Can you tell the difference between an IP assigned to a public park web cam vs someone's living room?
If I have to guess a password (even if it's a default one), it's somewhere I probably shouldn't be.
Guessing passwords I would agree in most situations, except where the intent of guessing is for the public good. Default passwords on the other hand are public knowledge and it's not uncommon to have a devices that requires a password be set even if your intent is for public access. We had this issue at a public library I worked at - the router we used to handle the volume was commercial and required a password be set to a non-empty value. We posted the password on the front door of the library so people could continue to use the network when it was closed.
How would a good person inform the owner that their door is unlocked if the only way is contact them is to walk inside? Or is the correct response to just walk away?
We're not exactly talking about an unlocked door though. Think about it this way - you see someone's keys on the ground or left in the door. You knock but no one answers. You might poke your head in to put the keys inside or look in the window to see if anyone is home. Yes you could walk away but that's not very neighbourly of you, who knows the next person to come along might rob them.
If something is displayed publicly, it's *very* reasonable to assume it's intended to be public
Or that the owner wants to access a private device remotely. Since that's the safer assumption, and not at all unlikely, it is the more reasonable assumption.
You can go in circles with "intent" arguments. Regardless of intent of the owner, the difference between accessing a private home camera and public camera is an IP address. Can you tell the difference between an IP assigned to a public park web cam vs someone's living room? How about the difference between one at a private residence pointed at a bird nest outside vs their bedroom? What about dynamic IPs that might log you into your camera one day and a neighbour's the next?
The problem here is really the entire way default passwords are set. In this day and age it would not be hard to make the default password for the device the serial number or something similar that's unique and is still recorded for support purposes.
In the case of cameras you don't know what it is until you enter, until then it's reasonable to assume it's a public/commercial camera
On the contrary, if you don't know what it is, it is *not* reasonable to assume it's a public/commercial camera. If you assume it is you could do something wrong. If you assume it is not, you can't do something wrong (as not accessing is never wrong).
You must live a very boring life. My best experiences have been poking around places I wasn't sure what they were; both in real life and digital. It's one of the joys of living in a free society.
There looks to be 255 'territorial' top level domains ("country code" TLDs) - not all of which are acknowledged as countries in say, the UN.
That 255 includes: 1 for European Union 1 for Antarctica 2 for Russia 2 for East Timor 2 for UK yu,.zr,.an,.cs,.dd no longer exist as countries a crapload of administrative/dependent territories that are inconsistently applied. ie: Canada's "territories" do not get TLDs but similar entities in other countries do.
A camera is not a private residence. Aside from legitimate cams intended to broadcast publicly, going inside a public or commercial building where a door is unlocked or the entry code is publicly known is completely legal and legitimate. In the case of cameras you don't know what it is until you enter, until then it's reasonable to assume it's a public/commercial camera. Once you learn what it is you should exit if it's reasonable for them to expect privacy and alert someone if it's intended to be secure/secret.
One thing I question - 73,011 cams in 256 countries? There are only 190-200... even counting random psudo countries I don't think there are 256...
The point is that a lot of the stuff we classify as murder is classified as terrorism because it's perpetrated by Muslims.
I know that's your point, but it's not supported.
It is supported. Take Pakistan, 9,374 recorded incidents (1970-2013). Of those only 4,684 of them would meet the US definition of terrorism. Yes, it's still a LOT, I don't mean to undermine the volume/gravity of attacks - simply that the data is skewed. By example, a racially motivated shooting in the US is just a racially motivated shooting - where as it's a terrorist attack in the Pakistani data.
A gang vs gang shooting isn't much different from an intra-Muslim terrorist attack when you abstract it a little.
Yes, it's very different, because at an abstract level gang vs gang violence is violence between equals. Both gangs have the power of guns and violence at their disposal, both gangs have their own territory and power base, both gangs have relatively equal revenue generators like intimidation, prostitution, drugs, gun running, etc.
How on EARTH is that not much different than when the majority Muslim group in Pakistan (Sunnis) targets religious processions of minority religious groups (e.g. Shias, Ahmadis) and suffers little or no consequences for it?
