Oh, if only it were just that. It's signed in the writer's stolen blood, without his consent! That's already next-level material. If these sell well, next year every trendy/wannabe metal band is going to sign their albums in blood, but it won't be nearly as cool because they'll be doing it to be cool.
The company has already proven they want the information (no speculation or "conspiracy theory" is needed because we have actual evidence of intent). A camera can handle this without any short-term memory limitations. Furthermore, a company camera is already likely to be around there (for various security reasons, both internal and external).
This is starting to remind me of the people who freaked out about Google Glass. They didn't mind being surveilled all the time, but they really didn't like that the camera was so damn conspicuous, making them constantly think about "What am I leaking right now?" Make your camera blend in more, and people will relax and stop complaining. If only MadCow42's ID had been scanned more discretely...
There are ways of verifying, but all parties have to agree on the method of verification and how that is done depends on whether you're Yahoo, Microsoft or Google
Or you could, I don't know, use a standard like OpenPGP which always Just Works whether some company happens to agree or not. The only people who have to agree are the users.
If the users don't agree to have email be secure, then it can't be secure. If they want it to be secure, then it's easy.
This is hard to implement to society at large (because society's "users" never agree to do anything) but within an organization, it's no problem as long as whoever's in charge wants it. "Bob, you didn't sign your email, yet again? Ok, you're fired. I'm sure we can find someone else who is willing to follow orders."
If you merely show the card, then they have everything. They don't need to touch it. You might be right to be concerned (about the various consequences of data collection), but you're also making a mountain out of a molehill with the barcode thing, since the barcode was merely a convenience.
The mere presence of a camera is enough to get most of that biometric data (from you, not the card) and your address is probably on the front of the card, and most importantly, so is your driver's license # (a unique key, i.e. a "cookie").
You didn't lose anything that wasn't already lost. If you want to fix this problem, you need to totally get rid of checking-IDs being a thing. That she scanned the barcode or that she touched it, isn't what's important here.
That would be a reason for the president to flame USPS, not one of their customers.
I think he's flaming Amazon for some other reason. The fact that Washington Post sometimes reports on what he gets caught doing or saying, would be the least-far-fetched hypothesis.
I seriously doubt that FB are 'listening' to voice calls - they just don't have the technical chops for that
Meanwhile, Microsoft has explicitly told all their Skype users (you don't even need to paranoidly speculate; they have already admitted it) that they definitely do listen to all the calls and will take aggressive action against any users caught saying naughty words.
Are you sure about your probability estimate, that Facebook isn't doing the same thing that another (dare I say,.. more conservative?) company is doing?
Maybe me, since I did get pretty pissed off, except..
Yet somehow everyone understands what's being talked about except one person: you.
..wrong! Totally and completely wrong! People only understood it with the summary; the headline alone definitely tricked lots of people, because it's ambiguous, but the usual meaning of the word is other than what he meant. And headlines shouldn't do that.
Headline: war4peace's ass gets rammed!
Summary: war4peace was surprised to come home today to find out that his wife had sold his donkey and bought him a brand new Dodge Ram pickup truck. "I was speechless," war4peace explained, "I thought we were going to talk about major purchases, but she just went ahead and did it. Even so, this should really help out around the farm!"
See the problem? The headline was bullshit. It's just a question of whether it was done deliberately, vs incidentally due to Slashdot's editors' apathy, since they have abandoned the idea of even slightly trying.
Stop calling them "crypto ads." It's terribly misleading. Your fucking troll headline makes it sound like Twitter doesn't want users talking about GnuPG or something like that.
msmash, since you kept the submitter anonymous but did the posting, you're accountable and we assume you are the person who decided to make the headline misleading. That means you're either a malicious piece of shit, or too stupid to be trying to cover tech stories. Either way, we're all hoping your boss notices and then does something about you.
The only way I can disagree with you in any way, is if we find out the pedestrian had a cloaking device, and we're seeing her decloak right as the car approaches.
people had some expectations of how the data that they'd given to Facebook would be shared.
But they didn't have any expectations of [limits to] how the data they gave to Facebook would be used.
Everything Cambridge Analytica did, Facebook also tries to offer the same service, and they want to do directly. Facebook could have just as easily sold the same targeted ads, just been more in direct control. Whichever way it had gone, all users had opted into getting tailored propaganda, and also (through empowering Facebook with their contribution to the network effects) all users implicitly endorsed that all other users should get tailored propaganda too.
Why does anyone care that Facebook acted as a middleman instead of doing it themselves? It's the same result either way.
