The business world does not have morals. If it can find a legal way to do something evil and it will make them money with no blowback then they will do it. Often they'll blur that "legal" line anyway.
Duck Duck Go. Noscript. Adblock. Cookie blockers. Maybe they're not 100% effective but fighting against oppression is still better than surrendering and getting the Google/Apple/Microsoft tattoo on your ass.
Will Pro edition allow you to turn this stuff off and disable automatic updates? Becuase can get the Pro version for free but no way am I going to pay that much for an Enterprise edition.
Godwin's law doesn't state that discussion ends. And if someone very obviously is a shill, why not use that label? They may not be a paid shill but they're clearly reiterating Microsoft's talking points, and Microsoft is known to use shills often.
Microsoft lies. They lie often. They're not even good about lying, I've seen 2 year olds with more convincing excuses about where the missing candy went. No one with a brain should trust anything Microsoft says anymore.
It is very nefarious because they are hiding their advertisements inside a security update. Many companies require their workers to accept all Windows security updates. They're only doing this because of a few users who have been smart enough to disable the other advertisements pretending to be updates, but rather than just accepting that those users don't want to see the ads they are resorting to subterfuge.
It's an advertisement for a product we pay for. That in itself is poor behavior. Then week after week of trying to sneak in advertisements with their updates. Oh but the fans claim they weren't sneaking things in because a smart user would inspect each update first before accepting. But then they're including the advertisement hidden in a security update now, clearly disguising the content to try and sneak past the diligent user. Read the security update description and it's obvious that they were trying to disguise what the update included.
How can you possibly not be paranoid at this point?
This is utterly ridiculous. They've arranged things so that even if you're checking each update manually that this can slip by. Because this is done by an*security* update! You have to read really closely, because it says:
This security update resolves several reported vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer. The most severe of these vulnerabilities could allow remote code execution if a user views a specially crafted webpage in Internet Explorer. To learn more about these vulnerabilities, see Microsoft Security Bulletin MS16-023.
Additionally, this security update includes several nonsecurity-related fixes for Internet Explorer.
The last line has a link in it, but it doesn't go anywhere to give you additional information. You have to scroll down to see the list of nonsecurity related fixes, and the last one just says:
Updated Internet Explorer 11 capabilities to upgrade Windows 8.1 and Windows 7
Ta-da, that's the malware right there. Very easy to miss even if you're on the ball.
I mean who the hell works this hard to obscure an advertisement? This is like the Little Rascals trying to sneak into the movie theater by standing on each others shoulders under a trenchcoat while wearing a fake mustache. Except that the Little Rascals are funny whereas this behavior is evil.
"Reliability" is a bit iffy. Many were prone to failure for various reasons. For example the drivers for the memory would be complex, be on separate cards from the memory, involve vacuum tubes, and so forth. The actual memory and it's ability to reliably store and retrieve the data may be good though.
There's also the issue of that memory not having to store so many bits. If you've got 1 failure per billion bit accesses then it seems pretty solid if you've only got 1000 bits but it would be useless if you had one gigabyte.
Plus each bit back then was huge in terms of physical size. With core memory you'd have each bit a few millimeters wide, and a small manufacturing defect leaving a scratch on a magnet won't affect it. But if each bit is a nanometer then you need much tighter manufacturing tolerances and your reliability goes way down.
You seem to be talking about fully associative caches. Most CPUs do not use this as general memory caches. Tag lookup is trivial, but then you have 1 to N ways/sets to look for. The 1 set "direct mapped" caches are very simple. A 4 way set associative cache though only has to check 4 possible entries, and that's not expensive. And 4 or 8 way set associative caches are extremely common. A fully associative cache just isn't practical unless the amount of memory is relatively small, thats's why on a PC where cost is not so important the only places you're likely to see a fully associative cache is for TLB memory (32 entries).
Unless you're part of the investigating team, you're comment is complete conjecture. You don't know what evidence they have.
So we just trust that the government tells the truth and we must do what they ask without question or exercising our rights to disagree and wait for the courts to overturn the writ?
Counsel: Mr Aldridge are you considering the question or are you just dead? [silence] Counsel: I think I'd better take a look m'lord. [looks inside coffin] Counsel: No further questions m'lord. Judge: What do you mean, no further questions? You can't just dump a dead body in my court and say 'no further questions'. I demand an explanation. Counsel: There are no easy answers in this case m'lord.
