I am very suspicious of this approach to information release - it appears to be specifically aimed at obfuscation to frustrate analysis. If you look at it from an audit/forensics point of view because the raw data has been converted, so it can no longer be considered clean or reliable. I'd call this actually NON-compliance with a process designed to keep government accountable, and it ought to raise serious question.
At the most basic technical level, there is no way to check authenticity or look at the headers. This stunt ought to be challenged so it doesn't happen again - it has zero to do with Palin or political direction, but everything with accountability.
.. you ought to admire the typically British sense of humour shining through here. I mean, poking a bit of fun at officials is not actually a bad thing in a world that is becoming increasingly obsessed with boring rules and regulations.
Yes, I know this takes "valuable" time, but let's face it - to BUY entertainment and job enjoyment like that would cost more - after such a stunt the rest of the day goes so much easier.
Your argument fails at your definition of "guilty". Someone isn't guilty because you think they are. You can only ever be guilty of a crime if you are found so in a court of law. It gets interesting when you appeal (IANAL - will you end up in a sort of "suspended guilty" state?), but that's not the case here.
Until such time as there is a formal conviction, someone is assumed innocent. A lesson the assorted press still hasn't learned either, leading to the destruction of lives of people that *were* innocent.
In this case, the subject is guilty of one crime - the one he has been convicted for. Not of anything else. To state otherwise is AFAIK actionable as libel or defamation.
Forgot to add this. Hosting any information in general with Google is interesting, given this extract from the Google's Terms of Service:
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.
11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.
11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.
11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license.
1 - think of something obvious that Apple hasn't implemented yet 2 - write an App that sort of implements it 3 - wait for Apple to finally include it 4 - get major press coverage making out Apple as a thief 5 - Fame! 6 - Profit?
Allow me to quote here from the Google Terms of Service which govern every activity and interaction you have with Google. Fun to read if you have any Data Protection of HIPAA responsibilities. If you need it in another language, do to the relevant google (i.e. google.de) and use the same/accounts/tos link.
The conclusion you should draw from this is to never, ever use Google for ANYTHING that involved intellectual property or cannot handle disclosure. The 11.1 clause looks OK, but 11.2 is formulated so vague it applies to anyone, even their window cleaners.
Here goes:
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.
11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.
11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.
11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license.
If you use Google for any kind of data storage or communication after reading the above you deserve all the trouble it will bring. I'd even hesitate about using their search without an anonymiser such as startpage and even then you have to be careful with the results..
That he pulls in references you find questionable doesn't mean he doesn't have a point. I'm OK-ish with Google as a search engine (although I use StartPage to stop them from grabbing my personal data), but I work with far too sensitive data to allow ANY of those fuzzy cloud services to get their hands on it.
The statement from their Chief Security Officer tells me they haven't quite arrived yet at a view about protecting my information I would be remotely comfortable with - as a matter of fact, what he states is IMHO misleading.
Their business model is to get me to give up my intellectual property for their own use (see chapter 11 in their ToS) and that just ain't gonna happen...
First of all, the argument "it's encrypted" is only valid if YOU are the person encrypting it. Otherwise the protection simple isn't there.
Secondly, there are laws governing data and data management, and they get pretty firm when it comes to private data. It is extremely important to know under which legislation data is hosted because the rules differ per legislation. A classic example: if I store UK data in a facility that can be accessed via another country (say, the US where the magic word "terrorist" opens any container) and that data gets used, *I* am liable, but not in control.
Companies are bullshitted left, right and center with these cloud services, and if Eran Feigenbaum is willing to make such statements in public it indicates to me that he either has no interest in the laws his customers have to follow, is willfully misleading them - or shouldn't be a chief security officer.
Thank you. No mention of the stuff they did well in OS/2 (I still think it was one of the better desktops from a functionality perspective, if somewhat uninspired graphically), or even all the fun stuff we've had in Linux. KDE, Gnome, the beautiful eye candy offered with Enlightenment (my personal favourite) - what about that?
