If u get an OTA capture card in ur computer and then a program guide system to record the shows u like automatically, and then run a commercial detection system... u can watch HD TV for free without any advertising. I think I am using comskip, and it works fine for me. It is really surprising how much time u can save without all the commercials and how boring it is to watch TV at someone's home with all the commercials. I look at others and see them actually watching commercials, like they dont even notice. It is very strange what paying customers will actually put up with. I will not pay for TV on the principal that if they are not making money from me watching so many advertisements... then it is a business that deserves to die. Reality is... they make money off our eyes... so the packages of channels is designed to allow maximum advertising time slots and dollars for them. You are a fool if you are still paying companies to provide u with advertising.
It's pretty clear NBC and many other media outlets constructed a narrative almost from the get-go of what happened, long before they even heard Zimmerman's side of the story. All the evidence was made to fit that narrative, a series of people who knew nothing about the case were paraded out to express outrage, and they basically found him guilty in the court of public opinion without even holding a trial. To get their ratings, they put this guy's life (and the lives of his family) in danger and threw gasoline on the fire of racial tension that already exists around these cases.
They should apologize for a LOT more than just a little selective editing of one tape.
This happens all the time in media. Why does this one bother you so much? Do u support the idea of shooting young black kids to death for no reason at all?
Regardless of whether the narrative is wrong, I think it was important for media to shine a spotlight on this situation, because it really appeared as though the police and courts of law were going to do nothing at all.
Media finds people guilty in the court of public opinion all the time... sometimes they are correct and sometimes they are wrong. However, without bringing this to the public, there never would have been a trial to hold. From the limited set of facts and the accounts of witnesses in the neighbourhood, this incident deserves to be properly investigated by the police and a court. If media did nothing, then that is exactly what would have happened. I thank the media for bringing this to the attention of the nation... even if they got some things wrong and made some editing mistakes to make it more sensational.... as they usually do.
I own a Samsung TV. I bought it a couple years ago, so I think it is safe. I like the TV, but will not buy my next one from Samsung, with or without this feature. From what I have read... I just dont trust the company any longer. I think they wish to collect massive amounts of information on their consumers in the guise of additional features.
It is too bad, because video and audio input could be useful at times through a TV. But no way to monitor or control it through a switch, the user can never know how these inputs are being used or who may be exploiting it.
For now, I will just get all and more of the services Samsung offers by hooking my laptop to my TV through HDMI. In this way I will be able to control when a camera and microphone are being used in my living room.
I would advise all consumers to avoid Samsung until they get realistic about the privacy concerns and offer you some sort of hard wired switch to control the potential window into your home.
One thing is certain--I will never consider a Samsung TV after this camera and microphone in the TV stunt.
I agree. I wouldnt want one of these in my home. Its too bad, because the benefits could be useful... such as TV based teleconfrencing. But until the manufacturer provides hard wired control (a switch) to be sure the input devices are on/off, I wont be investing in something with the potential for so much privacy invasion. I leave my TV plugged in all the time, there is no way of knowing when monitoring is occurring, because modern TV's are never really "off" anyways. It is just too much of a pain to have to unplug the TV just to be sure and sometimes I know I dont want to be monitored while watching TV.
My brother has a laptop with a built in webcam. He was using his computer when the camera activated on its own. It's done this a few times. There's no malware that we can find. The only thing installed on it is the software from the laptop manufacturer, most of which was removed.
His laptop just happened to have an indicator that the camera was being used. What about these TVs? It's even worse if you don't know if the things is working or not.
I hate the idea of having something like that on a TV period. If you want to skype or whatever, make the damn camera/mic a factory addon that isn't present in any model as a default option.
(My brother wound up putting a piece of electrical tape over the camera on his laptop, he didn't trust it any more.)
Its likely that the camera turning on is just some random software bug and not someone watching you. However, lets imagine that it is some sort of virus or trojan that activates the camera... in this case, there is no reason why the same virus software that turns on the camera to watch you cannot also turn off the light indicator. In that way, your brother would have no way of knowning that the camera even turned on. Also... where is the microphone light? You have no way of knowing if someone is listening to you and your brothers most private conversations. The point I am making is that the indicators you suggest are all software based. The camera light turns on when the software instructs the light to do so. If your camera could be remotely turned on, then also, the light can be remotely turned off. There is no safe mechanism for controlling the input devices through software when the software has been comprimised. So it is entirely unacceptable to have software only options for turning on and off camera and microphone features on the television. The solution is to provide a manual switch on the TV that turns these devices on and off. And the switch should interrupt the electrical flow to these devices in a very simple way... breaking the circuit. This should also be an option for laptops and cellphones and I dont know why companies do not offer this. I would buy products from a company who supports user control of their privacy.
Point is: Just because laptops and cellphones are highly insecure and provide no privacy if the software is comprimised... does not mean that we should accept this security risk into the TV market. It seems apparent that Samsung wants to collect as much user information and demographics as legally possible. Facebook is getting away with murder in this department and other markets want to get in on the action.
I do believe that camera and microphone can provide real value to consumers. I just wish the television companies would work harder to consider the possible exploitation of users privacy and build them with hard wired user control of it. Software options is not control.
Well, if you're so paranoid, get some tape and cover over the camera and microphone, or take it apart and disconnect it.
But, maybe even light bulbs have cameras and microphones in them now, using the powerlines to transmit the data back..
