Of course an airgap is not a panacea. There is more to security than an airgap, but what makes you think that a company that won't maintain security on a system with an airgap will maintain security on one without it?
Do you really think that a company that cannot maintain the simpler level of security necessary for a system with an airgap is going to be up to the immensely more complicated security needed for a system connected to the Internet?
Sure, airgaps have vulnerabilities...but systems connected to the Internet have all the vulnerabilities of a system with an airgap, plus those which come from being on the Internet.
Your answer to why they are connected to the Internet is that it makes things more convenient.
In 2014, a technician for Track Group, which was then called SecureAlert, testified during a hearing in Puerto Rico that although the device is supposed to vibrate and make a noise when itâ(TM)s activated, the listening and speaking capabilities can be turned on without warning.
and now I care.
Yes, but I would like to know if that is still the case. Four plus years is a long time for this sort of technology and we are almost certainly at least one generation removed from the one that technician was discussing. It would not surprise me to discover that they intended for the devices to work as described in their brochures, but went to market before they had actually gotten them to work that way. (of course, it would also not surprise me to discover that they claimed publicly that they work one wya, but tell law enforcement that they do not).
Another possibility is that while it is possible to turn on the monitoring without setting of the notification, it requires someone with a fair amount of technical knowledge probably not possessed outside of Track Group to do so.
That varies from state to state...since such a law is a matter for the states, not the federal government. Several states have what are known as "two party" consent laws, but which actually require everyone in the conversation to consent. These laws generally have an exception for circumstances whereby a reasonable person would expect that a stranger might overhear the conversation. Many of them also have an exception for a conversation where the other party has proposed something criminal. An example of this last case would be, if you threaten me with bodily harm it is perfectly legal for me to begin recording the conversation at that point without your knowledge. This also means that, if I am recording the conversation and you begin discussing committing a criminal act, the recording is admissible in court. I could not however record our conversation and use it as evidence that your entered into a verbal contract with me, the conversation must either be illegal or a discussion of illegal activity.
However, most states allow for recording of a conversation as long as at least one of the parties to the conversation have consented.
That was my thought as well: Who is the customer for this?
The answer appears to be government bureaucrats. Of course, as the auto manufacturers in the U.S. discovered, government bureaucrats don't buy enough cars to build your business around them.
In order to understand whether it is worth addressing your primary point we need to know how large the problem is. So, what percentage of eligible voters are disabled in a way which makes getting to the polling station and casting their vote excessively difficult?
Beyond a certain point, and the U.S. is beyond that point, making it easier to vote is a bug not a feature. As one illustration of this, people who are not willing to make sure that they are on the rolls to vote a week or more in advance of the election (how far in advance is another question) are unlikely to have spent the time to understand who and what they are voting for.
"Hey Bob....what's that angle grinder for?"
"Oh, just like carrying it around"
*Poll worker ignores incredibly loud racket as the hardened case is cut open*
Why would they cut it open? They could just wait until the polling station is closed, hack into the software running the voting machine, and alter the votes recorded. Or are you not aware that the most likely people to want to modify the outcome of the vote are those running the vote counting process?
I do not see how his "solution" would give the government greater power over people's lives, so how is it actually a solution to the problem which they are trying to address?
The only reason I think he may have a patent able idea is that, according to him, the Post Office talked to him about licensing his patent before developing their own implementation. Usually, such conversations involve finding out how the process works. The key question to me is, how far had the Post Office gone towards implementing their own system when they started talking to him (assuming that they actually did)?
Perhaps, they discovered that they had already worked out to do what he was doing and therefore decided he did not have a legitimate patent That would be consistent with the fact that the only grounds he has for presenting this to the Supreme Court is whether or not the Post Office has standing to sue to overturn his patent.
Not true. They have clauses that you cannot charge a premium for paying with their card (Visa has a clause that you cannot charge a premium for using Visa, Mastercard for Mastercard, etc). You can, however, offer a discount for paying with cash (or some other specific payment method).
I replied back, CC'ing the appropriate people in the frequent flyer program that I didn't appreciate the tone of their letter, and that had I known it would have been a problem, i would have hapily either stayed in Europe for the 5 days, or booked it on another airline, thereby denying them the revenue of the additional flight.
After saying I did not appreciate the tone of the letter, I would have said "if I had known it would have been a problem, I would have taken my business to another airline, (all of my business). If you have a problem with the possibility that I may do such things in the future, please let me know so that I can choose another airline to fly with."