MS wasn't able to multitask on a box until Citrix showed them how to do it (and it's still a mess), whereas the separation between GUI and platform between any Unix/Linux/BSD version made that a snap.
All MS has contributed is the weight to blunt-force people down one route and unify some approach to the desktop (probably invented by someone else). But its main innovation has been to be capable of selling stuff that completely *broke* usability.
That only came apart with Vista which was so blatantly broken that even the magazines who took advertising money could no longer afford to praise it..
OK, assuming there is cause and pupils were informed of the possible violation of their privacy by the kit they carried home, the question is then why so many images were taken - all you need is a face shot and a location for evidence - even Prey doesn't collect more than one image per report.
The next question is why that data was not erased when it became clear what sort of images were collected - its not the sort of data a school should have, not to mention the fact that this sort of stuff requires police involvement to preserve the chain of evidence.
There is a simple question: is there ANY evidence that the laptop was reported as stolen?
If not, we are talking about about a gross invasion of privacy, and the school deserves a serious punishment. However, I have a problem with a school losing this sort of money which is needed for education, so maybe another charge should be levied. Maybe lock up the directors, or make the jerk who ran the app without any evidence of theft clean the toilets for a year - including that of the student's home:-).
Whatever the result - there is no doubt we are talking about something that is 100% not right.. If it isn't illegal it *should* be..
.. I want a club of RADIOLOGISTS to measure the dose, and I want a formal liability statement for any cancer I may develop before I'll walk through it. The last time a "solution" was engineered it emerged to irradiate people a lot more than claimed.
I love the idea of sticking a risk assessment on a chip that the PASSENGER carries. That's about as safe as the RFID chip in your passport which you can actually read (and thus change) from about 70 meters distance. I cannot imagine it taking long before such a chip gets altered..
But hey, at least someone is for once thinking of making a traveler's life EASIER. I am not surprised that isn't the TSA..
I really, really hope that I don't hear people herald this as innovation, because that was the Netscape vision (and the reason Microsoft had to nuke their business by giving away Internet Exploder for free).
With that vision come the flaws, and they remain still pretty much identical too: without the net there is no work (net-work, geddit? No? Sjeez..). This is sort of OK for the desktop but it doesn't really work for mobile use.
- sell the next version of Windows (that's why the new amount of fiber throughtput is important - otherwise you'd never keep up with patching) - sell the *next* version of Mac OSX:-)
I run both Windows and OSX, and OSX only since about a year. Both are not perfect (nothing is), but if I have to recommend a platform to someone it's going to b OSX. If not for its robustness, then for the fact you can actually get some work done without the interruption-a-minute you have on [NEW ADOBE UPDATE AVAILABLE. INSTALL NOW (reboot required)? (YES/YES)]
Not to stir things up, but it would only be fair to observe that would be the viewpoint of those that cannot afford it..
There are generally two reasons why people prefer a certain fashion brand: the type you mentioned (and yes, there's a lot of them about) and those who simply like the values and design the brand brings.
Let me take a simple example. If you take the trouble to walk into an Armani store you can see two types of clothing: "LOOK AT ME" fashion which has the brand plastered all over it in the biggest, high contrast characters possible. That's the wannabe clothing, and the type most often knocked off.
However, you will also find clothing that is simply well made, decently cut along the line of the cloth and sits well the moment you put it on. That stuff isn't as expensive as you seem to think - especially if you buy a bit more classic (easiest for a man) you can have such stuff for years, provided you don't change shape:-). Because it's expertly cut it also looks good.
This is generally the case with the better brands - as long as you don't go super exclusive a decent brand will have a degree of managed quality. Which make you buy depends on what design you like - I don't have a favourite, I just buy what I like.
I also buy crap if I can't be bothered - that generally lasts twice before I bring it to a textile collection point:-)
- designers take creative input from anywhere - logos on goods are the only thing you cannot copy - the customers for copied goods are not the customers a designer would normally have anyway, something the music and film industry might have to start thinking about (Microsoft understands this better - it's what they use for initial market penetration).