Honestly I think your statement shows that maybe you just don't know much about the extent and type of terrorism going on in the Muslim world. Sunnis vs Shias in Iraq (perhaps this is where you got your gang vs gang analogy) is very different from Sunnis vs Shias in Pakistan, or Sunnis vs Alawites in Syria, or any other conflict. It's a mistake to think of even sects within Islam as monolithic.
Since when are all gangs equal? Stronger gangs wipe out weaker gangs all the time. 498 attacks of the data set mentioned above were intra-Terrorist/Violent Political Party attacks. 1,093 of them were against the police (aka gang vs police shootings in the US), in all 4,793 of the attacks were directed at governments/government institutions/government infrastructure. Far more than the 2,653 targeted at religious/personal targets.
You ask "To who?" (To whom) when it's broken down within the US but then lump them in globally?
That's because Muslim terrorism is global in nature. Even among domestic Muslim terrorist incidents in the US there is generally a link to foreign groups. The US is the target of many Muslim groups around the world. Compare that to something else... how many times did IRA separatists attack domestic targets in the US? (I don't know, but I suspect never.) How many times did Mexican drug cartels attack NYC? (Never.)
MOST threats are local in nature and can be dismissed by people who aren't right there in the target area. For instance there are zero local terrorist threats that I'm aware of where I live. Puerto Rican separatists are absolutely not going to attack the city I live in, I would wager a lot of money on that. The only real threats are global, and Muslim terrorists are the biggest global threat.
The data does not support that. Attacks against the US, 1970-2012: 60 attacks were by Muslim groups. 118 were by Jewish groups. 120 Puerto Rican groups (which hit Chicago, NYC, Camden, etc). Mexican drug cartels - you are in fact making my point here. They are known to operate in over 270 cities in the US but any deaths/attacks by these groups are not considered terrorism in US statistics. A group in say, Afghanistan, attacking another group/government/etc over the opiate drug trade would be considered terrorism. In fact there are only 2 incidents in the database from Mexican cartels in any country
Globally, the greatest terrorist threat is not religious based - it's political. Different factions fighting it out for control over territory.
Definitely a perception issue on the HR/managerial side which isn't able to recognize comparable experience and what's actually important. There's talent, individual skill, and then trainable skills. The latter two especially get confused. I don't need 2 years experience with [insert program] when I've got a decade of programming experience that would allow me to create the app.
The point is that a lot of the stuff we classify as murder is classified as terrorism because it's perpetrated by Muslims. Guns are the weapon of choice in America, explosives in the Middle East. A gang vs gang shooting isn't much different from an intra-Muslim terrorist attack when you abstract it a little.
Muslims are the biggest threat to the biggest part of the population.
You ask "To who?" (To whom) when it's broken down within the US but then lump them in globally? Within the US the greatest religious based terrorist threat is anti-abortionist Christians. The greatest non-single issue religious based terrorist threat is Jewish terrorist groups. The greatest terrorist threat overall is actually left wing single issue extremists. Within the Western Hemisphere the greatest terrorist threat is drug cartels. Globally, the greatest terrorist threat is not religious based - it's political. Different factions fighting it out for control over territory.
Africa - Nigeria north/south conflict, Somalia recently split into north/south, Mali Tuareg separatists Asia - Israel+Palestine, Yemen civil war, Georgia/Russia, the political mess that is East India through to West of Myanmar, etc.
Yes there's still religious terrorism and you can characterize some as both religious and political... the point is the largest terrorism threat for the west has never been Muslims - they've just had the highest profile attacks.
Delirium, brought to you buy 34 hours straight of pouring through 177 pages of legal documents with a fine tooth comb and the half dozen acts to which they apply, including the building and fire codes. Oh, and I am not a lawyer or contractor. Needless to say, crazy and despair had taken hold by hour 35.
One thing I don't get though... http://ebolatracking.org/ - I get there's a lot of stupid people in New York, California, Texas... but Maine? Why the hell is Maine over 10000 tweets... it's mother effing Maine.