I have tape over my camera and microphone on my laptop and people often see this as paranoid. Maybe it is, but at least I control its usage. I dont understand why laptops dont have a sliding cover for the webcam or a hardwired switch the user can physically move. The indicators and software settings for turning on and off a camera and microphone are always a matter of trust. Like trusting that ur computer doesnt have a virus which ur operating system doesnt know how to detect yet. Which is the case for many many computers right now.
Your comment about powerline transmission is interesting. I believe if I was in the spy business, this is exactly how I would want to transmit data out from a secured location, because it would be so difficult to detect and most people do not consider to protect their power lines against data communication. If I worked for NSA, I would suggest looking into making power supplies that contain powerline networking ability to transfer data out of a business or home. I dont know if there is a way to communicate from the motherboard to the power supply... probably not, but and addition USB cable from the power supply to a free USB on the motherboard would probably not be noticed for some time. That is what I would want to install if I was to covertely access someones computer to bug it... or better yet, install the monitor hardware and software bug while the computer is being shipped from a supplier to the business.
Another option would be to install the powerline transmission device into a printer. Then have the printer attempt to install bugging software onto host computers over the local network. The great thing about printers is that no one dares to open them even when they appear broken, and consumers are all too willing to install printer drivers for them when requested to do so. Intercepting a printer driver update would be a good way to get the bugging software onto a host as well.
Anyhow... I think maybe ur email was to suggest that using tape is paranoid. Maybe it is, but if u are in the security business or just enjoy the concept of privacy in general... I think it is a really good start
Yep - about equivalent to the office supply budget at many mid sized businesses. Impressive
I see. The amount is not enough for you, so they should continue to throw money at a foreign company that provides less value then the cheaper alternative?
I believe they switched to a better operating system to support the concept of free and open systems and formats. I beleive this is more of a statement of an example to the public and private sector. It is like saying: "hey we did it and it worked for us, and look we saved money too". So good for them, I wish all cities would work so hard to make limited moeny go further. Even if it only means they can double their office supplies... if that is where this money is needed.
You failed to include mental disabilities. Or can we no longer include this as something that would benefit from an end... due to politically correct conversation.
Also, there is a well known solution to alcholism and it does not require any funding. I mean you can not just stop doing something to solve blindness.
I guess this explains why the food always tastes like a salty mess. I would prefer the airline doesnt over salt their food in an attempt to bring out flavor. If Im hungry then tastless food would still satisfy me, but the food is always too salty and taste like junk food for me to actually eat.
The red ring of death issue was majorly overestimated, and you know why? Because Xbox360 actually does show error messages on failure while PS3 and Wii do not. It became it's image, just like the blue screen of death. Image wise it would had been better for MS to just show nothing in both cases. I do, however, appreciate Microsoft's honesty and not trying to hide the issues from users.
You're nuts. I know first hand that the XBox was poorly crafted. I returned 2 of them for this reason. One of these boxes scaped 2 of my game disks actually scoring marks into the CDs that had to be returned. The third one, I kept in a cabinet and didnt touch the thing accept to carefully replace disks. It worked for years, but was always ran noisy and hot. The Xbox was a powerful machine with the bare minimum of quality components. I feel Microsoft was always going for the most power at the cheapest dollar cost. You get what you pay for.
I have several friends who will tell you that the xbox CD reader has problems and know of other red rings of death.
If you never had this problem, then good for you. But to assume all others have had good luck, is to not statistically true.
I expect that Microsoft has better components now as even crappy cheap CD readers are pretty good now. But there was a problem at the time and it was real.
I know many people who have Wii and PS3 and never heard any such reports other then user damage.
"We" are not doing this for Internet passwords because you are not an Internet programmer. If you were an Internet programmer dealing with user logins and such, you would know that unencrypted plain passwords have been gone for over a decade or more. All login passwords are hashed and salted by default. If not, it is because some unexperienced programmer decided to "write their own" without a proper understanding of basic password protection. I have been on lots of servers and I cant recall the last time I actually "saw" a password. That said... I have seen passwords that when we are dumping data to logs during testing. I will tell you that pretty much everyone uses horific passwords and those passwords often match the password to their email account. The biggest problem with user/password systems online is that we still allow users to select the passwords. The biggest security hole in online authentication is YOU. Think about it... I bet the same password you use here to log into slashdot is the same password you use at some other site. And if not YOU... then YOU the next reader.
This is a temporary solution that simply will not work for any large cloud service of significant size. I do program with hashing and other encryption mechanisms and I do know exactly what hashing does.
Hashing is a 1 to 1 algorith. So given any single input (like an email address), the hash output will remain the same. So any hash value can quickly be verified to match a known email address by simply running the hashing algorithm on a known email address and matching it to the existing hash. If you get a match, then you know the hash is really the email address you just hashed.
Any cloud service of any size will have many email addresses to run the hashing algorithm against. So any email address within the system can be hashed and checked against the stored hashes. So if two users are using the system and have each other in their contact list then the cloud service will "know" the true email address of these users despite each being a hash of the other in their contact list.
Salt is a mechanism to further obscure the original content. Salt is simply a 'secret work' added to the original unencrypted text (email) prior to hashing. It can be used to prevent such hash comparisons as mentioned above. However, this wont work in this case, as the hashing needs to either be done by the user or the cloud service. If it is done by the user, then the salt needs to be known by all users (in order to make sure the hash output is the same for same email addresses) and therefore is public and no longer a 'secret'. If the salt secret is held by the cloud service, then the service can use this salt at any time to do the lookups described above
Further, if all ur contact email addresses are hashed, then what possible use could there be in sending them ur contacts in the first place? If the service doesnt involve using the email addresses then why would you be sending them to the cloud service in the first place? If the cloud service doesnt require the data you are sending to it in order to provide the service, then it is an unethical service, and you should not be using it.
