I got a virus last week because I was trying to install MS antivirus on a machine. Microsoft Security Essentials requires a WGA check and it failed for some reason (don't know why - it was a perfectly legal machine).
Anyway, I went to Google to see if I could find a workaround and... the very first page I visited installed a virus on the machine. No warnings, no permissions asked for. Some system dialog or other flashed up then ten seconds later I was looking at one of those "Police! Your computer has been locked!" screens (and the prospect of another Late Night With Windows(TM)).
Catching a virus by trying to install an anti-virus? Only with "Trustworthy Computing"....
A website designed to help solve AV installation problems is compromised by Ransomware, sounds like a good way to ensure plenty vulnerable computers will visit. Maybe No-script and Adblockplus could have prevented this, but this just proves that even the tech savvy are crazy to surf the net without AV and appropriate browser plugins. I always see guys on these threads who maintain that they don't need AV and that they slow down their machines too much. I see *some* sense in it in that I can't remember the last time my AV blocked anything on any of my machines.
I liken it to sleeping around and riding bareback, it may feel nicer at the time, but sooner or later you'll get infected!.
Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear surprise, and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency....
Sorry, couldn't resist, besides I had to undo a moderation
Good points made, but the OPs point still holds. A rocket based space program would be significantly more resource hungry/expensive. I agree that a rocket would be necessary to install the elevator, but done right it could just be one rocket, with all subsequent payloads delivered by the elevator itself.
It occurs to me that a race forced to make this their first step into space would have a distinct advantage when designing and building both their stellar and interstellar craft, in that they wouldn't be as space or mass constrained in their designs. By taking the harder first step, it may make subsequent steps easier
4. Use a crayon to write your message on a webernet-monitor.
Yes, that is also an excellent suggestion with two slight flaws, your audience would be limited to anyone else who uses the same monitor, and if anyone in law enforcement seizes the monitor they may be able to identify you by your handwriting.
Back to the actual point, if someone leaves evidence of a crime on the internet under a pseudonym, why should they be protected against the courts wanting to establish if a crime has indeed been committed?
Yes, I couldn't make any sense out of his post either and I assumed there must be some additional context not in the article. Maybe the juror in question always talks in idiotic gibberish?
I'll assume and hope that the paper does not have the person's real name. This can only lead to fishing expeditions on other issues where the authorities will demand that people identify themselves. These kinds of demands must be resisted, or there will be to pay down the line.
I know where you're coming from but I think you're overreacting. Yes we all have a certain amount of 'expectation of anonymity' online, but in the circumstance where you are either breaking the law online, or demonstrating that you have broken the law, why would you expect the establishment to respect your desired anonymity?
If you genuinely desire anonymity online:
1. Use Tor or something similar to obfuscate your IP address.
2. Don't use an account that is attached to any personally identifiable information whatsoever.
They'll still exist. Admittedly google is all seeing and all powerful, but they are not the internet.
I imagine the papers will come back in the same way News International did.
The flip side is though, that if the news papers cease to exist then google can't place ads next to the scraped content so they'll loose money too
Clearly Google isn't the internet, but I really don't think this will be any skin off their nose. Even if three or four countries followed France on this one, the 'missing results' would be replaced by others moving up the search rankings, and joe public would click on them just the same, netting Google the same revenue as before.
The only way this would affect Google is if they were usurped by a search giant who did accept these proposed terms.
But they are only half true: an artifact of the PC is dying, but the essence of the PC revolution is closer to realization than ever before, while also being closer to loss than ever before.
I... wat?
A mountaineer climbing K2 for the first time is closer to reaching the summit than ever before, but he is also closer to falling off and failing.
Some very good points made there, and I completely agree that the main concern for the future is ownership of data, not what your PC looks like.
I have been rather luddite in my avoidance of cloud services. In fact the only exception is Steam, which is perfectly fine and convenient for now, but I can foresee potential issues in the future. In particular when my 3 yr old son gets a bit older and wants to play games from my collection at the same time as I want to. I think the solution would be a bit torrent, rather than the odious option of re-purchasing games that I have already 'bought'.
As for my personal data, the simple answer is no way, online backups onto servers I have no control over, access subject to current download speeds and/ or their uptime. Not to mention the vagueries of their TOS and the laws of the country where the sever is hosted.
Am I being too paranoid? Maybe, but until I find a service that I genuinely trust (ownCloud.org could be a candidate maybe) my personal data, music and film included, stays stored on a device I own and control, backed up onto devices that I own and control.
You're not alone, I cringe when my girlfriend touches my monitor to point out something to me as it is. My screen cleaner and soft cloth are on permanent stand by!
