That won't actually be a problem, I think. The bill only requires provision to cancel the account online if you can sign up online. Business accounts of any importance usually don't get done that way. We had a sales rep come in and give us a presentation before we signed any contracts.
It's a good bill, well written, and I dearly hop that the chimpanzees in Sacramento shove it down Comcasts' throat until they choke on it.
And convince terrorists worldwide to use other - less secure - phones. It's not the best outcome for them, but it's better than getting handed their ass in the PR battle, like they were.
In fact, I have been targeted, and laughed in their faces each time. Same is true of pretty much everyone I know who isn't mentally impaired by age, drug addiction or some other medical condition. So, no, not anyone can get scammed. If you have enough of a clue to run your life without a court appointed guardian, you should know that the government does do things this way. If you don't, I have zero sympathy.
Mug people in the park or starve? Knife people and steal their shoes or starve? Rob banks or starve? A felony is a felony, and telephone fraud is a felony.
The people who take the job are just as responsible. They choose, of their own free will, to be criminals. I have no sympathy for them, and they're available to tell what I think of them.
That's the reason for the D or R after the name: You literally cannot tell them apart without a score card any more (and haven't been able to for decades).
They all ultimately want the same thing: to go through your pockets for loose change they missed last time.
Illegal under the laws of what country? What enforcement mechanism would you suggest when one (or a hundred) sovereign nations tell you to go fuck yourself?
If they were storing credit card info in plain text, they weren't PCI compliant, and are 100% responsible for all costs relating to the investigation (average cost: $100,000) and remediation ($4-5 per card to replace, plus all fraud and related fees).
And they likely won't be allowed to take credit cards much longer.
That isn't true. The CIA is prohibited to performed law enforcement functions inside the US. The NSA is not. They can be used just like any other outside forensic service, which all levels of law enforcement use all the time. Including the FBI.
I can think of ways to approach it. Mostly by the web site pulling the ad and resending it, while sending all the tracking stuff back to the ad network. Completely invisible to the end user, it all looks like it locally hosted by the site.
The drawbacks, of course, are that the host site now has to pay for all that additional bandwidth (which is usually at least an order of magnitude more than the actual web page itself), and also they get more legal liability when they're sending out malware.
Print ads cost a lot more than web page ads. That means there's enough money to pay for an employee to look at each ad. For the big ad networks, with millions of ads being served every year, that's not possible, ever. The alternative isn't between human reviewed ads and broken auto-review, the alternative is between broken auto-review and having to get an honest job because your ad company has gone bankrupt.
In other words, the web simply can't continue as an ad driven medium. Nobody will pay enough for web ads to cover the cost of human employees, nobody will pay for content on a paywalled site, and nobody in their right mind will tolerate the criminal enterprises that the ad networks have become without an ad blocker.
There is no solution. The basic nature of the web will change, because it has to. Personally, I won't miss the current cesspit of uselessness.
Once the precedent is set, the feds are only a national security letter away from telling Apple (and all other phone an IoT manufacturers) that "your next routine iOS (or whatever) update will have remote access to everything that we can activate without your involvement, and if anyone finds out it exists, you go to prison." That's not a hack, that's a built in back door, as part of the OS, and no security can possibly protect you from the manufacturer's deliberate intent.
The precedent is the only thing that matters here.
Seems likely, anyway. On the other hand, the FBI's posture is just a constitutional overreach and attempt to institutionalize the ignoring of due process, so they're about even.
Because the corporation has already been charged. What's your point here? You're saying if somebody does something illegal, everybody else gets a free pass to do illegal things to them? That's stupid.
No, that's socialism. Or what passes for it these days.
That also only cracks this phone. If they can get Apple to cough up the right info, they can use OS update features to crack all iPhones, everywhere, remotely.
I think they're also aiming to (eventually) use OS updates - which can be done remotely - to hack phones without having to have physical possession. Because seizing the phone can't be done without the owner knowing it, and getting warrants means dealing with judges. If they can do it remotely, they can ignore due process.
This is for opinion polls, not actual elections. And some stuff allows more than one vote. America's Got Talent, for instance, allows up to 10 votes per method (online - using your Google signon, I believe - text and 800 call) in the audience vote rounds.
Since getting extra votes on Google accounts is as simple as installing multiple browsers, or just going in to private browsing mode, it's so obviously unsuitable for anything that matters that even the government can figure it out.
That said, the Belgian woman was lying and using "GPS made me do it" as cover. No one is that stupid, for one thing you can't drive for two days straight without breaks and rest, which would be a dead give-away to anyone with enough cognitive function to actually be able to drive. Not to mention signposts in several different languages along the way
.
She was listed as being 67. If the story is taken at face value, she's senile, and needs a keeper.
Slashdot Mirror
The last time I canceled cable, I walked into the local office and gave them the box. They didn't argue.
That won't actually be a problem, I think. The bill only requires provision to cancel the account online if you can sign up online. Business accounts of any importance usually don't get done that way. We had a sales rep come in and give us a presentation before we signed any contracts.
It's a good bill, well written, and I dearly hop that the chimpanzees in Sacramento shove it down Comcasts' throat until they choke on it.