Hashing algorithms have value for comparing text and binary data. It is like a signature. If you know the hash value for some given data and you know how that hash was created (including the salt)... then u can use the same hashing algorithm to compare the hashes and verify that the data was not changed. Because it is known to be very hard to "fake" a hash. That is, if you know the email input and you know the hash output... it is nearly impossible to create a totally different email address that will produce the same hash output as the initial one. Therefore, hashing is very useful in verifying things to make sure the data was not changed... say for example a piece of code could be checked to make sure no virus was inserted before you run it.
Hashing algorithms are not useful in obscuring data. They are best at verifying that no changes have occurred. They do not provide a good mechanism of getting back to the original data.
I do not know the 'Path' cloud service or iphone app. I dont use it and dont want to bother reading about it. I will just say that it seems apparent that the app was downloading customer's address book in order to collect information that was not required. If the service does not require the data and instead asks the user for permission, then I doubt this the address info is required. If this is true, then it seems that the service was simply collecting as much information from the app user as possible in order to create searchable datamining information that can later be sold to 3rd parties. I suggest you do not use this service. If the app really does require contact information and email addresses to work, then I think PKI encryption is much more appropriate. Where the public and private keys are retained on two separate servers and the users encrypted contact information is on the server with the public key. And the private key is held on a highly secure server which only processes and decrypts in
Actually, since it's illegal to listen in on your own citizens without a warrant in both countries this is already being done regularly. Not illegal for Canada to spy on America and vice versa, nor is it illegal to exchange the resulting intelligence. Well the spying might technically be illegal, but that's how it works anyway.
The business name for what you describe is called Arbitrage
This is why many american long distance calls are re-routed through canada. And canadian calls re-route to US and then back up to Canada to complete the connection. In this way all long distance calls can be monitored and recorded as international calls from an outside country. And yes... the data is exchanged. In Canada, the CRTC requested information from the telecom providers to see how often this is happening. The telephone companies never supplied an accurate estimate, but it was reported to be a large percentage. The telephone companies said they do this to make traffic more efficient when transferring calls coast to coast and such. But you got to wonder about the actual efficiency claims when both countries are doing it for each other at the same time. Get it?
It is safe to assume that long distance national calls are recorded and possibly profiled on mass.
this line: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"
The next time a guest says this while in your home... tell the guest you agree and that you have hidden cameras in every room of the house, including the bathroom. Preferably, tell them this after dinner. See how they feel and how long they stay. Privacy is something we all desire. We all shit, but nobody wants to have it exposed for no reason. Just because its not a crime doesnt mean we need to let everyone look through it.
The concept that you shouldn't care because you're not committing the offence is the same one they used to destroy ordinary US citizens in the guise of defending against communism. It is the same reason they tried to impeach the president over light infidelity when they were apparently search for real estate fraud dealings.
And you just know when someone says that "if you oppose this then you support child porn", that this law will have nothing to do with child porn at all. Because if the supporters have to explain to us that it has something to do with it... then it has nothing to do with it at all.
They're garage cars that rich people can buy and tell their friends about over dinner.
They're expensive conversation pieces. If I owned five cars and was looking for a sixth, I might get a Tesla.
If I had 5 other cars, this is the one I would take out for local driving. Assuming it drives well, but it is fast and quiet. And just because one is rich... you shouldnt assume that they all love to waste earth resources. Why would a rich person even consider buying this if not to drive it? It is not a super expensive car. I can name many others in the +100k range that are far more exotic. Its a little ridiculous to say that just because you cannot afford $60-$90k that it is a "rich mans car". I cant afford it... but it is definately not in the exotic collectors range. It seems that the moment anyone mentions the word "electric"... everyone claims that it is for rich people to poke fun of everyone else still using gasoline. And yet truly expensive gas models actually do come out every year from other car makers and I never hear a peep about it... I never hear people complain about them targeting the "rich market", and yet that is exactly what they do.
There are collectors cars for rich garages... this is not one of them
I think the reality is that in our hearts... we all want to be driving electric. But since we cant afford it right now, we just continue to think of reasons why we wouldnt like it anyways. Well I for one will not miss stopping at the stinky gas stations or the engine noise, or the smell from the exhaust.
When you think about it, this is the ultimate way for a rich person to use their money to flip the bird at other cars as they go by.
Why is it that some people get so upset when someone drives an electric vehicle. I guess some people really do think that the only reason to buy an electric vehicle is to feel superior over your neighbour. I do ride electric and I do get a lot of anger from some people and usually they are driving something rather fuel inefficient. I could care less what other people choose to drive or the reasons behind it. Why is it that some people take your purchasing decisions as a personal attack against them?
But I do think your right... some do actually believe that others would pay additional just to indirectly "flip the bird" them. Maybe this is "sour grapes", but it is definitely ignorant.
To those gas drivers out there who get upset on seeing electric: No one cares what you drive... so why do you care what we drive?
They are not failing to follow any part of any contract. Nowhere in the EULA does it say a partial refund will be provided, nor does it even guarantee a refund in the first place. it says
By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the
software. Instead, return it to the retailer for a refund or credit. If you cannot obtain a refund
there, contact Microsoft or the Microsoft affiliate serving your country for information about Microsoft’s
refund policies. See www.microsoft.com/worldwide. In the United States and Canada, call (800)
MICROSOFT or see www.microsoft.com/info/nareturns.htm.