I do not see how, in the above scenario (passenger books round trip flight from ABE-PHI-SCE and back), the airline loses any money if the passenger chooses not to take the last leg on the return trip.
The articles I can find suggest that the opposite is true:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazons-1-billion-in-tax-breaks-does-it-pay-off-for-cities/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...
Everything I have seen says that tax incentives to businesses go to large corporations while the drivers of a strong economy are small businesses and that small businesses suffer from the arrival of a new large corporation in the area.
That experiment ended badly many years ago when the mob assassinated him. You probably are not old enough to remember that...heck, I'm not actually old enough to remember it, but they still taught about it when I was in school.
And to strengthen your point, Intel's turn to marketing is part of what got them into this situation. They started to believe that they could hold market dominance through marketing rather than through superior products. This strategy worked as long as they actually had superior products. As soon as they stopped having distinctly superior products, it all fell apart.
I filled out an "anonymous" review of my company for Glassdoor. The information they tied to the review meant that I was the only person in the company who could have created the review. Fortunately, I like my employer so my review was positive.
I am pretty sure that your comment should have been to the grandparent post, since my post was merely pointing out that if you have a valid reason to choose truck over train, than cargo ship was not an option either.
I am quite confident that shipping by cargo ship is no faster than shipping by train. If your choice is shipping from China by cargo ship or New York by truck, something is wrong with your logistics management.
The question that no one in the comments here is asking, and the one we need the answer to before asking any others, is, "And how many data points were typically pulled by other entities every day in 2014? Was there anything unusual about an entity pulling that much data?"
The key part of that phrase was "When you call the police..." The problem would be al the times they would take over your car when you had not called them first. Of course, when they were called on it, they would say, "Well, wasn't it VIN XXXXXXXX that we took over?" And it would turn out that VIN XXXXXX was just a couple of digits off from your car and just a couple of digits further off from a car which had actually been stolen.
Or, perhaps they would have "credible reports" that your car had been involved in some crime. With a "credible report" being something like the Steele Dossier.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course an airgap is not a panacea. There is more to security than an airgap, but what makes you think that a company that won't maintain security on a system with an airgap will maintain security on one without it?
Do you really think that a company that cannot maintain the simpler level of security necessary for a system with an airgap is going to be up to the immensely more complicated security needed for a system connected to the Internet?
Sure, airgaps have vulnerabilities...but systems connected to the Internet have all the vulnerabilities of a system with an airgap, plus those which come from being on the Internet. Your answer to why they are connected to the Internet is that it makes things more convenient.
I know it is inconvenient, but these sites should not be connected to the Internet.
Than I don't care.
In 2014, a technician for Track Group, which was then called SecureAlert, testified during a hearing in Puerto Rico that although the device is supposed to vibrate and make a noise when itâ(TM)s activated, the listening and speaking capabilities can be turned on without warning.
and now I care.
Yes, but I would like to know if that is still the case. Four plus years is a long time for this sort of technology and we are almost certainly at least one generation removed from the one that technician was discussing. It would not surprise me to discover that they intended for the devices to work as described in their brochures, but went to market before they had actually gotten them to work that way. (of course, it would also not surprise me to discover that they claimed publicly that they work one wya, but tell law enforcement that they do not).
Another possibility is that while it is possible to turn on the monitoring without setting of the notification, it requires someone with a fair amount of technical knowledge probably not possessed outside of Track Group to do so.
That varies from state to state...since such a law is a matter for the states, not the federal government. Several states have what are known as "two party" consent laws, but which actually require everyone in the conversation to consent. These laws generally have an exception for circumstances whereby a reasonable person would expect that a stranger might overhear the conversation. Many of them also have an exception for a conversation where the other party has proposed something criminal. An example of this last case would be, if you threaten me with bodily harm it is perfectly legal for me to begin recording the conversation at that point without your knowledge. This also means that, if I am recording the conversation and you begin discussing committing a criminal act, the recording is admissible in court. I could not however record our conversation and use it as evidence that your entered into a verbal contract with me, the conversation must either be illegal or a discussion of illegal activity. However, most states allow for recording of a conversation as long as at least one of the parties to the conversation have consented.
That was my thought as well: Who is the customer for this?
The answer appears to be government bureaucrats. Of course, as the auto manufacturers in the U.S. discovered, government bureaucrats don't buy enough cars to build your business around them.
