The government is lucky this Kaspersky scare is bullshit, then. If this had been an actual emergency (e.g. the software were doing something bad, whether by design or due to some random bug that you can't fix because it's proprietary), sounds like everything would be totally fucked.
I'm just glad it's not a puppy preserve! Imagine cute little puppies running around yelping as they burn to death. Ugh. We really lucked out this time.
To be fair, that's pretty much what we're doing whenever we give money to projects like OpenBSD or to advocacy groups like EFF. Giving free money in the hopes that you might get something back isn't stupid as long as you remember "give" is a major key word here, and "in the hopes" is as light and unbinding as it appears. As long as you really understand you might get nothin', it ain't stupid.
Sometimes you just wanna throw money at someone who you think is doing the right thing, so that they can keep on kicking ass, because you wanna see asses get kicked. I personally wouldn't ever get excited about some headphones, but we all have our opinions about what's important. No need for us all to be on the same page.
If you want it easier and faster, then just get rid of the phones and have the processes connect to sockets and perform RFCwhatever appointment-making protocol.
I have to ask: is the desirability of the behavior that you describe, really limited to chatbots?
If you're going to do something as extreme as have a law (i.e. this is very serious shit, such that we're willing to escalate to the use of force), then I think we should avoid letting double standards creep in.
You must have had some weird unpleasant experience with some kind of proprietary music format or service. Not a single issue that you raise, is related to digital-vs-analog. If we changed "digital" to "[censored]" everyone would probably guess you were talking about how much you love CDs.
If 10% of the population went on record and disclosed their SSNs publicly it would shut down the SSN as a 'secret code.' It's time for it to happen.
It has happened; that's what the story is about. 50-100% Americans already did, whether we wanted to or not.
The information is no longer secret; we know for sure that it is definitely in the hands of ne'er-do-wells. Anyone who uses it for authentication is definitely, 100% being negligent without any possibility that they're trying to do the right thing or even slightly being diligent. If loans have been made based on this, we know that the loaning institution is almost certainly reporting their assets fraudulently.
So.. post yours.
Yeah, me neither. The problem is that even though the info is no longer secret, the government might still be pretending that it is... which makes it be sensitive.. sort of. So it's a government problem at this point.
Maybe November's candidates should be talking about how they intend to deal with it.
While trusting users to load and execute Javascript is hopelessly naive (any company relying on this to avoid huge fines, is about to pay some huge fines) how is wanting to avoid huge fines the "wrong reasons?"
This is shockingly stupid implementation, not stupid motivation.
What's not to love? I have no issue with the government inspecting my property and even my very self -- as long as they are acting under the orders of the court. At some point, you have to trust your government.
The best part is that if anyone feels otherwise, they can always secure their device themselves, by throwing another application layer on it. (Or just outright replacing whatever crap comes preloaded.)
What everyone needs to understand about this whole topic, is that we're not talking about how secure our storage can be! Rather, this is all about how secure it should be by default, for users who give absolutely zero fucks about security. If you care even slightly, then none of this will matter to you, because you won't be relying on the out-of-the-box system that you know for sure isn't safe.
What happens if an unauthorized user sabotages a piece of junk by tampering with it, in order to circumvent a defect that was caused by negligent engineering, and they do it outside of the explicit terms of the illegally-phrased warranty that was written by a shyster who was hired to work as part of the manufacturer's legal team but only got the job due to their fraudulently deceptive resume?
What if I told you the the piece of junk was sabotage because the user had an urgent need that the device was advertised as being fit to address, but the reason they had that need was to facilitate another activity which had criminal intent?
Hold it, not so fast. What if I told you their criminal intent, though, had as its victim, a really bad hombre who totally had it coming? But the bad guy's heirs were innocent children?
So if someone tampers with the product in an attempt to fix it, then shoves it off to the manufacture, are they still on the hook for warranty repair?
Probably not, because you already framed the situation as the person had tampered with it. On the other hand, if instead of tampering with it, they maintained it or took it out and put it back in again, or did anything else that you can think of that you wouldn't describe as "tampering," then yes, the manufacturer would be liable for repairing their defect.
Ooohh, did you see what I did there at the end, where I slipped in the word "defect?" That's what you did with "tamper." The fun happens when we combined both forms of bullshit: what happens if the user tampers with an item that has a manufacturer's defect? Now we're really jerking off!
The Youtube whiners don't want a decentralized platform without gatekeepers. They want a centralized ad service that pays them for the ad impressions their videos can get.
Take away the ads, and you've taken away all the reasons anyone gives the slightest fuck about Youtube or their "censorship."
