If Windows 10 represents Microsoft's idea of what a "better future for everyone" looks like, that's an excellent indication that Microsoft is still sick.
people who think they can outsmart other people are not clever enough to do so.
Well, they can outsmart some people, but yes. If you really think you're the smartest one in the room, then your comeuppance is only a matter of time -- and usually, not very much time.
But at the same time, it's important to remind people that they may not be as secure as they're assuming, so that innocent people don't get caught out.
My favorite definition of "virtual" is one I got in an advertising class talking about meaningless advertising words. Whenever you see "virtual", you can mentally replace it with "not in fact".
Yes, this is exactly correct. VPNs don't disguise endpoints or decorrelate access times.
Personally, I use a VPN solely so that I don't have to worry quite as much when I'm connecting through WiFi access points that I don't control (open access points, workplace WiFi, etc.).
I'm not even trying to hide from my ISP (since, at some point, my datastream is going to be exposed to an ISP anyway -- at least this way, I know which one I'm exposed to). So, I don't use a third party VPN. I run my own VPN server, and my devices all use that.
Security is always a tradeoff, and others may not find this one acceptable for their situation and preferences. But it works for me.
Encrypting your actual payload data is insufficient (metadata is often just as revealing as payload data). That's why the more skilled hackers and criminals use multiple VPNs along with services that decorrelate access times.
I just looked over PureVPN's site and policies and they make no claim about logging one way or the other.
Not true. TFA links to Pure's page where they specifically claim that they do not log your activities. That page has even been quoted a couple of times by other commenters.
That list doesn't really mean anything, though. All they've done is ask providers questions and ranked them according to the provided answers. There has been no independent verification of the provider's practices or technical security, so there's no way to tell if the answers were complete and honest.
Slashdot Mirror
I've purchased more desk/laptops than phones, but none of them are running Microsoft operating systems.
Replace that with your Biometric Passport.
Most Americans don't have a passport, and many can't get one.
People should have skin in the game to access credit.
I thought the "skin in the game" that people have is the interest on the debt they're assuming.
The serious problem with biometrics is that if your "id" is stolen, you can't change it. You're simply screwed.
Do you mean designing Windows 10 specs to be nearly identical to the Specs of Windows 7?
He probably means the terrible UI changes and transforming the OS into spyware.
Not true. If Microsoft stopped producing spyware and started behaving like a trustworthy company, I would absolutely praise them.
but everyone has to admit, they have taken some steps to move in the right direction.
No, I don't agree with this at all.
If Windows 10 represents Microsoft's idea of what a "better future for everyone" looks like, that's an excellent indication that Microsoft is still sick.
Whats wrong with vengeance?
A "justice system" is supposed to result in justice. Vengeance isn't justice, it's emotional expression.
I'm not feeling the outrage.
I'm not even upset, let alone outraged.
Perhaps that the feds issued a search warrant to get the Gmail logs?
That's just Pure being deceptive. The point that VPNs aren't designed to keep you anonymous is true regardless of what they say.
people who think they can outsmart other people are not clever enough to do so.
Well, they can outsmart some people, but yes. If you really think you're the smartest one in the room, then your comeuppance is only a matter of time -- and usually, not very much time.
Citing "deterrence" is very often a thin disguise over the real intent: vengeance.
The guy is getting what he deserves.
I'm glad that this scumbag got caught.
But at the same time, it's important to remind people that they may not be as secure as they're assuming, so that innocent people don't get caught out.
Indeed. I think it's safe to assume three things: some are lying, some are honest, and we can't really distinguish between the two.
My favorite definition of "virtual" is one I got in an advertising class talking about meaningless advertising words. Whenever you see "virtual", you can mentally replace it with "not in fact".
The best defense is not to do dumb stuff in the first place.
That doesn't protect you from other entities doing dumb or abusive stuff, though.
The more you can verify, the less you need to rely on trust. But how do you verify that a VPN provider is well-behaved?
VPNs aren't meant to keep people anonymous.
Yes, this is exactly correct. VPNs don't disguise endpoints or decorrelate access times.
Personally, I use a VPN solely so that I don't have to worry quite as much when I'm connecting through WiFi access points that I don't control (open access points, workplace WiFi, etc.).
I'm not even trying to hide from my ISP (since, at some point, my datastream is going to be exposed to an ISP anyway -- at least this way, I know which one I'm exposed to). So, I don't use a third party VPN. I run my own VPN server, and my devices all use that.
Security is always a tradeoff, and others may not find this one acceptable for their situation and preferences. But it works for me.
Yes, this is a good and important point.
Encrypting your actual payload data is insufficient (metadata is often just as revealing as payload data). That's why the more skilled hackers and criminals use multiple VPNs along with services that decorrelate access times.
I just looked over PureVPN's site and policies and they make no claim about logging one way or the other.
Not true. TFA links to Pure's page where they specifically claim that they do not log your activities. That page has even been quoted a couple of times by other commenters.
Except that, according to TFA, Pure is lying when they say that.
That list doesn't really mean anything, though. All they've done is ask providers questions and ranked them according to the provided answers. There has been no independent verification of the provider's practices or technical security, so there's no way to tell if the answers were complete and honest.
That's not the reasoning. Some are surely trustworthy. The underlying problem is that you literally have no way to tell which ones those are.