Why did she hold onto one single card for so long and keep topping it up?
Because she's the type who is paranoid without any reason to be. You expect rational thought here with a brain that is incapable of exhibiting it. She's not a terrorist or a spy, she's just a crazy person.
If you think not catching public transport in some cities is easily worked around then you've obviously never driven in Sydney, or any city in Europe for that matter.
The original card's entire history was tied to a real person
A real person but not necessarily *the* real person. The only conclusion you can gather here is that someone put money on the card. With a single transaction that could have been anyone. I have been stuck in exactly this scenario before (no debit card, no credit card accepted, no cash accepted) and I paid someone 20eur to top up my card with 20eur. Bam! My card now tied to someone else's bank details.
You can only really tie it together if the same card is used repeatedly.
Then why the pixel XL is more expensive that the iphone 8 plus? How about the Galaxy note 8?
None of the devices you listed including the iPhone 8+ have Face ID. All are significantly cheaper than the iPhone X which does have Face ID.
The article itself is trollbait and probably wrong for other reasons, but logically at least this part makes perfect sense. Combine that with the fact that there's a huge worldwide shortage on VCSEL arrays I happily believe that Face ID isn't being implemented due to cost reasons.
Image Facial Recognition is about as secure as a TSA approved padlock.
Yes but there are varying degrees. It is actually quite hard to fool the one on Surface laptops due to taking 2 images in colour and in near IR. Producing a photograph or something to fool this kind of sensing is incredibly difficult requiring custom printer dyes and some very careful working adjusting of the image to produce a photo that passed both the visual and near IR detection.
I did see a paper where some researchers did so, but then I've also seen one where they bypassed Face ID through the use of a carefully constructed model which comes back to: both systems can be defeated given enough time and effort.
But point is: not all visual based systems are the same and there are many out there that are a fuckload better than those early Android based unlock systems which could be fooled by holding someone's drivers license up to the phone.
If we were paying the google to protect our privacy, then the google would have an actual incentive to do it
Google are being paid by others. Just because it's not us doesn't make our data any less valuable. Giving up our data gives up their competitive advantage. The only real risk we run is *someone* stops paying them for access, at that point your data may end up in a firesale.
It's not quite as simple as that. myspace and friends reunited had users, but when facebook came along people took one last look back at the older, shittier sites and went "uh, yeah, bye" and jumped ship.
Not at all. It's worth remembering how Facebook came to be and how it compared to Myspace in the first place. Myspace was a general social network with no goal or real endgame. It just was a platform for anything. Facebook was a very specific platform for connecting very specific people close to you specifically within your university. The end result is that people didn't jump ship but rather used *both* Myspace and Facebook.
Facebook then expanded to different universities, then universities across the world, and then when they had the captive audience of 18-25year olds who had both Myspace and Facebook using the former for garbage and the latter for keeping in contact with their real world friends out of university, they expanded to let anyone in. Suddenly you got family members and their friends involved as well.
THEN people who had both Myspace and Facebook decided they don't need both anymore and kept the latter because it was more immediately useful to them. No one "jumped ship" just because something else came along. The process was strategically complex and absolutely incredible. The only problem was the end game is now a bait and switch where Facebook became the new Myspace as a general platform without specific purpose trying to do anything and everything.
No. Like literally no. Especially in the music scene there's an entire world out there that exists only on Facebook. Ergo: If it wasn't on facebook then no one would turn up because no one knows about it and the band wouldn't play for an empty room so it won't make a sound.
No. I can never be too harsh on users. Users should be repeatedly bashed over the head until they stop blindly clicking "next" or okay to every dialogue that pops up, or worse, on windows, that little X in the top right meaning they've now got no idea what they system did in response.
Facebook isn't the problem, and if we punish Facebook they'll just be replaced by yet another thing that has the same problem. Case in point: I gave my girlfriend a real earful after she installed a crappy little Disney game that wanted access to her contacts, approval to make phone calls etc.
But this isn't even as subtle as that because...
The FB app asks users if they will let it *access* their contacts, and links this request to *helping them find their friends on FB*.
Yes, it does that *too*, but that is not the functionality I was talking about. Facebook literally wants to become the default handler for text messaging be it via Messenger or SMS on an android phone. Accepting that will cause all incoming SMSes to be diverted to the phone along with the required functionality that the call and sms meta data is logged on Facebook (otherwise it would be quite useless). Even if you don't do this it still requires requests access to your SMS for 2FA.
