However, there's a bit of a differencve between an authorized user (your "friend") divulging your private communiques in a public forum, and some unauthorized third party reaching in from the outside and taking them. What's being discussed here is that latter case, not the former.
I guess the question is how "public" is Facebook?
Facebook isn't as public as, say, Slashdot. If I gave you a Facebook URL, you can't just wander in there unless you're on the approved list (or do some manipulation). In that sense, it's more like an exclusive nightclub than a public park.
Heh. You don't need to know everyones name on a busy city street to navigate down the sidewalk do you?
Name in only one unique* ID that we as humans use. In your example, we're visually distinguishing between individuals, something which has no analog in the proposed wifi scenario. So while they don't need to broadcast their VIN or liscense number, they do need to be able to distinguish between individuals, and that means some kind of unique** ID.
*Names aren't really unique, depending on how qualified they are. Several people could be named John Q. Public, but it's usually good enough to get by.
**A "unique-enough" identifier could be constructed with make, model, and a random salt, and if the salt changes at some interval (say, every time the car starts) it can still protect privacy. A random number alone could possibly be used, depending on the size of the number...
With human capital, you're talking unemployment, starvation, and civil unrest.
True, but not entirely acurate in context. Although there are undeniably negative effects for the individuals involved, Society is better off, in the long run, if production is made more efficient and/or cheaper.
This is also assuming that those 10% of workers are laid off, which isn't necessarily the case. A new tool can either aid a human worker or replace a human worker -- in the former case you still need the worker and can either produce more or reduce the workforce, and in either case "reduced" workers may be repruposed in some other capacity.
An individual whose skillset is made obsolete might be out of luck, or might be able to adapt. Those who come after him will adapt, and Society will benefit.
"Good for society" isn't always good for every particular individual.
Today when someone dies at the age of 50 or 60 we think that they died young. It wasn't too long ago when it was considered lucky to live past 30.
You're confusing "life expectancy at birth" with life span. There is little evidence that actual (rather than averaged) human life span has increased durring recorded history.
Rather than people living longer, it's really just the case that fewer of us die young. Much of the low life expectancy from the middle ages is attributable to childhood illnesses or violence, not (strictly speaking) a lack of technology.
Not that technology plays no part -- advances in medicine are definitely responsible for more infants and children surviving to adulthood -- but it hasn't had the impact you seem to be implying.
Your inherent assumption is that the major concern is stuff that someone posts themselves. You're missing the more pervasive problem of what other people might post about you. It doesn't matter how discerning you are about what you post because you can not stop other people. And it doesn't matter how careful you are living your life, either; there is always something that can be interpreted or misconstrued by someone to put you in a bad light.
The only difference is that now it's all stored on an infinite, searchable medium that won't go away, and people are looking for ways to deal with that.
why not just have a service to delete the image automatically from facebook after N days?
but ultimately it's better to just delete those photos after a while anyway, rather than risk leaving them up forever.
You might as well propose a system to automatically delete trhem from the Internet, since that's what we're really talking about here.
The problem, for lack of a better word, is that young people (here read as 13-30, but could be extended) tend to be risky and careless in what they do and what they post. This is most evident when they carelessly post evidence of someone else bering risky -- and you have the subject (or the subject's parents) getting upset that the photos show them in a bad light and could come back to haunt them after they grow up
If it's on the nternet, it's public. And most likely it's been archived and copied all over the place. The "X-Pire" encyption scheme works for the most basic case where someone saves an actual copy of the encrypted photo, but not if the photo is saved unencrypted. As noted else where, once it's on the Internet, it's there forever. And once it's unencrypted, it's unencrypted forever.
This is just another short-sighted, ineffective attempt to put the proverbial genie back in the bottle. It fails to recognize how the Internet works.
The more steps the user has to complete, the more likely that they will fail to install the malware on their system.
90% success with a single step is only 81% success with two steps (of 90% success each).
You will NEVER stop trojans... but you can reduce their number significantly just by requiring more steps for their installation.
The problem here is that a trojan is just a regular program with non-advertised functionality. In other words, to require more steps for trojan installation, you have to require more steps for *all* installations. If users only have a 50% or less chance of successfully installing software, then they just won't use that OS.
Voting for Rand Paul or Ru Paul or Ralph Nader or Mickey Mouse doesn't change anything either.