No it doesnt. Not in my country. It says this:
If you do not agree to
the terms of this EULA, you may not use or
copy the SOFTWARE, and you should promptly
contact Manufacturer for instructions on
return of the unused product(s) for a refund
in accordance with Manufacturer's return
policies.
That sounds like the license that comes from a stand-alone purchase of Windows off the shelf. If you get and OEM version like when it is included with a computer, then it will tell you to contact the manufacture. Lenovo alone is responsible for providing the refund they promised. The judge made the correct decision here.
Wrong. And stop spreading fudd. You will certainly fail if you try to get a refund for windows by contacting Microsoft. This is a total waste of time and sure to have no success. Instead contact and demand the refund from the manufacturer as stated in the EULA:
If you do not agree to
the terms of this EULA, you may not use or
copy the SOFTWARE, and you should promptly
contact Manufacturer for instructions on
return of the unused product(s) for a refund
in accordance with Manufacturer's return
policies.
Wrong. Microsoft didnt sell you windows. The manufacturer sold the consumer a microsoft license. In the EULA it clearly says this and it says that the Manufacture will handle the refund. Microsoft is not held accountable in the wording of the EULA and should not be contacted to attempt a refund. They would never give you a refund... so dont try this avenue. They are not legally responsible like the manufacture is.
This doesnt have to do with a retailer. It is a contract to the Manufacture: Lenovo. It is totally a legally binding contract between the consumer and the manufacturer... that is why the judge order the manufacture to honour the contract and pay the refund.
You also completely missed the fact that the contract is between the end user and Microsoft, Lenovo is not a party to the contract.
You didnt read the EULA. Here is what you should read that shows the contract covering Microsoft software is really between the consumer and Lenovo:
This End-User
License Agreement ('EULA') is a legal
agreement between you (either an individual
or a single entity) and the manufacturer
("Manufacturer") of the computer system or
computer system component ('HARDWARE') with
which you acquired the Microsoft software
product(s) identified on the Certificate of
Authenticity ("COA") affixed to the HARDWARE
or on the associated product documentation
("SOFTWARE").
Also you said:
There is specific text in the eula that covers the event that you are not given a refund or credit from the place you bought it from.
There is no such text. Please quote the text from the contract if you have it. Instead it clearly says that the manufacture is responsible for supplying the requested refund:
If you do not agree to
the terms of this EULA, you may not use or
copy the SOFTWARE, and you should promptly
contact Manufacturer for instructions on
return of the unused product(s) for a refund
in accordance with Manufacturer's return
policies.
I suggest you stop guessing what it says and read the EULA.
You cannot buy either part seperately. Lenovo didn't offer the computer without an operating system and you cannot buy an OEM version of Windows without a computer.
Yes it does:
If you do not agree to
the terms of this EULA, you may not use or
copy the SOFTWARE, and you should promptly
contact Manufacturer for instructions on
return of the unused product(s) for a refund
in accordance with Manufacturer's return
policies.
And the "SOFTWARE" only refers to microsoft parts:
The SOFTWARE includes Microsoft
computer software, and may include associated
media, printed material, 'online' or
electronic documentation, and internet based
services.
And there is a separate contract covering non-microsoft software and the hardware. This is a separate contract from the main PC and it says you can get a refund. Try reading it if you want a refund... it says that you can do so.
Yeah if it's a part of one single product you've bought.
The trouble in this case is that it's 2 separate products (a laptop and an operating system) done by 2 separate companies (lenovo and microsoft) and which are bundled together, with a complex EULA and other legal paper binding the whole together.
No. The hardware and software are both sold by one company: LENOVO.
They provide a lease to the microsoft software... but microsoft is not selling it to you and has no obligation to support it. Everything this person bought is from Lenovo and Microsoft is clearly not responsible to answer to the consumer.
Here is the contract that HP gave me and I assure you the Lenovo contract looks the same:
This End-User
License Agreement ('EULA') is a legal
agreement between you (either an individual
or a single entity) and the manufacturer
("Manufacturer") of the computer system or
computer system component ('HARDWARE') with
which you acquired the Microsoft software
product(s) identified on the Certificate of
Authenticity ("COA") affixed to the HARDWARE
or on the associated product documentation
("SOFTWARE").
In standard language this says: Everything you bought that says "Microsoft"... well you bought it from Hewlett Packard (or Lenovo in the case of this article)
but it is part of the product Lenovo sold as a whole since they did not offer the computer without the software.
This is a common misconception. The reality is that product is not sold as a whole as there is an additional contract to sign after the "contract of sale".
Secondly, they do offer the product to be purchased without the software. This is outlined in the EULA contract agreement. It clearly states that you have the option to get a refund on the software portion of the two separate products sold in one box at one price. This doesnt make the two products suddenly one. In fact it says so in the EULA.
Here is exactly what HP said to me in the contract:
If you do not agree to
the terms of this EULA, you may not use or
copy the SOFTWARE, and you should promptly
contact Manufacturer for instructions on
return of the unused product(s) for a refund
in accordance with Manufacturer's return
policies.
And this contract only applies to the MS software portion and not the hardware
The SOFTWARE includes Microsoft
computer software, and may include associated
media, printed material, 'online' or
electronic documentation, and internet based
services.
The hardware contract is a different document and completely separate return policy
Its like purchasing a product that has a mail in rebate. You purchase the product and mail off the rebate. After a month, you receive mail from the manufacture, saying "sorry, we dont offer the rebate... please take ur product back for a refund". But the manufacturer knows that you probably wont return it. After all, you have been using the product for a month now and you obviously wanted the product in the beginning or you wouldnt have purchased it. Now they are just playing the averages and assuming that most consumers will just "eat" the cost of not getting the rebate they promised.
