Yes, I do understand how historical evidence related to security breaches and common sense were all legally dismissed well before the judges gavel came down in this case. You are correct in that regulation and mandate are the only way you will ever get a manufacturer to pay attention to security.
Not sure even regulation or mandate will truly be effective. As we've seen in the financial sector, damn near any violation is well worth the fine, giving further evidence to show how fucked our legal system truly is.
Can't help but notice the dislike of the "single producer streaming source" essentially conflicts with the quite-recent desire for "ala carte" cable without enforced packages.
What is replacing cable is certainly not "ala carte" by any means.
Example: I want to view exclusive content on Netflix. So now, I have to pay them for that right while ignoring the other 90% of content they offer that I have zero interest in. Tell me again how that is any different than being forced to pay for 200 cable channels I'll never watch in order to get access to desired content? Rinse and repeat this stupidity for the other dozen "exclusive content" providers, with more on the way.
In the end, consumers will likely end up paying twice as much per month to get the shows they want to watch, bundled with 500 years of crap they'll never watch. Due to death by 1,000 cuts, they'll gladly pay it too. Creative Marketing/Millennial Math will make a $10x12 streaming cost seem like a bargain, while a $120x1 cable cost was a "ripoff".
So.. You can now sue for negligence without having to prove any harm was actually done?
How on earth do you establish damages if you don't have evidence you where damaged in some way?
The judge did the right thing. The FTC dropped the ball and didn't have their ducks in a row. Sorry, go try again people...
I think I'll go start an automotive company, and look to cut corners by removing all forms of safety restraints. No air bags. No seat belts. And I'll stand confident that I would never be found negligent until one of my customers is harmed or killed. I'll just make more profit and not care until some actual evidence of negligence manifests itself.
Yes, I'm well aware of the fact that such stupidity would never pass DOT regulation, ironically for the same fucking reason that blatantly shitty security practices that have been proven to cause considerable damage should be taken into consideration when looking for "evidence".
Since the Judge doesn't believe that the blatant existence of shitty default security can and often will lead to data breaches, I suggest we force the Judge to install the hardware inside every room of their personal home.
If the Judge thinks it's so fucking secure, then put your privacy where your ruling is.
"Not only is privacy itself dead, but the demand for privacy is as well."
Based on what metric?
Are you kidding me with this? As if rampant narcissism and social media addiction aren't obvious enough indicators? I know about the minute-by-minute details of more people today than I ever have. Where you work, where you eat, when you eat, what you eat, who you see, where you work, who you work with, what your mood is, where you vacation, what you watch on TV, what you listen to, what letter you are in the LGBTQIA alphabet, who you're banging and how. Hell, name something you can't find out about someone through social media. Audio and video recording devices are all but impossible to escape from unless you're willing to move to Alask...oh wait, nevermind. I forgot we film multiple reality shows there now.
And this is true for 99% of of "modern" society. Oversharing is now considered the norm. In fact, truly being private is now considered unacceptable and rude.
Ah yes, I forgot to calculate our overt addiction with buying never-go-offroad vehicles large enough to be considered military battlefield transport. I stand corrected.
there are lots of common peculiar places for humans
Agreed. 100 years ago a peculiar place for a human would have been hurtling 70MPH down a freeway, surrounded by 10,000 other humans doing the same thing.
Today, humans are so ignorantly comfortable with that environment that they often read, smoke, eat, drink, and apply makeup while attempting to steer 2,000 pounds of steel down said freeway, trying not to run into the other 10,000 humans around them doing the same thing.
Because it's incredible how stupid this whole thing has been.
How can anyone be this bad at their core business?
From Slap-On-The-Wrist fines for the Financial Industrial Complex, to the Too-Big-To-Fail bailouts for the US auto industry, tell me again how obscene incompetence and criminal behavior has been anything short of rewarded?
THAT is how they can be this bad. Turns out it's actually worth it to put in a fucking half-assed effort.
