The evidence existing to support this claim that handwriting analysts make is somewhere between horrible and nonexistent. Not to mention that a professional handwriting analyst has an obvious bias; they want to remain employed.
If you managed to infringe on a work, it should mean that you either had access to something that you didn't create, thus implying it is copyrighted until you can show otherwise, or it shouldn't be something worthy of copyright. A better question would be, how do you license a copyrighted work if you are unable to contact the property holder? This question has been a major issue that the Google Books plan has had to deal with, and what prevented it from putting everything it had ever scanned on sale, as it had originally intended (which would've been REALLY NICE).
I haven't been in the telecom world for a little while, but, IIRC, this is a tricky thing to do on 3G, and nearly impossible on 4G. You need to get access to the user's private key, which, if the system is coding correctly, you shouldn't have access to without cracking another box. 2G is insecure as Hell, but everyone knows that.
And yeah, they don't even need your phone number, if you get access to the user's local network, figuring their phone number out is a breeze.
Wow, the first comment on/. is actually the RIGHT one for a change! This place is slowly getting better!
I used to write software for MSCs, an important part of mobile SS7 networks. And, yeah, big surprise, if you hack the thing that handles transporting messages that use an antiquated half-assed standard like SMS, then you can see unencrypted stuff. SHOCK. And yes, you would likely be able to access billing messages, but that doesn't mean Credit Card numbers. Billing messages means, "your account has made a 35 minute call using billing-plan-A", which in this day and age almost always means unlimited minutes, so who cares?"
It's a "Big Problem" to people who read Fortune Magazine. If business don't know everything about you, it's harder to exploit you deliver you the very best in personalized targeted premium content!
You can? If so, (no sarcasm) that's an incredible and lucrative skill you've got there! You know, if you show an employer that you are able to get an app certified without the project costing $100,000, they'd probably be happy to employ you for like $250,000 a year! Oh..wait, I found the flaw.
I mean, sure UI design by committee is a wonderful and common way to waste money, but even with pretty efficient development houses, you pretty much cannot design anything involving custom software for much less than a million dollars.
This likely started out as an investigation of the problem. People doing research and modeling to determine what an optimal scenario would be to manage the issue of line-gaming. They probably tried out all sorts of clever and more complicated ideas that all had little problems of their own. Finally, at the end of it all, the conclusion is reached that 2 lines and a randomized coinflip mechanism is the best solution. I'd go into explaining just how friggin' expensive it is to employ people like developers and testers, and all the other people involved in writing custom software but, long story short, $336k would be about right for developing a stable custom application. The additional money, if applied to things like support contracts and hardware, would also not be surprising.
Is it stupid? Sorta. But imagine the alternative. Instead of all that mess, a bright person at TSA looked at the problem, correctly made the educated guess that splitting people into 2 lines via a randomizer app was the right move, and then distributes a FOSS coinflip app or a dirt-cheap CotS app. This is all well and good until the educated guess turns out to be wrong. Or the unevaluated software has a glaring exploitable security flaw in it. Then instead of the article we see here, we get an article saying the TSA was completely stupid for not looking into this stuff decent enough to catch these sort of massive flaws. In the unlikely event that any of these problems contributed to a successful attack, the public would be screaming for blood.
So yeah, 2 lessons here: custom professional software is pretty much always going to be really expensive, and an entity like TSA, given it's role, is pretty much always going to get stuck eating the cost of employing appropriate Risk Management techniques.
Exactly. I pretty much only watch the obscure stuff on Netflix. Fortunately, a lot of the obscure stuff is also inde stuff, and those titles tend to be far far easier to license; so they're more likely to stay up. But yeah, if that starts to dry up, I'll drop my subscription without looking back.
The distributors of the film licenses have realized that streaming is pretty much their entire market these days. So they've learned that they should be asking for more money from them in order to stay afloat. Depending on the license agreement, Netflix will either pay a negotiated flat-rate to have unlimited streaming rights, a fee per view, or a combination of the two. But it's very rarely going to just be a fee per view. So when Netflix' license to a movie ends, they have to think long and hard before deciding to relicense it, if they are given the opportunity at all. Now that there's competition from Amazon, Hulu, and Google Play, the licensing company may very well have already promised the next time chunk to someone else.
Because someone else has already hired them. When you put out a job offer and get 10 men and 0 women, you don't wait another month, you hire a man. But whatever, this data is shit anyway. A sample size of less then 200 people out of 500,000 total self-described as a "computer programmer". If you look at their stat for software engineers, it is not nearly so divergent.
Slashdot Mirror
The evidence existing to support this claim that handwriting analysts make is somewhere between horrible and nonexistent. Not to mention that a professional handwriting analyst has an obvious bias; they want to remain employed.
To be fair, 3.5mm headphone jacks are _far_ from robust. I don't think I have ever had any other connector in any medium flake out on me more.
