First of all, this debacle wouldn't have occured if Google hadn't said it happened in the first place. Secondly, there was no "checking their email" - it was raw a dump of packets. Secondly, the landline is "encrypted" insofar you have to deliberately break open or otherwise rewire the wirebox, which is a crime. Lastly, cell phone conversations are in fact encrypted (although not very securely in my PERSONAL opinion) and if you wanted to listen in, you would have to crack the protocol being used, which would be a crime.
Wireless communication comes with basically plug and play security measures nowadays. Everybody are able to connect to or listen to the broadcasting device using the exact same equipment with nothing else needed if it is unencrypted.
Taking snapshots of a naked person in a bathroom with a window only viewable using specialist tools and from an unexpected location would equate you purposefully cracking the encryption of a secured broadcast. That's a whole different matter. This is basically somebody walking down the street when they see a couple fucking on their front lawn, no fence.
Because The Matrix was a cult movie with a strong plot and some thought-provoking themes, while Matrix 2/3 was simply action flicks with good casting and shiny effects that brought nothing new to the franchise and simply churned money over it?
The Matrix was an excellent movie of immortal value. Matrix 2/3 was merely good action movies of passing notice only because of the original =P
I don't hate them, but I can surely see why fans of the original think they were bad for the story.
Unfortunately, while you're not alone, you're still a statistic anomaly. Bad exposure is still exposure. Statistics shows that it is way better to piss off a few who abhor aggressive advertisement anyway in favour of many people remembering your product. So long as you don't do anything distinctly alienating to your target group, you're golden if they first think of your product before any other product when considering bying that kind of product.
The very key difference being that telemarketers were calling from within the same country as their targets. Internet advertisement and data mining is completely different to telemarketing.
I originally replied to a guy who thought that if you wanted privacy you were a no-good scumbag criminal (my emphasis). The opinion I expressed was that we had a right to privacy and that it was backwards that we had to protect ourselves against unjustified invasion of privacy. I never said that because we had this right we shouldn't actively protect ourselves against such invasion when it is evident that the police doesn't care two shits about our rights.
I'm not against encrypting your data, I'm FOR it. I'm merely expressing that I find the need for it distressing.
No, you're drawing a dichotomy in your head. Read the rest of my comment. The point of my post is that security through obscurity is a misapplication of resources. OS versus CS is a completely different discussion, which is why I believe what Chang is really saying (which doesn't sound as good and could probably get him booted) is that obscurity is more important than implementation.
However you can't really have security through obscurity in open source, hence instead of saying something that sounds bad, he switches it to "closed source is better than open source".
What Chang is basically saying is that "security through obscurity is inherently more safe than proper implementation" - something that was proven wrong a long time ago. Sure, when you got the implementation right, open source or closed source, extra obscurity won't hurt other than possibly maintenance, but prioritizing it is a misapplication of resources.
Sorry, you didn't really pass your comment like it actual had basis other than pulling it out of your ass. Sounds like I was wrong and if I was, I apologize. Care to enlighten me further?
Slashdot Mirror
That now they're adding a 'like' button, do we get a 'dislike' button too?
Said secondly twice, second time should obviously be "thirdly".
First of all, this debacle wouldn't have occured if Google hadn't said it happened in the first place. Secondly, there was no "checking their email" - it was raw a dump of packets. Secondly, the landline is "encrypted" insofar you have to deliberately break open or otherwise rewire the wirebox, which is a crime. Lastly, cell phone conversations are in fact encrypted (although not very securely in my PERSONAL opinion) and if you wanted to listen in, you would have to crack the protocol being used, which would be a crime.
Wireless communication comes with basically plug and play security measures nowadays. Everybody are able to connect to or listen to the broadcasting device using the exact same equipment with nothing else needed if it is unencrypted.
Taking snapshots of a naked person in a bathroom with a window only viewable using specialist tools and from an unexpected location would equate you purposefully cracking the encryption of a secured broadcast. That's a whole different matter. This is basically somebody walking down the street when they see a couple fucking on their front lawn, no fence.
Because The Matrix was a cult movie with a strong plot and some thought-provoking themes, while Matrix 2/3 was simply action flicks with good casting and shiny effects that brought nothing new to the franchise and simply churned money over it?
The Matrix was an excellent movie of immortal value. Matrix 2/3 was merely good action movies of passing notice only because of the original =P
I don't hate them, but I can surely see why fans of the original think they were bad for the story.
Right. So what you're implying is that America would actually put down sanctions to protect the privacy of their citizens?
So, almost double the speed on average of everybody else. "Amazing". I can see why you're not impressed.
Unfortunately, while you're not alone, you're still a statistic anomaly. Bad exposure is still exposure. Statistics shows that it is way better to piss off a few who abhor aggressive advertisement anyway in favour of many people remembering your product. So long as you don't do anything distinctly alienating to your target group, you're golden if they first think of your product before any other product when considering bying that kind of product.
The very key difference being that telemarketers were calling from within the same country as their targets. Internet advertisement and data mining is completely different to telemarketing.
I would assume that they didn't bother to scatter the ashes in the wind, but rather threw the urn into the lake.
I wonder how much it would cost them to get it placed at ground zero of a bomb test by their own military... Bonus points if it is nuclear.
privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment).
Uh, what are we disagreeing about again?
I originally replied to a guy who thought that if you wanted privacy you were a no-good scumbag criminal (my emphasis). The opinion I expressed was that we had a right to privacy and that it was backwards that we had to protect ourselves against unjustified invasion of privacy. I never said that because we had this right we shouldn't actively protect ourselves against such invasion when it is evident that the police doesn't care two shits about our rights.
I'm not against encrypting your data, I'm FOR it. I'm merely expressing that I find the need for it distressing.
No, it is not. Privacy is a right. Look it up.
You're missing the point. This is not about crime, this is about privacy.
What you're basically saying is that we don't need no stinking privacy, if you've done nothing wrong you got nothing to hide.
As the laws are now, the citizen has to take steps to prevent unjustified invasion of privacy by the state, which is completely backwards.
Given horribly conditions require a certain kind of humour to keep on going.
No, you're drawing a dichotomy in your head. Read the rest of my comment. The point of my post is that security through obscurity is a misapplication of resources. OS versus CS is a completely different discussion, which is why I believe what Chang is really saying (which doesn't sound as good and could probably get him booted) is that obscurity is more important than implementation.
However you can't really have security through obscurity in open source, hence instead of saying something that sounds bad, he switches it to "closed source is better than open source".
What Chang is basically saying is that "security through obscurity is inherently more safe than proper implementation" - something that was proven wrong a long time ago. Sure, when you got the implementation right, open source or closed source, extra obscurity won't hurt other than possibly maintenance, but prioritizing it is a misapplication of resources.
Depends on what gov job we're talking about and what we mean by 'termination'.
Insufficient happiness will be punished by termination.
Sorry, you didn't really pass your comment like it actual had basis other than pulling it out of your ass. Sounds like I was wrong and if I was, I apologize. Care to enlighten me further?
The alternative at the other end of the ball is advertisement with the legal contract. Wonder how that will work out.
X could have done Y, where Y is a plan I just thought up that would fix everything.
You would get corner cases, but then it could be triple-licensed! But what about this little case? Better quad-license it. Uh-oh..
I live in Denmark. Thank you for being prejudiced.