Oh noo! Boohooo!! Youtube is becoming more like NBC and HBO, who also didn't give me an automatic yes to my "let me be the executive producer of a new tv show" idea that I pitched them.
Here, I found a magic brain pill video that youtube hasn't "censored" yet. So don't worry, nootropics is still cool on youtube.
Though I don't have the 2000-vs-2018 figures, I do know that my cable TV bill went from about $32 in 1998, to a little over $50 (don't remember exactly how much) in 2006 when I canceled it. Some people who still pay for TV say their bill is around a hundred dollars, and I don't think they're lying.
Perhaps your point is that everyone is understating the percentage it has increased, since it has actually tripled?
We would all do it, and we do. The controversy is in how you grade people.
Person A scores people based on their skin color. Person B on their mystical beliefs (or lack thereof). Person C on whether or they're convicted of any crimes from list #1 or three or more from list #2. Person D grades people on what they say is their favorite Star Trek episode and their favorite Kyuss album. Person E subscribes to all the previous people's grading service, multiplied by certain weights. And so on.
To be fair, when I fixed my washing machine, I was pretty proud of my newfound manly powers and I wanted everyone to know it.
In fact, though it was 3 years ago that I heroically replaced the washer's transmission, I just happened to mention it yet fucking again, right now! [strut] [pose]
I think a lot of the contracts that we agree to aren't really necessary. Do you really need all these special things from me, instead of me just handing over the money?
The terms should be simple. Just to be clear, I don't mean simple terms as in written to be understandable by laymen. I mean the actual give-and-take --- deviations from a normal sale -- shouldn't involve much. I can buy a loaf of bread (here's the money, gimme the bread) without a contract. Same for books (at least if they're paper rather htan files).
I even remember the 1980s when I could go to a store and buy a box that contained a floppy with proprietary software for my C64 without ever agreeing to any license. I had simply bought a copy of the software. That's right, this wasn't even Free software and yet it still didn't need a license, either. Copyright was enough to handle it. "Ah, but we need a contract these days, so they can install the software on their hard disk, which involves copying, which would be illegal without a license." No, that's fair use or it should be, and Congress long ago threw that into copyright anyway.
But perhaps there are types of business that do require a little more complexity in the transaction than here's-the-money-gimme-the-product. For example, everyone wants me to not blame them if the product explodes in my face. Ok, but if everyone demands that and we're all always agreeing to that anyway, then maybe the law can just say that and we can trim a page off of a hundred contracts.
I suspect there are patterns for whole industries, where every company in that industry basically wants the same things. (And deviations are either minor, or they're oversights because someone doesn't have good lawyers writing the contracts.)
And that leads me toward wondering if this is part of what civil law is about. Are a lot of what we in America would have in contract terms, simply the law in, say, France? Does civil law result in simpler contracts, perhaps at the expense of more complicated law? Teach this ignorant American a thing or two. Please?:-)
Hey, anyone read the actual complaint? Check out "Count VI" (around page 49). If you're playing the drinking game, here's where you have to chug.
Plaintiff's computers contained information subject to copyright (campaign strategy and opposition research). They were protected by technological measures (passwords). The technological measures were circumvented (passwords were stolen) without authorization. Ergo: DMCA violation.
People, please remember: if you don't grant and protect copyright for political parties (and religions; you'll see why I bring them up, below) on their campaign strategy documents and opposition research, they won't have incentive to create those strategies and opposition research! You copyright-violating DNC-hackers are retarding the progress of science and useful arts!
And stealing passwords is cracking DRM!
It get better: accessing this stuff "caused significant damages" in "loss in the value of DNC trade secrets." I am not making this up; I am quoting the fucking document. They actually said that.
Trade Secrets. You just brought back 1990s memories of Scientology-vs-the-Internet.
DNC Trade Secrets. [fume] Because, let's just all remind ourselves of the big picture here: we want government to treat political parties' trade secrets as a legitimate thing, because that's good for us as a country, right?
Great going, Democrats: you reminded me of Scientologists, used one of the stupidest and evilest laws that America has (DMCA), and you abuse copyright too. So while we all agree that we hate Trump, thanks for reminding me that any conscientious person should hate you too.
Americans, please for fuck's sake stop voting for these parties.
If I know your birth date, mother's maiden name, first pet, street you grew up on, etc.,... because we are friends, does that mean the data is mine because I know these facts or does it mean the data is yours because they are facts about your life?
The experience of obtaining that data from your friend is yours and nobody has the right to take it away from you. And they won't do it, unless our society decides it appropriate to use force to damage your brain.