The idea of my main high-res monitor (which I use for both productivity and gaming) being as grease covered as my phone really does make me cringe.
My retina display has cataracts! (yes I know retina is an Apple brand but I'm sure you get my point)
Back to the beginning: International law has for centuries stated that when extradition treaties are present that prosecution shall take place in the country where the victims are
You clearly wouldn't accept any level of proof the USG gives.
Not quite sure how this is clear, actually I'd be very interested.
The 700000 figure is itemized in the court documents but instead of examining them you ignorantly deny that they are justified.
Don't think I did, I merely said I had seen no evidence, and that it was beside the poin.t
Your pattern of behavior is clear: you prefer ignorance to informed opinions.
Unfounded insults don't really add much to your argument.
As to the reason the available terms are so favorable to the US, IMO the only plausible reason is that some terms that are not public are present in the treaty that every UKG since it was negotiated deems a sufficient counterweight to the public portions.
Pure Conjecture based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever, more likely is that Tony Blair rolled over like a good dog and signed what he was told. The evidence for this and other similar 'roll over' manuveures by the UK government is plain to see.
While I do not hold all of them in high esteem, I cannot accept that every successive UK government has been so incapable as to refuse to force a renegotiation of terms otherwise.
I'm guessing you don't pay too much attention to UK politics then.
Your point, is clear, but it's ignorance/negation of accepted international law make it nonsensical. Why overturn centuries of precedent because a teen aged idiot caused immense damages & then refused to fave the consequences?
Nowhere did I claim that this was not set in motion according to international law. Blair signed the one-sided treaty and until it is broken we must abide by it. I'd love by the way to see some of the centuries of precedents for this stuff. Negating other countries sovereignty for the benefit of the US government and US corporations, for crimes that weren't committed on US soil is a relatively new thing, at least for countries you're not actually at war with.
Oh and while you're bandying the term ignorance around as if it strengthens your argument, Mckinnon was 36 in 2002 when this deadly hack was perpertrated, and he was and still is an Aspergers sufferer, not a 'teenage idiot'.
Regardless of what damages (apart from embarrassment) he actually did to the Pentagons computers, $700,000 is a figure I've not seen any proof of, but thats beside the point. The US UK extradition treaty doesn't require any proof on the US side whatsoever, it does however require it when a US citizen is requested to be extradited to the UK. Hmmm... See what I mean?
My point is that he should be tried for his crime in the UK under UK law plain and simple. Why on earth should America expect every person on this planet to be subject to US law?
You are getting very exited about this, so let me get this straight: You think that an Australian citizen commiting a minor IP crime on Australian soil should be extradited to the US and tried and imprisoned there. You also think that the fact I believe an injustice has been done is because I am ignorant of international law.
No. I am well aware that this has been done within a legal framework. This is quite simply a one sided(US centric) injustice. 'Legal' does not equal justice.
It is however increasingly clear where *you* stand
Hint: NOT on Canadian boosters - which was the point.
There you go, it was also *my* point. If the science gets done and the mission is accomplished what does it matter?
For that matter, if that was your point then your original analogy wouldn't make any sense, after all no-one has put the non-existant Iranian nukes on *any* delivery system, Iranian or otherwise.
You must be one hell of a shot if you can snipe someone in America from a hill in Australia. Seriously, if you believe that the US or any other country should have this kind of power you must be crazy.
Go to the border of Canada then. Shoot someone in another country. Where are you tried?
How about in the USA? Someone from California goes to Texas and shoots across the border and hits someone from maine who lives in Oklahoma, who is taken to hospital in Coralardo? Classic sideshow bob scenario.
But that's not really what we're talking about are we. The US seems quite keen to lock away citizens of other countries i.e Gary McKinnon without feeling the need to return the favour. Under the terms of the US/UK treaty the US have managed to make it *exceedingly* one sided (Thanks for that Tony).
This is all about wielding power over weaker countries, and nothing about justice
You must be one hell of a shot if you can snipe someone in America from a hill in Australia. Seriously, if you believe that the US or any other country should have this kind of power you must be crazy.
I think he was suggesting that it's relatively easy to be a Dr of something silly, as per www.oddee.com/item_90683.aspx for 10 examples to start you off.
Slashdot Mirror
"Here's how to make the warning go away."
If only it were that difficult.
I got a virus last week because I was trying to install MS antivirus on a machine. Microsoft Security Essentials requires a WGA check and it failed for some reason (don't know why - it was a perfectly legal machine).
Anyway, I went to Google to see if I could find a workaround and ... the very first page I visited installed a virus on the machine. No warnings, no permissions asked for. Some system dialog or other flashed up then ten seconds later I was looking at one of those "Police! Your computer has been locked!" screens (and the prospect of another Late Night With Windows(TM)).
