Also, if you use TOR, a lot of sites make you identify yourself in some other way before you can use them, which defeats the purpose.
Well, in fairness, that entirely depends on what you're using Tor for. If your purpose is to keep your identity a secret from the entity you're communicating with, then yes -- identifying yourself to them is counterproductive.
If, however, your purpose is to foil third parties who want to glean information from your communication, identifying yourself to the endpoint you're intending to talk to doesn't impact that at all.
That would help to obscure the traffic source, but the contents of the traffic would still be visible to VPN #2.
For my purposes, I care more about obscuring the contents of my traffic than about obscuring the location of the endpoints.
If I need tighter security than that, then I'll use Tor.
But, as with all security mechanisms, you can't have perfect security no matter what you do. So everyone has to decide for themselves how much makes sense and just call it good.
For me, that means running my own VPN that connects my mobile devices to my home network, and accepting that my ISP gets to see all the traffic that I don't encrypt further. But at least my mobile carrier doesn't, nor my workplace, nor random people at a public hotspot.
Yeah, I've been running my own VPN for about a decade now -- pretty similar to your setup, except I don't rent a host, I run it on my own set of servers at home.
I'm still exposed to my ISP, of course. Also, this isn't a solution that the average person can really do.
Open my wallet? I have no problems paying for things. The issue is -- where can I find a service that I can trust, paid or not? I submit that I can't. Not to say they don't exist, but that it's impossible to tell who they are.
Yes, there are different sets of needs to be sure. I'm more like you in my needs, but I don't trust third party VPN providers to help because they are themselves likely to engage in the sorts of spying that I'm trying to avoid. Still, better to have one spy than hundreds, I suppose, so it's not without value.
I take a different compromise: I run my own VPN server and use it for internet (and LAN) access when I'm not at home. That way, I only have to engage in mitigation in one place.
But my needs don't include things like trying to obscure my physical location, and (obviously) my ISP can still see everything that I haven't encrypted.
Your VPN provider has access to your traffic. If anyone aside from you or the party you're communicating with has access to your traffic, your communications are not secure -- even if that "anyone" uses the acronym "VPN".
Since you were replying to me, let me just say this: I am most certainly not "flipping the fuck out". I'm not even mildly ruffled. From where I sit, it looks like you're the one who's flipping out.
Don't be obtuse you know exactly what blacklist means
I do indeed. I even defined it in my comment. My point was that nothing in the reports I've read actually look like a blacklist -- so I'm wondering what they mean when they use the word.
Lots of you work in REALLY strange environments. Yes, we do not really discuss religion much (and politics not that much more), but nobody would think to PROHIBIT it?!
Well, as the comments here demonstrate, politics in the US are unbelievably divisive. In a work environment, you don't want people to start hating each other because of things that have nothing to do with work.
What kind of co-workers do you have if you can't talk about politics in a rational fashion with at least 90% of them?
I don't even know the political views of any of my coworkers at all, but there have been coworkers that I don't work with. They have been people who are terrible at their job, or are obnoxious, and one who simply smelled too bad to be near.
Most places that I've worked has had pretty strict prohibitions on discussing politics or religion in the workplace, no matter what flavor of those things is involved. For good and obvious reasons, I think -- such discussions can only lead to grief and strife among people who would otherwise be able to work productively together. I'm a bit surprised that Google allows it.
Also, I'm not clear on what is meant by "blacklist". Typically, that means a list of people who are ineligible for (whatever) that is distributed within an organization and everyone is expected to adhere to.
But the article makes it sound like something rather different: individuals deciding that they can't work with other individuals. This is pretty normal. I know that in most places that I've worked, there have been people that I would go to great lengths to avoid interacting with, and in a managerial role, there have been people who I would not accept on my team because of personality issues.
Is that a "blacklist"? I don't think so. I think it's more about wanting to have teams that can function well together. Being able to get along well in a team is as important as technical skill.
Any autopilot system, whether in a plane or in a car, that requires a constant communications link to function is a non-starter. Far, far too dangerous.
What most employers want to see is recent examples of your work. Whether or not that work is "trendy" is far less important than it demonstrates the quality of your work and that you possess the sort of skills they are looking for.
If a potential employer is more impressed with how trendy your projects are than with the skill they demonstrate, then you really don't want to work there.
I use the slower times to catch up on all the routine work that tends to get back-burnered during crunch time. Fixing those annoying little problems that aren't urgent enough to make it onto the formal schedule, improving infrastructure, writing internal documentation, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, if you use TOR, a lot of sites make you identify yourself in some other way before you can use them, which defeats the purpose.
Well, in fairness, that entirely depends on what you're using Tor for. If your purpose is to keep your identity a secret from the entity you're communicating with, then yes -- identifying yourself to them is counterproductive.
If, however, your purpose is to foil third parties who want to glean information from your communication, identifying yourself to the endpoint you're intending to talk to doesn't impact that at all.
That would help to obscure the traffic source, but the contents of the traffic would still be visible to VPN #2.
For my purposes, I care more about obscuring the contents of my traffic than about obscuring the location of the endpoints.