Precedent says what the courts can do are or likely to do. If someone next year wants to get Apple to crack open a phone so we can find out who ate the last box of Thin Mints from the break room, and Apple says "we can't do that", then the court will think that they indeed were able to crack the phone in the past so they should be able to do it now. Once Apple bends over it becomes much easier the next time they're asked to bend over.
The government here does NOT get to do what it pleases without consequence. There's usually not a lot of punishment involved against the government, usually it's just telling them "no, don't do it again". But there have indeed been many cases where the government has had to pay redress or damages. The courts do have a history of being able to tell the government "no".
The government is actually asking, naively, "if you've got nothing to hide, why are you hiding it?" Because the use of encryption appears to be so rare at the moment it makes a lot of citizens wonder what's up with those people who actually do use encryption.
So the more people who use encryption the better as it will start to seem mundane and common place instead of setting off mental alarms in the people willing to tear up the constitution if only they can be spared the horrors from people who hate our freedom.
The NSA is supposed to deal with foreign intelligence only. The FBI is supposed to deal with domestic criminal investigations only. The fact that both agencies have been trying to expand their reach so that there is functional overlap is evidence that the two agencies are not sharing their secrets with each other so readily.
This is also a domestic terrorism case with no evidence that there is any foreign involvement except for the gut feeling that all terrorism comes from a secret mastermind hidden on a island somewhere off the shore of New Jersey. We know who the shooters were. We know who they called and when, from both the work phone in question and the other phones that were actively used by the shooters. The case is essentially closed, and would be closed if it weren't for politics. The NSA is not going to open its kimono wide to the FBI for a simple case like this one. Cooperation or no, the need to know process is still in effect.
This is domestic terrorism, there is slight evidence that there was any foreign involvement or planning. The FBI needs to make the case that there is a need for cooperation. With this phone however there is not very much probable cause to assume there is any evidence of value on that phone. The FBI wishes such data exists of course, which would allow them to open up *new* investigations only, but their real motivation is not in finding any foreign mastermind of the shootings but instead they want to crack open that door with Apple to enable relatively mundane phone cracking in the future for low level cases (drug crimes, financial crimes, etc).
The FBI *claims* it's a one time only request and we should accept their word on this, except that their word has proven to be unreliable in the past and they certainly can not make this one-time-only pinkie promise on behalf of the entire US goverment or all governments around the world. Once Apple caves in then we already know there is a New York DA highly interested in getting Apple's help fishing through a few buckets full of phones. The courts rely on precedence and this would set a very large precedent for future requests.
Apple is correct in taking this case all the way to the supreme court if they have to. It is their right to do so, and they are in no way unpatriotic for asserting their rights.
A snag is that the FBI does not want to ask, and the NSA does not want to answer. Yes, there is supposed to be cooperative sharing between security related government agencies. However the NSA does not want to give out its best secrets to a law enforcement agency. It's much like Apple in that regard in that if it helps out the FBI just once then it'll open the door for continued requests from the FBI or DOJ in the future. The bar to do this helping from the NSA has to necessarily be set pretty high and involve actual national security issues, not merely a fishing expedition with the slim hope that there's some data on the phone. If the FBI had evidence that there was indeed data of value on the phone and that it involved an ongoing terrorism related investigation, then the NSA might help. The NSA is in the business of national security, whereas the FBI is in the business of making arrests. The NSA is highly jealous of its own knowledge, capabilities, and jurisdiction.
So Snowden is probably right with regards to the NSA which he does know something about, but he's possibly wrong about the FBI and he was little to no knowledge of the FBI internal capabilities. I suspect he's assuming a high degree of sharing between the agencies.
Slashdot Mirror
The business world does not have morals. If it can find a legal way to do something evil and it will make them money with no blowback then they will do it. Often they'll blur that "legal" line anyway.
Duck Duck Go. Noscript. Adblock. Cookie blockers. Maybe they're not 100% effective but fighting against oppression is still better than surrendering and getting the Google/Apple/Microsoft tattoo on your ass.
Will Pro edition allow you to turn this stuff off and disable automatic updates? Becuase can get the Pro version for free but no way am I going to pay that much for an Enterprise edition.