In order to understand whether it is worth addressing your primary point we need to know how large the problem is. So, what percentage of eligible voters are disabled in a way which makes getting to the polling station and casting their vote excessively difficult?
Beyond a certain point, and the U.S. is beyond that point, making it easier to vote is a bug not a feature. As one illustration of this, people who are not willing to make sure that they are on the rolls to vote a week or more in advance of the election (how far in advance is another question) are unlikely to have spent the time to understand who and what they are voting for.
"Hey Bob....what's that angle grinder for?" "Oh, just like carrying it around" *Poll worker ignores incredibly loud racket as the hardened case is cut open*
Why would they cut it open? They could just wait until the polling station is closed, hack into the software running the voting machine, and alter the votes recorded. Or are you not aware that the most likely people to want to modify the outcome of the vote are those running the vote counting process?
I do not see how his "solution" would give the government greater power over people's lives, so how is it actually a solution to the problem which they are trying to address?
The only reason I think he may have a patent able idea is that, according to him, the Post Office talked to him about licensing his patent before developing their own implementation. Usually, such conversations involve finding out how the process works. The key question to me is, how far had the Post Office gone towards implementing their own system when they started talking to him (assuming that they actually did)?
Perhaps, they discovered that they had already worked out to do what he was doing and therefore decided he did not have a legitimate patent That would be consistent with the fact that the only grounds he has for presenting this to the Supreme Court is whether or not the Post Office has standing to sue to overturn his patent.
Not true. They have clauses that you cannot charge a premium for paying with their card (Visa has a clause that you cannot charge a premium for using Visa, Mastercard for Mastercard, etc). You can, however, offer a discount for paying with cash (or some other specific payment method).
I replied back, CC'ing the appropriate people in the frequent flyer program that I didn't appreciate the tone of their letter, and that had I known it would have been a problem, i would have hapily either stayed in Europe for the 5 days, or booked it on another airline, thereby denying them the revenue of the additional flight.
After saying I did not appreciate the tone of the letter, I would have said "if I had known it would have been a problem, I would have taken my business to another airline, (all of my business). If you have a problem with the possibility that I may do such things in the future, please let me know so that I can choose another airline to fly with."
I do not see how, in the above scenario (passenger books round trip flight from ABE-PHI-SCE and back), the airline loses any money if the passenger chooses not to take the last leg on the return trip.
The articles I can find suggest that the opposite is true:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazons-1-billion-in-tax-breaks-does-it-pay-off-for-cities/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... Everything I have seen says that tax incentives to businesses go to large corporations while the drivers of a strong economy are small businesses and that small businesses suffer from the arrival of a new large corporation in the area.
You forgot to mention the part where it calls for the federal government to provide economic security to those unwilling to work.
That experiment ended badly many years ago when the mob assassinated him. You probably are not old enough to remember that...heck, I'm not actually old enough to remember it, but they still taught about it when I was in school.
Everybody I know who works at Amazon (not many, but more than two) has nothing but positive things to say about working there.
And to strengthen your point, Intel's turn to marketing is part of what got them into this situation. They started to believe that they could hold market dominance through marketing rather than through superior products. This strategy worked as long as they actually had superior products. As soon as they stopped having distinctly superior products, it all fell apart.
The primary value in cutting down the original trees was their size. It will take these trees centuries to reach similar size.
The same place all of those farmers went to when we automated many of those processes.
I filled out an "anonymous" review of my company for Glassdoor. The information they tied to the review meant that I was the only person in the company who could have created the review. Fortunately, I like my employer so my review was positive.
I am pretty sure that your comment should have been to the grandparent post, since my post was merely pointing out that if you have a valid reason to choose truck over train, than cargo ship was not an option either.
It depends on the speed required.
I am quite confident that shipping by cargo ship is no faster than shipping by train. If your choice is shipping from China by cargo ship or New York by truck, something is wrong with your logistics management.
The question that no one in the comments here is asking, and the one we need the answer to before asking any others, is, "And how many data points were typically pulled by other entities every day in 2014? Was there anything unusual about an entity pulling that much data?"
The key part of that phrase was "When you call the police..." The problem would be al the times they would take over your car when you had not called them first. Of course, when they were called on it, they would say, "Well, wasn't it VIN XXXXXXXX that we took over?" And it would turn out that VIN XXXXXX was just a couple of digits off from your car and just a couple of digits further off from a car which had actually been stolen. Or, perhaps they would have "credible reports" that your car had been involved in some crime. With a "credible report" being something like the Steele Dossier.