Nah, Lenovo will buy Blackberry next, merge the companies, release a bunch of "Motoberry", "Blackrola", "Lenberry", "Blackovo" phones, end up selling the merged company back to Google who randomly decides they want back into the handset market when their hairband fails. Google then strip out all identity left in the phones that made them stand out when they release the Google M1 and Google B1. They both under perform because Android is a hot mess at this point and Google is facing so much regulatory gridlock and competition from ISPs who've now become the social media barons and are degrading Google's services and giving priority to their own. Then some jackass decides he wants to set off a nuke using a drone which accidentally triggers NuclearResponse AI (Google beta) and the world ends up in a nuclear winter. Centuries later as mankind begins to spread again, the source code is discovered and found to have a bug in it caused by a backdoor that was added by the NSA so they would know who was operating the system. Mankind never could figure out why the NSA was trying to spy on an AI.
Not what I was saying at all. The thing we *can't* have enough of is the infrastructure - it's simply too costly/messy to have multiple last mile providers. What's needed is functional separation. One regulated last mile provider that only deals with maintaining/upgrading hardware and does nothing else - they do not sell any end product to the user. Then the providers of internet connectivity, working with their own back-haul/peering/customer support/etc sell to the end user. They pay a regulated fee to the last mile provider and everything else is up to them in terms of levels of service/price/policies/etc. The only thing they can't do is own content. Any other company that is arm's length from them is free to own/produce content to their heart's content. 2 levels of separation is all you need to create a relatively fair and highly competitive environment. Personally I'd add a 6 month exclusivity limit on new content before it has to be openly licensed to anyone and everyone at a competitive rate.
We have a tiny portion of it implemented in Canada with IISPs and it works beautifully, except that the last mile providers are still selling connectivity so they find every way possible to interfere with the IISPs who are taking their customers away by the hundreds of thousands. If the 5-6 incumbents were forced to play by IISP rules and sell off their last mile the 500-600 IISPs would thrive. What's starting to happen though is that instead of continuing to invest in their offerings they're all getting distracted by content production/selling. Problem is, none of them offer enough content to be worthwhile and they keep getting stuck in legal battles because they try and do "tied selling" and just about every anti-competitive thing you can think of to try and force people into their "bundle" to get their "exclusive content". Meanwhile, we all just sit around and torrent or sneak into Netflix US waiting for the madness to end.
there were media reports that he was on a watch list, and was denied his passport because he was trying to go to Syria via Turkey.
fabulous journalism.
Those ended up being completely bunk - funny enough, they came from an American "intelligence" source. He applied for a Libyan passport (which he had before but expired in 2007), he told them he wanted to go back to Libya to visit friends. It was just a sick individual who snapped for some unknown reason - not a single link to terrorism or any political aim.
He was not on any so called "terrorist watch list" - he was denied a Libyan passport (by Libya) because his ID didn't match the name given, they couldn't verify his mother's contact info, and his photos didn't match his appearance. He was never denied a Canadian passport because he only started the process of requesting one - it never had a chance to be denied.
Apple hardware is over-priced, but then again you get the OS and the office suite for free with the system and free upgrades later, so it's kind of cheaper in the long run.
Amount paid for MS/Linux software: $0 Amount paid for Apple software: $700
PC hardware survival average: 6+ years Apple hardware survival average: 14 months
Average price paid per PC: ~$1,200 Average price paid per Apple: ~$2,100
Between a $2,200 monitor getting a hot pixel epidemic in the first 7 months and a $2,000 Macbook Pro melting down to the point of complete failure in 21 months it was by far the worst investments of my life. Meanwhile, I still have an ancient $150 IBM 486 that works beautifully for my classic gaming needs.
Slashdot Mirror
If I have to guess a password (even if it's a default one), it's somewhere I probably shouldn't be.
Guessing passwords I would agree in most situations, except where the intent of guessing is for the public good. Default passwords on the other hand are public knowledge and it's not uncommon to have a devices that requires a password be set even if your intent is for public access. We had this issue at a public library I worked at - the router we used to handle the volume was commercial and required a password be set to a non-empty value. We posted the password on the front door of the library so people could continue to use the network when it was closed.
