Spying is spying. It doesn't matter one bit to me whether or not the spying is being done by the government, companies, advertisers, or overt criminals. Attackers are attackers. All of the things you need to do to minimize the security risk are identical regardless.
Most of the time, the camera LED (which, increasingly, doesn't even exist) is controlled by software. It's very easy to turn the camera on and keep the LED off.
Hmmm, I have been running Linux on my laptops for many years now. While in the older days there were sometimes problems getting the stuff to work (due to driver issues), it's been a long time since this was an issue.
I open the laptops up and physically disable the microphone, but I just tape over the camera (on the theory that I might want to use the camera someday, and I can always plug an external microphone in if needed). The strange thing is that I haven't actually needed either of those things in a decade or so.
If, as your say, privacy is already dead then there 's no point to your questions. I, however, think there's still hope. Here's my answers:
Security is extremely critical. I would forgo most medical care to maintain it, if necessary. What would happen to me if my medical data is revealed entirely depends on who it's revealed to. I do not trust any of my providers to keep my data private, but the level of my mistrust varies according to which specific provider we're talking about. Certainly, once a hospital or insurance company is involved, there can be no trust whatsoever.
And I would favor the opposite. What I look like naked is one of the least sensitive (or interesting) items in my list of sensitive information about me.
Perhaps to minimize the amount of risk? If both you and your insurance company keep your medical records in the cloud, your exposure and risk has doubled.
One of the reasons I love my doctor is that he keeps two sets of records: the set that is shared with other doctors and insurance companies, and a "private notes" set that includes things that are likely to be harmful to his patients if they would be disclosed (drug use, STD history, etc.). The "private notes" are not shared (outside of a court order, I suppose), and are destroyed when the information is no longer relevant.
He started doing this to make sure his patients knew he was a safe place and they could actually be honest with him.
Schools are often the available caregivers, with the legal responsibilities described as "in loco parentis". They are responsible for the child's safety on the school grounds, including the child's medical safety.
In my area, schools provide zero medical attention to students. They literally aren't even allowed to apply bandages. If a student has a medical problem that requires attention, the school just calls the parents or, if it's urgent enough, an ambulance. In that situation, all of the information the school actually needs can be covered with a MedicAlert bracelet.
They don't even need immunization records: parents are expected to supply proof of immunzation, so parents keep the records.
Note that the first is illegal under the ACA, and the second is likely either illegal or actionable under the ADA.
Yeah, so what? Lots of things that are commonly done (particularly by big businesses) are illegal. That doesn't mean they won't do them, and it doesn't mean you have any real recourse when they do.
At least not without encrypting all the data before it gets transmitted to the cloud. The cloud is unsuitable for the storage or processing of any remotely sensitive data.
I'm guess people are hedging their bets and waiting.
This is what I'm doing. For the moment, I can make my systems continue to work by removing systemd, but I see the day coming when that will no longer be feasible. When that happens, I'll survey the landscape and pick an OS that meets my needs. Who knows? Maybe systemd will resolve all the problems that make it unworkable for me and the OS I pick will be the same one I'm using right now.
It's essentially a cost/benefit decision. Right now, sitting pat is the most economic answer, but ultimately it won't be.
Red hat never asked, nor coerced you to use systemd.
True. The coercion was applied to the other distros. The distros are coercing users to use systemd. I don't see how that's much better.
My bias: systemd has been a disaster for me, and it's necessary to remove it to make everything work properly (which is becoming more difficult over time). Either that, or spend a few weeks restructuring my machines and replacing software that I am pleased with.
It sure looks that way. If that's actually the case, then I am at a loss for words. The amount of bad judgment required to resolve a Gnome bug by modifying the behavior of the OS is stunning.
Change, even small changes, has a cost. If the benefit from the change exceeds the cost, then all is well. My problem with this (and I'll admit, this more a "burr in my side" thing than a serious problem) is that the benefit seems slight to nonexistent.
Change is a part of tech, and that's a good thing. But change without compensatory benefit is a bad thing, even in tech.
Even with the new settings, no user process will be killed on exit/logout if the user have told the system not to. Instead of starting the program with with "nohup" you start it with "systemd-run" instead.
Yes. The issue isn't that it can't be done. The issue is that longstanding default behavior has changed. Since it appears that there's no good, solid reason for the change, people are objecting to it. Change for change's sake is bad.
I don't know about him, but I have several machines that are only used by me that I log into and out of frequently, mostly because I'm doing so in different ways and from different places.
Google could help their case if they were more careful about software quality. Marshmallow simply blows, and I'm doing my best to avoid letting it install on any other devices.
Same posters, the difference is purely on whether it might affect them personally.
Since you replied to me, I assume that your amusement is about my comment? If so, then you're incorrect. My stance on these issues does not change as you say. I am 100% opposed to devices or software that automatically updates or applies patches without getting my permission first.
I use a smartphone, and retain nearly as much control over it as I have over my desktop. I had to put a little work into it, such as rooting it, installing a firewall, etc., but it certainly can be done.
Slashdot Mirror
Spying is spying. It doesn't matter one bit to me whether or not the spying is being done by the government, companies, advertisers, or overt criminals. Attackers are attackers. All of the things you need to do to minimize the security risk are identical regardless.
Most of the time, the camera LED (which, increasingly, doesn't even exist) is controlled by software. It's very easy to turn the camera on and keep the LED off.
