Umm, no. There is a basic idea - you buy a piece of electronics and you take care of it. If you don't, don't go complaining at the supplier who told you the circumstances under which you could use the device as that happens to represent the condition for which it has been designed and tested.
You could, for instance, not go after Apple because it just doesn't happen to work very well as a support for your car jack.
Where there is smoke there may be fire (pardon the pun) - I will wait for the result of the INDEPENDENT investigation. I like the iPhone, but I am disinclined to believe positive reports from the company who stands to lose if the result is negative as a matter of principle. They may be right, but I believe it only from an independent body.
IMHO, given the incredible volume vs. the alleged problems I think I'll take my chances - the probabilities still look damn good..
Re:I have a full-proof security code
on
The Myths of Security
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Actually, during the last Access-all-areas held in London I brought along a Samsonite briefcase with a digital lock.
Someone spent the ENTIRE weekend trying to open the lock and didn't manage, which was due to a bit of evil from my side. The lock has 4 digits, so I entered a code and opened/closed it - he tried everything from 0000 to 9999 and didn't manage.
The reason was me pretending to press keys. That case had a cute feature: you didn't have to use all 4 digits, so the actual combination was just "9" with me pretending to hit other buttons:-)
Ah, those where the days..
PS: that lock had a major weakness anyway so I didn't use it long - it was just amusing..
I notice that "tapping" Skype is always a matter of compromising one of the end points. I presume it's harder to tap Skype in transit as traffic can take any old route via the Internet - or that's the impression we should get.
FFS, EVERY sensible organisation must run tests on various aspects, I run annual crisis management tests to ensure the plans they have actually work (we're talking about major, this-will-tank-the-company stuff which requires a military model of management to handle). It's fun dreaming up a realistic scenario, but it is ESSENTIAL that you manage the I/O to the crisis management team to ensure your test doesn't create a disaster in itself.
Let me give you an example: a VERY major news outlet was system testing years ago, and the twits didn't isolate properly. If it hadn't been for an alert operator they would have put out the story that a US president had died in an accident. Can you imagine the impact that would have had?
Good that the testers did what they did, exceptionally bad that they didn't verify communication paths beforehand. That suggests they were not employed at a high enough level or the security comms in the company sucks and needs to be improved as a matter of urgency. Bad PR also costs money, and from what I've seen they could improve there too.
Full marks for testing, but the test results suggest to me a couple of things need an overhaul pretty quickly. They are exposed as far as I'm concerned. Having said that, my standards in this are quite high..
1 - understanding what a reported needs for his/her story - ask if you're unsure (that's also honest, which will help) 2 - a reasonable character (a sense of humour helps) - rigid opinions can trip you up. That doesn't mean flexible ETHICS, but the world isn't black and white. 3 - decide what you want out of the discussion
Three things you must avoid:
1 - your ego - be normal (I personally detest people with star attitudes who have delusions of adequacy) 2 - jargon or complexity 3 - detail. If you can't summarise your project, discuss it with the journalist - if they are clued up they can actually help you with that and you'll end up with a win-win.
Three things you must NEVER, EVER even try:
1 - Assume. Stay with the facts or say you don't know (and get back to them before deadline - don't forget that part) 2 - Lie. You will be found out and suffer for it. 3 - Talk without expertise. Don't BS.
I'm frequently interviewed because of some things I do. Simply understanding what the other party needs is elementary to getting a good story in the press - even when you're busy managing a disaster. Being honest with the press or stating you don't yet know is always better than trying to spin a story. There are whole governments busy finding out that no longer works..
Oh, one more thing: the story will never look like you expect unless you have control over final print (rare but possible). "Publish and be damned" is true to some degree:-)
I follow a general rule: I deal with people, then with their role. Lawyers are people doing a (difficult) job, so are policemen and journalists. If you deal with any person like a normal human being regardless of what they do you'll discover the quantity of people with personality defects sinks (you will always have a few idiots, but it's not as common as people appear to think).
Getting a good connection with a journalist means they'll be back for more - worth your time.
I like the idea, but then you're looking at building an elevated support system. However, that may be cheaper than making the panels capable of handling the weight of a truck (not to mention how lethal it becomes when it rains - ever been on glazed tiles that are wet?).