Not if it's just one person here or there, no. But for the last 20 years, we've only had about 50% of the voting populace turn out to a Presidential Election, and under 40% for midterm elections. Even if you ignore the fact that some percentage of the populace DOES show up and vote for Paul or Nader, if 50-60% of the voters did so it would make a difference.
"You" may not be able to effect change with your vote alone, but "we" can if we'd work together. I think that was the original point.
The only time someone would not vote (if you ask me) is when they were ambivalent to the state the system
FTFY. If they were happy with the way things were, wouldn't they vote for the incumbent to keep it that way? Not-voting is for the ambivalent or those who have resigned themselves to powerlessness.
Sorry, ignore me: not enough coffee this morning. Somehow read your first comment to be saying that Sony would be sending keys, not pre-encrypted metldr's. Which, of course, would be really stupid for Sony.
Still, it assumes that the factory-key database exists; it's possible that those unique keys were never meant to be refreshed or recovered, in which case having the database would be a waste. I guess we'll find out, if Sony decides it's worth it to try and fix this that way.
liability is determined based on whether there is substantial non-infringing uses
I think there's a strong case here for re-enabling functionality that was available at the time of purchase. That's ostensibly why they were doing this in the first place, and it's hard to argue that it's infringing to do so.
allow the old key for a whitelist of known past titles
Depending on how the whitelist was done, couldn't a softmodder just have his code say, "oh, yeah, I'm [some whitelisted game]. So use the old key for me"?
all Sony need to do is to pull their database...
That assumes that such a database exists, which isn't necessarily true. And if Sony is sending that data over the Internet, it's just a matter of poking around the updating code and listening to the netwiork traffic, and then the hackers could have Sony kindly supply them with the factory key of any system they have an identifyer for.
Here's the problem I see -- it's not that blocking sites is infeasible and ineffective, and it's not that an ISP can't do it anyways, because they can. The problem I see is that when/if an ISP does implement a censor, no matter how ineffective, it will be abused and legitimate content will be blocked for legitimate users. Child porn will still be out there, and the people who participate in that industry will at best be inconvenienced -- it's the legitimate content that accidentally or maliciously gets caught in the crossfire that concerns me. The potential for good approaches zero, and the possible harm is non-negligable. This is why it shouldn't be implemented.
That's a stupid system, why would anyone design a system like that? It looks to me that it would be possible to fix the system by making the key send a signal only when someone is pressing a button on it. Then the key and the car can use whatever technology to prevent replay attack and relay attacks won't really work because if the owner is pressing the button then he most likely is near the car.
The system is designed to require no active participation from the user, and this is what users like. If they have to dig their key out of their purse to push a button, the whole utility of the mechanism is null.
You can fix keyless-entry by requiring a key, but that defeats the purpose.
No, the car sends the key a challenge, such as a timestamp or a random number. The key has to respond, but modifies the response (e.g. XOR) based on the challenge. You could replay it, but the challenge is different each time.
If it required some non-passive action from the user, such as pushing a button on the fob or inserting a key, this attack would fail (or at least be significantly more difficult)
True, but it would also defeat much of the utility of the "feature" for many people. A buddy of mine has this on his car and simply LOVES the fact that he just walks over to his car, pulls the door open, and starts the car with a button press. The fact that this all happens invisibly to him just by having his key in his pocket (or occationally stuffed in some bag somewhere) is exactly what has him sold on it. If it required him to use the key, then what's the point?
This feature has always made me uncomfortable (I specifically don't have it on my car), but your solution doesn't fix the problem except by removing the utility.
Eventually you get to a root cause, the first white child who was not instructed -- and whatever spawned his hatred is unaddressed by simply ignoring history.
Now, now. We could also edit the existence of religion out of history. That would be interesting. I'd love to set up an isolated control group (composed of orphan babies and robot nannies), give them a fabricated history of humanity and see if religion spontaneously redevelops.
Unless you think religion was handed to us by angels, isnt' the fact that we HAVE religion proof that it develops spontaneously?
Or do you instead mean to test if man's current understanding of reality is complete enough that no "cracks" remain that might foster the development of religion.
I guess I'm just not clear on what it is you're testing for.
Slashdot Mirror
Some might argue that sex is a social activity (especially if multiple partners are involved) but few would argue that this makes it public fare.
This is true.
However, there's a bit of a differencve between an authorized user (your "friend") divulging your private communiques in a public forum, and some unauthorized third party reaching in from the outside and taking them. What's being discussed here is that latter case, not the former.