They're probably getting tons of customer support calls from naive users whining that they can't airdrop from their iPhone to their iPad because they turned off wifi on their iPhone...why my macbook doesn't show up on airdrop but the 15 people's iPhone in the office cubes around me do...
I hope you understand you've essentially shitcanned your former statement with the latter here...clearly users are too stupid to ever actually turn off wifi...
...both Bluetooth and Wi-Fi will become active again when you toggle them off in the Control Center at 5 AM local time, according to Apple's documentation
What the hell is the point of THAT?!
In a post-Snowden, world, what the hell is the point of even asking THAT question...
"Competing against the likes of Apple and Google on the mobile market has proven to be a death sentence for many platforms..."
No, competing against the ignorant masses who no longer value privacy at all is exactly why this project will fail, especially when the first fucking thing your "privacy-focused" smartphone customers will ask is, "Where's the Facebook app?"
Not only is privacy itself dead, but the demand for privacy is as well. Manufacturers need to wake up to this reality.
People who actually follow the recipes in The Anarchist's Cookbook will find they've found an excellent way to blow up themselves instead of other people.
Your statement does nothing to diffuse the explosive irony surrounding the concern with algorithms that might suggest bomb making vs. directly selling bomb-making guides...
"The air is so free of stuff and is so unused compared to the ground, it has to happen in my opinion."
It will no longer be unused and free of stuff once we have flying cars - and you definitely won't just be able to go in a straight line. They already have rules about where you can fly a drone. Imagine a few hundred flying cars in some small area. And of course, if you do have an accident, whose house do you hit and how fast are you going? It gets real ugly real fast...
It's going to get real ugly real fast once Amazon and other like vendors start delivering damn near everything by drone.
Besides, I don't trust autonomous solutions on the ground, so why exactly should I trust them in the air where they can kill/maim far more people at once?
From employers to education, when you look at the main reasons our roadways are congested, it says a lot about what we could do today to drastically improve the situation.
How many employers could support employees working from home, but continue to hold on to an obsolete mentality of forcing people to waste countless hours commuting to a building and sit in a cube or office all day?
How many schools could support virtual classrooms, but refuse to do so for similar reasons?
Get on the roadways during a national holiday, and it becomes pretty damn clear as to the root cause of a lot of traffic today. Get workers off the road who don't need to be there and gain productivity by not forcing them to commute. If college can be virtual, then chances are high school can be as well. Kids by that age are old enough to be on their own at home if need be.
With regards to that whole "supervision" excuse, people are either mature and engaged enough to succeed, or they are not, and the burden of babysitter should not be thrust upon teachers or employers. No one has time for your childish toddler bullshit.
"...she said that while technology had become a hugely important sector of the UK economy, it had not fulfilled its early potential."
I guess that measly 577m pound return you got growing and selling an internet service in less than a decade was somehow a pathetic attempt at demonstrating "potential", right?
The only reason that "energy and excitement" has waned a bit is because your favorite domain name is being squatted on, and a million more patents exist to short-circuit innovation. Other than that, you can still start a business from anywhere (social media whore pays big these days), the internet is financially worth trillions, and is priceless when it comes to the value of the information it holds and delivers.
Why would I want a device listening to everything in my home? Why would I want speakers that integrate such an unwanted feature? Why would I want speakers that can just stop working if I don't go along with their new privacy policy (which no speakers should ever have or need). This product line is on my never buy list, that's for certain.
Why do you keep asking why when you clearly are not part of the stupid masses that welcome always-on listening devices and for-dummies integration?
I find it far easier to sit back and watch wealthy ignorance fuel our IoT-riddled economy than keep asking why all the time. Besides, I gave up on the average consumer gaining some level of technical skill or respect for privacy long ago.
If CEOs created a salary calculator, it would likely find 98% of them as underpaid as well. This is why I tend to find salary calculators as worthless, and why I give far more weight to to other metrics like job satisfaction and work/life balance.
