It was a joke. Lighten up a bit man, you'll work yourself up a stroke at this rate.
But seriously I don't think I have ever had a Linux OS that would mount a USB drive on its own if you inserted it
Shit Mandravia did it back before the USB days for CDs. It blew my mind to think Linux at the time was trying to be user friendly. Anyway I grew up since then. Pretty much every desktop with Gnome does it too since it's a Gnome default to automount CDs and USB. You can control it via dconf: org.gnome.desktop.media-handling.
The crime was attempting to pass off his own disks as Genuine
Was it a disk? Did it contain the software stated? Don't butcher the English language any more than Microsoft's "Genuine advantage" team already has. Those disks were 100% genuine unless you can tell me that they either contained some nasty viruses instead of the promised software, or maybe they weren't discs at all but 45rpm singles cut down to fit in a CD case.
For technical arguments I would agree, but this wasn't decided on anything technical, but rather contractual. It's literally the core business of the courts to rule on cases of licenses and contracts all written in their own very nasty form of legalese.
If the courts are to blame I'm more inclined to think that the Microsoft legal team stacked the deck in the license agreement somehow, rather than pure ignorance.
"No requirement for civil proceedings requires personal information to be posted publicly."
Oh boy I can tell you've never done SHIT in court, because once the proceedings are done, ALL OF THAT INFO IS MADE PUBLIC FUCKING RECORD.
Care to try again, oh ye of obviously lacking civic duty?
Errr you clearly missed the point. So let me make them nice and carefully in chronological order so you know how you got to your very silly and irrelevant point:
1. AC questioned the need to keep these records public. 2. Joce640k implied there is none because if something illegal happens then they can go to the police. 3. You called out a difference between civial and criminal liability implying with your post that records need to be public for civil cases to proceed. 4. I stated that's not the case because these records get discovered during the court case.
Now at this point you've gone off the rails rambling about something irrelevant like court cases making these records public and then jested that I don't have a clue. I'm not sure quite what point you're trying to make here but it was completely irrelevant to the topic.
Anyway let me reel you back into the conversation slowly and reverse chronologically so you can meet us back on topic: - Once something is in court and made public record it is no longer under the coverage of the GDPR. It becomes irrelevant to the conversation. - To get discovered in court the information of people doesn't need to be posted publicly, just recorded privately by registras. - The only public information needs to be the registra in charge of the domain. This is sufficient for any legal proceedings both civil and criminal. - Ergo we're back to: WHOIS doesn't need to contain the private information that conflicts with the requirements of the GDPR.
Oh and I've been in court four times, once on each side of a civil case, and twice as an expert witness in a criminal case, and I studied this is a minor to my degree too. I don't feel like I lack very much thank you.
Data collected in aggregate is individual data collected in large numbers. Why is that so hard for you to acknowledge?
Because the method of collecting and the storage ends up different. Individual data collection implies tracking individuals, implies security issues that are greatly reduced in aggregate data. Learn the difference.
What they are complaining about is that these updates are causing BSODs and other major bugs
Thanks for highlighting the relevant bits. You should scroll through and re-read everything we've said about BSODs so far and why their complaints are being taken seriously.
It seems like you want to ignore points which you can't ignore
Actually I've addressed it several times.
Or that you are incapable of scrolling up to follow the conversation.
Funny, I'm sure I just accused you of the same thing. Maybe we should switch to German since this English thing clearly isn't working for you.
So October 2017 isn't "recent". Fall 2017 isn't "recent"? March 2018 isn't "recent"? Or do you go by a different meaning of "recent"?
Oh wow. You got that conclusion from my sentence? You really don't understand English do you. I think we're at the root cause of all our disagreements. But keep arguing pointlessly with yourself. God knows you're not talking about anything I was talking about.
If this topic was about Linux stability you would have a point. Who's shifting the goal posts now?
No one. Another part of English posts like this, especially the kind with multiple quotes that go one and one is that there are several points. Calling out your incorrect use of language by invoking an example of Linux hasn't changed any of the original goalposts or even changed the game.
Anyone that knows about PLC controls and these systems, there is no tick box.
Errr who said anything about PLC controls and these systems? The tick box exercise is done entirely at the procurement stage where some project manager likely decreed they want everything, for flexibility of course and because it's cheaper to specify the most flexible solution up front rather than risk a late stage variation order. We can program PLCs and networks to do whatever customers want.
