Wikileaks made the encrypted archive available long ago so shouldn't the headline here point out the newer and more interesting bit - that the Guardian released the key after signing an agreement not to?
I think there is a strong case for allowing pseudonyms on social networks.
I think the first step in explaining why is to turn the question on its head - why not? The big social networks are businesses and there's only one business reason to prevent pseudonyms, that being linking your on-site data to external data. Since not everyone (anyone?) wants this, that's reason enough to say they are necessary, from a user-centric point of view.
Second is the way many people like to use these networks. While we generally think of them as networks of people, they are really networks of personas. There is a difference. Why force people to assume their IRL identity online? There are some circumstances where this can be useful but adequate privacy/permission controls cover most of them. People should be able to be whoever they want to be online.
I've seen a couple of comments here suggesting that pseudonyms make it difficult to connect with friends but I disagree - most people come to a social network via friend invites anyway and have out-of-band methods of determining their friends' identities. Once a connection is established some sites provide a way to ascertain a particular pseudonymous friend's actual identity. All should.
As for spam and the like, friend lists (or circles in G+ parlance) usually provide a way to filter out content from those you don't know. I find that works quite well for squelching the noise.
I didn't say it wasn't news, I said it wasn't big news. One country finally gets unlocked iPhones and every tech site covers it like it's the second coming of some fictional character.
You don't speak for me. I don't ignore scientists when it comes to nuclear power and GMO crops. Nuclear power is efficient and safe - until Fukushima happens. GMO is productive and safe - until something unanticipated happens or, say, five companies own all the patents.
Surely I can't be the only one laughing at the idea of the US government having anything to do with truth? Truth and politics are practically synonymous after all.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not that Macs don't get viruses, it's just that there are thousands of times less of them than there are for Windows.
That hasn't been true since 4.3.4.
Wikileaks made the encrypted archive available long ago so shouldn't the headline here point out the newer and more interesting bit - that the Guardian released the key after signing an agreement not to?
...the moon's made of cheese.
True, any UNIX/POSIX OS comes with mount, but the GUI functionality is there because Apple saw the benefits to everyday users and chose to include it.
Yep.
Well said, I could not possibly agree more.
Felt it too...
Have you ever lent someone money because they were hard up, then found out they bought some expensive trinket with it?
This reminds me of that.
No biggie, it's not like it's 50% of your budget or anything.
Hopefully the SKA's IP doesn't land on their national blacklist...
...this is not a way to get a government black box in all cars at all. Nothing to see here folks.
I think there is a strong case for allowing pseudonyms on social networks.
I think the first step in explaining why is to turn the question on its head - why not? The big social networks are businesses and there's only one business reason to prevent pseudonyms, that being linking your on-site data to external data. Since not everyone (anyone?) wants this, that's reason enough to say they are necessary, from a user-centric point of view.
Second is the way many people like to use these networks. While we generally think of them as networks of people, they are really networks of personas. There is a difference. Why force people to assume their IRL identity online? There are some circumstances where this can be useful but adequate privacy/permission controls cover most of them. People should be able to be whoever they want to be online.
I've seen a couple of comments here suggesting that pseudonyms make it difficult to connect with friends but I disagree - most people come to a social network via friend invites anyway and have out-of-band methods of determining their friends' identities. Once a connection is established some sites provide a way to ascertain a particular pseudonymous friend's actual identity. All should.
As for spam and the like, friend lists (or circles in G+ parlance) usually provide a way to filter out content from those you don't know. I find that works quite well for squelching the noise.
You're right, SQL is full of holes! Stop the presses!
I didn't say it wasn't news, I said it wasn't big news. One country finally gets unlocked iPhones and every tech site covers it like it's the second coming of some fictional character.
Broke?
In other news: Get off my lawn!
We've had unlocked iPhones here in Canada for ages, I don't see why this is big news now. Only $10 more (funny considering our dollar is worth more)
Odd, I can see Javascript just fine.
You don't speak for me. I don't ignore scientists when it comes to nuclear power and GMO crops. Nuclear power is efficient and safe - until Fukushima happens. GMO is productive and safe - until something unanticipated happens or, say, five companies own all the patents.
Can't compete? iPhones FAR outsell any Samsung device.
None of those are remote exploits for in-box software.
This is hardly different than sidejacking someone's Facebook session on unsecured wifi at Starbucks
True, the Facebook thing was a big deal too, and all over the news.
err, lies and politics rather hehe
Surely I can't be the only one laughing at the idea of the US government having anything to do with truth? Truth and politics are practically synonymous after all.