathmeticians, and cryptologists to make a keyless entry system secure? If so, you can have your opinion that I jumped the gun. I'm satisfied with my pessimism based on experience from all the other uses of RFID currently (RFID Passports, RFID speedpass, RFID credit cards: all of which have been hacked and abused)
More like EEEEEEEEEEEE!!! Did anyone happen to notice it uses RFID for locks and ignition? How are you going to keep your car once you buy it? It also uses wireless transmitters for all sensors and controls. How do they prevent rogue signals? Someone hasn't thought this through.