This was just laziness.
Nope. This was incompetence, an important distinction that applies regardless if these ports were there for some functional reason, maintenance reason, or otherwise.
The 80/20 rule applies to normal people not wilful idiots. 20% of the population are not doing this. In fact across a population around the world in a fleet of many cars which offer this functionality (autopilot is little more than adaptive cruise control + lane holding which many cars have now) there have been 2 cases of this. The first one I saw was some kid in the Mercedes S Class, incidentally he had to override his steering wheel sensor which instantly disengages land holding unlike the Tesla's whine at the driver approach.
Speaking of when we sense things it's important to define what it is we wish to sense. A dead weight on the driver seat, or an attentive driver? Notice the weight sensor in your passenger seats serve only to bypass the more specific sensor: Is the seatbelt being used. You know what is better than detecting some arbitrary weight on the driver seat? Detecting hands on the steering wheel, or detecting alertness of the driver (many cars have systems that detect if drivers are drowsy, why bother with a dead weight sensor).
Programmers and engineers love jumping at solutions without ever properly defining the problem.
It's not difficult to do.
What's not difficult to do? Detect if a weight is on a seat, or beat a fool by making something fool proof? I challenge you to actually do the second, and I will wager that even if you do the first you will still hear stories like this happening e.g. the Mercedes S class.
Mind you the entire topic really is quite moot. If someone can get to a position where they can insert the USB stick to crash your system they could just as well simply turn off the power and move on with their lives:)
Incidentally Debian used to offer auto-mounting via udev but systemd broke that functionality...
a) are the worlds least lucky person, b) live in a shithole where people don't know how to drive or cover their loads, or c) drive a lot and have a very poor understanding of statistically liklihoods.
I do like how you ignored my comment about autonomous driving systems being nothing more than a natural progression of the safety systems designed to avoid exactly the scenarios you mention. I think you'll find most readers here understand precisely why you are very selectively arguing and trying hopelessly to defend your position.
Any country that jails almost 1% of its population
Well hang-on, that's not the justice system. The judiciary here only upholds the laws as they are passed. That is the problem of the executive branch of the government that made these laws in the first place.
What's the appropriate sentence here?
You've jumped into sentence implying that the legal system was working as intended. If the legal system is broken as per scenario 2, there would not be talk of a sentence.
And some amounts of lake Michigan are 1/4 of a km deep.
You can't just expect to remove a lot of water from a lake and nothing to happen.
Define "a lot". 7 million gallons per day is significantly less than the 2 billion gallons per day removed by the city of Chicago just by reversing the flow of the Chicago river, and that's before you take into account commercial, industrial and residential users of the lake.
Never before has the phrase: Metaphorical drop of piss in the ocean been more apt.
Scenario 1) : There is more to this than appears. This could be corroborated by the harsh sentence he received as well as not a single disagreement by any court. Two courts upholding a verdict that making a copy of a free disk which can't be used without a license doesn't sound like we know everything about this case.
Scenario 2) : The legal system of the courts is fundamentally broken for letting it get this far. If it is as first appeared then this case should have been kicked to the kerb without ever having gone to trial. Corporations do incredibly stupid shit constantly and usually the only people it affects are the lawyers who get paid by the hour.
In either case I find it hard to get really angry at Microsoft. As slimy as it would be that they go after this guy (if it is as first appeared), the justice system.... errr... legal system should have sorted it out very early on.
hahahahah I didn't notice that. Mind you I didn't even think of needing a bottle opener while in the car. Not because I don't have a use for it, but because last time I was young stupid and a passenger on a road trip holding a beer that I couldn't open I just opened the door (while the car was being driven) and opened the bottle using the car door's striker plate. In most cars they are perfectly sized to open a bottle:-D
driving on the highway is one of the least complex and simple things UNTIL something happens
Exactly. It's also the situation where something unexpected happen is rarest, especially if you don't leave the right side lane. Out of the things you have listed: - reaction time - in control of the vehicle based on following distance and not an external variable - animals - highly dependent on the road time. Many highways are fully fenced. Many highways traverse built up areas and are surrounded by sound barriers. You're far less likely to come across animals on a highway than you are a residential road. - roadworks - On a highway they are signed many kilometers in advance. - items fallen off trucks - Really? Why not throw getting struck by a meteor in and ban all autonomous driving until we successfully create an infinite improbability drive. - other irresponsible drivers - Why worry about them? Let them cut around you. Very few irresponsible drivers actively cause an accident, and those that do often do so because they startle drivers with their unexpected behaviour. If they are ignored by an autonomous driving system it's probably for the best.