All of Facebook's users already knew Facebook is for this, and had plenty of moments to think, and they decided: let it be done. Maybe you don't consent to it anymore (though really: are you sure you don't anymore? have you deleted your profile yet?) but you consented to this happening back then. If you're still on there, then you are still set up to receive a targeted ad. If you're still on there, providing Metcalfian value to Facebook's graph, then you're still ok with everyone else receiving targeted ads too, including easily-manipulated fuckwits.
It really pisses me off that people opt into things they know are harmful, and then complain about it. But at least, if your complaint is sincere, then do something about next time. What's next, you gonna smoke 4 packs a day and then complain about your lung cancer? The "I'm too stupid to have known cigarettes are bad" argument might have flown in 1968 but, please, stop trying the "I'm too stupid" line in 2018. Whether the rest of us believe you or not, it's a bad message either way.
They should have done a study where one group was required to write angry letters about silly stuff, and the other group went on to live their lives. Then see which group acts crazier after that.
Google had a much better idea with Google Glass than anyone has with these wrist-wearables. Wrist computers are never going to be more than a small niche. They're just not a very good idea.
Just keep trying to get the on-your-face stuff smaller and cheaper. That's what's going to be big, as soon as someone does it "right" (whatever that's discovered to be).
Unfortunately, it looks like this one is for people who either don't know what they're doing, or for people who can't be bothered. It appears to be Yet Another one of those encrypt in the web browser webmail services, where the user is always hoping that they're getting the same, trustworthy client-side script from the server each time, never modified to leak keys. i.e. it's as vulnerable to attack as Lavabit was.
Anyone wanna set me straight on this? Because it looks like it's just another scam -- well, ok, perhaps well-meaning, so let's call it a folly, not a scam. Except in 2018 I don't think being that dumb is realistic, so I think I'll go back to the word "scam."
Data on electronic devices can show a persons support of and funding for a banned group.
Some day I should download this data that you're talking about, and smuggle it onto the plane. Then I'll hit a pilot over the head with it, and the plane will be mine!!
I have to travel with my laptop but if I had anything to hide it sure as hell wouldn't be there. Anyone caught at the border with something illegal is an idiot an is destined to be caught.
[Emphasis mine.] Ok, now imagine you don't have anything to hide. What happens then? Do you think that magically prevents the search?
The government got caught red-handed doing the searches, and they arn't even denying they were doing it. They did the searches before, and independent of, whether or not they found anything interesting. So the whole "if I had anything to hide" thing is totally irrelevant.
Why the hell woudn't they encrypt it, stash it on a server, and downloaded when they get home? Alternatively send it to a home server before you even get on the plane? Then, of course, deep-delete everything.
Whatever "it" is, they're not going to know whether it's on your phone or not until after they've committed the unjustified search. Wherever you store "it", that doesn't prevent the search from happening. And the search (not them finding or planting something) is what's the problem here.
Everyone is aware of the planned obsolescence angle, but nobody seems to have noticed that particular irony of California (i.e. the state containing Hollywood) being the one asking for a right to repair. Lots of hardware makers are either in bed with content companies, or are one. As long as DRM is still legal, this results in an unavoidable conflict of interest.
DRM is always what these companies are really talking about, whenever they use the word "security." They mean they want to keep the machine's master's interests secure against the great adversary: the machine's owner.
DRM and right-to-repair are fundamentally incompatible. You can't implement DRM and also be owner-maintainable, because from an owner's point of view, DRM implementations are bugs (or malware, depending on how strict you want to be about the implementor's intent), and bugs need to be fixed.
I think California will cave in on this, and their legislators will eventually realize that it's necessary that people have adversarial relationship with their computers. The only way this can be avoided, is if DRM ceases to be a thing. And the only way that's going to happen, is if it's outlawed.
Expect this bill to die, for much more inflexible reasons than wanting to protect planned obsolescence. They simply can't allow people to be in charge of their own computers. It's not happening.
it turns out that a $5 wrench turns out to be as good as key escrow.
Not just as good; it's better. If a copy of a key is made and someone accesses it, how will the victim know? No due process.
OTOH, if you physically attack or threaten someone, they know it happened. Unless you murder them or keep them kidnapped without access to their lawyer, a judge is eventually going to find out what you did. Due process will happen.
Ergo, a civilized society will choose $5 wrenches as a better solution to "the going dark problem" than key escrow.
Documentaries sure but there's an exemption for that it seems.
No, such an exemption is what they're asking for.
Also, the amount of footage is 0% relevant. Accessing two seconds of video, or even a still, is just as illegal under DMCA as accessing two minutes.
That all fair uses are illegal unless explicitly exempted, and the tools are illegal regardless of whether the use is legal or exempted or not, are among of the reasons DMCA should be repealed.
