If you look at how good / bad the YouTube content-id system works you can infer how this system works. Probably the same tech, which has some leeway for fuzzy mapping.
Hope that it is just some characteristics, such as file hashes. Because the DB with actual pictures, even "not searchable", would probably be illegal at least as the laws are spelled out currently.
Making it more difficult to find may just be one portion of the strategy - no doubt the location of the images is reported to the relevant authorities, and then it's their job to take up the issue. Perhaps reducing access to the material will reduce the ability for people that search for it to find it, which may reduce the number of cases where the activity escalates to direct abuse. Maybe it'll increase the number of abuse cases as they're unable to relieve their desires and turn to local sources.
Although I think that people abusing children should be outright shot. I have trouble following the logic of the above statement. There used to be a under the counter market for such material and big bucks could be made with it. (The internet basically killed that market, hopefully.) Here there was a real economic incentive to produce material and demand encouraged production. But now, thanks to police work, there is little to no commercial trade of the material. Because the material is such a hot potato, people searching and distributing the material are forced to use means of strong anonymisation and thus no economic transaction can occur. I think most CP created nowadays is distributed along the same lines are people uploading their private videos to porn sharing sites.
The service by Google is very useful to prevent from services hosting the stuff. Since hosting stuff, even for a very short period of time is always bad PR. What Google builds is basically for PR, for Google and everybody using it.
The TFS I read, pretty clearly warns that the PHBs are about to be inundated with convincing but misleading information about an old technology.
The technology is nothing new as mentioned and disagreed in the AllThingD article "We’ve been doing this since the 80s.". The new thing is the business model of operating a data center, rending out the hardware and combine it with visualization and automation software. But if you already have a data center you are and if you don't you should be using some form of automated provisioning.
The only real change I have seen in the space is that (visualized) hardware is not rented by the hour instead of a 12 month contract. But that is not what either articles are about... Nothing new under the sun.
You can, but do you want to? My experience is that cloud computing, especially EC2 is quite expensive. The only benefit you get is elasticity (the E in EC2), that is you can react to radical load changes. But most enterprise applications have very predicable use patterns and are mostly flat (9-5 Mo-Fr). In almost all cases having your own servers is the cheaper solution and WAY simpler to deploy. (If you are paranoid you may still use virtual machines are servers for quit failover.)
Actually NO! Keep voting for your third party of choice! The third party vote is NOT a vote wasted. If you don't vote your vote is wasted. If you vote for the lesser evil your vote is wasted. We need to break the cycle of the two party system in the US. Actually any third party would help shake up the situation.
False Analogy: Russia has the ability to nuke us. We have the ability to retaliate with a nuke. We are not invulnerable to a nuke attack.
Except for DDOS this analogy falls on it's nose. If you have the ability to hack (DDOS != hack) you know about computer systems and security well enough to prevent basically all hacks. Third party software being a trouble stop, but nothing you can't mitigate.
You don't have to convince the inspector that you'd be doing all that for the rest of your life.
Which is pure and simple bad. Have you ever pondered at how much energy is stored in a driving car and how much damage that can do. It is just like with weapons... oh wait...
And yet you see people flying at low altitudes at 200 km/h (125 mph) in the rain. Driving 200 km/h may be legal in Germany under certain circumstances, but never bad weather conditions is not one of them. The high requirements are there, but it does not keep morons from driving.
I actually know that. In areas like Texas you basically will not see public transportation, save the few buses in the center of town. There is a good reason for that, it would never be economically feasible in such sparsely populated area. But they actually thought about building a high speed train (from the airport) connecting the cities Austin, Dallas, San Antonio and Huston. Last time i heard something about that project was in the 90s. But the TFA is referring more densely populated to areas like Europe or Japan.
What I was referring to was that any "serious" plane trip is almost certainly not direct. Going to the respective centers of town will not improve the situation.
Public transportation, yes, long distance high speed trains, except Frankfurt no. So far I know from Berlin, Munich, Paris, Toulouse, Amsterdam and Dublin where there is bus or light rail connected to the airport. (Forget about US Airports) The only airport I know that half does it right is Frankfurt where the ICE train station is connected through an air bridge to the terminal. If you fly with Lufthansa (~75% of all flights) you can actually even check in your luggage near the train station. This is great, since you don't need to lug them around the airport and the line is almost always shorter.
