I think we can assume that they will strike some balance between profitability and user outrage. Obviously, the more users you alienate, the more you risk your ability to profit from a large user base.
I, for one, can't wait for our photo-pwning overlords to use my picture as the Rogaine poster child without compensating me or asking my permission.
A juror also doesn't conduct a criminal investigation, but is arguably more pivotal to the case and certainly much easier to intimidate than a law enforcement official. I would imagine that intimidating a bookish security consultant might effectively curtail a criminal investigation and furthermore these consultants would are less able to defend themselves against intimidation than a law enforcement official. I would argue that the circumstances a security expert beg for collusion between said expert and the state for the purpose of obtaining protection -- or, alternatively, a suffering a conspicuous lack of protection.
In a free and principled society, Mr. Kaspersky's assertions sound noble and grand. Practically speaking, they sound a little too ideal IMHO.
I have no doubt of Mr. Kaspersky's chops (Dr. Kaspersky?), but I think he may not be entirely honest regarding his company's association with governments. In fact he says this:
Moreover, all the world's leading security companies — Symantec, McAfee/Intel, and Kaspersky Lab — we all collaborate with law enforcement bodies in our own countries and worldwide — to help fight cybercrime.
And then later basically contradicts himself:
This may be because we fight malware, we don't conduct criminal investigations.
The definition of "cybercrime" is where things get a bit tricky, no?
Using a new email address doesn't prevent them from learning *something* about you -- you can't easily change your IP address, for instance.
Wouldn't you be able to severely hamper this sort of tracking by turning off third-party cookies? Or perhaps if you select "always use private browsing mode" as an option (a Firefox option).
But, when government steps in, things definitely get hinkey. Because companies can now knock down wages across the board for a given position, they can use the overall savings to actively seek and bring in H1-B workers, and still come out ahead.
I'm confused. Is the government stepping in when it approves the visa or when it denies the visa? Seems to me that denying the visa is more interference -- you have the government interfering with the free movement of people to conduct commerce.
It is debatable whether these H1-B put a drain on the local market. If they are equally productive and get paid half as much as an "American", that means the other half an "American" would be getting paid is still available for investment locally. This other half could manifest itself in a number of ways:
* profits for the employer
* more affordable products for the local market
* additional hiring by the company, creating more jobs (albeit possibly low-paying ones)
Maybe it's the pricey, effete, overpaid local workers who are a drain on the economy?
Additionally, those workers still must eat, buy gasoline, etc. in the local market. While they may send money home, they certainly have to spend some of it here locally.
The most obvious and disconcerting aspect of free trade is when locals are fired and jobs go overseas. The less obvious results are when impossibly cheap goods (appliances, clothing, electronics) appear on the local market.
There are some profoundly interesting examples of folks who have come to the US and brought tremendous intellectual force and entrepreneurial spirit. Andrew Carnegie, Albert Einstein, and Elon Musk come to mind.
I am no economist, but I think it's pretty self-evident that countries who promote free trade benefit tremendously over the long term. Closed ones not so much.
I'd wager there are more algorithms involved than just the 802.11 protocol -- that protocol is the top layer in a stack of technology. Before you even get to the part where you are doing any kind of data handshaking, you might have a proprietary algorithm that filters your raw radio signal to weed out interference. There are also implementations of 802.11 on the market with non-standard features.
Furthermore there is the inevitable forward march to ever-improving 802.11 standards. 802.11g is really old now. 802.11n is even old news. I've seen gobs of 802.11ac on sale at newegg.com and I don't even think the standard has been formalized.
The "algorithms" are absolutely, definitely changing.
unlike the US, the UN actually respects those censorship campaigns (after all, national sovereignty must be respected, even if it violates the UN's definition of human rights) and will try to force everyone else to respect those campaigns
I've heard other people assert this same thing. I was wondering if there's any evidence of the UN actually doing something like this.
Yeah I'm not really worried about balkanized Internet and I'm a total pinko. Metcalfe's Law provides a pretty strong incentive for the connections to work.