Godwin's law doesn't state that discussion ends.
And if someone very obviously is a shill, why not use that label? They may not be a paid shill but they're clearly reiterating Microsoft's talking points, and Microsoft is known to use shills often.
Microsoft is essentially jealous of Google. They want to spy on all the data too.
Do you implement telemetry without telling your customers? Do you forbid your customers from turning off the telemetry?
Privacy is a part of security.
The only reason Windows 10 is better for security is because all the malware will come from a single source; Microsoft.
Microsoft lies. They lie often. They're not even good about lying, I've seen 2 year olds with more convincing excuses about where the missing candy went. No one with a brain should trust anything Microsoft says anymore.
It is very nefarious because they are hiding their advertisements inside a security update. Many companies require their workers to accept all Windows security updates. They're only doing this because of a few users who have been smart enough to disable the other advertisements pretending to be updates, but rather than just accepting that those users don't want to see the ads they are resorting to subterfuge.
It's an advertisement for a product we pay for. That in itself is poor behavior. Then week after week of trying to sneak in advertisements with their updates. Oh but the fans claim they weren't sneaking things in because a smart user would inspect each update first before accepting. But then they're including the advertisement hidden in a security update now, clearly disguising the content to try and sneak past the diligent user. Read the security update description and it's obvious that they were trying to disguise what the update included.
How can you possibly not be paranoid at this point?
This is utterly ridiculous. They've arranged things so that even if you're checking each update manually that this can slip by. Because this is done by an*security* update! You have to read really closely, because it says:
This security update resolves several reported vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer. The most severe of these vulnerabilities could allow remote code execution if a user views a specially crafted webpage in Internet Explorer. To learn more about these vulnerabilities, see Microsoft Security Bulletin MS16-023.
Additionally, this security update includes several nonsecurity-related fixes for Internet Explorer.
The last line has a link in it, but it doesn't go anywhere to give you additional information. You have to scroll down to see the list of nonsecurity related fixes, and the last one just says:
Updated Internet Explorer 11 capabilities to upgrade Windows 8.1 and Windows 7
Ta-da, that's the malware right there. Very easy to miss even if you're on the ball.
I mean who the hell works this hard to obscure an advertisement? This is like the Little Rascals trying to sneak into the movie theater by standing on each others shoulders under a trenchcoat while wearing a fake mustache. Except that the Little Rascals are funny whereas this behavior is evil.
"Reliability" is a bit iffy. Many were prone to failure for various reasons. For example the drivers for the memory would be complex, be on separate cards from the memory, involve vacuum tubes, and so forth. The actual memory and it's ability to reliably store and retrieve the data may be good though.
There's also the issue of that memory not having to store so many bits. If you've got 1 failure per billion bit accesses then it seems pretty solid if you've only got 1000 bits but it would be useless if you had one gigabyte.
Plus each bit back then was huge in terms of physical size. With core memory you'd have each bit a few millimeters wide, and a small manufacturing defect leaving a scratch on a magnet won't affect it. But if each bit is a nanometer then you need much tighter manufacturing tolerances and your reliability goes way down.
You seem to be talking about fully associative caches. Most CPUs do not use this as general memory caches. Tag lookup is trivial, but then you have 1 to N ways/sets to look for. The 1 set "direct mapped" caches are very simple. A 4 way set associative cache though only has to check 4 possible entries, and that's not expensive. And 4 or 8 way set associative caches are extremely common. A fully associative cache just isn't practical unless the amount of memory is relatively small, thats's why on a PC where cost is not so important the only places you're likely to see a fully associative cache is for TLB memory (32 entries).
It's ok, 4.2BSD still works fine.
Unless you're part of the investigating team, you're comment is complete conjecture. You don't know what evidence they have.
So we just trust that the government tells the truth and we must do what they ask without question or exercising our rights to disagree and wait for the courts to overturn the writ?
To the tune of My Country 'Tis Of Thee:
My Own Plutocracy,
Sweet Oligocracy,
Of thee I sing.
Land where my money's spent
On those who who represent,
Each child and innocent,
I would be king!
Putin is a Real Man and does not wear skirts. Or shirts. Nobody hides behind Putin. Except Medyedev.