And convince terrorists worldwide to use other - less secure - phones. It's not the best outcome for them, but it's better than getting handed their ass in the PR battle, like they were.
In fact, I have been targeted, and laughed in their faces each time. Same is true of pretty much everyone I know who isn't mentally impaired by age, drug addiction or some other medical condition. So, no, not anyone can get scammed. If you have enough of a clue to run your life without a court appointed guardian, you should know that the government does do things this way. If you don't, I have zero sympathy.
How much did you get taken for?
Take a shit job or starve?
Mug people in the park or starve? Knife people and steal their shoes or starve? Rob banks or starve? A felony is a felony, and telephone fraud is a felony.
The people who take the job are just as responsible. They choose, of their own free will, to be criminals. I have no sympathy for them, and they're available to tell what I think of them.
You forgot:
3) PT Barnum was right. Without that, 1) and 2) don't matter.
That's the reason for the D or R after the name: You literally cannot tell them apart without a score card any more (and haven't been able to for decades).
They all ultimately want the same thing: to go through your pockets for loose change they missed last time.
Illegal under the laws of what country? What enforcement mechanism would you suggest when one (or a hundred) sovereign nations tell you to go fuck yourself?
If they were storing credit card info in plain text, they weren't PCI compliant, and are 100% responsible for all costs relating to the investigation (average cost: $100,000) and remediation ($4-5 per card to replace, plus all fraud and related fees).
And they likely won't be allowed to take credit cards much longer.
That isn't true. The CIA is prohibited to performed law enforcement functions inside the US. The NSA is not. They can be used just like any other outside forensic service, which all levels of law enforcement use all the time. Including the FBI.
Why would the AD network trust those companies?
In this scenario, because there's no other choice. If your customers say "my way or the highway," you do it their way or you close the doors.
I didn't way it was likely, just that it was possible.
I can think of ways to approach it. Mostly by the web site pulling the ad and resending it, while sending all the tracking stuff back to the ad network. Completely invisible to the end user, it all looks like it locally hosted by the site.
The drawbacks, of course, are that the host site now has to pay for all that additional bandwidth (which is usually at least an order of magnitude more than the actual web page itself), and also they get more legal liability when they're sending out malware.
Print ads cost a lot more than web page ads. That means there's enough money to pay for an employee to look at each ad. For the big ad networks, with millions of ads being served every year, that's not possible, ever. The alternative isn't between human reviewed ads and broken auto-review, the alternative is between broken auto-review and having to get an honest job because your ad company has gone bankrupt.
In other words, the web simply can't continue as an ad driven medium. Nobody will pay enough for web ads to cover the cost of human employees, nobody will pay for content on a paywalled site, and nobody in their right mind will tolerate the criminal enterprises that the ad networks have become without an ad blocker.
There is no solution. The basic nature of the web will change, because it has to. Personally, I won't miss the current cesspit of uselessness.
Once the precedent is set, the feds are only a national security letter away from telling Apple (and all other phone an IoT manufacturers) that "your next routine iOS (or whatever) update will have remote access to everything that we can activate without your involvement, and if anyone finds out it exists, you go to prison." That's not a hack, that's a built in back door, as part of the OS, and no security can possibly protect you from the manufacturer's deliberate intent.
The precedent is the only thing that matters here.
That is apparently the case, yes. Don't leave your phone lying around.
Seems likely, anyway. On the other hand, the FBI's posture is just a constitutional overreach and attempt to institutionalize the ignoring of due process, so they're about even.
Or so they say. They've also said they couldn't break in to phones with the wipe feature at all, but that's very, very clearly not true.
Because the corporation has already been charged. What's your point here? You're saying if somebody does something illegal, everybody else gets a free pass to do illegal things to them? That's stupid.
No, that's socialism. Or what passes for it these days.
Every coroner on every cop show on TV disagree with you. (Real life coroners have a more nuanced opinion.)
That also only cracks this phone. If they can get Apple to cough up the right info, they can use OS update features to crack all iPhones, everywhere, remotely.
I think they're also aiming to (eventually) use OS updates - which can be done remotely - to hack phones without having to have physical possession. Because seizing the phone can't be done without the owner knowing it, and getting warrants means dealing with judges. If they can do it remotely, they can ignore due process.
This is for opinion polls, not actual elections. And some stuff allows more than one vote. America's Got Talent, for instance, allows up to 10 votes per method (online - using your Google signon, I believe - text and 800 call) in the audience vote rounds.
Since getting extra votes on Google accounts is as simple as installing multiple browsers, or just going in to private browsing mode, it's so obviously unsuitable for anything that matters that even the government can figure it out.
That said, the Belgian woman was lying and using "GPS made me do it" as cover. No one is that stupid, for one thing you can't drive for two days straight without breaks and rest, which would be a dead give-away to anyone with enough cognitive function to actually be able to drive. Not to mention signposts in several different languages along the way
.
She was listed as being 67. If the story is taken at face value, she's senile, and needs a keeper.
ensure that only approved trolling and bullying can be done on their web site.
If Twitter mattered, it might be disturbing. But since, if you have something you can say in 140 characters, you have nothing to say, who cares?