- accidents - I'm glad you mentioned that one. Remember what the purpose of this system is in the first place? Now go look up all those lovely videos of Teslas reacting to accidents faster than their drivers did.
You can claim horseshit all you like. People with half a brain (and those higher functioning Slashdotters too) realise that this system is a natural evolution of a system designed precisely to cope with the scenarios you suggested better than a normal person, and the highway is literally the ideal place for it, and I know people who owe their life to the presence of these systems coping with some of the scenarios above faster than they were able to.
And WHOIS as a database system isn't at all a problem, only the rules for implementation as currently written by ICANN are.
e.g. the WHOIS system for Sweden is fully in compliance with the GDPR because it doesn't contain any personal names or details of people, but rather points to the registra, and still happily serves all the purposes you list.
No. We already have these sensors in passenger seats of every vehicle so that they can warn the passenger to buckle their seat belt.
Well idiot sensor comment aside the requirement for a person in the driver seat detector is still stupid. In the world of measurement (my primary field) it is important to as far as reasonably possible measure the primary variable of interest. Guess what, no car is interested in if anyone is in any seat. It's not a primary variable for any kind of control. What people were interested in is if people are wearing their seatbelt, and in order to ensure that false alarms aren't given a detector is used to see if the seat is occupied.
Where am I getting with this? The primary variable of interest here is not if something heavy is in the driver seat, but rather if a driver is driving the car.
It is predictable that people would try to use their Tesla this way, and it could obviously cost lives
Yes that is the idiot principle. It is predictable that some idiot will always do something like this. Now what will a sensor achieve?
We should also ensure that the driver doesn't unbuckle his seatbelt: https://thetikit.com/
And while I don't have a silly link for the person in seat detector, my own anecdote is that I actually have one of those seatbelt alarm stopper thingies in the passenger seat of my car because my backpack routinely sets off the detector and my car starts beeping at me.
Oh and by the way, here's a video of someone doing the exact same drive from the passenger seat trick in an S Class Mercedes 3 years ago, but using a system that completely disengages everytime the hands come off the wheel, and using a system that doesn't have autonomouse or autopilot in the name: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
So where does that leave us? I let's try to beat the idiot. Lets try and protect the idiot from themselves. Propose an idiot proof sensor that will protect us from the idiotic 0.0001% of the population. I have a better proposal.... Or rather Darwin had a better proposal.
Prosecution for the example you posted is not realistic and will not happen either. The amazing thing about this example is that if you can't reasonably find the data it's unlikely that someone else will either.
The law is pretty black and white and doesn't give participation awards for trying. But the reality is the application of the law will be directly tried to that effort.
No requirement for civil proceedings requires personal information to be posted publicly. The registra has this personal information and can be compelled by a court to provide it. Nothing more should be needed.
The Internet was not designed around domain owner anonymity
The internet was not designed around identifying content owners. It was only ever designed around identifying individual computers. WHOIS is a useless bolt-on, completely irrelevant in that it hasn't contained useful information since the turn of the century and the rules about publishing identifying information have been either completely ignored at worst or gone unverified at best.
If you get something useful out of a WHOIS query, you should probably play the phone number in the lottery tonight.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you not consider it modern because its stable?
It was a joke. Lighten up a bit man, you'll work yourself up a stroke at this rate.
But seriously I don't think I have ever had a Linux OS that would mount a USB drive on its own if you inserted it
Shit Mandravia did it back before the USB days for CDs. It blew my mind to think Linux at the time was trying to be user friendly. Anyway I grew up since then.
Pretty much every desktop with Gnome does it too since it's a Gnome default to automount CDs and USB. You can control it via dconf: org.gnome.desktop.media-handling.