How would a good person inform the owner that their door is unlocked if the only way is contact them is to walk inside? Or is the correct response to just walk away?
We're not exactly talking about an unlocked door though. Think about it this way - you see someone's keys on the ground or left in the door. You knock but no one answers. You might poke your head in to put the keys inside or look in the window to see if anyone is home. Yes you could walk away but that's not very neighbourly of you, who knows the next person to come along might rob them.
Let me guess, if you don't send your SSN and fingerprints you'll get locked out of your own game?
lol - too true! I just got locked out in Chinese this morning. At least they consider "trying to login" unusual behaviour for me.
Yup, TF mixed with Shadowrun. I'd still rather play Gotham City Impostors oddly enough.
Blizzard just hasn't been the same since Activision
Or that the owner wants to access a private device remotely. Since that's the safer assumption, and not at all unlikely, it is the more reasonable assumption.
You can go in circles with "intent" arguments. Regardless of intent of the owner, the difference between accessing a private home camera and public camera is an IP address. Can you tell the difference between an IP assigned to a public park web cam vs someone's living room? How about the difference between one at a private residence pointed at a bird nest outside vs their bedroom? What about dynamic IPs that might log you into your camera one day and a neighbour's the next?
The problem here is really the entire way default passwords are set. In this day and age it would not be hard to make the default password for the device the serial number or something similar that's unique and is still recorded for support purposes.
On the contrary, if you don't know what it is, it is *not* reasonable to assume it's a public/commercial camera. If you assume it is you could do something wrong. If you assume it is not, you can't do something wrong (as not accessing is never wrong).
You must live a very boring life. My best experiences have been poking around places I wasn't sure what they were; both in real life and digital. It's one of the joys of living in a free society.
There looks to be 255 'territorial' top level domains ("country code" TLDs) - not all of which are acknowledged as countries in say, the UN.
That 255 includes: .zr, .an, .cs, .dd no longer exist as countries
1 for European Union
1 for Antarctica
2 for Russia
2 for East Timor
2 for UK
yu,
a crapload of administrative/dependent territories that are inconsistently applied. ie: Canada's "territories" do not get TLDs but similar entities in other countries do.
A camera is not a private residence. Aside from legitimate cams intended to broadcast publicly, going inside a public or commercial building where a door is unlocked or the entry code is publicly known is completely legal and legitimate. In the case of cameras you don't know what it is until you enter, until then it's reasonable to assume it's a public/commercial camera. Once you learn what it is you should exit if it's reasonable for them to expect privacy and alert someone if it's intended to be secure/secret.
One thing I question - 73,011 cams in 256 countries? There are only 190-200... even counting random psudo countries I don't think there are 256...
The point is that a lot of the stuff we classify as murder is classified as terrorism because it's perpetrated by Muslims.
I know that's your point, but it's not supported.
It is supported. Take Pakistan, 9,374 recorded incidents (1970-2013). Of those only 4,684 of them would meet the US definition of terrorism. Yes, it's still a LOT, I don't mean to undermine the volume/gravity of attacks - simply that the data is skewed. By example, a racially motivated shooting in the US is just a racially motivated shooting - where as it's a terrorist attack in the Pakistani data.
A gang vs gang shooting isn't much different from an intra-Muslim terrorist attack when you abstract it a little.
Yes, it's very different, because at an abstract level gang vs gang violence is violence between equals. Both gangs have the power of guns and violence at their disposal, both gangs have their own territory and power base, both gangs have relatively equal revenue generators like intimidation, prostitution, drugs, gun running, etc.
How on EARTH is that not much different than when the majority Muslim group in Pakistan (Sunnis) targets religious processions of minority religious groups (e.g. Shias, Ahmadis) and suffers little or no consequences for it?
