Mate, the Russian government won't extradite them and they won't leave Russia, everyone knows they're not going to be arrested as Putin will protect them. This is about the "next best" way to deal with the situation, by humiliating the Russian security services and showing how incompetent and dangerous they are. It also seems to be led mainly by the British and Dutch at the moment (with Trump grudgingly tagging along, I'd imagine he'd rather not be involved at all).
I'm guessing your preferred solution is that no-one says anything else about it (to avoid the suspects realising they would be arrested? I think they might know that already...), the accused stay in Russia and this all goes away quietly. Sounds like a great plan, nice one.
More so than that, the list of possible reason codes comes from another database that no-one ever thought would end up in a letter as it's just an internal list of reasons why they might not be able to recover a debt in the accounting system. The joy of integration...
We've spent the last 50 years "deconstructing the pillars of society" that pretty much everyone adhered to up until then. As an engineer, I'm wondering if anyone ever checked to see what they were holding up.
Erm, I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro with 4 of them... My personal experience with USB-C has been really good, but then again the only things I plug into it are my phone, an Apple HDMI docking station thing (connects my screen, keyboard and power in a single connector) and the charger. Maybe it doesn't work so well for other use cases but it's a big improvement for me.
"But when an hour of prime time on four networks is purchased, it's fair to ask whether that is a public service or propaganda."
So what is it fair to ask when someone buys a whole newspaper?
Not quite zeal, I'm on the train and I'm bored and this is quite interesting:) I agree that it's harder to detect in terms of the Echo but your statement was "To say that anything can be hacked if you have physical access is taking things too far". That's the factually incorrect bit, if you'd said "it's impossible to create an undetectable transmitting device" I'd have agreed 100%.
Kinda veering off topic here a little, the statement was that a government could make something that was totally physically secure, not that it was possible to create an undetectable listening device. Any listening device that transmits information radiates energy by definition so I call straw man on that one.
Not really... I'm fairly certain that no government could build a device that I couldn't turn into a listening device by sticking a wifi mic to it. Similarly with the Echo, if you take off the baseplate, remove everything inside and replace it with a recording device does that really constitute hacking? You've not compromised the security features of the device, it was never designed to be secure if left in a public place.
I think the question is whether doing something physical to change the device really constitutes "hacking" as it's seen in the eyes of the general public. Most people think of a nerd in a basement with remote access doing terrible things, not a guy who's already broken into your living room and is fondling your stuff. That's not hacking, it's burglary.
And obviously the insurance companies just paid the extra cost and sucked up the difference out of their own pocket? Hmmm... Gouging is gouging no matter who you do it to.
+1 for A&A, I particularly like the option on account signup to choose between Censored and Uncensored Internet Access. If you pick censored it advises you to try another ISP:) There's also a great bit of text that counters the "without filtering how do we control bad guys on the internet" argument...
"We do not have, in our network, any equipment installed to filter access to any part of the public Internet for our customers as a whole. We will give 12 months notice if we ever add any such filtering.
This claim relates to the passing or normal unicast IPv4 and IPv6 packets to and from the public Internet based on the appropriate standards and RFCs. This means packets can be dropped because a link is full or there is a technical fault, or because they are malformed in some way, or clearly spoofed or incorrect source addresses. In the case of some sort of attack we can take steps to manage that. Only packets actually addressed to your IP addresses will get to you, and similarly only packets from you that are from your IP addresses will get to the Internet (BCP38). We don't control the rest of the Internet and so cannot bypass corporate or national firewalls or filtering outside of our network. However, we aim to deal with peers and carriers that have similarly open policies where possible.
An unfiltered service does not give you any right to do anything wrong or illegal, and we can, of course suspend your service for breach of our AUP or non payment. You can run your own firewall or restrictions on your own network or ask us to set up such firewalls for you. Parents are advised to supervise their children's use of the Internet and consider parental controls as appropriate.
We do this because censorship is a bad idea. Even a small amount of censorship for a good cause is the thin end of the wedge and ultimately leads to restriction of free speech. Bear in mind that we may have to restructure your contract for service to be with another company or other legal mechanisms to avoid censorship or monitoring orders."
Yes, there are lots of smaller ISP's in the UK that tend to offer much better service than the big players. I suspect that many of these users will be moving to a smaller provider. Also the big providers tend to offer deals with TV/Phone/Broadband/Kitchen Sink etc etc which aren't actually that great value for money if you don't care about their "value added" catch up TV services, which are mainly inferior versions of iPlayer. I would imagine with people looking a little more critically at their finances these days people will be dumping the addon rubbish, noticing that without this their deal isn't actually that good and moving to a specialised ISP that just gives broadband access at a decent price.
Err, didn't they try this before and users hated it and it's invasion of privacy so much that it nearly caused a court case? What's changed to make it different this time? Oh look, nothing, they're just hoping everyone's forgotten already...
This is actually a good result. Having worked at a UK solicitors (IANAL, I was in IT, this is Slashdot after all...) I know that pretty much the only thing they are scared of is the SRA. Every practising legal firm in the UK requires a license from these guys, no license = no firm, and hopefully this is what will result here.
There is a mechanism for doing this kind of thing already in Windows, via Add/Remove programs and Group Policy. Surely it would be a good idea to try and re-use this rather than re-inventing the wheel.