Have you ever purchased a product with a mail in rebate that you never received? If so... then you know how it feels for those of us who do not use Microsoft software.
Slashdot Mirror
If u get an OTA capture card in ur computer and then a program guide system to record the shows u like automatically, and then run a commercial detection system... u can watch HD TV for free without any advertising. I think I am using comskip, and it works fine for me. It is really surprising how much time u can save without all the commercials and how boring it is to watch TV at someone's home with all the commercials. I look at others and see them actually watching commercials, like they dont even notice. It is very strange what paying customers will actually put up with. I will not pay for TV on the principal that if they are not making money from me watching so many advertisements... then it is a business that deserves to die. Reality is... they make money off our eyes... so the packages of channels is designed to allow maximum advertising time slots and dollars for them. You are a fool if you are still paying companies to provide u with advertising.
It's pretty clear NBC and many other media outlets constructed a narrative almost from the get-go of what happened, long before they even heard Zimmerman's side of the story. All the evidence was made to fit that narrative, a series of people who knew nothing about the case were paraded out to express outrage, and they basically found him guilty in the court of public opinion without even holding a trial. To get their ratings, they put this guy's life (and the lives of his family) in danger and threw gasoline on the fire of racial tension that already exists around these cases.
They should apologize for a LOT more than just a little selective editing of one tape.
This happens all the time in media. Why does this one bother you so much? Do u support the idea of shooting young black kids to death for no reason at all?
Regardless of whether the narrative is wrong, I think it was important for media to shine a spotlight on this situation, because it really appeared as though the police and courts of law were going to do nothing at all.
Media finds people guilty in the court of public opinion all the time... sometimes they are correct and sometimes they are wrong. However, without bringing this to the public, there never would have been a trial to hold. From the limited set of facts and the accounts of witnesses in the neighbourhood, this incident deserves to be properly investigated by the police and a court. If media did nothing, then that is exactly what would have happened. I thank the media for bringing this to the attention of the nation... even if they got some things wrong and made some editing mistakes to make it more sensational.... as they usually do.
I own a Samsung TV. I bought it a couple years ago, so I think it is safe. I like the TV, but will not buy my next one from Samsung, with or without this feature. From what I have read... I just dont trust the company any longer. I think they wish to collect massive amounts of information on their consumers in the guise of additional features.
It is too bad, because video and audio input could be useful at times through a TV. But no way to monitor or control it through a switch, the user can never know how these inputs are being used or who may be exploiting it.
For now, I will just get all and more of the services Samsung offers by hooking my laptop to my TV through HDMI. In this way I will be able to control when a camera and microphone are being used in my living room.
I would advise all consumers to avoid Samsung until they get realistic about the privacy concerns and offer you some sort of hard wired switch to control the potential window into your home.
>
One thing is certain--I will never consider a Samsung TV after this camera and microphone in the TV stunt.
I agree. I wouldnt want one of these in my home. Its too bad, because the benefits could be useful... such as TV based teleconfrencing. But until the manufacturer provides hard wired control (a switch) to be sure the input devices are on/off, I wont be investing in something with the potential for so much privacy invasion. I leave my TV plugged in all the time, there is no way of knowing when monitoring is occurring, because modern TV's are never really "off" anyways. It is just too much of a pain to have to unplug the TV just to be sure and sometimes I know I dont want to be monitored while watching TV.
My brother has a laptop with a built in webcam. He was using his computer when the camera activated on its own. It's done this a few times. There's no malware that we can find. The only thing installed on it is the software from the laptop manufacturer, most of which was removed.
His laptop just happened to have an indicator that the camera was being used. What about these TVs? It's even worse if you don't know if the things is working or not.
I hate the idea of having something like that on a TV period. If you want to skype or whatever, make the damn camera/mic a factory addon that isn't present in any model as a default option.
(My brother wound up putting a piece of electrical tape over the camera on his laptop, he didn't trust it any more.)
Its likely that the camera turning on is just some random software bug and not someone watching you. However, lets imagine that it is some sort of virus or trojan that activates the camera... in this case, there is no reason why the same virus software that turns on the camera to watch you cannot also turn off the light indicator. In that way, your brother would have no way of knowning that the camera even turned on. Also... where is the microphone light? You have no way of knowing if someone is listening to you and your brothers most private conversations. The point I am making is that the indicators you suggest are all software based. The camera light turns on when the software instructs the light to do so. If your camera could be remotely turned on, then also, the light can be remotely turned off. There is no safe mechanism for controlling the input devices through software when the software has been comprimised. So it is entirely unacceptable to have software only options for turning on and off camera and microphone features on the television. The solution is to provide a manual switch on the TV that turns these devices on and off. And the switch should interrupt the electrical flow to these devices in a very simple way... breaking the circuit. This should also be an option for laptops and cellphones and I dont know why companies do not offer this. I would buy products from a company who supports user control of their privacy.
Point is: Just because laptops and cellphones are highly insecure and provide no privacy if the software is comprimised... does not mean that we should accept this security risk into the TV market. It seems apparent that Samsung wants to collect as much user information and demographics as legally possible. Facebook is getting away with murder in this department and other markets want to get in on the action.
I do believe that camera and microphone can provide real value to consumers. I just wish the television companies would work harder to consider the possible exploitation of users privacy and build them with hard wired user control of it. Software options is not control.
Well, if you're so paranoid, get some tape and cover over the camera and microphone, or take it apart and disconnect it.