Honestly I think your statement shows that maybe you just don't know much about the extent and type of terrorism going on in the Muslim world. Sunnis vs Shias in Iraq (perhaps this is where you got your gang vs gang analogy) is very different from Sunnis vs Shias in Pakistan, or Sunnis vs Alawites in Syria, or any other conflict. It's a mistake to think of even sects within Islam as monolithic.
Since when are all gangs equal? Stronger gangs wipe out weaker gangs all the time. 498 attacks of the data set mentioned above were intra-Terrorist/Violent Political Party attacks. 1,093 of them were against the police (aka gang vs police shootings in the US), in all 4,793 of the attacks were directed at governments/government institutions/government infrastructure. Far more than the 2,653 targeted at religious/personal targets.
You ask "To who?" (To whom) when it's broken down within the US but then lump them in globally?
That's because Muslim terrorism is global in nature. Even among domestic Muslim terrorist incidents in the US there is generally a link to foreign groups. The US is the target of many Muslim groups around the world. Compare that to something else... how many times did IRA separatists attack domestic targets in the US? (I don't know, but I suspect never.) How many times did Mexican drug cartels attack NYC? (Never.)
MOST threats are local in nature and can be dismissed by people who aren't right there in the target area. For instance there are zero local terrorist threats that I'm aware of where I live. Puerto Rican separatists are absolutely not going to attack the city I live in, I would wager a lot of money on that. The only real threats are global, and Muslim terrorists are the biggest global threat.
The data does not support that. Attacks against the US, 1970-2012: 60 attacks were by Muslim groups. 118 were by Jewish groups. 120 Puerto Rican groups (which hit Chicago, NYC, Camden, etc). Mexican drug cartels - you are in fact making my point here. They are known to operate in over 270 cities in the US but any deaths/attacks by these groups are not considered terrorism in US statistics. A group in say, Afghanistan, attacking another group/government/etc over the opiate drug trade would be considered terrorism. In fact there are only 2 incidents in the database from Mexican cartels in any country
Globally, the greatest terrorist threat is not religious based - it's political. Different factions fighting it out for control over territory.
Africa - Nigeria north/south conflict,
Definitely a perception issue on the HR/managerial side which isn't able to recognize comparable experience and what's actually important. There's talent, individual skill, and then trainable skills. The latter two especially get confused. I don't need 2 years experience with [insert program] when I've got a decade of programming experience that would allow me to create the app.
The point is that a lot of the stuff we classify as murder is classified as terrorism because it's perpetrated by Muslims. Guns are the weapon of choice in America, explosives in the Middle East. A gang vs gang shooting isn't much different from an intra-Muslim terrorist attack when you abstract it a little.
Muslims are the biggest threat to the biggest part of the population.
You ask "To who?" (To whom) when it's broken down within the US but then lump them in globally? Within the US the greatest religious based terrorist threat is anti-abortionist Christians. The greatest non-single issue religious based terrorist threat is Jewish terrorist groups. The greatest terrorist threat overall is actually left wing single issue extremists. Within the Western Hemisphere the greatest terrorist threat is drug cartels. Globally, the greatest terrorist threat is not religious based - it's political. Different factions fighting it out for control over territory.
Africa - Nigeria north/south conflict, Somalia recently split into north/south, Mali Tuareg separatists
Asia - Israel+Palestine, Yemen civil war, Georgia/Russia, the political mess that is East India through to West of Myanmar, etc.
Yes there's still religious terrorism and you can characterize some as both religious and political... the point is the largest terrorism threat for the west has never been Muslims - they've just had the highest profile attacks.
Delirium, brought to you buy 34 hours straight of pouring through 177 pages of legal documents with a fine tooth comb and the half dozen acts to which they apply, including the building and fire codes. Oh, and I am not a lawyer or contractor. Needless to say, crazy and despair had taken hold by hour 35.
It's STILL mother effing MAINE!!
Seriously.
It's still mother effing Maine!
I blame Outbreak. http://nypdecider.files.wordpr...
One thing I don't get though... http://ebolatracking.org/ - I get there's a lot of stupid people in New York, California, Texas... but Maine? Why the hell is Maine over 10000 tweets... it's mother effing Maine.