I have a simpler solution: LINE the road with the panels. Don't stick them IN the road, stick them next to the road.
At the moment you know at least for sure when it is searched. If you ship your laptop with a 3rd party I would suggest you better have full disk crypto so it would not be a problem if the transport company staff got into your package and imaged the machine - or tried to add something to it (a secondary risk few think about).
"where the hell SCO is getting the money from to pay for a decade of litigation"
AFAIK it's not their money, they're spending someone else's (the license money they owe Novell). That's why it was so important to get a trustee installed after they went chapter 11..
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
This is, in a nutshell, the simplest argument to respect someone's privacy. It is a basic human right. It really is that simple..
Opt-in has to be seen in context. If you are not in control of providing the data, opt-in is a dangerous illusion.
If you have a local application which supplies data to a system you could potentially chose what information you provide (we're assuming here for a moment that the app doesn't lie to you and just flags the opted out data as "opted out" instead). In that case, only your point of origin (your IP address) also contains a degree of location information.
If, however, it's not *you* who provides location data you're out of luck. They can do what they want, and in the current ethical climate it means they'll take your data but won't tell you about it. If you're lucky you'll discover it because they use the data but you'll never be sure.
The code they have used masked things it should NOT have masked as well. Sometimes it thinks something is a face where it isn't, so there's some UNmasking to do as well. Otherwise you're right.
Either way, I'm with you that such images must not be stored permanently, but who is going to check an organization that has such a global spread? They can hide this data in any country and you'd never know. For all we know this data could be copied to the NSA already.
That was the main argument: Google has been told to disable Streetview in Switzerland because of privacy concerns (I actually found an article that shows an unmasked car license plate - in a definite red light area).
The problem is that Google is stepping in unchartered waters re. privacy here - only the NSA has ever collected data that has privacy risks on such a large scale, but it appears they don't have to care anyway - even if they spy on Americans. It would thus be wise for Google to address such concerns BEFORE they become problems, and they screwed up in the one country which has not removed privacy from its citizens with the excuse of "terrorism". Google acts as an enabler for breaches of privacy, and that should stop.
The result is that they have now come under extreme scrutiny, and what I told you is no joke - it happens that I know a couple of people in London so I looked it up - you can zoom into their homes. Not enough to read book titles on a shelf, but you can see what they have and, for instance, if it's worth planning a break in.
Burglars "work" ares at a time, which they scout, plan for getaway and see which ones are likely to have alarms. Originally they would have to go there physically (and in the UK be caught on CCTV), now they can do it from their armchair. No risk involved.
This is a problem with all of Google's services. It's breaking new ground, but they don't appear to exercise the minimum care required to stop abuse. "Respecting people's right to privacy" is NOT a line for marketing - it should be a fundamental principle in Google design, even if a lot of so-called democracies have been doing their level best to remove privacy. Maybe that has been Google'^s problem: they have been getting away with this so the expectation was they would manage to bend the rules in Switzerland too. Ain't gonna happen.
I can't show you the locations (I am not going to break other people's privacy) but I've seen quite a few houses in North London where you can look in. You forget that sunshine on the "away" side of the street will light the inside up - your argument is correct insofar the camera is in the light.
In general, you find the ability to look inside is highest when houses are near the road (typically on narrow roads) - the camera resolution is high enough to make out quite some detail.
it would not surprise me if inside switzerland's large cities they record.
If recording is required, people get to vote on it and such access to such installations are very strictly controlled and regulated. It's precisely because they're so exact about who does what that the Swiss police and authorities appears to be more trusted than in any other nation. That doesn't mean they don't occasionally screw up too, but at least you find out about it and fix it.
Side effect of being a real democracy - the bureaucracy may occasionally drive you mad but it works.
Give me one single motivation why Google would keep that data?
Because the masking algorithms evidently need work and they may have to do the masking again (like in Switzerland). It would be somewhat dumb to get all those cars on the road again.