With London I simply don't know. I traveled through London often (mostly Gatwick) but never left the international zone. (The three times I visited London, I did not fly there.) But does Britain actually have high speed trains? *ducks*
Bwahahahahaha! Funny how that is so wrong. In the case of copyright, no license means "All rights reserved". There no amount of hijacking your stuff with "All rights reserved".
On average there are more people on a train than on an airplane. True that you can't fly a train into a building but derailing a train in the center Berlin, Paris or New York would still create some serious damage (more infrastructure than people). If you look at the risks involved the New York subway should have tighter security than the NY Airport, but that is just not feasible, to many people going through the system. It works because the amount of people to move through an airport is "not that much" (in comparison) and people have come to accept it. They think that it is for their own good, since when things go wrong on an airplane it makes the news for the next year, not so true for trains.
I totally agree with you on that, at least for areas that have no body of water in the way, high speed trains is the way to go. Maglev is currently and may be never an economical option, the tracks are to expensive. In current designs the train is almost passive and the track contains all the coils and electricity. Which results in loots of expensive copper that is only used for a very short time. With conventional trains the track is relatively cheap, so expect more conventional high speed trains, maybe even in vacuum / low pressure tubes. The Swiss are actively researching such an option, since they need to build a tunnel for large parts of their network why not just build it a little deeper and longer and depressurize it. The train running through it will be running on conventional tracks, even in parts not covered by a vacuum tube.
In addition the solution in the article / video over-engineers the problem. The places where you need a train/airplane cross over, just let the train "go right into the terminal" like any connecting flight. I probably will not have a direct connection anyway, so what is the big deal if I change plane to plane or train to plane. It also adds an additional problem, if I need to fly Berlin - Frankfurt - Huston - Austin, with the train solution I get the additional ride to the center of town instead of switching in the airport. Now if they would implement baggage check in for trains...
Show me one place where "the cloud" is actually cheaper than in house servers on a total cost of ownership. True, it depends on your needs but if you can max out servers 24/7 you are almost always cheaper running inhouse. Most small to medium companies can run their entire IT needs off of one 10 year old server maintained by a guy that comes in twice a month. (The problem of finding talented people is a real issue.) You may want to use offsite backup, but caring a hard drive to a bank vault cheaper than web storage. If you have widely varying server loads, hourly VPS rental may make sense, but here you need more and better trained admins and developers to orchestrate the servers. Then if you have large enough requirements to run your own data center, that is almost always cheaper, since the Amazons and Googles have the same costs and they want to make some profit.
Unless you totally have no trained people on hand. It makes sense to outsource "minor" fields, that are not your competence. In a smallish IT firm I would, without a hesitation, outsource legal, accounting or travel. This is until you are large enough to hire a half a dozen people that work in that field, but then you are not a smalish company anymore.
I see many problems with inhouse "cost centers", not in their actual efficiency but int he accounting model used to evaluate their cost. If you get bill for storage by the MB other departments will not want to use the bare minimum and try to go though loopholes (buying their own infrastructure) to reduce their cost. But in the case of storage the people running the servers are the most expensive bit, a few drives extra cost peanuts in comparison. Many of these type of cost models incentiveise the wrong thing resulting in inefficiently running departments. Outsourcing does not help much, since they almost always provide a whose service, but their are "cheaper", in that you actually pay less.
Actually stuxnet targets the PCs that run the engineering software for SCADA systems (like mine). It then alters the SPS' program, if it is a of a special configuration. The next regularly scheduled download into the SPS will then ensure then the altered program gets executed. This worked quite well, since you don't see what you are compiling and downloading, but I am currently working on a feature that would have made that more obvious... maybe... if you can see the three little changes under the thousands others.
But I think GP's post was not about stuxnet but about cyber "weapons" in general and in that case I totally agree with him.
Slashdot Mirror
age of consent != age to publish pornographic content
AFAIK almost everywhere you have to be an adult (18/21) to view and publish pornographic content.
If you look at how good / bad the YouTube content-id system works you can infer how this system works. Probably the same tech, which has some leeway for fuzzy mapping.
Hope that it is just some characteristics, such as file hashes. Because the DB with actual pictures, even "not searchable", would probably be illegal at least as the laws are spelled out currently.