The crime was attempting to pass off his own disks as Genuine
Was it a disk? Did it contain the software stated? Don't butcher the English language any more than Microsoft's "Genuine advantage" team already has. Those disks were 100% genuine unless you can tell me that they either contained some nasty viruses instead of the promised software, or maybe they weren't discs at all but 45rpm singles cut down to fit in a CD case.
The courts have a ignorance factor.
For technical arguments I would agree, but this wasn't decided on anything technical, but rather contractual. It's literally the core business of the courts to rule on cases of licenses and contracts all written in their own very nasty form of legalese.
If the courts are to blame I'm more inclined to think that the Microsoft legal team stacked the deck in the license agreement somehow, rather than pure ignorance.
"No requirement for civil proceedings requires personal information to be posted publicly."
Oh boy I can tell you've never done SHIT in court, because once the proceedings are done, ALL OF THAT INFO IS MADE PUBLIC FUCKING RECORD.
Care to try again, oh ye of obviously lacking civic duty?
Errr you clearly missed the point. So let me make them nice and carefully in chronological order so you know how you got to your very silly and irrelevant point:
1. AC questioned the need to keep these records public.
2. Joce640k implied there is none because if something illegal happens then they can go to the police.
3. You called out a difference between civial and criminal liability implying with your post that records need to be public for civil cases to proceed.
4. I stated that's not the case because these records get discovered during the court case.
Now at this point you've gone off the rails rambling about something irrelevant like court cases making these records public and then jested that I don't have a clue. I'm not sure quite what point you're trying to make here but it was completely irrelevant to the topic.
Anyway let me reel you back into the conversation slowly and reverse chronologically so you can meet us back on topic:
- Once something is in court and made public record it is no longer under the coverage of the GDPR. It becomes irrelevant to the conversation.
- To get discovered in court the information of people doesn't need to be posted publicly, just recorded privately by registras.
- The only public information needs to be the registra in charge of the domain. This is sufficient for any legal proceedings both civil and criminal.
- Ergo we're back to: WHOIS doesn't need to contain the private information that conflicts with the requirements of the GDPR.
Oh and I've been in court four times, once on each side of a civil case, and twice as an expert witness in a criminal case, and I studied this is a minor to my degree too. I don't feel like I lack very much thank you.
Data collected in aggregate is individual data collected in large numbers. Why is that so hard for you to acknowledge?
Because the method of collecting and the storage ends up different. Individual data collection implies tracking individuals, implies security issues that are greatly reduced in aggregate data. Learn the difference.
What they are complaining about is that these updates are causing BSODs and other major bugs
Thanks for highlighting the relevant bits. You should scroll through and re-read everything we've said about BSODs so far and why their complaints are being taken seriously.
It seems like you want to ignore points which you can't ignore
Actually I've addressed it several times.
Or that you are incapable of scrolling up to follow the conversation.
Funny, I'm sure I just accused you of the same thing. Maybe we should switch to German since this English thing clearly isn't working for you.
So October 2017 isn't "recent". Fall 2017 isn't "recent"? March 2018 isn't "recent"? Or do you go by a different meaning of "recent"?
Oh wow. You got that conclusion from my sentence? You really don't understand English do you. I think we're at the root cause of all our disagreements. But keep arguing pointlessly with yourself. God knows you're not talking about anything I was talking about.
If this topic was about Linux stability you would have a point. Who's shifting the goal posts now?
No one. Another part of English posts like this, especially the kind with multiple quotes that go one and one is that there are several points. Calling out your incorrect use of language by invoking an example of Linux hasn't changed any of the original goalposts or even changed the game.
Learn to follow a conversation.
Anyone that knows about PLC controls and these systems, there is no tick box.
Errr who said anything about PLC controls and these systems? The tick box exercise is done entirely at the procurement stage where some project manager likely decreed they want everything, for flexibility of course and because it's cheaper to specify the most flexible solution up front rather than risk a late stage variation order. We can program PLCs and networks to do whatever customers want.
This was just laziness.
Nope. This was incompetence, an important distinction that applies regardless if these ports were there for some functional reason, maintenance reason, or otherwise.
The thought that readers of Slashdot fear the very systems which have demonstrated to improve safety under their own ideal scenarios.
Sorry mate, you were right about one thing, most readers here understand. Unfortunately they won't draw the conclusion you think.