This kind of clever-clever hiding behind people's reasonable expectations to do bad shit is exactly why FB needs regulating.
"Hi regulator we want to add this functionality to our app." "Sure Facebook, just give the users a popup warning to make sure it's opt in."
This is non-public information that I never agreed to share with Facebook.
Did you have your friends sign an NDA when you gave them your telephone number? No? In which case your friends made it public information. It's up to you to get them to delete it.
Where is the anger toward Google for allowing this type of access in their API?
Why would we be angry about an API that enables so many apps to work exactly as intended?
They were ONLY doing what the API allowed them to do.
More importantly the API enabled Facebook to take over phone and SMS functionality, something that it flat out says it wants to do when you first install the app. It would make for a pretty shitty SMS app if it didn't store a message history.
It seems like they are going beyond what they are saying they will do.
Really? Because when I installed the app it said it wanted to outright become the call and SMS app on the phone. I'm not sure how you imagine this would work if they don't have access to call / message history.
Someone didn't read the first screen presented to them. I assume all these people who are upset at this were too busy clicking "next" trying to get to their Facebook feed because they were desperate to see how many likes their stupid share had gotten.
Except the Facebook right up front tells you why it used that permission and doesn't even try to hide that it wants to take over as the primary Call and SMS provider on your phone.
This is pure outrage by people who don't read the first screen that pops up when they hit the little message button.
This is why I had to uninstall my bank's app after a new version demanded access to contact list
Having access to the contact list is how many bank apps "Split the bill" functionality works. The cleverer apps even integrate with WhatsApp knowing that in some countries SMSes are useless.
Personally I prefer to have legal protections of my privacy rather than having to carefully curate my experience with every company out there.
What do you mean "Now it shows"? Literally the first thing Facebook messenger says after you open it for the first time is that it wants to take over your calling and SMS functionality on the phone.
The only thing that is happening "now" is that people see something in the news and suddenly freak out about their phone which they don't understand because they never read a single thing that was displayed to them. This isn't a Facebook problem, it's a retards using Facebook problem.
Permissions requested, blah blah. Ok. What a welcome screen? Welcome to, blah blah, Next *click* next *click* next *click* Get me into the frigging app already
Wait what do you mean Facebook knows my SMS history!!! I'm OUTRAGED
Fixed that for you because really this was a Android problem
Fixed that for you, Android hasn't had this problem for quite a while now and ultimately users were always warned what was accessible to the apps and could choose not to use them.
I kind of thought this would be the end result of only one company seriously doing any work on self-driving cars. What we have here is a typical capitalist worst case scenario: Every company doing their own thing and starting from square one because each is unwilling to license IP from the other, and each is unwilling to let the fruits of their labour be used for the general good.
Waymo could have avoided the accident? As far as I'm concerned they are culpable.
Why does a self-driving car not have to make a basic demonstration of visual/sensor skills before being put on the road?
What test do you propose? I'm willing to bet they will all pass with flying colours. That's the problem with standard testing. A friend of mine is in a similar but human scenario. He is blind as a bat but not restricted to driving with glasses. Why? He remembered what the bottom few lines of the eye chart said and just recited them.
Just look at how good we are at emission controls.
Yes. A post-tensioner on member 11 snapped while being either tightened or loosened (no one is sure yet which, but the design called for loosening it after the bridge was put in place). There's a good dashcam video where you can see small explosions along with a projectile out the top of member 11 (where about 4 people were working) about 3 frames before the bridge starts to buckle. Here's a picture of the hydraulic ram which ejected from member 11: https://s.abcnews.com/images/U...
Slashdot Mirror
Why did she hold onto one single card for so long and keep topping it up?
Because she's the type who is paranoid without any reason to be. You expect rational thought here with a brain that is incapable of exhibiting it. She's not a terrorist or a spy, she's just a crazy person.
If you think not catching public transport in some cities is easily worked around then you've obviously never driven in Sydney, or any city in Europe for that matter.