If "privacy" is ever protected to quite the degree that some people are advocating (e.g. the right to be forgotten) then it will have to come with the downside of degrading human dignity, by insisting people pretend they don't know things they know (i.e. cause a festing mess that always arises from a web of lies, "oh, I forgot that I was pretending I didn't know that!") or actually doing it (either through some sci-fi memory wipe, or just putting a bullet through their head). All solutions to that are horrible. Letting people keep their experiences and acknowledging that learning things about other people is a part of life is the only approach I have ever heard that I don't totally hate.
If you're the one who's say, credit score could be ruined and identity stolen, shouldn't it be you rather than me that decides if that information is made public or given to third parties?
If your identity can be stolen by people knowing your mother's maiden name, first pet, street you grew up on, etc, then your identity is a fragile thing indeed. If anyone issues credit in your name to someone who knows those things, then that creditor is irresponsibly negligent to a comical degree, and they deserve to lose their money, and it's not your fault. They should have checked to make sure they were giving the money to you instead of just some random person who happened to know a few bits of trivia.
If the law pretends it's your fault, then the law is at fault. We either have to live with unjust laws or do something about them. It's up to us.
Some of your friends do know your mother's maiden name, first pet, street you grew up on. They really do. They should. They were there! It was their life too! Therefore, those things do not authenticate you. (And other people, who aren't so friendly, also know those things. I know those facts about people I haven't seen in decades, with whom I no relationship at all.)
We need to stop pretending this information is sensitive, and stop trying to bend over backwards to create fake privacy rights. All in the name of making bankers' jobs easier, so they don't have to authenticate people, really? Think about what you're going to get out of this sacrifice.
With that in mind, I reject all arguments based on the premise that it's "important information." Treating it as though this trivia is important, is the real problem here.
It really pisses me off that this is lumped into "privacy." People are worrying about keeping it easy for bankers to issue credit without checking to see who they're giving money to, and yet your own family communications aren't even encrypted yet. Instead of worrying about facebook, where's my non-sucky phone that I can plug into the home OTP server when I'm charging it? Good fucking grief.
don't worry, they can put together quite a nice profile of you from all of your friends and family that still use it.
A nice profile? It's going to be a substantially fuzzier profile than what they get if you directly feed them (and even personally curate!) information.
Also, if you're not using it, then friends and family have less incentive to endure it.
EFF used to be about protecting technological freedom. Now they're worried that users of technology have too much freedom. This means that at some point in the past, EFF won! (Slashdot, why didn't you report on this earlier?)
"Jurisdiction" is such a formal word. The point is that MS was going to be between a rock and a hard place (they were have to violate one country's laws to comply with another's), and unfortunately for us (but fortunately for them), we didn't get to find out what would happen.
Slashdot Mirror
The government is lucky this Kaspersky scare is bullshit, then. If this had been an actual emergency (e.g. the software were doing something bad, whether by design or due to some random bug that you can't fix because it's proprietary), sounds like everything would be totally fucked.
I'm just glad it's not a puppy preserve! Imagine cute little puppies running around yelping as they burn to death. Ugh. We really lucked out this time.
To be fair, that's pretty much what we're doing whenever we give money to projects like OpenBSD or to advocacy groups like EFF. Giving free money in the hopes that you might get something back isn't stupid as long as you remember "give" is a major key word here, and "in the hopes" is as light and unbinding as it appears. As long as you really understand you might get nothin', it ain't stupid.
Sometimes you just wanna throw money at someone who you think is doing the right thing, so that they can keep on kicking ass, because you wanna see asses get kicked. I personally wouldn't ever get excited about some headphones, but we all have our opinions about what's important. No need for us all to be on the same page.
People who listen to music.
If you want it easier and faster, then just get rid of the phones and have the processes connect to sockets and perform RFCwhatever appointment-making protocol.
I have to ask: is the desirability of the behavior that you describe, really limited to chatbots?
If you're going to do something as extreme as have a law (i.e. this is very serious shit, such that we're willing to escalate to the use of force), then I think we should avoid letting double standards creep in.
You must have had some weird unpleasant experience with some kind of proprietary music format or service. Not a single issue that you raise, is related to digital-vs-analog. If we changed "digital" to "[censored]" everyone would probably guess you were talking about how much you love CDs.
"Unique."
I nominate ShanghaiBill for the Politest Person of the Year award!
It has happened; that's what the story is about. 50-100% Americans already did, whether we wanted to or not.
The information is no longer secret; we know for sure that it is definitely in the hands of ne'er-do-wells. Anyone who uses it for authentication is definitely, 100% being negligent without any possibility that they're trying to do the right thing or even slightly being diligent. If loans have been made based on this, we know that the loaning institution is almost certainly reporting their assets fraudulently.
So.. post yours.