I think the balance is lost. When you take a holiday snap it's used for a small, selective audience (your friends and others you choose to bore with them). The moment you start using people's face for volume distribution (which is what Google does with Streetview) I think the game changes and you need to seek permission. Even if it was legal I'd consider it good manners..
In addition, the Swiss are naturally discrete as a nation. They like their privacy, and haven't been gradually weaned off that desire like especially people in CCTV-infested UK have (and US people with all the internal spying installed by the Bush government).
1 - Switzerland is a democracy. It doesn't always work so well, but in general I think they are ahead of other countries - unless you know another place where collecting a batch of signatures can actually start a law changing process instead of a stiff ignoring..
2 - Switzerland is simply telling Google to deliver what it promised when it was presented with concerns of residents. Google said they would, and it was clear something hasn't worked as planned. If they fix that I guess there won't be a problem, but at present they are in breach of their own promises. That's not good news in a country where a even a handshake deal still has formal legal value. I looked at this myself, and it was very easy to find people who were not masked and recognisable. That was not the deal, end of story.
3 - I personally think they have missed one thing: windows (the glass type). I've looked at places I know in various countries, and you can actually look *inside* houses near the road. Not very good IMHO.
4 - Streetview is NOT Google's biggest privacy problem, I think that one will erupt next week. I sometimes wonder why the NSA still gets a budget - Google is globally getting more data out of people voluntarily than the NSA managed by stealth..
I don't know who makes their keyboards and mice, but they're not bad at all. However, an Xbox is more complex, and it appears that's where they became unstuck. And, of course, this uses an OS, and MS could not possible let the OS be at fault for so many failures.
I bet the breakdowns are simply camouflaged BSoDs:-).
Slashdot Mirror
PS - To make sure there are no confounds, please send up hot female astronauts to eliminate alternate explanations on why the experiment failed.
Nice try, but there's a glaring omission: you yourself might be someone whose looks alone give reason for a Darwin award.. :-)
Umm, no. There is a basic idea - you buy a piece of electronics and you take care of it. If you don't, don't go complaining at the supplier who told you the circumstances under which you could use the device as that happens to represent the condition for which it has been designed and tested.
You could, for instance, not go after Apple because it just doesn't happen to work very well as a support for your car jack.
Where there is smoke there may be fire (pardon the pun) - I will wait for the result of the INDEPENDENT investigation. I like the iPhone, but I am disinclined to believe positive reports from the company who stands to lose if the result is negative as a matter of principle. They may be right, but I believe it only from an independent body.
IMHO, given the incredible volume vs. the alleged problems I think I'll take my chances - the probabilities still look damn good..
Actually, during the last Access-all-areas held in London I brought along a Samsonite briefcase with a digital lock.
Someone spent the ENTIRE weekend trying to open the lock and didn't manage, which was due to a bit of evil from my side. The lock has 4 digits, so I entered a code and opened/closed it - he tried everything from 0000 to 9999 and didn't manage.
The reason was me pretending to press keys. That case had a cute feature: you didn't have to use all 4 digits, so the actual combination was just "9" with me pretending to hit other buttons :-)
Ah, those where the days..
PS: that lock had a major weakness anyway so I didn't use it long - it was just amusing..
I notice that "tapping" Skype is always a matter of compromising one of the end points. I presume it's harder to tap Skype in transit as traffic can take any old route via the Internet - or that's the impression we should get.
FFS, EVERY sensible organisation must run tests on various aspects, I run annual crisis management tests to ensure the plans they have actually work (we're talking about major, this-will-tank-the-company stuff which requires a military model of management to handle). It's fun dreaming up a realistic scenario, but it is ESSENTIAL that you manage the I/O to the crisis management team to ensure your test doesn't create a disaster in itself.
Let me give you an example: a VERY major news outlet was system testing years ago, and the twits didn't isolate properly. If it hadn't been for an alert operator they would have put out the story that a US president had died in an accident. Can you imagine the impact that would have had?
Good that the testers did what they did, exceptionally bad that they didn't verify communication paths beforehand. That suggests they were not employed at a high enough level or the security comms in the company sucks and needs to be improved as a matter of urgency. Bad PR also costs money, and from what I've seen they could improve there too.