Bless you, kind sir. I want so badly to be a good internet citizen and will do my best to spread the IPv6 gospel once I know a little more.
Speaking of ipv6 land rush. How do I get me some ipv6 addresses?
I appreciate this. Given my relatively modest iptables skills, i'm don't entirely understand everything you've said but it does make some sense. I'd greatly appreciate a slightly more basic introduction if anybody knows one.
I'm not pretending to be any expert here, but I'm not using DSL and thus don't have an ADSL modem. I do see that my ubuntu workstation's eth0 interface has an IPV6 address assigned and I suspect that you are suggesting my services are exposed to requests via IPV6 because I have not explicitly blocked/managed them using iptables. This is rather alarming!
Got any useful links?
I'm mostly wondering what to do about my iptables in linux. I have this vague feeling that some day I will be assigned an IPv6 address by my ISP and suddenly I won't be allowed into half my servers. I'm also wondering how to reconfigure my firewall to use IPv6 internally.
This is a good point. I believe that one must be in the driver's seat to get arrested for DUI...laws will no doubt evolve to keep extracting money from us.
were I rich, I would be all over autonomous vehicle for a few reasons:
1) you can probably drive it yourself if you want to speed
2) I could hit the pub and get wrecked and have the car drive me home without worrying about getting arrested for DUI
I agree with your assessment. I suspect it was the desire for more detailed information about the legality or illegality of such files that led to the seizure of property -- they wanted to find out more about the provenance of these files. I can't comment on whether that seizure was legal or not. They had servers in Virginia and other places too. Apparently New Zealand's courts have a different feeling about Kim DotFat's Ferraris and such. I doubt they will go very far in proving anything.
Slashdot Mirror
All your photo are belong to US.
I think we can assume that they will strike some balance between profitability and user outrage. Obviously, the more users you alienate, the more you risk your ability to profit from a large user base. I, for one, can't wait for our photo-pwning overlords to use my picture as the Rogaine poster child without compensating me or asking my permission.
All your photo are belong to us!
A juror also doesn't conduct a criminal investigation, but is arguably more pivotal to the case and certainly much easier to intimidate than a law enforcement official. I would imagine that intimidating a bookish security consultant might effectively curtail a criminal investigation and furthermore these consultants would are less able to defend themselves against intimidation than a law enforcement official. I would argue that the circumstances a security expert beg for collusion between said expert and the state for the purpose of obtaining protection -- or, alternatively, a suffering a conspicuous lack of protection.
In a free and principled society, Mr. Kaspersky's assertions sound noble and grand. Practically speaking, they sound a little too ideal IMHO.
Moreover, all the world's leading security companies — Symantec, McAfee/Intel, and Kaspersky Lab — we all collaborate with law enforcement bodies in our own countries and worldwide — to help fight cybercrime.
And then later basically contradicts himself:
This may be because we fight malware, we don't conduct criminal investigations.
The definition of "cybercrime" is where things get a bit tricky, no?
Using a new email address doesn't prevent them from learning *something* about you -- you can't easily change your IP address, for instance. Wouldn't you be able to severely hamper this sort of tracking by turning off third-party cookies? Or perhaps if you select "always use private browsing mode" as an option (a Firefox option).
But, when government steps in, things definitely get hinkey. Because companies can now knock down wages across the board for a given position, they can use the overall savings to actively seek and bring in H1-B workers, and still come out ahead.
I'm confused. Is the government stepping in when it approves the visa or when it denies the visa? Seems to me that denying the visa is more interference -- you have the government interfering with the free movement of people to conduct commerce.