Slashdot Mirror
Mate, the Russian government won't extradite them and they won't leave Russia, everyone knows they're not going to be arrested as Putin will protect them. This is about the "next best" way to deal with the situation, by humiliating the Russian security services and showing how incompetent and dangerous they are. It also seems to be led mainly by the British and Dutch at the moment (with Trump grudgingly tagging along, I'd imagine he'd rather not be involved at all). I'm guessing your preferred solution is that no-one says anything else about it (to avoid the suspects realising they would be arrested? I think they might know that already...), the accused stay in Russia and this all goes away quietly. Sounds like a great plan, nice one.
More so than that, the list of possible reason codes comes from another database that no-one ever thought would end up in a letter as it's just an internal list of reasons why they might not be able to recover a debt in the accounting system. The joy of integration...
We've spent the last 50 years "deconstructing the pillars of society" that pretty much everyone adhered to up until then. As an engineer, I'm wondering if anyone ever checked to see what they were holding up.
Exactly what could the Russian government do to a private citizen who will likely never step foot on their soil?
Errr, attempt to poison them? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-e...
Do you regularly travel to regions and countries where Russia has authority to arrest/kill you?
No, but recent events in the UK seem to indicate that that isn't really a factor they think about
Also worth mentioning, a £15 charger from Maplin charges it just as well as the £80 Apple one.
Erm, I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro with 4 of them... My personal experience with USB-C has been really good, but then again the only things I plug into it are my phone, an Apple HDMI docking station thing (connects my screen, keyboard and power in a single connector) and the charger. Maybe it doesn't work so well for other use cases but it's a big improvement for me.
"But when an hour of prime time on four networks is purchased, it's fair to ask whether that is a public service or propaganda." So what is it fair to ask when someone buys a whole newspaper?
Not quite zeal, I'm on the train and I'm bored and this is quite interesting :) I agree that it's harder to detect in terms of the Echo but your statement was "To say that anything can be hacked if you have physical access is taking things too far". That's the factually incorrect bit, if you'd said "it's impossible to create an undetectable transmitting device" I'd have agreed 100%.
Kinda veering off topic here a little, the statement was that a government could make something that was totally physically secure, not that it was possible to create an undetectable listening device. Any listening device that transmits information radiates energy by definition so I call straw man on that one.
Who says I'm using WiFi (apart from me in my previous comment but you get the idea...) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Not really... I'm fairly certain that no government could build a device that I couldn't turn into a listening device by sticking a wifi mic to it. Similarly with the Echo, if you take off the baseplate, remove everything inside and replace it with a recording device does that really constitute hacking? You've not compromised the security features of the device, it was never designed to be secure if left in a public place. I think the question is whether doing something physical to change the device really constitutes "hacking" as it's seen in the eyes of the general public. Most people think of a nerd in a basement with remote access doing terrible things, not a guy who's already broken into your living room and is fondling your stuff. That's not hacking, it's burglary.
And obviously the insurance companies just paid the extra cost and sucked up the difference out of their own pocket? Hmmm... Gouging is gouging no matter who you do it to.
+1 for A&A, I particularly like the option on account signup to choose between Censored and Uncensored Internet Access. If you pick censored it advises you to try another ISP :) There's also a great bit of text that counters the "without filtering how do we control bad guys on the internet" argument...
"We do not have, in our network, any equipment installed to filter access to any part of the public Internet for our customers as a whole. We will give 12 months notice if we ever add any such filtering.
This claim relates to the passing or normal unicast IPv4 and IPv6 packets to and from the public Internet based on the appropriate standards and RFCs. This means packets can be dropped because a link is full or there is a technical fault, or because they are malformed in some way, or clearly spoofed or incorrect source addresses. In the case of some sort of attack we can take steps to manage that. Only packets actually addressed to your IP addresses will get to you, and similarly only packets from you that are from your IP addresses will get to the Internet (BCP38). We don't control the rest of the Internet and so cannot bypass corporate or national firewalls or filtering outside of our network. However, we aim to deal with peers and carriers that have similarly open policies where possible.
An unfiltered service does not give you any right to do anything wrong or illegal, and we can, of course suspend your service for breach of our AUP or non payment. You can run your own firewall or restrictions on your own network or ask us to set up such firewalls for you. Parents are advised to supervise their children's use of the Internet and consider parental controls as appropriate.
We do this because censorship is a bad idea. Even a small amount of censorship for a good cause is the thin end of the wedge and ultimately leads to restriction of free speech. Bear in mind that we may have to restructure your contract for service to be with another company or other legal mechanisms to avoid censorship or monitoring orders."
Thanks Valve!
Yes, there are lots of smaller ISP's in the UK that tend to offer much better service than the big players. I suspect that many of these users will be moving to a smaller provider. Also the big providers tend to offer deals with TV/Phone/Broadband/Kitchen Sink etc etc which aren't actually that great value for money if you don't care about their "value added" catch up TV services, which are mainly inferior versions of iPlayer. I would imagine with people looking a little more critically at their finances these days people will be dumping the addon rubbish, noticing that without this their deal isn't actually that good and moving to a specialised ISP that just gives broadband access at a decent price.
Err, didn't they try this before and users hated it and it's invasion of privacy so much that it nearly caused a court case? What's changed to make it different this time? Oh look, nothing, they're just hoping everyone's forgotten already...
This is actually a good result. Having worked at a UK solicitors (IANAL, I was in IT, this is Slashdot after all...) I know that pretty much the only thing they are scared of is the SRA. Every practising legal firm in the UK requires a license from these guys, no license = no firm, and hopefully this is what will result here.
There is a mechanism for doing this kind of thing already in Windows, via Add/Remove programs and Group Policy. Surely it would be a good idea to try and re-use this rather than re-inventing the wheel.