But, maybe even light bulbs have cameras and microphones in them now, using the powerlines to transmit the data back..
I have tape over my camera and microphone on my laptop and people often see this as paranoid. Maybe it is, but at least I control its usage. I dont understand why laptops dont have a sliding cover for the webcam or a hardwired switch the user can physically move. The indicators and software settings for turning on and off a camera and microphone are always a matter of trust. Like trusting that ur computer doesnt have a virus which ur operating system doesnt know how to detect yet. Which is the case for many many computers right now.
Your comment about powerline transmission is interesting. I believe if I was in the spy business, this is exactly how I would want to transmit data out from a secured location, because it would be so difficult to detect and most people do not consider to protect their power lines against data communication. If I worked for NSA, I would suggest looking into making power supplies that contain powerline networking ability to transfer data out of a business or home. I dont know if there is a way to communicate from the motherboard to the power supply... probably not, but and addition USB cable from the power supply to a free USB on the motherboard would probably not be noticed for some time. That is what I would want to install if I was to covertely access someones computer to bug it... or better yet, install the monitor hardware and software bug while the computer is being shipped from a supplier to the business.
Another option would be to install the powerline transmission device into a printer. Then have the printer attempt to install bugging software onto host computers over the local network. The great thing about printers is that no one dares to open them even when they appear broken, and consumers are all too willing to install printer drivers for them when requested to do so. Intercepting a printer driver update would be a good way to get the bugging software onto a host as well.
Anyhow... I think maybe ur email was to suggest that using tape is paranoid. Maybe it is, but if u are in the security business or just enjoy the concept of privacy in general... I think it is a really good start
Yep - about equivalent to the office supply budget at many mid sized businesses. Impressive
I see. The amount is not enough for you, so they should continue to throw money at a foreign company that provides less value then the cheaper alternative?
I believe they switched to a better operating system to support the concept of free and open systems and formats. I beleive this is more of a statement of an example to the public and private sector. It is like saying: "hey we did it and it worked for us, and look we saved money too". So good for them, I wish all cities would work so hard to make limited moeny go further. Even if it only means they can double their office supplies... if that is where this money is needed.
You failed to include mental disabilities. Or can we no longer include this as something that would benefit from an end... due to politically correct conversation.
Also, there is a well known solution to alcholism and it does not require any funding. I mean you can not just stop doing something to solve blindness.
Any prediction of 50 years exceeds the career lifetime of the predictor. Therefore, the failure of the prediction can not have negative consequences.
I guess this explains why the food always tastes like a salty mess. I would prefer the airline doesnt over salt their food in an attempt to bring out flavor. If Im hungry then tastless food would still satisfy me, but the food is always too salty and taste like junk food for me to actually eat.
The red ring of death issue was majorly overestimated, and you know why? Because Xbox360 actually does show error messages on failure while PS3 and Wii do not. It became it's image, just like the blue screen of death. Image wise it would had been better for MS to just show nothing in both cases. I do, however, appreciate Microsoft's honesty and not trying to hide the issues from users.
You're nuts. I know first hand that the XBox was poorly crafted. I returned 2 of them for this reason. One of these boxes scaped 2 of my game disks actually scoring marks into the CDs that had to be returned. The third one, I kept in a cabinet and didnt touch the thing accept to carefully replace disks. It worked for years, but was always ran noisy and hot. The Xbox was a powerful machine with the bare minimum of quality components. I feel Microsoft was always going for the most power at the cheapest dollar cost. You get what you pay for.
I have several friends who will tell you that the xbox CD reader has problems and know of other red rings of death.
If you never had this problem, then good for you. But to assume all others have had good luck, is to not statistically true.
I expect that Microsoft has better components now as even crappy cheap CD readers are pretty good now. But there was a problem at the time and it was real.
I know many people who have Wii and PS3 and never heard any such reports other then user damage.
"We" are not doing this for Internet passwords because you are not an Internet programmer. If you were an Internet programmer dealing with user logins and such, you would know that unencrypted plain passwords have been gone for over a decade or more. All login passwords are hashed and salted by default. If not, it is because some unexperienced programmer decided to "write their own" without a proper understanding of basic password protection. I have been on lots of servers and I cant recall the last time I actually "saw" a password. That said... I have seen passwords that when we are dumping data to logs during testing. I will tell you that pretty much everyone uses horific passwords and those passwords often match the password to their email account. The biggest problem with user/password systems online is that we still allow users to select the passwords. The biggest security hole in online authentication is YOU. Think about it... I bet the same password you use here to log into slashdot is the same password you use at some other site. And if not YOU... then YOU the next reader.
This is a temporary solution that simply will not work for any large cloud service of significant size. I do program with hashing and other encryption mechanisms and I do know exactly what hashing does.
Hashing is a 1 to 1 algorith. So given any single input (like an email address), the hash output will remain the same. So any hash value can quickly be verified to match a known email address by simply running the hashing algorithm on a known email address and matching it to the existing hash. If you get a match, then you know the hash is really the email address you just hashed.
Any cloud service of any size will have many email addresses to run the hashing algorithm against. So any email address within the system can be hashed and checked against the stored hashes. So if two users are using the system and have each other in their contact list then the cloud service will "know" the true email address of these users despite each being a hash of the other in their contact list.