If I need tighter security than that, then I'll use Tor.
But, as with all security mechanisms, you can't have perfect security no matter what you do. So everyone has to decide for themselves how much makes sense and just call it good.
For me, that means running my own VPN that connects my mobile devices to my home network, and accepting that my ISP gets to see all the traffic that I don't encrypt further. But at least my mobile carrier doesn't, nor my workplace, nor random people at a public hotspot.
Agreed.
I would agree with your statement even more if you removed the word "freebie" from it.
Yeah, I've been running my own VPN for about a decade now -- pretty similar to your setup, except I don't rent a host, I run it on my own set of servers at home.
I'm still exposed to my ISP, of course. Also, this isn't a solution that the average person can really do.
Open my wallet? I have no problems paying for things. The issue is -- where can I find a service that I can trust, paid or not? I submit that I can't. Not to say they don't exist, but that it's impossible to tell who they are.
That statement is obsolete, since you're often the product even when you are paying for it.
Yes, there are different sets of needs to be sure. I'm more like you in my needs, but I don't trust third party VPN providers to help because they are themselves likely to engage in the sorts of spying that I'm trying to avoid. Still, better to have one spy than hundreds, I suppose, so it's not without value.
I take a different compromise: I run my own VPN server and use it for internet (and LAN) access when I'm not at home. That way, I only have to engage in mitigation in one place.
But my needs don't include things like trying to obscure my physical location, and (obviously) my ISP can still see everything that I haven't encrypted.
Your VPN provider has access to your traffic. If anyone aside from you or the party you're communicating with has access to your traffic, your communications are not secure -- even if that "anyone" uses the acronym "VPN".
Since you were replying to me, let me just say this: I am most certainly not "flipping the fuck out". I'm not even mildly ruffled. From where I sit, it looks like you're the one who's flipping out.
Don't be obtuse you know exactly what blacklist means
I do indeed. I even defined it in my comment. My point was that nothing in the reports I've read actually look like a blacklist -- so I'm wondering what they mean when they use the word.
Lots of you work in REALLY strange environments. Yes, we do not really discuss religion much (and politics not that much more), but nobody would think to PROHIBIT it?!
Well, as the comments here demonstrate, politics in the US are unbelievably divisive. In a work environment, you don't want people to start hating each other because of things that have nothing to do with work.
What kind of co-workers do you have if you can't talk about politics in a rational fashion with at least 90% of them?
You can, if you want. Just not in the office.
I don't agree with many of their political views.
I don't even know the political views of any of my coworkers at all, but there have been coworkers that I don't work with. They have been people who are terrible at their job, or are obnoxious, and one who simply smelled too bad to be near.
Not just in California, in the whole nation.
That's a really nice way of rephrasing his actual message: that women are inherently inferior.
Most places that I've worked has had pretty strict prohibitions on discussing politics or religion in the workplace, no matter what flavor of those things is involved. For good and obvious reasons, I think -- such discussions can only lead to grief and strife among people who would otherwise be able to work productively together. I'm a bit surprised that Google allows it.
Also, I'm not clear on what is meant by "blacklist". Typically, that means a list of people who are ineligible for (whatever) that is distributed within an organization and everyone is expected to adhere to.
But the article makes it sound like something rather different: individuals deciding that they can't work with other individuals. This is pretty normal. I know that in most places that I've worked, there have been people that I would go to great lengths to avoid interacting with, and in a managerial role, there have been people who I would not accept on my team because of personality issues.
Is that a "blacklist"? I don't think so. I think it's more about wanting to have teams that can function well together. Being able to get along well in a team is as important as technical skill.
Military drones are mostly flown by human operators.
Any autopilot system, whether in a plane or in a car, that requires a constant communications link to function is a non-starter. Far, far too dangerous.
I have exactly zero problem with the idea.
What keeps me from flying is my unwillingness to put up with the TSA.
Google keeps trying to convince everyone that YouTube is "social media".
It's not. It's a video distribution channel.
Being in the EULA doesn't count as me giving permission.
I understand that's not legally true, but it's certainly true in terms of common sense.
That's not even remotely true.
What most employers want to see is recent examples of your work. Whether or not that work is "trendy" is far less important than it demonstrates the quality of your work and that you possess the sort of skills they are looking for.
If a potential employer is more impressed with how trendy your projects are than with the skill they demonstrate, then you really don't want to work there.
You have 8 bosses??
I'd be looking for another job, personally.
I use the slower times to catch up on all the routine work that tends to get back-burnered during crunch time. Fixing those annoying little problems that aren't urgent enough to make it onto the formal schedule, improving infrastructure, writing internal documentation, etc.
The moon shot was a balls-to-the-wall effort of the sort that can only be realistically pulled of for single projects of extreme urgency.
That level of effort is unsustainable, and should not be done as a routine matter. You burn out too many excellent people.
This.
It's one of my pet peeves when people use the word "successful" as a synonym for "wealthy". They are two different things.
You are successful if you've achieved your goals. If those goals are to accumulate wealth, then being wealthy is being successful for you.
However, most people don't have "get rich" as their goal, so they can be successful without it.