Yeah, me neither. The problem is that even though the info is no longer secret, the government might still be pretending that it is... which makes it be sensitive.. sort of. So it's a government problem at this point.
Maybe November's candidates should be talking about how they intend to deal with it.
While trusting users to load and execute Javascript is hopelessly naive (any company relying on this to avoid huge fines, is about to pay some huge fines) how is wanting to avoid huge fines the "wrong reasons?"
This is shockingly stupid implementation, not stupid motivation.
That's why people are subscribing to my soap opera, biatch!
The best part is that if anyone feels otherwise, they can always secure their device themselves, by throwing another application layer on it. (Or just outright replacing whatever crap comes preloaded.)
What everyone needs to understand about this whole topic, is that we're not talking about how secure our storage can be! Rather, this is all about how secure it should be by default, for users who give absolutely zero fucks about security. If you care even slightly, then none of this will matter to you, because you won't be relying on the out-of-the-box system that you know for sure isn't safe.
What happens if an unauthorized user sabotages a piece of junk by tampering with it, in order to circumvent a defect that was caused by negligent engineering, and they do it outside of the explicit terms of the illegally-phrased warranty that was written by a shyster who was hired to work as part of the manufacturer's legal team but only got the job due to their fraudulently deceptive resume?
What if I told you the the piece of junk was sabotage because the user had an urgent need that the device was advertised as being fit to address, but the reason they had that need was to facilitate another activity which had criminal intent?
Hold it, not so fast. What if I told you their criminal intent, though, had as its victim, a really bad hombre who totally had it coming? But the bad guy's heirs were innocent children?
Except the innocent children were bastard-born!
Probably not, because you already framed the situation as the person had tampered with it. On the other hand, if instead of tampering with it, they maintained it or took it out and put it back in again, or did anything else that you can think of that you wouldn't describe as "tampering," then yes, the manufacturer would be liable for repairing their defect.
Ooohh, did you see what I did there at the end, where I slipped in the word "defect?" That's what you did with "tamper." The fun happens when we combined both forms of bullshit: what happens if the user tampers with an item that has a manufacturer's defect? Now we're really jerking off!
The Youtube whiners don't want a decentralized platform without gatekeepers. They want a centralized ad service that pays them for the ad impressions their videos can get.
Take away the ads, and you've taken away all the reasons anyone gives the slightest fuck about Youtube or their "censorship."
Oh noo! Boohooo!! Youtube is becoming more like NBC and HBO, who also didn't give me an automatic yes to my "let me be the executive producer of a new tv show" idea that I pitched them.
Here, I found a magic brain pill video that youtube hasn't "censored" yet. So don't worry, nootropics is still cool on youtube.
I'm interested in your swampland.
Though I don't have the 2000-vs-2018 figures, I do know that my cable TV bill went from about $32 in 1998, to a little over $50 (don't remember exactly how much) in 2006 when I canceled it. Some people who still pay for TV say their bill is around a hundred dollars, and I don't think they're lying.
Perhaps your point is that everyone is understating the percentage it has increased, since it has actually tripled?
We would all do it, and we do. The controversy is in how you grade people.
Person A scores people based on their skin color. Person B on their mystical beliefs (or lack thereof). Person C on whether or they're convicted of any crimes from list #1 or three or more from list #2. Person D grades people on what they say is their favorite Star Trek episode and their favorite Kyuss album. Person E subscribes to all the previous people's grading service, multiplied by certain weights. And so on.
To be fair, when I fixed my washing machine, I was pretty proud of my newfound manly powers and I wanted everyone to know it.
In fact, though it was 3 years ago that I heroically replaced the washer's transmission, I just happened to mention it yet fucking again, right now! [strut] [pose]
I think a lot of the contracts that we agree to aren't really necessary. Do you really need all these special things from me, instead of me just handing over the money?
The terms should be simple. Just to be clear, I don't mean simple terms as in written to be understandable by laymen. I mean the actual give-and-take --- deviations from a normal sale -- shouldn't involve much. I can buy a loaf of bread (here's the money, gimme the bread) without a contract. Same for books (at least if they're paper rather htan files).
I even remember the 1980s when I could go to a store and buy a box that contained a floppy with proprietary software for my C64 without ever agreeing to any license. I had simply bought a copy of the software. That's right, this wasn't even Free software and yet it still didn't need a license, either. Copyright was enough to handle it. "Ah, but we need a contract these days, so they can install the software on their hard disk, which involves copying, which would be illegal without a license." No, that's fair use or it should be, and Congress long ago threw that into copyright anyway.