Everyone is worth spying on. If you have $10 in your bank account, you're worth a few seconds of a robot's time to try to rip off. As Geddy Lee explained: "Ten bucks is ten bucks."
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, if only it were just that. It's signed in the writer's stolen blood, without his consent! That's already next-level material. If these sell well, next year every trendy/wannabe metal band is going to sign their albums in blood, but it won't be nearly as cool because they'll be doing it to be cool.
Don't discount this. The rules of engagement in that culture are that when he talks to them IRL, he gets to wear a mask.
Heh, everyone's all worried about Cambridge Analytica. Ever wonder how many of those peoples' data, Facebook has?
The company has already proven they want the information (no speculation or "conspiracy theory" is needed because we have actual evidence of intent). A camera can handle this without any short-term memory limitations. Furthermore, a company camera is already likely to be around there (for various security reasons, both internal and external).
This is starting to remind me of the people who freaked out about Google Glass. They didn't mind being surveilled all the time, but they really didn't like that the camera was so damn conspicuous, making them constantly think about "What am I leaking right now?" Make your camera blend in more, and people will relax and stop complaining. If only MadCow42's ID had been scanned more discretely...
Or you could, I don't know, use a standard like OpenPGP which always Just Works whether some company happens to agree or not. The only people who have to agree are the users.
If the users don't agree to have email be secure, then it can't be secure. If they want it to be secure, then it's easy.
This is hard to implement to society at large (because society's "users" never agree to do anything) but within an organization, it's no problem as long as whoever's in charge wants it. "Bob, you didn't sign your email, yet again? Ok, you're fired. I'm sure we can find someone else who is willing to follow orders."
If you merely show the card, then they have everything. They don't need to touch it. You might be right to be concerned (about the various consequences of data collection), but you're also making a mountain out of a molehill with the barcode thing, since the barcode was merely a convenience.
The mere presence of a camera is enough to get most of that biometric data (from you, not the card) and your address is probably on the front of the card, and most importantly, so is your driver's license # (a unique key, i.e. a "cookie").
You didn't lose anything that wasn't already lost. If you want to fix this problem, you need to totally get rid of checking-IDs being a thing. That she scanned the barcode or that she touched it, isn't what's important here.
Or a prequel to Day of the Triffids.
That would be a reason for the president to flame USPS, not one of their customers.
I think he's flaming Amazon for some other reason. The fact that Washington Post sometimes reports on what he gets caught doing or saying, would be the least-far-fetched hypothesis.
Meanwhile, Microsoft has explicitly told all their Skype users (you don't even need to paranoidly speculate; they have already admitted it) that they definitely do listen to all the calls and will take aggressive action against any users caught saying naughty words.
Are you sure about your probability estimate, that Facebook isn't doing the same thing that another (dare I say, .. more conservative?) company is doing?
Nobody goes to the hermit cave anymore, because it's always so crowded.
Maybe me, since I did get pretty pissed off, except..
..wrong! Totally and completely wrong! People only understood it with the summary; the headline alone definitely tricked lots of people, because it's ambiguous, but the usual meaning of the word is other than what he meant. And headlines shouldn't do that.
Headline: war4peace's ass gets rammed!
Summary: war4peace was surprised to come home today to find out that his wife had sold his donkey and bought him a brand new Dodge Ram pickup truck. "I was speechless," war4peace explained, "I thought we were going to talk about major purchases, but she just went ahead and did it. Even so, this should really help out around the farm!"
See the problem? The headline was bullshit. It's just a question of whether it was done deliberately, vs incidentally due to Slashdot's editors' apathy, since they have abandoned the idea of even slightly trying.
Stop calling them "crypto ads." It's terribly misleading. Your fucking troll headline makes it sound like Twitter doesn't want users talking about GnuPG or something like that.
msmash, since you kept the submitter anonymous but did the posting, you're accountable and we assume you are the person who decided to make the headline misleading. That means you're either a malicious piece of shit, or too stupid to be trying to cover tech stories. Either way, we're all hoping your boss notices and then does something about you.
The only way I can disagree with you in any way, is if we find out the pedestrian had a cloaking device, and we're seeing her decloak right as the car approaches.
I think your school may need updated textbooks.
But they didn't have any expectations of [limits to] how the data they gave to Facebook would be used.
Everything Cambridge Analytica did, Facebook also tries to offer the same service, and they want to do directly. Facebook could have just as easily sold the same targeted ads, just been more in direct control. Whichever way it had gone, all users had opted into getting tailored propaganda, and also (through empowering Facebook with their contribution to the network effects) all users implicitly endorsed that all other users should get tailored propaganda too.