Salt is a mechanism to further obscure the original content. Salt is simply a 'secret work' added to the original unencrypted text (email) prior to hashing. It can be used to prevent such hash comparisons as mentioned above. However, this wont work in this case, as the hashing needs to either be done by the user or the cloud service. If it is done by the user, then the salt needs to be known by all users (in order to make sure the hash output is the same for same email addresses) and therefore is public and no longer a 'secret'. If the salt secret is held by the cloud service, then the service can use this salt at any time to do the lookups described above
Further, if all ur contact email addresses are hashed, then what possible use could there be in sending them ur contacts in the first place? If the service doesnt involve using the email addresses then why would you be sending them to the cloud service in the first place? If the cloud service doesnt require the data you are sending to it in order to provide the service, then it is an unethical service, and you should not be using it.
Hashing algorithms have value for comparing text and binary data. It is like a signature. If you know the hash value for some given data and you know how that hash was created (including the salt)... then u can use the same hashing algorithm to compare the hashes and verify that the data was not changed. Because it is known to be very hard to "fake" a hash. That is, if you know the email input and you know the hash output... it is nearly impossible to create a totally different email address that will produce the same hash output as the initial one. Therefore, hashing is very useful in verifying things to make sure the data was not changed... say for example a piece of code could be checked to make sure no virus was inserted before you run it.
Hashing algorithms are not useful in obscuring data. They are best at verifying that no changes have occurred. They do not provide a good mechanism of getting back to the original data.
I do not know the 'Path' cloud service or iphone app. I dont use it and dont want to bother reading about it. I will just say that it seems apparent that the app was downloading customer's address book in order to collect information that was not required. If the service does not require the data and instead asks the user for permission, then I doubt this the address info is required. If this is true, then it seems that the service was simply collecting as much information from the app user as possible in order to create searchable datamining information that can later be sold to 3rd parties. I suggest you do not use this service. If the app really does require contact information and email addresses to work, then I think PKI encryption is much more appropriate. Where the public and private keys are retained on two separate servers and the users encrypted contact information is on the server with the public key. And the private key is held on a highly secure server which only processes and decrypts in
Actually, since it's illegal to listen in on your own citizens without a warrant in both countries this is already being done regularly. Not illegal for Canada to spy on America and vice versa, nor is it illegal to exchange the resulting intelligence. Well the spying might technically be illegal, but that's how it works anyway.
The business name for what you describe is called Arbitrage
This is why many american long distance calls are re-routed through canada. And canadian calls re-route to US and then back up to Canada to complete the connection. In this way all long distance calls can be monitored and recorded as international calls from an outside country. And yes... the data is exchanged. In Canada, the CRTC requested information from the telecom providers to see how often this is happening. The telephone companies never supplied an accurate estimate, but it was reported to be a large percentage. The telephone companies said they do this to make traffic more efficient when transferring calls coast to coast and such. But you got to wonder about the actual efficiency claims when both countries are doing it for each other at the same time. Get it?
It is safe to assume that long distance national calls are recorded and possibly profiled on mass.
this line: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"
The next time a guest says this while in your home... tell the guest you agree and that you have hidden cameras in every room of the house, including the bathroom. Preferably, tell them this after dinner. See how they feel and how long they stay. Privacy is something we all desire. We all shit, but nobody wants to have it exposed for no reason. Just because its not a crime doesnt mean we need to let everyone look through it.
The concept that you shouldn't care because you're not committing the offence is the same one they used to destroy ordinary US citizens in the guise of defending against communism. It is the same reason they tried to impeach the president over light infidelity when they were apparently search for real estate fraud dealings.
And you just know when someone says that "if you oppose this then you support child porn", that this law will have nothing to do with child porn at all. Because if the supporters have to explain to us that it has something to do with it... then it has nothing to do with it at all.
They're garage cars that rich people can buy and tell their friends about over dinner.
They're expensive conversation pieces. If I owned five cars and was looking for a sixth, I might get a Tesla.
If I had 5 other cars, this is the one I would take out for local driving. Assuming it drives well, but it is fast and quiet. And just because one is rich... you shouldnt assume that they all love to waste earth resources. Why would a rich person even consider buying this if not to drive it? It is not a super expensive car. I can name many others in the +100k range that are far more exotic. Its a little ridiculous to say that just because you cannot afford $60-$90k that it is a "rich mans car". I cant afford it... but it is definately not in the exotic collectors range. It seems that the moment anyone mentions the word "electric"... everyone claims that it is for rich people to poke fun of everyone else still using gasoline. And yet truly expensive gas models actually do come out every year from other car makers and I never hear a peep about it... I never hear people complain about them targeting the "rich market", and yet that is exactly what they do.
There are collectors cars for rich garages... this is not one of them
I think the reality is that in our hearts... we all want to be driving electric. But since we cant afford it right now, we just continue to think of reasons why we wouldnt like it anyways. Well I for one will not miss stopping at the stinky gas stations or the engine noise, or the smell from the exhaust.
When you think about it, this is the ultimate way for a rich person to use their money to flip the bird at other cars as they go by.
Why is it that some people get so upset when someone drives an electric vehicle. I guess some people really do think that the only reason to buy an electric vehicle is to feel superior over your neighbour. I do ride electric and I do get a lot of anger from some people and usually they are driving something rather fuel inefficient. I could care less what other people choose to drive or the reasons behind it. Why is it that some people take your purchasing decisions as a personal attack against them?
But I do think your right... some do actually believe that others would pay additional just to indirectly "flip the bird" them. Maybe this is "sour grapes", but it is definitely ignorant.
To those gas drivers out there who get upset on seeing electric: No one cares what you drive... so why do you care what we drive?