Experience usually shows that life isn't all about the money. If someone offered you seven figures to shovel shit into a bucket for 12 hours a day, you would technically be a millionaire, but chances are you'd be fucking miserable.
Chrome, Safari and Edge are the only ones that matter in the real world. Even if you combine both Firefox and Opera they still have less marketshare than any of those three.
Given the general level of ignorance and stupidity that often leads to consumers being successfully hacked and exploited, I don't know why people continue to value the metric of marketshare when it comes to mass ignorance and browser usage.
Marketshare doesn't keep me secure. A good browser does.
Forging the signature of a judge to circumvent the checks and balances of the legal system. What a simple idea. There's absolutely no way that that could go wrong - after all, court orders aren't logged in a central system; the recipient of the order can't check back with the court to verify it; and it couldn't possibly come back upon the forger.
Right? Right?
Criminals are stupid. He simply wasn't stupid enough to make his crime worth it.
Generally you find that level of stupidity and arrogance in the banking and auto industry where it's a job prerequisite for executives...
Tobacco consumption is responsible for nearly 700,000 deaths in the EU every year. Smokers suffer more from poor health (as they are more at risk of cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases) and half of them die prematurely (14 years on average).
No, it merely confirms that tobacco, diesel engines, alcohol, food additives, and addictive painkillers are all legal because death is necessary and by design, backed by government policy and regulation.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I do understand how historical evidence related to security breaches and common sense were all legally dismissed well before the judges gavel came down in this case. You are correct in that regulation and mandate are the only way you will ever get a manufacturer to pay attention to security.
Not sure even regulation or mandate will truly be effective. As we've seen in the financial sector, damn near any violation is well worth the fine, giving further evidence to show how fucked our legal system truly is.
Can't help but notice the dislike of the "single producer streaming source" essentially conflicts with the quite-recent desire for "ala carte" cable without enforced packages.
What is replacing cable is certainly not "ala carte" by any means.
Example: I want to view exclusive content on Netflix. So now, I have to pay them for that right while ignoring the other 90% of content they offer that I have zero interest in. Tell me again how that is any different than being forced to pay for 200 cable channels I'll never watch in order to get access to desired content? Rinse and repeat this stupidity for the other dozen "exclusive content" providers, with more on the way.
In the end, consumers will likely end up paying twice as much per month to get the shows they want to watch, bundled with 500 years of crap they'll never watch. Due to death by 1,000 cuts, they'll gladly pay it too. Creative Marketing/Millennial Math will make a $10x12 streaming cost seem like a bargain, while a $120x1 cable cost was a "ripoff".
So.. You can now sue for negligence without having to prove any harm was actually done?
How on earth do you establish damages if you don't have evidence you where damaged in some way?
The judge did the right thing. The FTC dropped the ball and didn't have their ducks in a row. Sorry, go try again people...
I think I'll go start an automotive company, and look to cut corners by removing all forms of safety restraints. No air bags. No seat belts. And I'll stand confident that I would never be found negligent until one of my customers is harmed or killed. I'll just make more profit and not care until some actual evidence of negligence manifests itself.
Yes, I'm well aware of the fact that such stupidity would never pass DOT regulation, ironically for the same fucking reason that blatantly shitty security practices that have been proven to cause considerable damage should be taken into consideration when looking for "evidence".
The Judge made the right call. No evidence means no proof. No proof means they're innocent, even if they're guilty as hell.
There was plenty of evidence to show that the default security was absolute shit.
What was lacking here was common fucking sense that confirms when default security is absolute shit, data breaches are usually the end result.
Validation of that fact is likely strewn across decades of case law, so it was hiding about as well as an elephant herd in the room.
Since the Judge doesn't believe that the blatant existence of shitty default security can and often will lead to data breaches, I suggest we force the Judge to install the hardware inside every room of their personal home.