Worth watching, whatever side of the IP fence you live..
Expecting to have a private conversation on Twitter is like having a discussion with megaphones on the street and expecting that to be somehow private.
For heaven's sake, when did we remove the clue gene?
No, but you're missing the point. You assume you have a safe platform, I can prove it (well, to the extent that I have to trust Kaspersky, but that's a different discussion). I am not a fanboy who takes everything from Apple as a message from God. As a matter of fact, being associated with Apple fanboys was one of the main barriers to using the platform..
"Unless you are really that worried about an orphaned file or two hanging around in/Library/Preferences/ or/Library/Application Support/"
Actually, no - it's worse. A radio application I once installed left residue ("rfx-server") that I manually had to dig out of the system. Growl is used by many apps - will that just uninstall without any warning then (not that I want to uninstall it, but I hope you see what I mean)? You *assume* the BOM to be correct.. Yes, it's better than Windows, but that's hardly difficult, is it? Just don't give me this 100% perfection rubbish because it isn't true (for any platform) - there are plenty applications that don't quite hold themselves to the rules.
"Or, you can just use this. Found it in five seconds."
Plenty of them. App Remover, App Zapper and other creatively named applications. But again you miss the point - it's not there by default.
Sorry I kicked your precious OS - but you have proven exactly what I meant when I said I hesitated to be associated with the platform. Ditto for Linux, and I have been using it since Slackware came on floppies..
I use Metakine's Hands Off which also monitors disk writes. I have used many products over the years, and I found Kaspersky consistently OK on the PC, which drove my decision to use the Mac version. It works OK, but whoever decided to create that interface ought to be made editing his code with EDLIN for a few weeks.
I had a few people say "did you ever find anything" and the answer is no, also because I know what I'm doing. But that misses the point: I KNOW I don't have a problem, whereas many ASSUME. My job requires facts - always.
So I am not a fan of OSX because I'm an Apple fan - I am happy with it because I know how much less effort I have to put in every day to keep a safe and functional computing platform. I am a fan of stuff that works - no more, no less..
Correct, and this supports the one statement I always make when someone tells me that "their" OS is safe: prove it.
I run the 3 major ones (Linux, OSX and -now only occasionally- Windows), and only the Linux setup does not have any anti-virus and anti-trojan on it as it runs off read-only media. But on the Mac I have Kaspersky too. Not that it runs permanently, but I test anything that I'm interested in installing, and every so often I do a full check from an account with admin risks (my work account has no admin rights).
That leaves some residual risk, but I'm happy with that. Oh, and I have Hands Off configured to stop the Adobe Updater getting out onto the Net - when I find time I'll throw the Adobe Reader off the box and restore the default. It updates so often it makes the Mac look like a Windows box:-).
Pet hate: applications installing extra, separate update agents you have no control over. Adobe is far from the only offender, and OSX doesn't have a decent uninstall mechanism. I wish they sorted that out before doing any App shop crap which mainly represents a rise in software prices without benefitting the actual software writers..
The covert threat is: you either submit your mobile phone number or we will not protect you anymore.
I keep the details I hand to FB to an absolute minimum, and my phone numebr is certainly not going to be added. The problem I see is that I have no way to disable SMS spam, so once FB decided to resell data again I might as well get a new number (with all the associated costs).
It would be smarter if they finally implemented OpenID support, because you can then simply choose the service that you deem safest. But hey, that would not supply even more private data, would it?
Nice try FB, but ab-so-lu-te-ly no way. I wonder how many idiots will fall for this..
Slashdot Mirror
I am very suspicious of this approach to information release - it appears to be specifically aimed at obfuscation to frustrate analysis. If you look at it from an audit/forensics point of view because the raw data has been converted, so it can no longer be considered clean or reliable. I'd call this actually NON-compliance with a process designed to keep government accountable, and it ought to raise serious question.
At the most basic technical level, there is no way to check authenticity or look at the headers. This stunt ought to be challenged so it doesn't happen again - it has zero to do with Palin or political direction, but everything with accountability.