It is debatable whether these H1-B put a drain on the local market. If they are equally productive and get paid half as much as an "American", that means the other half an "American" would be getting paid is still available for investment locally. This other half could manifest itself in a number of ways: * profits for the employer * more affordable products for the local market * additional hiring by the company, creating more jobs (albeit possibly low-paying ones) Maybe it's the pricey, effete, overpaid local workers who are a drain on the economy? Additionally, those workers still must eat, buy gasoline, etc. in the local market. While they may send money home, they certainly have to spend some of it here locally. The most obvious and disconcerting aspect of free trade is when locals are fired and jobs go overseas. The less obvious results are when impossibly cheap goods (appliances, clothing, electronics) appear on the local market. There are some profoundly interesting examples of folks who have come to the US and brought tremendous intellectual force and entrepreneurial spirit. Andrew Carnegie, Albert Einstein, and Elon Musk come to mind. I am no economist, but I think it's pretty self-evident that countries who promote free trade benefit tremendously over the long term. Closed ones not so much.
I'd wager there are more algorithms involved than just the 802.11 protocol -- that protocol is the top layer in a stack of technology. Before you even get to the part where you are doing any kind of data handshaking, you might have a proprietary algorithm that filters your raw radio signal to weed out interference. There are also implementations of 802.11 on the market with non-standard features. Furthermore there is the inevitable forward march to ever-improving 802.11 standards. 802.11g is really old now. 802.11n is even old news. I've seen gobs of 802.11ac on sale at newegg.com and I don't even think the standard has been formalized. The "algorithms" are absolutely, definitely changing.
Great idea Mortimer! It almost worked with all that Frozen Concentrated OJ.
unlike the US, the UN actually respects those censorship campaigns (after all, national sovereignty must be respected, even if it violates the UN's definition of human rights) and will try to force everyone else to respect those campaigns
I've heard other people assert this same thing. I was wondering if there's any evidence of the UN actually doing something like this.
Yeah I'm not really worried about balkanized Internet and I'm a total pinko. Metcalfe's Law provides a pretty strong incentive for the connections to work.
Bless you, kind sir. I want so badly to be a good internet citizen and will do my best to spread the IPv6 gospel once I know a little more. Speaking of ipv6 land rush. How do I get me some ipv6 addresses?
I appreciate this. Given my relatively modest iptables skills, i'm don't entirely understand everything you've said but it does make some sense. I'd greatly appreciate a slightly more basic introduction if anybody knows one.
I'm not pretending to be any expert here, but I'm not using DSL and thus don't have an ADSL modem. I do see that my ubuntu workstation's eth0 interface has an IPV6 address assigned and I suspect that you are suggesting my services are exposed to requests via IPV6 because I have not explicitly blocked/managed them using iptables. This is rather alarming! Got any useful links?
I'm mostly wondering what to do about my iptables in linux. I have this vague feeling that some day I will be assigned an IPv6 address by my ISP and suddenly I won't be allowed into half my servers. I'm also wondering how to reconfigure my firewall to use IPv6 internally.
That last link doesn't have one spec of advice. It merely describes the problem again. FAIL.
To torture them in person is definitely fun, but to ruin their lives by leaving them unemployed? Much more fun!
This is a good point. I believe that one must be in the driver's seat to get arrested for DUI...laws will no doubt evolve to keep extracting money from us.
Mother of God! You have done me a great service. I will be more careful when I get my autonomous vehicle.
Oh come now. We all know that wealth doesn't trickle down. Just because I'm rich doesn't mean I can't also be cheap.
were I rich, I would be all over autonomous vehicle for a few reasons: 1) you can probably drive it yourself if you want to speed 2) I could hit the pub and get wrecked and have the car drive me home without worrying about getting arrested for DUI
I disagree. Just write LOLWUT? and leave it at that.
I can't wait to see another shitty Tupac. Wait, that's redundant.
I agree with your assessment. I suspect it was the desire for more detailed information about the legality or illegality of such files that led to the seizure of property -- they wanted to find out more about the provenance of these files. I can't comment on whether that seizure was legal or not. They had servers in Virginia and other places too. Apparently New Zealand's courts have a different feeling about Kim DotFat's Ferraris and such. I doubt they will go very far in proving anything.