Full marks for testing, but the test results suggest to me a couple of things need an overhaul pretty quickly. They are exposed as far as I'm concerned. Having said that, my standards in this are quite high..
What about lighting a cigarette?
You need three things:
1 - understanding what a reported needs for his/her story - ask if you're unsure (that's also honest, which will help)
2 - a reasonable character (a sense of humour helps) - rigid opinions can trip you up. That doesn't mean flexible ETHICS, but the world isn't black and white.
3 - decide what you want out of the discussion
Three things you must avoid:
1 - your ego - be normal (I personally detest people with star attitudes who have delusions of adequacy)
2 - jargon or complexity
3 - detail. If you can't summarise your project, discuss it with the journalist - if they are clued up they can actually help you with that and you'll end up with a win-win.
Three things you must NEVER, EVER even try:
1 - Assume. Stay with the facts or say you don't know (and get back to them before deadline - don't forget that part)
2 - Lie. You will be found out and suffer for it.
3 - Talk without expertise. Don't BS.
I'm frequently interviewed because of some things I do. Simply understanding what the other party needs is elementary to getting a good story in the press - even when you're busy managing a disaster. Being honest with the press or stating you don't yet know is always better than trying to spin a story. There are whole governments busy finding out that no longer works..
Oh, one more thing: the story will never look like you expect unless you have control over final print (rare but possible). "Publish and be damned" is true to some degree :-)
I follow a general rule: I deal with people, then with their role. Lawyers are people doing a (difficult) job, so are policemen and journalists. If you deal with any person like a normal human being regardless of what they do you'll discover the quantity of people with personality defects sinks (you will always have a few idiots, but it's not as common as people appear to think).
Getting a good connection with a journalist means they'll be back for more - worth your time.
Good luck.
I like the idea, but then you're looking at building an elevated support system. However, that may be cheaper than making the panels capable of handling the weight of a truck (not to mention how lethal it becomes when it rains - ever been on glazed tiles that are wet?).
I have a simpler solution: LINE the road with the panels. Don't stick them IN the road, stick them next to the road.
Easy, done. Until they get stolen..
At the moment you know at least for sure when it is searched. If you ship your laptop with a 3rd party I would suggest you better have full disk crypto so it would not be a problem if the transport company staff got into your package and imaged the machine - or tried to add something to it (a secondary risk few think about).
"where the hell SCO is getting the money from to pay for a decade of litigation"
AFAIK it's not their money, they're spending someone else's (the license money they owe Novell). That's why it was so important to get a trustee installed after they went chapter 11..
It's a shame I have to put up a reminder - sign of the times I guess.
From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights :
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
This is, in a nutshell, the simplest argument to respect someone's privacy. It is a basic human right. It really is that simple..
It will suck, obviously. After all, it's a lolly.. :-)
Opt-in has to be seen in context. If you are not in control of providing the data, opt-in is a dangerous illusion.
If you have a local application which supplies data to a system you could potentially chose what information you provide (we're assuming here for a moment that the app doesn't lie to you and just flags the opted out data as "opted out" instead). In that case, only your point of origin (your IP address) also contains a degree of location information.
If, however, it's not *you* who provides location data you're out of luck. They can do what they want, and in the current ethical climate it means they'll take your data but won't tell you about it. If you're lucky you'll discover it because they use the data but you'll never be sure.
I'm not defending Google here, btw :-).
The code they have used masked things it should NOT have masked as well. Sometimes it thinks something is a face where it isn't, so there's some UNmasking to do as well. Otherwise you're right.
Either way, I'm with you that such images must not be stored permanently, but who is going to check an organization that has such a global spread? They can hide this data in any country and you'd never know. For all we know this data could be copied to the NSA already.
That was the main argument: Google has been told to disable Streetview in Switzerland because of privacy concerns (I actually found an article that shows an unmasked car license plate - in a definite red light area).
The problem is that Google is stepping in unchartered waters re. privacy here - only the NSA has ever collected data that has privacy risks on such a large scale, but it appears they don't have to care anyway - even if they spy on Americans. It would thus be wise for Google to address such concerns BEFORE they become problems, and they screwed up in the one country which has not removed privacy from its citizens with the excuse of "terrorism". Google acts as an enabler for breaches of privacy, and that should stop.