I'm pretty sure it did. It was part of the "Direct connect" feature, I thought. I think it even displayed a little key icon when it was in effect...
Didn't AOL Instant Messenger add this feature like 15 years ago?
That's not even a secret. It's called CALEA.
If you managed to infringe on a work, it should mean that you either had access to something that you didn't create, thus implying it is copyrighted until you can show otherwise, or it shouldn't be something worthy of copyright. A better question would be, how do you license a copyrighted work if you are unable to contact the property holder? This question has been a major issue that the Google Books plan has had to deal with, and what prevented it from putting everything it had ever scanned on sale, as it had originally intended (which would've been REALLY NICE).
And yeah, they don't even need your phone number, if you get access to the user's local network, figuring their phone number out is a breeze.
I used to write software for MSCs, an important part of mobile SS7 networks. And, yeah, big surprise, if you hack the thing that handles transporting messages that use an antiquated half-assed standard like SMS, then you can see unencrypted stuff. SHOCK. And yes, you would likely be able to access billing messages, but that doesn't mean Credit Card numbers. Billing messages means, "your account has made a 35 minute call using billing-plan-A", which in this day and age almost always means unlimited minutes, so who cares?"
I mean that I really do appreciate it. Keep up the good work!
Manishs, you seem to actually critically read articles before posting them, and you actually provide insight after the summary. What is up with that?
Wow! Code like this, you should be in management!
That kid's name? Albert Einstein.
It's a "Big Problem" to people who read Fortune Magazine. If business don't know everything about you, it's harder to exploit you deliver you the very best in personalized targeted premium content!
All that mattered to people was that it was better than MySpace.
Robots cannot own things. So do they have the capability to have "private parts"?
Underpants for Hideki!
You can? If so, (no sarcasm) that's an incredible and lucrative skill you've got there! You know, if you show an employer that you are able to get an app certified without the project costing $100,000, they'd probably be happy to employ you for like $250,000 a year! Oh..wait, I found the flaw.
Yeah! We also need a better mousetrap and a good 5-cent cigar! I'll have the boys in the lab start working on these projects right away!
This likely started out as an investigation of the problem. People doing research and modeling to determine what an optimal scenario would be to manage the issue of line-gaming. They probably tried out all sorts of clever and more complicated ideas that all had little problems of their own. Finally, at the end of it all, the conclusion is reached that 2 lines and a randomized coinflip mechanism is the best solution. I'd go into explaining just how friggin' expensive it is to employ people like developers and testers, and all the other people involved in writing custom software but, long story short, $336k would be about right for developing a stable custom application. The additional money, if applied to things like support contracts and hardware, would also not be surprising.
Is it stupid? Sorta. But imagine the alternative. Instead of all that mess, a bright person at TSA looked at the problem, correctly made the educated guess that splitting people into 2 lines via a randomizer app was the right move, and then distributes a FOSS coinflip app or a dirt-cheap CotS app. This is all well and good until the educated guess turns out to be wrong. Or the unevaluated software has a glaring exploitable security flaw in it. Then instead of the article we see here, we get an article saying the TSA was completely stupid for not looking into this stuff decent enough to catch these sort of massive flaws. In the unlikely event that any of these problems contributed to a successful attack, the public would be screaming for blood.
So yeah, 2 lessons here: custom professional software is pretty much always going to be really expensive, and an entity like TSA, given it's role, is pretty much always going to get stuck eating the cost of employing appropriate Risk Management techniques.
No. He means the movie, Stranger Than Fiction.
This model was tried before. It was called Napster. When they tried to go legit, the company sank like a stone. Everyone left.
Exactly. I pretty much only watch the obscure stuff on Netflix. Fortunately, a lot of the obscure stuff is also inde stuff, and those titles tend to be far far easier to license; so they're more likely to stay up. But yeah, if that starts to dry up, I'll drop my subscription without looking back.
The distributors of the film licenses have realized that streaming is pretty much their entire market these days. So they've learned that they should be asking for more money from them in order to stay afloat. Depending on the license agreement, Netflix will either pay a negotiated flat-rate to have unlimited streaming rights, a fee per view, or a combination of the two. But it's very rarely going to just be a fee per view. So when Netflix' license to a movie ends, they have to think long and hard before deciding to relicense it, if they are given the opportunity at all. Now that there's competition from Amazon, Hulu, and Google Play, the licensing company may very well have already promised the next time chunk to someone else.
Because someone else has already hired them. When you put out a job offer and get 10 men and 0 women, you don't wait another month, you hire a man. But whatever, this data is shit anyway. A sample size of less then 200 people out of 500,000 total self-described as a "computer programmer". If you look at their stat for software engineers, it is not nearly so divergent.
Sausages. Old. Smelly. Sausages. EVERYWHERE.