.. you ought to admire the typically British sense of humour shining through here. I mean, poking a bit of fun at officials is not actually a bad thing in a world that is becoming increasingly obsessed with boring rules and regulations.
Yes, I know this takes "valuable" time, but let's face it - to BUY entertainment and job enjoyment like that would cost more - after such a stunt the rest of the day goes so much easier.
It's not always about money..
All the State of Alaska (no doubt in collaboration with Palin) will achieve is that there is now a solid determination to mine the data for any mud..
Your argument fails at your definition of "guilty". Someone isn't guilty because you think they are. You can only ever be guilty of a crime if you are found so in a court of law. It gets interesting when you appeal (IANAL - will you end up in a sort of "suspended guilty" state?), but that's not the case here.
Until such time as there is a formal conviction, someone is assumed innocent. A lesson the assorted press still hasn't learned either, leading to the destruction of lives of people that *were* innocent.
In this case, the subject is guilty of one crime - the one he has been convicted for. Not of anything else. To state otherwise is AFAIK actionable as libel or defamation.
Forgot to add this.
Hosting any information in general with Google is interesting, given this extract from the Google's Terms of Service:
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.
11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.
11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.
11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license.
It's worth reading these things..
1 - think of something obvious that Apple hasn't implemented yet
2 - write an App that sort of implements it
3 - wait for Apple to finally include it
4 - get major press coverage making out Apple as a thief
5 - Fame!
6 - Profit?
Allow me to quote here from the Google Terms of Service which govern every activity and interaction you have with Google. Fun to read if you have any Data Protection of HIPAA responsibilities. If you need it in another language, do to the relevant google (i.e. google.de) and use the same /accounts/tos link.
The conclusion you should draw from this is to never, ever use Google for ANYTHING that involved intellectual property or cannot handle disclosure. The 11.1 clause looks OK, but 11.2 is formulated so vague it applies to anyone, even their window cleaners.
Here goes:
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.
11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.
11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.
11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license.
If you use Google for any kind of data storage or communication after reading the above you deserve all the trouble it will bring. I'd even hesitate about using their search without an anonymiser such as startpage and even then you have to be careful with the results..
That he pulls in references you find questionable doesn't mean he doesn't have a point. I'm OK-ish with Google as a search engine (although I use StartPage to stop them from grabbing my personal data), but I work with far too sensitive data to allow ANY of those fuzzy cloud services to get their hands on it.
The statement from their Chief Security Officer tells me they haven't quite arrived yet at a view about protecting my information I would be remotely comfortable with - as a matter of fact, what he states is IMHO misleading.
Their business model is to get me to give up my intellectual property for their own use (see chapter 11 in their ToS) and that just ain't gonna happen...
First of all, the argument "it's encrypted" is only valid if YOU are the person encrypting it. Otherwise the protection simple isn't there.
Secondly, there are laws governing data and data management, and they get pretty firm when it comes to private data. It is extremely important to know under which legislation data is hosted because the rules differ per legislation. A classic example: if I store UK data in a facility that can be accessed via another country (say, the US where the magic word "terrorist" opens any container) and that data gets used, *I* am liable, but not in control.
Companies are bullshitted left, right and center with these cloud services, and if Eran Feigenbaum is willing to make such statements in public it indicates to me that he either has no interest in the laws his customers have to follow, is willfully misleading them - or shouldn't be a chief security officer.
Thank you. No mention of the stuff they did well in OS/2 (I still think it was one of the better desktops from a functionality perspective, if somewhat uninspired graphically), or even all the fun stuff we've had in Linux. KDE, Gnome, the beautiful eye candy offered with Enlightenment (my personal favourite) - what about that?
MS wasn't able to multitask on a box until Citrix showed them how to do it (and it's still a mess), whereas the separation between GUI and platform between any Unix/Linux/BSD version made that a snap.
All MS has contributed is the weight to blunt-force people down one route and unify some approach to the desktop (probably invented by someone else). But its main innovation has been to be capable of selling stuff that completely *broke* usability.