The result is that they have now come under extreme scrutiny, and what I told you is no joke - it happens that I know a couple of people in London so I looked it up - you can zoom into their homes. Not enough to read book titles on a shelf, but you can see what they have and, for instance, if it's worth planning a break in.
Burglars "work" ares at a time, which they scout, plan for getaway and see which ones are likely to have alarms. Originally they would have to go there physically (and in the UK be caught on CCTV), now they can do it from their armchair. No risk involved.
This is a problem with all of Google's services. It's breaking new ground, but they don't appear to exercise the minimum care required to stop abuse. "Respecting people's right to privacy" is NOT a line for marketing - it should be a fundamental principle in Google design, even if a lot of so-called democracies have been doing their level best to remove privacy. Maybe that has been Google'^s problem: they have been getting away with this so the expectation was they would manage to bend the rules in Switzerland too. Ain't gonna happen.
Rights do not scale (up)
I don't think there isn't a better way to summarize the 150+ entry discussion that is brewing here.
Kudos.
First of all, why should I have to build a fence around my home because some weird ass US company has decided to do a mass photo shoot abroad?
However, a fence is no solution either.. That's actually part of the problem: the camera's are higher than eye height.
I can't show you the locations (I am not going to break other people's privacy) but I've seen quite a few houses in North London where you can look in. You forget that sunshine on the "away" side of the street will light the inside up - your argument is correct insofar the camera is in the light.
In general, you find the ability to look inside is highest when houses are near the road (typically on narrow roads) - the camera resolution is high enough to make out quite some detail.
*Not* good.
it would not surprise me if inside switzerland's large cities they record.
If recording is required, people get to vote on it and such access to such installations are very strictly controlled and regulated. It's precisely because they're so exact about who does what that the Swiss police and authorities appears to be more trusted than in any other nation. That doesn't mean they don't occasionally screw up too, but at least you find out about it and fix it.
Side effect of being a real democracy - the bureaucracy may occasionally drive you mad but it works.
Give me one single motivation why Google would keep that data?
Because the masking algorithms evidently need work and they may have to do the masking again (like in Switzerland). It would be somewhat dumb to get all those cars on the road again.
I think the balance is lost. When you take a holiday snap it's used for a small, selective audience (your friends and others you choose to bore with them). The moment you start using people's face for volume distribution (which is what Google does with Streetview) I think the game changes and you need to seek permission. Even if it was legal I'd consider it good manners..
In addition, the Swiss are naturally discrete as a nation. They like their privacy, and haven't been gradually weaned off that desire like especially people in CCTV-infested UK have (and US people with all the internal spying installed by the Bush government).
Settle down kids..
1 - Switzerland is a democracy. It doesn't always work so well, but in general I think they are ahead of other countries - unless you know another place where collecting a batch of signatures can actually start a law changing process instead of a stiff ignoring..
2 - Switzerland is simply telling Google to deliver what it promised when it was presented with concerns of residents. Google said they would, and it was clear something hasn't worked as planned. If they fix that I guess there won't be a problem, but at present they are in breach of their own promises. That's not good news in a country where a even a handshake deal still has formal legal value. I looked at this myself, and it was very easy to find people who were not masked and recognisable. That was not the deal, end of story.
3 - I personally think they have missed one thing: windows (the glass type). I've looked at places I know in various countries, and you can actually look *inside* houses near the road. Not very good IMHO.
4 - Streetview is NOT Google's biggest privacy problem, I think that one will erupt next week. I sometimes wonder why the NSA still gets a budget - Google is globally getting more data out of people voluntarily than the NSA managed by stealth..
"Some specs are useless"
You're supposed to use it on a table, not on your reading glasses. Duh. :-)
Following that line of reasoning you'd have to cope with EDLIN on Windows driven phones :-)
I don't know who makes their keyboards and mice, but they're not bad at all. However, an Xbox is more complex, and it appears that's where they became unstuck. And, of course, this uses an OS, and MS could not possible let the OS be at fault for so many failures.
I bet the breakdowns are simply camouflaged BSoDs :-).