The original card's entire history was tied to a real person
A real person but not necessarily *the* real person. The only conclusion you can gather here is that someone put money on the card. With a single transaction that could have been anyone. I have been stuck in exactly this scenario before (no debit card, no credit card accepted, no cash accepted) and I paid someone 20eur to top up my card with 20eur. Bam! My card now tied to someone else's bank details.
You can only really tie it together if the same card is used repeatedly.
Then why the pixel XL is more expensive that the iphone 8 plus? How about the Galaxy note 8?
None of the devices you listed including the iPhone 8+ have Face ID.
All are significantly cheaper than the iPhone X which does have Face ID.
The article itself is trollbait and probably wrong for other reasons, but logically at least this part makes perfect sense. Combine that with the fact that there's a huge worldwide shortage on VCSEL arrays I happily believe that Face ID isn't being implemented due to cost reasons.
Image Facial Recognition is about as secure as a TSA approved padlock.
Yes but there are varying degrees. It is actually quite hard to fool the one on Surface laptops due to taking 2 images in colour and in near IR. Producing a photograph or something to fool this kind of sensing is incredibly difficult requiring custom printer dyes and some very careful working adjusting of the image to produce a photo that passed both the visual and near IR detection.
I did see a paper where some researchers did so, but then I've also seen one where they bypassed Face ID through the use of a carefully constructed model which comes back to: both systems can be defeated given enough time and effort.
But point is: not all visual based systems are the same and there are many out there that are a fuckload better than those early Android based unlock systems which could be fooled by holding someone's drivers license up to the phone.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bit...
If we were paying the google to protect our privacy, then the google would have an actual incentive to do it
Google are being paid by others. Just because it's not us doesn't make our data any less valuable. Giving up our data gives up their competitive advantage. The only real risk we run is *someone* stops paying them for access, at that point your data may end up in a firesale.
It's not quite as simple as that. myspace and friends reunited had users, but when facebook came along people took one last look back at the older, shittier sites and went "uh, yeah, bye" and jumped ship.
Not at all. It's worth remembering how Facebook came to be and how it compared to Myspace in the first place. Myspace was a general social network with no goal or real endgame. It just was a platform for anything. Facebook was a very specific platform for connecting very specific people close to you specifically within your university. The end result is that people didn't jump ship but rather used *both* Myspace and Facebook.
Facebook then expanded to different universities, then universities across the world, and then when they had the captive audience of 18-25year olds who had both Myspace and Facebook using the former for garbage and the latter for keeping in contact with their real world friends out of university, they expanded to let anyone in. Suddenly you got family members and their friends involved as well.
THEN people who had both Myspace and Facebook decided they don't need both anymore and kept the latter because it was more immediately useful to them. No one "jumped ship" just because something else came along. The process was strategically complex and absolutely incredible. The only problem was the end game is now a bait and switch where Facebook became the new Myspace as a general platform without specific purpose trying to do anything and everything.
No, hype means exaggerated or over publicised, nothing more. It sure as heck doesn't change the subject in a sentence.
If you wanted to talk about capabilities then you should have mentioned that "Self driving cars *capabilities* are mostly hype."
No. Like literally no. Especially in the music scene there's an entire world out there that exists only on Facebook. Ergo: If it wasn't on facebook then no one would turn up because no one knows about it and the band wouldn't play for an empty room so it won't make a sound.
and too harsh on users.
No. I can never be too harsh on users. Users should be repeatedly bashed over the head until they stop blindly clicking "next" or okay to every dialogue that pops up, or worse, on windows, that little X in the top right meaning they've now got no idea what they system did in response.
Facebook isn't the problem, and if we punish Facebook they'll just be replaced by yet another thing that has the same problem. Case in point: I gave my girlfriend a real earful after she installed a crappy little Disney game that wanted access to her contacts, approval to make phone calls etc.
But this isn't even as subtle as that because ...
The FB app asks users if they will let it *access* their contacts, and links this request to *helping them find their friends on FB*.
Yes, it does that *too*, but that is not the functionality I was talking about. Facebook literally wants to become the default handler for text messaging be it via Messenger or SMS on an android phone. Accepting that will cause all incoming SMSes to be diverted to the phone along with the required functionality that the call and sms meta data is logged on Facebook (otherwise it would be quite useless).
Even if you don't do this it still requires requests access to your SMS for 2FA.