That only came apart with Vista which was so blatantly broken that even the magazines who took advertising money could no longer afford to praise it..
Which is a bigger threat to free speech â" direct government action, or fear of lawsuits for frivolous defamation charges?
I would say a LACK of government direct action to stem frivolous defamation charges..
OK, assuming there is cause and pupils were informed of the possible violation of their privacy by the kit they carried home, the question is then why so many images were taken - all you need is a face shot and a location for evidence - even Prey doesn't collect more than one image per report.
The next question is why that data was not erased when it became clear what sort of images were collected - its not the sort of data a school should have, not to mention the fact that this sort of stuff requires police involvement to preserve the chain of evidence.
There is a simple question: is there ANY evidence that the laptop was reported as stolen?
If not, we are talking about about a gross invasion of privacy, and the school deserves a serious punishment. However, I have a problem with a school losing this sort of money which is needed for education, so maybe another charge should be levied. Maybe lock up the directors, or make the jerk who ran the app without any evidence of theft clean the toilets for a year - including that of the student's home :-).
Whatever the result - there is no doubt we are talking about something that is 100% not right.. If it isn't illegal it *should* be..
.. I want a club of RADIOLOGISTS to measure the dose, and I want a formal liability statement for any cancer I may develop before I'll walk through it. The last time a "solution" was engineered it emerged to irradiate people a lot more than claimed.
I love the idea of sticking a risk assessment on a chip that the PASSENGER carries. That's about as safe as the RFID chip in your passport which you can actually read (and thus change) from about 70 meters distance. I cannot imagine it taking long before such a chip gets altered..
But hey, at least someone is for once thinking of making a traveler's life EASIER. I am not surprised that isn't the TSA..
Oh relax. It was just a fun idea, a wind up.
I am me and I approve of this message. And of the prank..
.. if he wasn't still alive :-).
I really, really hope that I don't hear people herald this as innovation, because that was the Netscape vision (and the reason Microsoft had to nuke their business by giving away Internet Exploder for free).
With that vision come the flaws, and they remain still pretty much identical too: without the net there is no work (net-work, geddit? No? Sjeez..). This is sort of OK for the desktop but it doesn't really work for mobile use.
Conclusion: yawn. Anything interesting on TV?
to:
- sell the next version of Windows (that's why the new amount of fiber throughtput is important - otherwise you'd never keep up with patching) :-)
- sell the *next* version of Mac OSX
I run both Windows and OSX, and OSX only since about a year. Both are not perfect (nothing is), but if I have to recommend a platform to someone it's going to b OSX. If not for its robustness, then for the fact you can actually get some work done without the interruption-a-minute you have on [NEW ADOBE UPDATE AVAILABLE. INSTALL NOW (reboot required)? (YES/YES)]
Sigh, Back later..
Not to stir things up, but it would only be fair to observe that would be the viewpoint of those that cannot afford it..
There are generally two reasons why people prefer a certain fashion brand: the type you mentioned (and yes, there's a lot of them about) and those who simply like the values and design the brand brings.
Let me take a simple example. If you take the trouble to walk into an Armani store you can see two types of clothing: "LOOK AT ME" fashion which has the brand plastered all over it in the biggest, high contrast characters possible. That's the wannabe clothing, and the type most often knocked off.
However, you will also find clothing that is simply well made, decently cut along the line of the cloth and sits well the moment you put it on. That stuff isn't as expensive as you seem to think - especially if you buy a bit more classic (easiest for a man) you can have such stuff for years, provided you don't change shape :-). Because it's expertly cut it also looks good.
This is generally the case with the better brands - as long as you don't go super exclusive a decent brand will have a degree of managed quality. Which make you buy depends on what design you like - I don't have a favourite, I just buy what I like.
I also buy crap if I can't be bothered - that generally lasts twice before I bring it to a textile collection point :-)
Watch Johanna Blakely talk at TED about the fashion industry.