Well even applying the 80/20 rule
The 80/20 rule applies to normal people not wilful idiots. 20% of the population are not doing this. In fact across a population around the world in a fleet of many cars which offer this functionality (autopilot is little more than adaptive cruise control + lane holding which many cars have now) there have been 2 cases of this. The first one I saw was some kid in the Mercedes S Class, incidentally he had to override his steering wheel sensor which instantly disengages land holding unlike the Tesla's whine at the driver approach.
Speaking of when we sense things it's important to define what it is we wish to sense. A dead weight on the driver seat, or an attentive driver? Notice the weight sensor in your passenger seats serve only to bypass the more specific sensor: Is the seatbelt being used. You know what is better than detecting some arbitrary weight on the driver seat? Detecting hands on the steering wheel, or detecting alertness of the driver (many cars have systems that detect if drivers are drowsy, why bother with a dead weight sensor).
Programmers and engineers love jumping at solutions without ever properly defining the problem.
It's not difficult to do.
What's not difficult to do? Detect if a weight is on a seat, or beat a fool by making something fool proof? I challenge you to actually do the second, and I will wager that even if you do the first you will still hear stories like this happening e.g. the Mercedes S class.
I said modern desktop OS :-P
Mind you the entire topic really is quite moot. If someone can get to a position where they can insert the USB stick to crash your system they could just as well simply turn off the power and move on with their lives :)
Incidentally Debian used to offer auto-mounting via udev but systemd broke that functionality ...
So basically you either:
a) are the worlds least lucky person,
b) live in a shithole where people don't know how to drive or cover their loads, or
c) drive a lot and have a very poor understanding of statistically liklihoods.
I do like how you ignored my comment about autonomous driving systems being nothing more than a natural progression of the safety systems designed to avoid exactly the scenarios you mention. I think you'll find most readers here understand precisely why you are very selectively arguing and trying hopelessly to defend your position.
Any country that jails almost 1% of its population
Well hang-on, that's not the justice system. The judiciary here only upholds the laws as they are passed. That is the problem of the executive branch of the government that made these laws in the first place.
What's the appropriate sentence here?
You've jumped into sentence implying that the legal system was working as intended. If the legal system is broken as per scenario 2, there would not be talk of a sentence.
The city of Chicago could also offset this by not drawing 2 billion gallons per day through the Chicago river reversal.
Large amounts of any lake are less than 10' deep.
And some amounts of lake Michigan are 1/4 of a km deep.
You can't just expect to remove a lot of water from a lake and nothing to happen.
Define "a lot". 7 million gallons per day is significantly less than the 2 billion gallons per day removed by the city of Chicago just by reversing the flow of the Chicago river, and that's before you take into account commercial, industrial and residential users of the lake.
Never before has the phrase: Metaphorical drop of piss in the ocean been more apt.
Scenario 1) : There is more to this than appears. This could be corroborated by the harsh sentence he received as well as not a single disagreement by any court. Two courts upholding a verdict that making a copy of a free disk which can't be used without a license doesn't sound like we know everything about this case.
Scenario 2) : The legal system of the courts is fundamentally broken for letting it get this far. If it is as first appeared then this case should have been kicked to the kerb without ever having gone to trial. Corporations do incredibly stupid shit constantly and usually the only people it affects are the lawyers who get paid by the hour.
In either case I find it hard to get really angry at Microsoft. As slimy as it would be that they go after this guy (if it is as first appeared), the justice system .... errr ... legal system should have sorted it out very early on.
So physical access and social engineering aren't problems now?
Not ones warranting rolling out fixes to prevent an otherwise secure computer from crashing and remaining secure.
Notice that it asks you what you want to do while looking at the files and proposing things such as opening the pictures on it?
This isn't about auto-play, it's about auto-mount, something that every desktop OS does.
Still this isn't auto play, and every modern desktop OS mounts the image when plugged in. Happens on Macs, happens on Linux too.
hahahahah I didn't notice that. Mind you I didn't even think of needing a bottle opener while in the car. Not because I don't have a use for it, but because last time I was young stupid and a passenger on a road trip holding a beer that I couldn't open I just opened the door (while the car was being driven) and opened the bottle using the car door's striker plate. In most cars they are perfectly sized to open a bottle :-D
If this guy has stated, that statistically speaking, the car is safer than him
And when you say this remember this is the brain that came up with the idea of leaving the drivers seat of a moving vehicle.