If the Judge thinks it's so fucking secure, then put your privacy where your ruling is.
You can learn coding in a couple of days. Computer science is something different.
Becoming proficient at anything takes time and dedication to gain the experience necessary in order to actually provide value.
Otherwise, you're just another idiot who assumes they know what they're doing after hacking away at it for a couple of days.
It's not an anti-malware program.
It's an optimizer.
Ironically, anti-malware serves the same goal, unless you don't consider an uninfected system as optimally configured...
"Not only is privacy itself dead, but the demand for privacy is as well."
Based on what metric?
Are you kidding me with this? As if rampant narcissism and social media addiction aren't obvious enough indicators? I know about the minute-by-minute details of more people today than I ever have. Where you work, where you eat, when you eat, what you eat, who you see, where you work, who you work with, what your mood is, where you vacation, what you watch on TV, what you listen to, what letter you are in the LGBTQIA alphabet, who you're banging and how. Hell, name something you can't find out about someone through social media. Audio and video recording devices are all but impossible to escape from unless you're willing to move to Alask...oh wait, nevermind. I forgot we film multiple reality shows there now.
And this is true for 99% of of "modern" society. Oversharing is now considered the norm. In fact, truly being private is now considered unacceptable and rude.
Hope that answers your question.
not 2000 lbs, averaging 4000 lbs (as of 2010).
Ah yes, I forgot to calculate our overt addiction with buying never-go-offroad vehicles large enough to be considered military battlefield transport. I stand corrected.
there are lots of common peculiar places for humans
Agreed. 100 years ago a peculiar place for a human would have been hurtling 70MPH down a freeway, surrounded by 10,000 other humans doing the same thing.
Today, humans are so ignorantly comfortable with that environment that they often read, smoke, eat, drink, and apply makeup while attempting to steer 2,000 pounds of steel down said freeway, trying not to run into the other 10,000 humans around them doing the same thing.
Because it's incredible how stupid this whole thing has been.
How can anyone be this bad at their core business?
From Slap-On-The-Wrist fines for the Financial Industrial Complex, to the Too-Big-To-Fail bailouts for the US auto industry, tell me again how obscene incompetence and criminal behavior has been anything short of rewarded?
THAT is how they can be this bad. Turns out it's actually worth it to put in a fucking half-assed effort.
They're probably getting tons of customer support calls from naive users whining that they can't airdrop from their iPhone to their iPad because they turned off wifi on their iPhone...why my macbook doesn't show up on airdrop but the 15 people's iPhone in the office cubes around me do...
I hope you understand you've essentially shitcanned your former statement with the latter here...clearly users are too stupid to ever actually turn off wifi...
...both Bluetooth and Wi-Fi will become active again when you toggle them off in the Control Center at 5 AM local time, according to Apple's documentation
What the hell is the point of THAT?!
In a post-Snowden, world, what the hell is the point of even asking THAT question...
Another decision to impede security in the name of convenience. People act like Microsoft only does this.
And those complaining about insecure features act like the other 99% of consumers actually give a shit about privacy or security.
They don't.
"Competing against the likes of Apple and Google on the mobile market has proven to be a death sentence for many platforms..."
No, competing against the ignorant masses who no longer value privacy at all is exactly why this project will fail, especially when the first fucking thing your "privacy-focused" smartphone customers will ask is, "Where's the Facebook app?"
Not only is privacy itself dead, but the demand for privacy is as well. Manufacturers need to wake up to this reality.
People who actually follow the recipes in The Anarchist's Cookbook will find they've found an excellent way to blow up themselves instead of other people.
Your statement does nothing to diffuse the explosive irony surrounding the concern with algorithms that might suggest bomb making vs. directly selling bomb-making guides...
"The air is so free of stuff and is so unused compared to the ground, it has to happen in my opinion." It will no longer be unused and free of stuff once we have flying cars - and you definitely won't just be able to go in a straight line. They already have rules about where you can fly a drone. Imagine a few hundred flying cars in some small area. And of course, if you do have an accident, whose house do you hit and how fast are you going? It gets real ugly real fast ...