Trump's first day in office he'll build a wall along the Atlantic and Snowden will have trouble climbing over it.
Counsel: Mr Aldridge are you considering the question or are you just dead?
[silence]
Counsel: I think I'd better take a look m'lord.
[looks inside coffin]
Counsel: No further questions m'lord.
Judge: What do you mean, no further questions? You can't just dump a dead body in my court and say 'no further questions'. I demand an explanation.
Counsel: There are no easy answers in this case m'lord.
However it seems, reality can be as weird as Monty Python: http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/...
Precedent says what the courts can do are or likely to do. If someone next year wants to get Apple to crack open a phone so we can find out who ate the last box of Thin Mints from the break room, and Apple says "we can't do that", then the court will think that they indeed were able to crack the phone in the past so they should be able to do it now. Once Apple bends over it becomes much easier the next time they're asked to bend over.
The government here does NOT get to do what it pleases without consequence. There's usually not a lot of punishment involved against the government, usually it's just telling them "no, don't do it again". But there have indeed been many cases where the government has had to pay redress or damages. The courts do have a history of being able to tell the government "no".
Everyone knows you can get away with any insults as long as you use the words "with all due respect" or "respectfully".
The government is actually asking, naively, "if you've got nothing to hide, why are you hiding it?" Because the use of encryption appears to be so rare at the moment it makes a lot of citizens wonder what's up with those people who actually do use encryption.
So the more people who use encryption the better as it will start to seem mundane and common place instead of setting off mental alarms in the people willing to tear up the constitution if only they can be spared the horrors from people who hate our freedom.
The NSA is supposed to deal with foreign intelligence only. The FBI is supposed to deal with domestic criminal investigations only. The fact that both agencies have been trying to expand their reach so that there is functional overlap is evidence that the two agencies are not sharing their secrets with each other so readily.
This is also a domestic terrorism case with no evidence that there is any foreign involvement except for the gut feeling that all terrorism comes from a secret mastermind hidden on a island somewhere off the shore of New Jersey. We know who the shooters were. We know who they called and when, from both the work phone in question and the other phones that were actively used by the shooters. The case is essentially closed, and would be closed if it weren't for politics. The NSA is not going to open its kimono wide to the FBI for a simple case like this one. Cooperation or no, the need to know process is still in effect.
This is domestic terrorism, there is slight evidence that there was any foreign involvement or planning. The FBI needs to make the case that there is a need for cooperation. With this phone however there is not very much probable cause to assume there is any evidence of value on that phone. The FBI wishes such data exists of course, which would allow them to open up *new* investigations only, but their real motivation is not in finding any foreign mastermind of the shootings but instead they want to crack open that door with Apple to enable relatively mundane phone cracking in the future for low level cases (drug crimes, financial crimes, etc).
The FBI *claims* it's a one time only request and we should accept their word on this, except that their word has proven to be unreliable in the past and they certainly can not make this one-time-only pinkie promise on behalf of the entire US goverment or all governments around the world. Once Apple caves in then we already know there is a New York DA highly interested in getting Apple's help fishing through a few buckets full of phones. The courts rely on precedence and this would set a very large precedent for future requests.
Apple is correct in taking this case all the way to the supreme court if they have to. It is their right to do so, and they are in no way unpatriotic for asserting their rights.
A snag is that the FBI does not want to ask, and the NSA does not want to answer. Yes, there is supposed to be cooperative sharing between security related government agencies. However the NSA does not want to give out its best secrets to a law enforcement agency. It's much like Apple in that regard in that if it helps out the FBI just once then it'll open the door for continued requests from the FBI or DOJ in the future. The bar to do this helping from the NSA has to necessarily be set pretty high and involve actual national security issues, not merely a fishing expedition with the slim hope that there's some data on the phone. If the FBI had evidence that there was indeed data of value on the phone and that it involved an ongoing terrorism related investigation, then the NSA might help. The NSA is in the business of national security, whereas the FBI is in the business of making arrests. The NSA is highly jealous of its own knowledge, capabilities, and jurisdiction.
So Snowden is probably right with regards to the NSA which he does know something about, but he's possibly wrong about the FBI and he was little to no knowledge of the FBI internal capabilities. I suspect he's assuming a high degree of sharing between the agencies.