I guess the question is how "public" is Facebook? Facebook isn't as public as, say, Slashdot. If I gave you a Facebook URL, you can't just wander in there unless you're on the approved list (or do some manipulation). In that sense, it's more like an exclusive nightclub than a public park.
Heh. You don't need to know everyones name on a busy city street to navigate down the sidewalk do you?
Name in only one unique* ID that we as humans use. In your example, we're visually distinguishing between individuals, something which has no analog in the proposed wifi scenario. So while they don't need to broadcast their VIN or liscense number, they do need to be able to distinguish between individuals, and that means some kind of unique** ID. *Names aren't really unique, depending on how qualified they are. Several people could be named John Q. Public, but it's usually good enough to get by. **A "unique-enough" identifier could be constructed with make, model, and a random salt, and if the salt changes at some interval (say, every time the car starts) it can still protect privacy. A random number alone could possibly be used, depending on the size of the number...
Yeah, but I bet the CEO of your company isn't trying to kill you.
With human capital, you're talking unemployment, starvation, and civil unrest.
True, but not entirely acurate in context. Although there are undeniably negative effects for the individuals involved, Society is better off, in the long run, if production is made more efficient and/or cheaper.
This is also assuming that those 10% of workers are laid off, which isn't necessarily the case. A new tool can either aid a human worker or replace a human worker -- in the former case you still need the worker and can either produce more or reduce the workforce, and in either case "reduced" workers may be repruposed in some other capacity.
An individual whose skillset is made obsolete might be out of luck, or might be able to adapt. Those who come after him will adapt, and Society will benefit.
"Good for society" isn't always good for every particular individual.
Today when someone dies at the age of 50 or 60 we think that they died young. It wasn't too long ago when it was considered lucky to live past 30.
You're confusing "life expectancy at birth" with life span. There is little evidence that actual (rather than averaged) human life span has increased durring recorded history.
Rather than people living longer, it's really just the case that fewer of us die young. Much of the low life expectancy from the middle ages is attributable to childhood illnesses or violence, not (strictly speaking) a lack of technology.
Not that technology plays no part -- advances in medicine are definitely responsible for more infants and children surviving to adulthood -- but it hasn't had the impact you seem to be implying.
Your inherent assumption is that the major concern is stuff that someone posts themselves. You're missing the more pervasive problem of what other people might post about you. It doesn't matter how discerning you are about what you post because you can not stop other people. And it doesn't matter how careful you are living your life, either; there is always something that can be interpreted or misconstrued by someone to put you in a bad light.
The only difference is that now it's all stored on an infinite, searchable medium that won't go away, and people are looking for ways to deal with that.
why not just have a service to delete the image automatically from facebook after N days?
but ultimately it's better to just delete those photos after a while anyway, rather than risk leaving them up forever.
You might as well propose a system to automatically delete trhem from the Internet, since that's what we're really talking about here.
The problem, for lack of a better word, is that young people (here read as 13-30, but could be extended) tend to be risky and careless in what they do and what they post. This is most evident when they carelessly post evidence of someone else bering risky -- and you have the subject (or the subject's parents) getting upset that the photos show them in a bad light and could come back to haunt them after they grow up
If it's on the nternet, it's public. And most likely it's been archived and copied all over the place. The "X-Pire" encyption scheme works for the most basic case where someone saves an actual copy of the encrypted photo, but not if the photo is saved unencrypted. As noted else where, once it's on the Internet, it's there forever. And once it's unencrypted, it's unencrypted forever.
This is just another short-sighted, ineffective attempt to put the proverbial genie back in the bottle. It fails to recognize how the Internet works.
The more steps the user has to complete, the more likely that they will fail to install the malware on their system.
90% success with a single step is only 81% success with two steps (of 90% success each).
You will NEVER stop trojans ... but you can reduce their number significantly just by requiring more steps for their installation.
The problem here is that a trojan is just a regular program with non-advertised functionality. In other words, to require more steps for trojan installation, you have to require more steps for *all* installations. If users only have a 50% or less chance of successfully installing software, then they just won't use that OS.
This is non-sense. A properly designed system would not let users easily run non-approved applications.
"Non-approved" by who? If it's the user's home machine, the user is the approving authority, and users will approve stupid things.
create an entirely new game.
At least initially, Blizzard was pretty explicit in their hope that users would do exactly that.
Voting for Rand Paul or Ru Paul or Ralph Nader or Mickey Mouse doesn't change anything either.