Making it more difficult to find may just be one portion of the strategy - no doubt the location of the images is reported to the relevant authorities, and then it's their job to take up the issue. Perhaps reducing access to the material will reduce the ability for people that search for it to find it, which may reduce the number of cases where the activity escalates to direct abuse. Maybe it'll increase the number of abuse cases as they're unable to relieve their desires and turn to local sources.
Although I think that people abusing children should be outright shot. I have trouble following the logic of the above statement. There used to be a under the counter market for such material and big bucks could be made with it. (The internet basically killed that market, hopefully.) Here there was a real economic incentive to produce material and demand encouraged production. But now, thanks to police work, there is little to no commercial trade of the material. Because the material is such a hot potato, people searching and distributing the material are forced to use means of strong anonymisation and thus no economic transaction can occur. I think most CP created nowadays is distributed along the same lines are people uploading their private videos to porn sharing sites.
The service by Google is very useful to prevent from services hosting the stuff. Since hosting stuff, even for a very short period of time is always bad PR. What Google builds is basically for PR, for Google and everybody using it.
Not much better if they start a cooperation with Motorola. (Solutions vs. Mobility)
FTFY:
The TFS I read, pretty clearly warns that the PHBs are about to be inundated with convincing but misleading information about an old technology.
The technology is nothing new as mentioned and disagreed in the AllThingD article "We’ve been doing this since the 80s.". The new thing is the business model of operating a data center, rending out the hardware and combine it with visualization and automation software. But if you already have a data center you are and if you don't you should be using some form of automated provisioning.
The only real change I have seen in the space is that (visualized) hardware is not rented by the hour instead of a 12 month contract. But that is not what either articles are about... Nothing new under the sun.
You can, but do you want to? My experience is that cloud computing, especially EC2 is quite expensive. The only benefit you get is elasticity (the E in EC2), that is you can react to radical load changes. But most enterprise applications have very predicable use patterns and are mostly flat (9-5 Mo-Fr). In almost all cases having your own servers is the cheaper solution and WAY simpler to deploy. (If you are paranoid you may still use virtual machines are servers for quit failover.)
Actually NO! Keep voting for your third party of choice! The third party vote is NOT a vote wasted. If you don't vote your vote is wasted. If you vote for the lesser evil your vote is wasted. We need to break the cycle of the two party system in the US. Actually any third party would help shake up the situation.
FTFY:
That means six Wlefts make an airplane.
To assist your reading comprehension:
Cleanse anything that goes into a database. Get a model layer that does this for you.
Like the dummy admin pages it may help to generate input for automatic ip blocklists.
FTFY:
False Analogy: Russia has the ability to nuke us. We have the ability to retaliate with a nuke. We are not invulnerable to a nuke attack.
Except for DDOS this analogy falls on it's nose. If you have the ability to hack (DDOS != hack) you know about computer systems and security well enough to prevent basically all hacks. Third party software being a trouble stop, but nothing you can't mitigate.
You don't have to convince the inspector that you'd be doing all that for the rest of your life.
Which is pure and simple bad. Have you ever pondered at how much energy is stored in a driving car and how much damage that can do. It is just like with weapons... oh wait...
And yet you see people flying at low altitudes at 200 km/h (125 mph) in the rain. Driving 200 km/h may be legal in Germany under certain circumstances, but never bad weather conditions is not one of them. The high requirements are there, but it does not keep morons from driving.
I actually know that. In areas like Texas you basically will not see public transportation, save the few buses in the center of town. There is a good reason for that, it would never be economically feasible in such sparsely populated area. But they actually thought about building a high speed train (from the airport) connecting the cities Austin, Dallas, San Antonio and Huston. Last time i heard something about that project was in the 90s. But the TFA is referring more densely populated to areas like Europe or Japan.
What I was referring to was that any "serious" plane trip is almost certainly not direct. Going to the respective centers of town will not improve the situation.
Public transportation, yes, long distance high speed trains, except Frankfurt no. So far I know from Berlin, Munich, Paris, Toulouse, Amsterdam and Dublin where there is bus or light rail connected to the airport. (Forget about US Airports) The only airport I know that half does it right is Frankfurt where the ICE train station is connected through an air bridge to the terminal. If you fly with Lufthansa (~75% of all flights) you can actually even check in your luggage near the train station. This is great, since you don't need to lug them around the airport and the line is almost always shorter.