They are not failing to follow any part of any contract. Nowhere in the EULA does it say a partial refund will be provided, nor does it even guarantee a refund in the first place. it says
By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, return it to the retailer for a refund or credit. If you cannot obtain a refund there, contact Microsoft or the Microsoft affiliate serving your country for information about Microsoft’s refund policies. See www.microsoft.com/worldwide. In the United States and Canada, call (800) MICROSOFT or see www.microsoft.com/info/nareturns.htm.
No it doesnt. Not in my country. It says this:
If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, you may not use or copy the SOFTWARE, and you should promptly contact Manufacturer for instructions on return of the unused product(s) for a refund in accordance with Manufacturer's return policies.
That sounds like the license that comes from a stand-alone purchase of Windows off the shelf. If you get and OEM version like when it is included with a computer, then it will tell you to contact the manufacture. Lenovo alone is responsible for providing the refund they promised. The judge made the correct decision here.
If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, you may not use or copy the SOFTWARE, and you should promptly contact Manufacturer for instructions on return of the unused product(s) for a refund in accordance with Manufacturer's return policies.
Wrong. Microsoft didnt sell you windows. The manufacturer sold the consumer a microsoft license. In the EULA it clearly says this and it says that the Manufacture will handle the refund. Microsoft is not held accountable in the wording of the EULA and should not be contacted to attempt a refund. They would never give you a refund... so dont try this avenue. They are not legally responsible like the manufacture is.
This doesnt have to do with a retailer. It is a contract to the Manufacture: Lenovo. It is totally a legally binding contract between the consumer and the manufacturer... that is why the judge order the manufacture to honour the contract and pay the refund.
You also completely missed the fact that the contract is between the end user and Microsoft, Lenovo is not a party to the contract.
You didnt read the EULA. Here is what you should read that shows the contract covering Microsoft software is really between the consumer and Lenovo:
This End-User License Agreement ('EULA') is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and the manufacturer ("Manufacturer") of the computer system or computer system component ('HARDWARE') with which you acquired the Microsoft software product(s) identified on the Certificate of Authenticity ("COA") affixed to the HARDWARE or on the associated product documentation ("SOFTWARE").
Also you said:
There is specific text in the eula that covers the event that you are not given a refund or credit from the place you bought it from.
There is no such text. Please quote the text from the contract if you have it. Instead it clearly says that the manufacture is responsible for supplying the requested refund:
If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, you may not use or copy the SOFTWARE, and you should promptly contact Manufacturer for instructions on return of the unused product(s) for a refund in accordance with Manufacturer's return policies.
I suggest you stop guessing what it says and read the EULA.
You cannot buy either part seperately. Lenovo didn't offer the computer without an operating system and you cannot buy an OEM version of Windows without a computer.
Yes it does:
If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, you may not use or copy the SOFTWARE, and you should promptly contact Manufacturer for instructions on return of the unused product(s) for a refund in accordance with Manufacturer's return policies.
And the "SOFTWARE" only refers to microsoft parts:
The SOFTWARE includes Microsoft computer software, and may include associated media, printed material, 'online' or electronic documentation, and internet based services.
And there is a separate contract covering non-microsoft software and the hardware. This is a separate contract from the main PC and it says you can get a refund. Try reading it if you want a refund... it says that you can do so.
Yeah if it's a part of one single product you've bought.
The trouble in this case is that it's 2 separate products (a laptop and an operating system) done by 2 separate companies (lenovo and microsoft) and which are bundled together, with a complex EULA and other legal paper binding the whole together.
No. The hardware and software are both sold by one company: LENOVO.
They provide a lease to the microsoft software... but microsoft is not selling it to you and has no obligation to support it. Everything this person bought is from Lenovo and Microsoft is clearly not responsible to answer to the consumer.
Here is the contract that HP gave me and I assure you the Lenovo contract looks the same:
This End-User License Agreement ('EULA') is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and the manufacturer ("Manufacturer") of the computer system or computer system component ('HARDWARE') with which you acquired the Microsoft software product(s) identified on the Certificate of Authenticity ("COA") affixed to the HARDWARE or on the associated product documentation ("SOFTWARE").
In standard language this says: Everything you bought that says "Microsoft"... well you bought it from Hewlett Packard (or Lenovo in the case of this article)
but it is part of the product Lenovo sold as a whole since they did not offer the computer without the software.
This is a common misconception. The reality is that product is not sold as a whole as there is an additional contract to sign after the "contract of sale".
Secondly, they do offer the product to be purchased without the software. This is outlined in the EULA contract agreement. It clearly states that you have the option to get a refund on the software portion of the two separate products sold in one box at one price. This doesnt make the two products suddenly one. In fact it says so in the EULA.
Here is exactly what HP said to me in the contract:
If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, you may not use or copy the SOFTWARE, and you should promptly contact Manufacturer for instructions on return of the unused product(s) for a refund in accordance with Manufacturer's return policies.
And this contract only applies to the MS software portion and not the hardware
The SOFTWARE includes Microsoft computer software, and may include associated media, printed material, 'online' or electronic documentation, and internet based services.
The hardware contract is a different document and completely separate return policy
Its like purchasing a product that has a mail in rebate. You purchase the product and mail off the rebate. After a month, you receive mail from the manufacture, saying "sorry, we dont offer the rebate... please take ur product back for a refund". But the manufacturer knows that you probably wont return it. After all, you have been using the product for a month now and you obviously wanted the product in the beginning or you wouldnt have purchased it. Now they are just playing the averages and assuming that most consumers will just "eat" the cost of not getting the rebate they promised.
Have you ever purchased a product with a mail in rebate that you never received? If so... then you know how it feels for those of us who do not use Microsoft software.