It's going to get real ugly real fast once Amazon and other like vendors start delivering damn near everything by drone.
Besides, I don't trust autonomous solutions on the ground, so why exactly should I trust them in the air where they can kill/maim far more people at once?
From employers to education, when you look at the main reasons our roadways are congested, it says a lot about what we could do today to drastically improve the situation.
How many employers could support employees working from home, but continue to hold on to an obsolete mentality of forcing people to waste countless hours commuting to a building and sit in a cube or office all day?
How many schools could support virtual classrooms, but refuse to do so for similar reasons?
Get on the roadways during a national holiday, and it becomes pretty damn clear as to the root cause of a lot of traffic today. Get workers off the road who don't need to be there and gain productivity by not forcing them to commute. If college can be virtual, then chances are high school can be as well. Kids by that age are old enough to be on their own at home if need be.
With regards to that whole "supervision" excuse, people are either mature and engaged enough to succeed, or they are not, and the burden of babysitter should not be thrust upon teachers or employers. No one has time for your childish toddler bullshit.
"...she said that while technology had become a hugely important sector of the UK economy, it had not fulfilled its early potential."
I guess that measly 577m pound return you got growing and selling an internet service in less than a decade was somehow a pathetic attempt at demonstrating "potential", right?
The only reason that "energy and excitement" has waned a bit is because your favorite domain name is being squatted on, and a million more patents exist to short-circuit innovation. Other than that, you can still start a business from anywhere (social media whore pays big these days), the internet is financially worth trillions, and is priceless when it comes to the value of the information it holds and delivers.
Why would I want a device listening to everything in my home? Why would I want speakers that integrate such an unwanted feature? Why would I want speakers that can just stop working if I don't go along with their new privacy policy (which no speakers should ever have or need). This product line is on my never buy list, that's for certain.
Why do you keep asking why when you clearly are not part of the stupid masses that welcome always-on listening devices and for-dummies integration?
I find it far easier to sit back and watch wealthy ignorance fuel our IoT-riddled economy than keep asking why all the time. Besides, I gave up on the average consumer gaining some level of technical skill or respect for privacy long ago.
...Still, looks like I'm underpaid (yet again...)
If CEOs created a salary calculator, it would likely find 98% of them as underpaid as well. This is why I tend to find salary calculators as worthless, and why I give far more weight to to other metrics like job satisfaction and work/life balance.
Experience usually shows that life isn't all about the money. If someone offered you seven figures to shovel shit into a bucket for 12 hours a day, you would technically be a millionaire, but chances are you'd be fucking miserable.
Chrome, Safari and Edge are the only ones that matter in the real world. Even if you combine both Firefox and Opera they still have less marketshare than any of those three.
Given the general level of ignorance and stupidity that often leads to consumers being successfully hacked and exploited, I don't know why people continue to value the metric of marketshare when it comes to mass ignorance and browser usage.
Marketshare doesn't keep me secure. A good browser does.
My bank uses text messages to verify transactions. Would that be vulnerable in some way as well?
FDIC insurance says everything about the give-a-shit level of most banks.
Forging the signature of a judge to circumvent the checks and balances of the legal system. What a simple idea. There's absolutely no way that that could go wrong - after all, court orders aren't logged in a central system; the recipient of the order can't check back with the court to verify it; and it couldn't possibly come back upon the forger.
Right? Right?
Criminals are stupid. He simply wasn't stupid enough to make his crime worth it.
Generally you find that level of stupidity and arrogance in the banking and auto industry where it's a job prerequisite for executives...
And then you look at the following:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/...
That makes the diesel exhaust problem marginal.
No, it merely confirms that tobacco, diesel engines, alcohol, food additives, and addictive painkillers are all legal because death is necessary and by design, backed by government policy and regulation.