This kind of clever-clever hiding behind people's reasonable expectations to do bad shit is exactly why FB needs regulating.
"Hi regulator we want to add this functionality to our app."
"Sure Facebook, just give the users a popup warning to make sure it's opt in."
If you can't make a self driving car that drives safely, the answer is not to make a self driving car.
You just completely missed the point in a most spectacular fashion.
Well, maybe we should ask our cops in America to just look the other way and pretend crimes aren't happening, like your UK cops do.
Nice link. I didn't read the details, I just skipped straight to the part where a lot of people were arrested and convicted.
This is non-public information that I never agreed to share with Facebook.
Did you have your friends sign an NDA when you gave them your telephone number? No? In which case your friends made it public information. It's up to you to get them to delete it.
Where is the anger toward Google for allowing this type of access in their API?
Why would we be angry about an API that enables so many apps to work exactly as intended?
They were ONLY doing what the API allowed them to do.
More importantly the API enabled Facebook to take over phone and SMS functionality, something that it flat out says it wants to do when you first install the app. It would make for a pretty shitty SMS app if it didn't store a message history.
It seems like they are going beyond what they are saying they will do.
Really? Because when I installed the app it said it wanted to outright become the call and SMS app on the phone. I'm not sure how you imagine this would work if they don't have access to call / message history.
Someone didn't read the first screen presented to them. I assume all these people who are upset at this were too busy clicking "next" trying to get to their Facebook feed because they were desperate to see how many likes their stupid share had gotten.
The fact Facebook did use that permission
Except the Facebook right up front tells you why it used that permission and doesn't even try to hide that it wants to take over as the primary Call and SMS provider on your phone.
This is pure outrage by people who don't read the first screen that pops up when they hit the little message button.
This is why I had to uninstall my bank's app after a new version demanded access to contact list
Having access to the contact list is how many bank apps "Split the bill" functionality works. The cleverer apps even integrate with WhatsApp knowing that in some countries SMSes are useless.
Personally I prefer to have legal protections of my privacy rather than having to carefully curate my experience with every company out there.
Now it shows.
What do you mean "Now it shows"? Literally the first thing Facebook messenger says after you open it for the first time is that it wants to take over your calling and SMS functionality on the phone.
The only thing that is happening "now" is that people see something in the news and suddenly freak out about their phone which they don't understand because they never read a single thing that was displayed to them. This isn't a Facebook problem, it's a retards using Facebook problem.
Permissions requested, blah blah. Ok. What a welcome screen? Welcome to, blah blah, Next *click* next *click* next *click* Get me into the frigging app already
Wait what do you mean Facebook knows my SMS history!!! I'm OUTRAGED
Fixed that for you because really this was a Android problem
Fixed that for you, Android hasn't had this problem for quite a while now and ultimately users were always warned what was accessible to the apps and could choose not to use them.
Just because you pay for it doesn't mean it won't disappear or be subject to content 'shadow bans.'
No it doesn't, but paying for something does form a stronger legal contract between two parties which makes it far easier to win a court case.
I kind of thought this would be the end result of only one company seriously doing any work on self-driving cars. What we have here is a typical capitalist worst case scenario: Every company doing their own thing and starting from square one because each is unwilling to license IP from the other, and each is unwilling to let the fruits of their labour be used for the general good.
Waymo could have avoided the accident? As far as I'm concerned they are culpable.
Maybe that is something we should tackle first
Maybe there is more than one department / corporation in the world and we should tackle multiple problems at the same time.
Why does a self-driving car not have to make a basic demonstration of visual/sensor skills before being put on the road?
What test do you propose? I'm willing to bet they will all pass with flying colours. That's the problem with standard testing. A friend of mine is in a similar but human scenario. He is blind as a bat but not restricted to driving with glasses. Why? He remembered what the bottom few lines of the eye chart said and just recited them.
Just look at how good we are at emission controls.
The bridge was still being constructed.
Yes. A post-tensioner on member 11 snapped while being either tightened or loosened (no one is sure yet which, but the design called for loosening it after the bridge was put in place). There's a good dashcam video where you can see small explosions along with a projectile out the top of member 11 (where about 4 people were working) about 3 frames before the bridge starts to buckle. Here's a picture of the hydraulic ram which ejected from member 11: https://s.abcnews.com/images/U...