It's got a number of rather interesting points:
- designers take creative input from anywhere
- logos on goods are the only thing you cannot copy
- the customers for copied goods are not the customers a designer would normally have anyway, something the music and film industry might have to start thinking about (Microsoft understands this better - it's what they use for initial market penetration).
Worth watching, whatever side of the IP fence you live..
Expecting to have a private conversation on Twitter is like having a discussion with megaphones on the street and expecting that to be somehow private.
For heaven's sake, when did we remove the clue gene?
Not on the Mac as such, no, which re-enforces my confidence in the platform, but still doesn't persuade me to be become careless.
Ironically, I do sometimes get a hit on email when I forgot to clean out the spam filter - which is ALWAYS a Windows virus :-)
"So, has Kaspersky ever found a MAC threat?"
No, but you're missing the point. You assume you have a safe platform, I can prove it (well, to the extent that I have to trust Kaspersky, but that's a different discussion). I am not a fanboy who takes everything from Apple as a message from God. As a matter of fact, being associated with Apple fanboys was one of the main barriers to using the platform..
"Unless you are really that worried about an orphaned file or two hanging around in /Library/Preferences/ or /Library/Application Support/"
Actually, no - it's worse. A radio application I once installed left residue ("rfx-server") that I manually had to dig out of the system. Growl is used by many apps - will that just uninstall without any warning then (not that I want to uninstall it, but I hope you see what I mean)? You *assume* the BOM to be correct.. Yes, it's better than Windows, but that's hardly difficult, is it? Just don't give me this 100% perfection rubbish because it isn't true (for any platform) - there are plenty applications that don't quite hold themselves to the rules.
"Or, you can just use this. Found it in five seconds."
Plenty of them. App Remover, App Zapper and other creatively named applications. But again you miss the point - it's not there by default.
Sorry I kicked your precious OS - but you have proven exactly what I meant when I said I hesitated to be associated with the platform. Ditto for Linux, and I have been using it since Slackware came on floppies..
I use Metakine's Hands Off which also monitors disk writes. I have used many products over the years, and I found Kaspersky consistently OK on the PC, which drove my decision to use the Mac version. It works OK, but whoever decided to create that interface ought to be made editing his code with EDLIN for a few weeks.
I had a few people say "did you ever find anything" and the answer is no, also because I know what I'm doing. But that misses the point: I KNOW I don't have a problem, whereas many ASSUME. My job requires facts - always.
So I am not a fan of OSX because I'm an Apple fan - I am happy with it because I know how much less effort I have to put in every day to keep a safe and functional computing platform. I am a fan of stuff that works - no more, no less..
Correct, and this supports the one statement I always make when someone tells me that "their" OS is safe: prove it.
I run the 3 major ones (Linux, OSX and -now only occasionally- Windows), and only the Linux setup does not have any anti-virus and anti-trojan on it as it runs off read-only media. But on the Mac I have Kaspersky too. Not that it runs permanently, but I test anything that I'm interested in installing, and every so often I do a full check from an account with admin risks (my work account has no admin rights).
That leaves some residual risk, but I'm happy with that. Oh, and I have Hands Off configured to stop the Adobe Updater getting out onto the Net - when I find time I'll throw the Adobe Reader off the box and restore the default. It updates so often it makes the Mac look like a Windows box :-).
Pet hate: applications installing extra, separate update agents you have no control over. Adobe is far from the only offender, and OSX doesn't have a decent uninstall mechanism. I wish they sorted that out before doing any App shop crap which mainly represents a rise in software prices without benefitting the actual software writers..
The covert threat is: you either submit your mobile phone number or we will not protect you anymore.
I keep the details I hand to FB to an absolute minimum, and my phone numebr is certainly not going to be added. The problem I see is that I have no way to disable SMS spam, so once FB decided to resell data again I might as well get a new number (with all the associated costs).
It would be smarter if they finally implemented OpenID support, because you can then simply choose the service that you deem safest. But hey, that would not supply even more private data, would it?
Nice try FB, but ab-so-lu-te-ly no way. I wonder how many idiots will fall for this..