Nah, Lenovo will buy Blackberry next, merge the companies, release a bunch of "Motoberry", "Blackrola", "Lenberry", "Blackovo" phones, end up selling the merged company back to Google who randomly decides they want back into the handset market when their hairband fails. Google then strip out all identity left in the phones that made them stand out when they release the Google M1 and Google B1. They both under perform because Android is a hot mess at this point and Google is facing so much regulatory gridlock and competition from ISPs who've now become the social media barons and are degrading Google's services and giving priority to their own. Then some jackass decides he wants to set off a nuke using a drone which accidentally triggers NuclearResponse AI (Google beta) and the world ends up in a nuclear winter. Centuries later as mankind begins to spread again, the source code is discovered and found to have a bug in it caused by a backdoor that was added by the NSA so they would know who was operating the system. Mankind never could figure out why the NSA was trying to spy on an AI.
Not what I was saying at all. The thing we *can't* have enough of is the infrastructure - it's simply too costly/messy to have multiple last mile providers. What's needed is functional separation. One regulated last mile provider that only deals with maintaining/upgrading hardware and does nothing else - they do not sell any end product to the user. Then the providers of internet connectivity, working with their own back-haul/peering/customer support/etc sell to the end user. They pay a regulated fee to the last mile provider and everything else is up to them in terms of levels of service/price/policies/etc. The only thing they can't do is own content. Any other company that is arm's length from them is free to own/produce content to their heart's content. 2 levels of separation is all you need to create a relatively fair and highly competitive environment. Personally I'd add a 6 month exclusivity limit on new content before it has to be openly licensed to anyone and everyone at a competitive rate.
We have a tiny portion of it implemented in Canada with IISPs and it works beautifully, except that the last mile providers are still selling connectivity so they find every way possible to interfere with the IISPs who are taking their customers away by the hundreds of thousands. If the 5-6 incumbents were forced to play by IISP rules and sell off their last mile the 500-600 IISPs would thrive. What's starting to happen though is that instead of continuing to invest in their offerings they're all getting distracted by content production/selling. Problem is, none of them offer enough content to be worthwhile and they keep getting stuck in legal battles because they try and do "tied selling" and just about every anti-competitive thing you can think of to try and force people into their "bundle" to get their "exclusive content". Meanwhile, we all just sit around and torrent or sneak into Netflix US waiting for the madness to end.
It's the perfect example of why those who distribute media/news should never have been allowed to be the same ones who create the media/news.
I vote we upload archive.org ;)
he will become a frequent contributor one day.
Yes, re-submitting articles that were on the front page in the past 7 days is incredibly helpful.
there were media reports that he was on a watch list, and was denied his passport because he was trying to go to Syria via Turkey.
fabulous journalism.
Those ended up being completely bunk - funny enough, they came from an American "intelligence" source. He applied for a Libyan passport (which he had before but expired in 2007), he told them he wanted to go back to Libya to visit friends. It was just a sick individual who snapped for some unknown reason - not a single link to terrorism or any political aim.
He was not on any so called "terrorist watch list" - he was denied a Libyan passport (by Libya) because his ID didn't match the name given, they couldn't verify his mother's contact info, and his photos didn't match his appearance. He was never denied a Canadian passport because he only started the process of requesting one - it never had a chance to be denied.
Yup, but the conservatives keep trying. Harper is what, 0-4 with constitutional challenges?
Apple hardware is over-priced, but then again you get the OS and the office suite for free with the system and free upgrades later, so it's kind of cheaper in the long run.
Amount paid for MS/Linux software: $0
Amount paid for Apple software: $700
PC hardware survival average: 6+ years
Apple hardware survival average: 14 months
Average price paid per PC: ~$1,200
Average price paid per Apple: ~$2,100
Between a $2,200 monitor getting a hot pixel epidemic in the first 7 months and a $2,000 Macbook Pro melting down to the point of complete failure in 21 months it was by far the worst investments of my life. Meanwhile, I still have an ancient $150 IBM 486 that works beautifully for my classic gaming needs.