Hmmm, I have been running Linux on my laptops for many years now. While in the older days there were sometimes problems getting the stuff to work (due to driver issues), it's been a long time since this was an issue.
My mom says it's hard to hear me when I call, though.
Wait, you actually make calls with your phone??
I open the laptops up and physically disable the microphone, but I just tape over the camera (on the theory that I might want to use the camera someday, and I can always plug an external microphone in if needed). The strange thing is that I haven't actually needed either of those things in a decade or so.
I'm pretty sure I never will.
If, as your say, privacy is already dead then there 's no point to your questions. I, however, think there's still hope. Here's my answers:
Security is extremely critical. I would forgo most medical care to maintain it, if necessary. What would happen to me if my medical data is revealed entirely depends on who it's revealed to. I do not trust any of my providers to keep my data private, but the level of my mistrust varies according to which specific provider we're talking about. Certainly, once a hospital or insurance company is involved, there can be no trust whatsoever.
And I would favor the opposite. What I look like naked is one of the least sensitive (or interesting) items in my list of sensitive information about me.
Perhaps to minimize the amount of risk? If both you and your insurance company keep your medical records in the cloud, your exposure and risk has doubled.
This.
One of the reasons I love my doctor is that he keeps two sets of records: the set that is shared with other doctors and insurance companies, and a "private notes" set that includes things that are likely to be harmful to his patients if they would be disclosed (drug use, STD history, etc.). The "private notes" are not shared (outside of a court order, I suppose), and are destroyed when the information is no longer relevant.
He started doing this to make sure his patients knew he was a safe place and they could actually be honest with him.
Schools are often the available caregivers, with the legal responsibilities described as "in loco parentis". They are responsible for the child's safety on the school grounds, including the child's medical safety.
In my area, schools provide zero medical attention to students. They literally aren't even allowed to apply bandages. If a student has a medical problem that requires attention, the school just calls the parents or, if it's urgent enough, an ambulance. In that situation, all of the information the school actually needs can be covered with a MedicAlert bracelet.
They don't even need immunization records: parents are expected to supply proof of immunzation, so parents keep the records.
Note that the first is illegal under the ACA, and the second is likely either illegal or actionable under the ADA.
Yeah, so what? Lots of things that are commonly done (particularly by big businesses) are illegal. That doesn't mean they won't do them, and it doesn't mean you have any real recourse when they do.
The justification for the health insurance mandate is that society isn't willing to let the uninsured die.
Instead, society is willing to ensure that lots of Americans will remain in legally enforced poverty.
Modern health insurance is essentially worthless. If you are insured and suffer a major medical problem, you're still going to be ruined.
At least not without encrypting all the data before it gets transmitted to the cloud. The cloud is unsuitable for the storage or processing of any remotely sensitive data.
I've seen this reported elsewhere too. Is this really true? If so, that's a complete showstopper.
I'm guess people are hedging their bets and waiting.
This is what I'm doing. For the moment, I can make my systems continue to work by removing systemd, but I see the day coming when that will no longer be feasible. When that happens, I'll survey the landscape and pick an OS that meets my needs. Who knows? Maybe systemd will resolve all the problems that make it unworkable for me and the OS I pick will be the same one I'm using right now.
It's essentially a cost/benefit decision. Right now, sitting pat is the most economic answer, but ultimately it won't be.
Red hat never asked, nor coerced you to use systemd.
True. The coercion was applied to the other distros. The distros are coercing users to use systemd. I don't see how that's much better.
My bias: systemd has been a disaster for me, and it's necessary to remove it to make everything work properly (which is becoming more difficult over time). Either that, or spend a few weeks restructuring my machines and replacing software that I am pleased with.
It sure looks that way. If that's actually the case, then I am at a loss for words. The amount of bad judgment required to resolve a Gnome bug by modifying the behavior of the OS is stunning.
Change, even small changes, has a cost. If the benefit from the change exceeds the cost, then all is well. My problem with this (and I'll admit, this more a "burr in my side" thing than a serious problem) is that the benefit seems slight to nonexistent.
Change is a part of tech, and that's a good thing. But change without compensatory benefit is a bad thing, even in tech.
Even with the new settings, no user process will be killed on exit/logout if the user have told the system not to.
Instead of starting the program with with "nohup" you start it with "systemd-run" instead.
Yes. The issue isn't that it can't be done. The issue is that longstanding default behavior has changed. Since it appears that there's no good, solid reason for the change, people are objecting to it. Change for change's sake is bad.
I don't know about him, but I have several machines that are only used by me that I log into and out of frequently, mostly because I'm doing so in different ways and from different places.
Google could help their case if they were more careful about software quality. Marshmallow simply blows, and I'm doing my best to avoid letting it install on any other devices.
Unlike with Windows 10, with Windows 7 you actually can remove the spyware. Check out this link: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmas...
Same posters, the difference is purely on whether it might affect them personally.
Since you replied to me, I assume that your amusement is about my comment? If so, then you're incorrect. My stance on these issues does not change as you say. I am 100% opposed to devices or software that automatically updates or applies patches without getting my permission first.
I use a smartphone, and retain nearly as much control over it as I have over my desktop. I had to put a little work into it, such as rooting it, installing a firewall, etc., but it certainly can be done.