Why does anyone care that Facebook acted as a middleman instead of doing it themselves? It's the same result either way.
All of Facebook's users already knew Facebook is for this, and had plenty of moments to think, and they decided: let it be done. Maybe you don't consent to it anymore (though really: are you sure you don't anymore? have you deleted your profile yet?) but you consented to this happening back then. If you're still on there, then you are still set up to receive a targeted ad. If you're still on there, providing Metcalfian value to Facebook's graph, then you're still ok with everyone else receiving targeted ads too, including easily-manipulated fuckwits.
It really pisses me off that people opt into things they know are harmful, and then complain about it. But at least, if your complaint is sincere, then do something about next time. What's next, you gonna smoke 4 packs a day and then complain about your lung cancer? The "I'm too stupid to have known cigarettes are bad" argument might have flown in 1968 but, please, stop trying the "I'm too stupid" line in 2018. Whether the rest of us believe you or not, it's a bad message either way.
They should have done a study where one group was required to write angry letters about silly stuff, and the other group went on to live their lives. Then see which group acts crazier after that.
Posting to undo a click-o.
Google had a much better idea with Google Glass than anyone has with these wrist-wearables. Wrist computers are never going to be more than a small niche. They're just not a very good idea.
Just keep trying to get the on-your-face stuff smaller and cheaper. That's what's going to be big, as soon as someone does it "right" (whatever that's discovered to be).
Unfortunately, it looks like this one is for people who either don't know what they're doing, or for people who can't be bothered. It appears to be Yet Another one of those encrypt in the web browser webmail services, where the user is always hoping that they're getting the same, trustworthy client-side script from the server each time, never modified to leak keys. i.e. it's as vulnerable to attack as Lavabit was.
Anyone wanna set me straight on this? Because it looks like it's just another scam -- well, ok, perhaps well-meaning, so let's call it a folly, not a scam. Except in 2018 I don't think being that dumb is realistic, so I think I'll go back to the word "scam."
Some day I should download this data that you're talking about, and smuggle it onto the plane. Then I'll hit a pilot over the head with it, and the plane will be mine!!
[Emphasis mine.] Ok, now imagine you don't have anything to hide. What happens then? Do you think that magically prevents the search?
The government got caught red-handed doing the searches, and they arn't even denying they were doing it. They did the searches before, and independent of, whether or not they found anything interesting. So the whole "if I had anything to hide" thing is totally irrelevant.
Whatever "it" is, they're not going to know whether it's on your phone or not until after they've committed the unjustified search. Wherever you store "it", that doesn't prevent the search from happening. And the search (not them finding or planting something) is what's the problem here.
Everyone is aware of the planned obsolescence angle, but nobody seems to have noticed that particular irony of California (i.e. the state containing Hollywood) being the one asking for a right to repair. Lots of hardware makers are either in bed with content companies, or are one. As long as DRM is still legal, this results in an unavoidable conflict of interest.
DRM is always what these companies are really talking about, whenever they use the word "security." They mean they want to keep the machine's master's interests secure against the great adversary: the machine's owner.
DRM and right-to-repair are fundamentally incompatible. You can't implement DRM and also be owner-maintainable, because from an owner's point of view, DRM implementations are bugs (or malware, depending on how strict you want to be about the implementor's intent), and bugs need to be fixed.
I think California will cave in on this, and their legislators will eventually realize that it's necessary that people have adversarial relationship with their computers. The only way this can be avoided, is if DRM ceases to be a thing. And the only way that's going to happen, is if it's outlawed.
Expect this bill to die, for much more inflexible reasons than wanting to protect planned obsolescence. They simply can't allow people to be in charge of their own computers. It's not happening.
Not just as good; it's better. If a copy of a key is made and someone accesses it, how will the victim know? No due process.
OTOH, if you physically attack or threaten someone, they know it happened. Unless you murder them or keep them kidnapped without access to their lawyer, a judge is eventually going to find out what you did. Due process will happen.
Ergo, a civilized society will choose $5 wrenches as a better solution to "the going dark problem" than key escrow.
No, such an exemption is what they're asking for.
Also, the amount of footage is 0% relevant. Accessing two seconds of video, or even a still, is just as illegal under DMCA as accessing two minutes.
That all fair uses are illegal unless explicitly exempted, and the tools are illegal regardless of whether the use is legal or exempted or not, are among of the reasons DMCA should be repealed.
Everyone is worth spying on. If you have $10 in your bank account, you're worth a few seconds of a robot's time to try to rip off. As Geddy Lee explained: "Ten bucks is ten bucks."