Not if it's just one person here or there, no. But for the last 20 years, we've only had about 50% of the voting populace turn out to a Presidential Election, and under 40% for midterm elections. Even if you ignore the fact that some percentage of the populace DOES show up and vote for Paul or Nader, if 50-60% of the voters did so it would make a difference.
"You" may not be able to effect change with your vote alone, but "we" can if we'd work together. I think that was the original point.
The only time someone would not vote (if you ask me) is when they were ambivalent to the state the system
FTFY. If they were happy with the way things were, wouldn't they vote for the incumbent to keep it that way? Not-voting is for the ambivalent or those who have resigned themselves to powerlessness.
Sorry, ignore me: not enough coffee this morning. Somehow read your first comment to be saying that Sony would be sending keys, not pre-encrypted metldr's. Which, of course, would be really stupid for Sony.
Still, it assumes that the factory-key database exists; it's possible that those unique keys were never meant to be refreshed or recovered, in which case having the database would be a waste. I guess we'll find out, if Sony decides it's worth it to try and fix this that way.
liability is determined based on whether there is substantial non-infringing uses
I think there's a strong case here for re-enabling functionality that was available at the time of purchase. That's ostensibly why they were doing this in the first place, and it's hard to argue that it's infringing to do so.
allow the old key for a whitelist of known past titles
Depending on how the whitelist was done, couldn't a softmodder just have his code say, "oh, yeah, I'm [some whitelisted game]. So use the old key for me"?
all Sony need to do is to pull their database...
That assumes that such a database exists, which isn't necessarily true. And if Sony is sending that data over the Internet, it's just a matter of poking around the updating code and listening to the netwiork traffic, and then the hackers could have Sony kindly supply them with the factory key of any system they have an identifyer for.
Here's the problem I see -- it's not that blocking sites is infeasible and ineffective, and it's not that an ISP can't do it anyways, because they can. The problem I see is that when/if an ISP does implement a censor, no matter how ineffective, it will be abused and legitimate content will be blocked for legitimate users. Child porn will still be out there, and the people who participate in that industry will at best be inconvenienced -- it's the legitimate content that accidentally or maliciously gets caught in the crossfire that concerns me. The potential for good approaches zero, and the possible harm is non-negligable. This is why it shouldn't be implemented.
they have a marketable skill: English language ability.
What Indian tech support have YOU been talking to?!
That's a stupid system, why would anyone design a system like that? It looks to me that it would be possible to fix the system by making the key send a signal only when someone is pressing a button on it. Then the key and the car can use whatever technology to prevent replay attack and relay attacks won't really work because if the owner is pressing the button then he most likely is near the car.
The system is designed to require no active participation from the user, and this is what users like. If they have to dig their key out of their purse to push a button, the whole utility of the mechanism is null.
You can fix keyless-entry by requiring a key, but that defeats the purpose.
No, the car sends the key a challenge, such as a timestamp or a random number. The key has to respond, but modifies the response (e.g. XOR) based on the challenge. You could replay it, but the challenge is different each time.
Don't think "replay," think "man-in-the-middle."
If it required some non-passive action from the user, such as pushing a button on the fob or inserting a key, this attack would fail (or at least be significantly more difficult)
True, but it would also defeat much of the utility of the "feature" for many people. A buddy of mine has this on his car and simply LOVES the fact that he just walks over to his car, pulls the door open, and starts the car with a button press. The fact that this all happens invisibly to him just by having his key in his pocket (or occationally stuffed in some bag somewhere) is exactly what has him sold on it. If it required him to use the key, then what's the point?
This feature has always made me uncomfortable (I specifically don't have it on my car), but your solution doesn't fix the problem except by removing the utility.
Mod parent up. Words have power because we give them power and perpetuate them.
Eventually you get to a root cause, the first white child who was not instructed -- and whatever spawned his hatred is unaddressed by simply ignoring history.
Now, now. We could also edit the existence of religion out of history. That would be interesting. I'd love to set up an isolated control group (composed of orphan babies and robot nannies), give them a fabricated history of humanity and see if religion spontaneously redevelops.
Unless you think religion was handed to us by angels, isnt' the fact that we HAVE religion proof that it develops spontaneously?
Or do you instead mean to test if man's current understanding of reality is complete enough that no "cracks" remain that might foster the development of religion.
I guess I'm just not clear on what it is you're testing for.