Catching a virus by trying to install an anti-virus? Only with "Trustworthy Computing"....
A website designed to help solve AV installation problems is compromised by Ransomware, sounds like a good way to ensure plenty vulnerable computers will visit. Maybe No-script and Adblockplus could have prevented this, but this just proves that even the tech savvy are crazy to surf the net without AV and appropriate browser plugins. I always see guys on these threads who maintain that they don't need AV and that they slow down their machines too much. I see *some* sense in it in that I can't remember the last time my AV blocked anything on any of my machines.
I liken it to sleeping around and riding bareback, it may feel nicer at the time, but sooner or later you'll get infected!.
Why don't you link to the original article?
Thanks AC, the original link was quite horrible.
If she really did buy 13 Surface tablets, all we need to do is check for a spike in the sales figures.
Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear surprise, and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency....
Sorry, couldn't resist, besides I had to undo a moderation
Good points made, but the OPs point still holds. A rocket based space program would be significantly more resource hungry/expensive. I agree that a rocket would be necessary to install the elevator, but done right it could just be one rocket, with all subsequent payloads delivered by the elevator itself.
It occurs to me that a race forced to make this their first step into space would have a distinct advantage when designing and building both their stellar and interstellar craft, in that they wouldn't be as space or mass constrained in their designs. By taking the harder first step, it may make subsequent steps easier
seven times more massive than Earth... so much for their early space program
Maybe, or maybe they just develop different tech, space elevator maybe?
4. Use a crayon to write your message on a webernet-monitor.
Yes, that is also an excellent suggestion with two slight flaws, your audience would be limited to anyone else who uses the same monitor, and if anyone in law enforcement seizes the monitor they may be able to identify you by your handwriting.
Back to the actual point, if someone leaves evidence of a crime on the internet under a pseudonym, why should they be protected against the courts wanting to establish if a crime has indeed been committed?
There's some context that was not printed.
Yes, I couldn't make any sense out of his post either and I assumed there must be some additional context not in the article. Maybe the juror in question always talks in idiotic gibberish?
I'll assume and hope that the paper does not have the person's real name. This can only lead to fishing expeditions on other issues where the authorities will demand that people identify themselves. These kinds of demands must be resisted, or there will be to pay down the line.
I know where you're coming from but I think you're overreacting. Yes we all have a certain amount of 'expectation of anonymity' online, but in the circumstance where you are either breaking the law online, or demonstrating that you have broken the law, why would you expect the establishment to respect your desired anonymity?
If you genuinely desire anonymity online:
1. Use Tor or something similar to obfuscate your IP address.
2. Don't use an account that is attached to any personally identifiable information whatsoever.
3. Er, that's it......
Drones were predicted by Orson Wells because they are the inevitable march of technological progress. .
H G Wells?
They'll still exist. Admittedly google is all seeing and all powerful, but they are not the internet.
I imagine the papers will come back in the same way News International did.
The flip side is though, that if the news papers cease to exist then google can't place ads next to the scraped content so they'll loose money too
Clearly Google isn't the internet, but I really don't think this will be any skin off their nose. Even if three or four countries followed France on this one, the 'missing results' would be replaced by others moving up the search rankings, and joe public would click on them just the same, netting Google the same revenue as before.
The only way this would affect Google is if they were usurped by a search giant who did accept these proposed terms.
But they are only half true: an artifact of the PC is dying, but the essence of the PC revolution is closer to realization than ever before, while also being closer to loss than ever before.
I... wat?
A mountaineer climbing K2 for the first time is closer to reaching the summit than ever before, but he is also closer to falling off and failing.
Just sayin...
Some very good points made there, and I completely agree that the main concern for the future is ownership of data, not what your PC looks like.
I have been rather luddite in my avoidance of cloud services. In fact the only exception is Steam, which is perfectly fine and convenient for now, but I can foresee potential issues in the future. In particular when my 3 yr old son gets a bit older and wants to play games from my collection at the same time as I want to. I think the solution would be a bit torrent, rather than the odious option of re-purchasing games that I have already 'bought'.
As for my personal data, the simple answer is no way, online backups onto servers I have no control over, access subject to current download speeds and/ or their uptime. Not to mention the vagueries of their TOS and the laws of the country where the sever is hosted.
Am I being too paranoid? Maybe, but until I find a service that I genuinely trust (ownCloud.org could be a candidate maybe) my personal data, music and film included, stays stored on a device I own and control, backed up onto devices that I own and control.