Is the car safer than everyone? Unlikely.
Is the car safer than this specific person? Almost certainly.
driving on the highway is one of the least complex and simple things UNTIL something happens
Exactly. It's also the situation where something unexpected happen is rarest, especially if you don't leave the right side lane. Out of the things you have listed:
- reaction time - in control of the vehicle based on following distance and not an external variable
- animals - highly dependent on the road time. Many highways are fully fenced. Many highways traverse built up areas and are surrounded by sound barriers. You're far less likely to come across animals on a highway than you are a residential road.
- roadworks - On a highway they are signed many kilometers in advance.
- items fallen off trucks - Really? Why not throw getting struck by a meteor in and ban all autonomous driving until we successfully create an infinite improbability drive.
- other irresponsible drivers - Why worry about them? Let them cut around you. Very few irresponsible drivers actively cause an accident, and those that do often do so because they startle drivers with their unexpected behaviour. If they are ignored by an autonomous driving system it's probably for the best.
- accidents - I'm glad you mentioned that one. Remember what the purpose of this system is in the first place? Now go look up all those lovely videos of Teslas reacting to accidents faster than their drivers did.
You can claim horseshit all you like. People with half a brain (and those higher functioning Slashdotters too) realise that this system is a natural evolution of a system designed precisely to cope with the scenarios you suggested better than a normal person, and the highway is literally the ideal place for it, and I know people who owe their life to the presence of these systems coping with some of the scenarios above faster than they were able to.
And WHOIS as a database system isn't at all a problem, only the rules for implementation as currently written by ICANN are.
e.g. the WHOIS system for Sweden is fully in compliance with the GDPR because it doesn't contain any personal names or details of people, but rather points to the registra, and still happily serves all the purposes you list.
No. We already have these sensors in passenger seats of every vehicle so that they can warn the passenger to buckle their seat belt.
Well idiot sensor comment aside the requirement for a person in the driver seat detector is still stupid. In the world of measurement (my primary field) it is important to as far as reasonably possible measure the primary variable of interest. Guess what, no car is interested in if anyone is in any seat. It's not a primary variable for any kind of control. What people were interested in is if people are wearing their seatbelt, and in order to ensure that false alarms aren't given a detector is used to see if the seat is occupied.
Where am I getting with this? The primary variable of interest here is not if something heavy is in the driver seat, but rather if a driver is driving the car.
It is predictable that people would try to use their Tesla this way, and it could obviously cost lives
Yes that is the idiot principle. It is predictable that some idiot will always do something like this. Now what will a sensor achieve?
Maybe we could use a steering wheel sensor like these:
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/201...
We should also ensure that the driver doesn't unbuckle his seatbelt:
https://thetikit.com/
And while I don't have a silly link for the person in seat detector, my own anecdote is that I actually have one of those seatbelt alarm stopper thingies in the passenger seat of my car because my backpack routinely sets off the detector and my car starts beeping at me.
Oh and by the way, here's a video of someone doing the exact same drive from the passenger seat trick in an S Class Mercedes 3 years ago, but using a system that completely disengages everytime the hands come off the wheel, and using a system that doesn't have autonomouse or autopilot in the name: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
So where does that leave us? I let's try to beat the idiot. Lets try and protect the idiot from themselves. Propose an idiot proof sensor that will protect us from the idiotic 0.0001% of the population. I have a better proposal. ... Or rather Darwin had a better proposal.
That's not realistic and will not happen
Prosecution for the example you posted is not realistic and will not happen either. The amazing thing about this example is that if you can't reasonably find the data it's unlikely that someone else will either.
The law is pretty black and white and doesn't give participation awards for trying. But the reality is the application of the law will be directly tried to that effort.
No requirement for civil proceedings requires personal information to be posted publicly. The registra has this personal information and can be compelled by a court to provide it. Nothing more should be needed.
The Internet was not designed around domain owner anonymity
The internet was not designed around identifying content owners. It was only ever designed around identifying individual computers. WHOIS is a useless bolt-on, completely irrelevant in that it hasn't contained useful information since the turn of the century and the rules about publishing identifying information have been either completely ignored at worst or gone unverified at best.
If you get something useful out of a WHOIS query, you should probably play the phone number in the lottery tonight.