With London I simply don't know. I traveled through London often (mostly Gatwick) but never left the international zone. (The three times I visited London, I did not fly there.) But does Britain actually have high speed trains? *ducks*
Bwahahahahaha! Funny how that is so wrong. In the case of copyright, no license means "All rights reserved". There no amount of hijacking your stuff with "All rights reserved".
Wait was this stuff not called genetics, like two seconds ago? Whats the difference between genetics and genomics?
Come back to me when you invented FTL and found a suitable "M class" planet. Yea then we can all just "move away".
On average there are more people on a train than on an airplane. True that you can't fly a train into a building but derailing a train in the center Berlin, Paris or New York would still create some serious damage (more infrastructure than people). If you look at the risks involved the New York subway should have tighter security than the NY Airport, but that is just not feasible, to many people going through the system. It works because the amount of people to move through an airport is "not that much" (in comparison) and people have come to accept it. They think that it is for their own good, since when things go wrong on an airplane it makes the news for the next year, not so true for trains.
I totally agree with you on that, at least for areas that have no body of water in the way, high speed trains is the way to go. Maglev is currently and may be never an economical option, the tracks are to expensive. In current designs the train is almost passive and the track contains all the coils and electricity. Which results in loots of expensive copper that is only used for a very short time. With conventional trains the track is relatively cheap, so expect more conventional high speed trains, maybe even in vacuum / low pressure tubes. The Swiss are actively researching such an option, since they need to build a tunnel for large parts of their network why not just build it a little deeper and longer and depressurize it. The train running through it will be running on conventional tracks, even in parts not covered by a vacuum tube.
In addition the solution in the article / video over-engineers the problem. The places where you need a train/airplane cross over, just let the train "go right into the terminal" like any connecting flight. I probably will not have a direct connection anyway, so what is the big deal if I change plane to plane or train to plane. It also adds an additional problem, if I need to fly Berlin - Frankfurt - Huston - Austin, with the train solution I get the additional ride to the center of town instead of switching in the airport. Now if they would implement baggage check in for trains...
WOW that is cheap. In Germany you pay 18 EUR per month for public television and radio.
Show me one place where "the cloud" is actually cheaper than in house servers on a total cost of ownership. True, it depends on your needs but if you can max out servers 24/7 you are almost always cheaper running inhouse. Most small to medium companies can run their entire IT needs off of one 10 year old server maintained by a guy that comes in twice a month. (The problem of finding talented people is a real issue.) You may want to use offsite backup, but caring a hard drive to a bank vault cheaper than web storage. If you have widely varying server loads, hourly VPS rental may make sense, but here you need more and better trained admins and developers to orchestrate the servers. Then if you have large enough requirements to run your own data center, that is almost always cheaper, since the Amazons and Googles have the same costs and they want to make some profit.
Unless you totally have no trained people on hand. It makes sense to outsource "minor" fields, that are not your competence. In a smallish IT firm I would, without a hesitation, outsource legal, accounting or travel. This is until you are large enough to hire a half a dozen people that work in that field, but then you are not a smalish company anymore.
I see many problems with inhouse "cost centers", not in their actual efficiency but int he accounting model used to evaluate their cost. If you get bill for storage by the MB other departments will not want to use the bare minimum and try to go though loopholes (buying their own infrastructure) to reduce their cost. But in the case of storage the people running the servers are the most expensive bit, a few drives extra cost peanuts in comparison. Many of these type of cost models incentiveise the wrong thing resulting in inefficiently running departments. Outsourcing does not help much, since they almost always provide a whose service, but their are "cheaper", in that you actually pay less.
Did you not read it. The CIA issues it sometime in the 80s
Actually stuxnet targets the PCs that run the engineering software for SCADA systems (like mine). It then alters the SPS' program, if it is a of a special configuration. The next regularly scheduled download into the SPS will then ensure then the altered program gets executed. This worked quite well, since you don't see what you are compiling and downloading, but I am currently working on a feature that would have made that more obvious... maybe... if you can see the three little changes under the thousands others.
But I think GP's post was not about stuxnet but about cyber "weapons" in general and in that case I totally agree with him.