You're not alone, I cringe when my girlfriend touches my monitor to point out something to me as it is. My screen cleaner and soft cloth are on permanent stand by!
The idea of my main high-res monitor (which I use for both productivity and gaming) being as grease covered as my phone really does make me cringe. My retina display has cataracts! (yes I know retina is an Apple brand but I'm sure you get my point)
The "Concern" in the title is that it is made of wood... and therefore may be a witch.
Only if it weighs the same as a duck.
Back to the beginning: International law has for centuries stated that when extradition treaties are present that prosecution shall take place in the country where the victims are
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries!
As I said, only when it suits the US it seems.
You clearly wouldn't accept any level of proof the USG gives.
Not quite sure how this is clear, actually I'd be very interested.
The 700000 figure is itemized in the court documents but instead of examining them you ignorantly deny that they are justified.
Don't think I did, I merely said I had seen no evidence, and that it was beside the poin.t
Your pattern of behavior is clear: you prefer ignorance to informed opinions.
Unfounded insults don't really add much to your argument.
As to the reason the available terms are so favorable to the US, IMO the only plausible reason is that some terms that are not public are present in the treaty that every UKG since it was negotiated deems a sufficient counterweight to the public portions.
Pure Conjecture based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever, more likely is that Tony Blair rolled over like a good dog and signed what he was told. The evidence for this and other similar 'roll over' manuveures by the UK government is plain to see.
While I do not hold all of them in high esteem, I cannot accept that every successive UK government has been so incapable as to refuse to force a renegotiation of terms otherwise.
I'm guessing you don't pay too much attention to UK politics then.
Your point, is clear, but it's ignorance/negation of accepted international law make it nonsensical. Why overturn centuries of precedent because a teen aged idiot caused immense damages & then refused to fave the consequences?
Nowhere did I claim that this was not set in motion according to international law. Blair signed the one-sided treaty and until it is broken we must abide by it. I'd love by the way to see some of the centuries of precedents for this stuff. Negating other countries sovereignty for the benefit of the US government and US corporations, for crimes that weren't committed on US soil is a relatively new thing, at least for countries you're not actually at war with.
Oh and while you're bandying the term ignorance around as if it strengthens your argument, Mckinnon was 36 in 2002 when this deadly hack was perpertrated, and he was and still is an Aspergers sufferer, not a 'teenage idiot'.
Regardless of what damages (apart from embarrassment) he actually did to the Pentagons computers, $700,000 is a figure I've not seen any proof of, but thats beside the point. The US UK extradition treaty doesn't require any proof on the US side whatsoever, it does however require it when a US citizen is requested to be extradited to the UK. Hmmm... See what I mean?
My point is that he should be tried for his crime in the UK under UK law plain and simple. Why on earth should America expect every person on this planet to be subject to US law?
Hubris anyone?
You are getting very exited about this, so let me get this straight: You think that an Australian citizen commiting a minor IP crime on Australian soil should be extradited to the US and tried and imprisoned there. You also think that the fact I believe an injustice has been done is because I am ignorant of international law.
No. I am well aware that this has been done within a legal framework. This is quite simply a one sided(US centric) injustice. 'Legal' does not equal justice.
It is however increasingly clear where *you* stand
Hint: NOT on Canadian boosters - which was the point.
There you go, it was also *my* point. If the science gets done and the mission is accomplished what does it matter?
For that matter, if that was your point then your original analogy wouldn't make any sense, after all no-one has put the non-existant Iranian nukes on *any* delivery system, Iranian or otherwise.
You must be one hell of a shot if you can snipe someone in America from a hill in Australia. Seriously, if you believe that the US or any other country should have this kind of power you must be crazy.
Go to the border of Canada then. Shoot someone in another country. Where are you tried?
How about in the USA? Someone from California goes to Texas and shoots across the border and hits someone from maine who lives in Oklahoma, who is taken to hospital in Coralardo? Classic sideshow bob scenario.
But that's not really what we're talking about are we. The US seems quite keen to lock away citizens of other countries i.e Gary McKinnon without feeling the need to return the favour. Under the terms of the US/UK treaty the US have managed to make it *exceedingly* one sided (Thanks for that Tony).
This is all about wielding power over weaker countries, and nothing about justice
Plus prototype rovers that *may* fly in 8 years time aren't nearly as exiting as a rover that's actually there and doing some science.
Not really the case. If it was how did Cadadarm and Dextre get there?
You must be one hell of a shot if you can snipe someone in America from a hill in Australia. Seriously, if you believe that the US or any other country should have this kind of power you must be crazy.
I think he was suggesting that it's relatively easy to be a Dr of something silly, as per www.oddee.com/item_90683.aspx for 10 examples to start you off.