But perhaps there are types of business that do require a little more complexity in the transaction than here's-the-money-gimme-the-product. For example, everyone wants me to not blame them if the product explodes in my face. Ok, but if everyone demands that and we're all always agreeing to that anyway, then maybe the law can just say that and we can trim a page off of a hundred contracts.
I suspect there are patterns for whole industries, where every company in that industry basically wants the same things. (And deviations are either minor, or they're oversights because someone doesn't have good lawyers writing the contracts.)
And that leads me toward wondering if this is part of what civil law is about. Are a lot of what we in America would have in contract terms, simply the law in, say, France? Does civil law result in simpler contracts, perhaps at the expense of more complicated law? Teach this ignorant American a thing or two. Please? :-)
Hey, anyone read the actual complaint? Check out "Count VI" (around page 49). If you're playing the drinking game, here's where you have to chug.
Plaintiff's computers contained information subject to copyright (campaign strategy and opposition research). They were protected by technological measures (passwords). The technological measures were circumvented (passwords were stolen) without authorization. Ergo: DMCA violation.
People, please remember: if you don't grant and protect copyright for political parties (and religions; you'll see why I bring them up, below) on their campaign strategy documents and opposition research, they won't have incentive to create those strategies and opposition research! You copyright-violating DNC-hackers are retarding the progress of science and useful arts!
And stealing passwords is cracking DRM!
It get better: accessing this stuff "caused significant damages" in "loss in the value of DNC trade secrets." I am not making this up; I am quoting the fucking document. They actually said that.
Trade Secrets. You just brought back 1990s memories of Scientology-vs-the-Internet.
DNC Trade Secrets. [fume] Because, let's just all remind ourselves of the big picture here: we want government to treat political parties' trade secrets as a legitimate thing, because that's good for us as a country, right?
Great going, Democrats: you reminded me of Scientologists, used one of the stupidest and evilest laws that America has (DMCA), and you abuse copyright too. So while we all agree that we hate Trump, thanks for reminding me that any conscientious person should hate you too.
Americans, please for fuck's sake stop voting for these parties.
The experience of obtaining that data from your friend is yours and nobody has the right to take it away from you. And they won't do it, unless our society decides it appropriate to use force to damage your brain.
If "privacy" is ever protected to quite the degree that some people are advocating (e.g. the right to be forgotten) then it will have to come with the downside of degrading human dignity, by insisting people pretend they don't know things they know (i.e. cause a festing mess that always arises from a web of lies, "oh, I forgot that I was pretending I didn't know that!") or actually doing it (either through some sci-fi memory wipe, or just putting a bullet through their head). All solutions to that are horrible. Letting people keep their experiences and acknowledging that learning things about other people is a part of life is the only approach I have ever heard that I don't totally hate.
If your identity can be stolen by people knowing your mother's maiden name, first pet, street you grew up on, etc, then your identity is a fragile thing indeed. If anyone issues credit in your name to someone who knows those things, then that creditor is irresponsibly negligent to a comical degree, and they deserve to lose their money, and it's not your fault. They should have checked to make sure they were giving the money to you instead of just some random person who happened to know a few bits of trivia.
If the law pretends it's your fault, then the law is at fault. We either have to live with unjust laws or do something about them. It's up to us.
Some of your friends do know your mother's maiden name, first pet, street you grew up on. They really do. They should. They were there! It was their life too! Therefore, those things do not authenticate you. (And other people, who aren't so friendly, also know those things. I know those facts about people I haven't seen in decades, with whom I no relationship at all.)
We need to stop pretending this information is sensitive, and stop trying to bend over backwards to create fake privacy rights. All in the name of making bankers' jobs easier, so they don't have to authenticate people, really? Think about what you're going to get out of this sacrifice.
With that in mind, I reject all arguments based on the premise that it's "important information." Treating it as though this trivia is important, is the real problem here.
It really pisses me off that this is lumped into "privacy." People are worrying about keeping it easy for bankers to issue credit without checking to see who they're giving money to, and yet your own family communications aren't even encrypted yet. Instead of worrying about facebook, where's my non-sucky phone that I can plug into the home OTP server when I'm charging it? Good fucking grief.
A nice profile? It's going to be a substantially fuzzier profile than what they get if you directly feed them (and even personally curate!) information.
Also, if you're not using it, then friends and family have less incentive to endure it.
EFF used to be about protecting technological freedom. Now they're worried that users of technology have too much freedom. This means that at some point in the past, EFF won! (Slashdot, why didn't you report on this earlier?)
"Jurisdiction" is such a formal word. The point is that MS was going to be between a rock and a hard place (they were have to violate one country's laws to comply with another's), and unfortunately for us (but fortunately for them), we didn't get to find out what would happen.