but this is about information leaked that wasn't even published.
Beacon had also ruined surprise presents that had been purchased online by publishing them to Facebook. How gross is that? For blockbuster to not predict the reprocutions of this tells me they deserve to get destroyed by Netflix.
These first generation social networks are going to be the source of a lot of regret. We can only hope that the damage is minimal and that the lessons are learned quickly.
1) Isn't this an old problem? Not only is this old, but it applies to any computer system, so to single out Windows Update seems naive (as others have said).
2) I think we are forgetting that the exploits still need to be distributed, and the article refers to worms, but how is this different from any other worm/virus?
Smarter viruses will attack weaknesses that are yet widely known or patched, so those that use exploits based on public patches are 1) stupider and 2) more predictable.
So this is less of an "update how" problem, and rather more of an antivirus problem. The previous might be impossible to solve, but the latter we have solutions for.
Wear is not an issue. The available space will get smaller as some of the cells wear out, but with a drive of any serious size, this is neglegible If a 64G drive shrinks to 63Gigs after 2 years, would I care? No. And it isn't that bad.
It is true that writing speeds are a weakness for SSDs, but this is only when compared to how well they can read. Aso it is random writes, not sequential writes that are most difficult. However, the second generation drives already have faster write speeds than HDDs, so this is in no way a downside of SSD technology, but just a downside of the first generation of SSDs that don't write that fast.
Yes, "knowing" is a good thing. However it is something the educated often take for granted because they believe the problem only applies to the uneducated, and they aren't the one's responsible for the education. Well, if it did apply to you you would be "surprised", and if you had to do the teaching, you'd try and think of something else once you realized what a waste of time it was.
When you're young everyone wants to get famous, and the new generation has used the latest and greatest. Of course you cannot become famous while remaining anonymous. However, if they had a choice would they want ad agencies using their profiles to put a target on their heads? No. If they were given a choice, they would click "deny". And if the ability to deny is value, it will emerge, and get adopted.
In the future more information will be online, but also with greater control. The campaigns that succeed will be those that can get more personal and reach people in a viral way. Like celebrities "personally" pushing products, or friends suggesting products to friends and getting kickbacks.
Walls will be built because people will want them to be built, and as things worsen, the desire will grow. Hence it is only a matter of time.
I would argue that google won in the ad industry by not pushing. Whilst all its competitors continue to cram ads on their top page and infultrate their own search results, google has done its best to stay out of the way, and to push oh so slightly. Google may be pushing ads on their search results, but they do their best to push what is pulled, keep it to the side, and not spam you or get in your way.
Google's success has everything to do with them recognizing the internet is a pull medium.
This won't work with spam as we all know since most spam is already sent illegally. I do wish they had this for regular mail though. That is so much trash just being handed out. How all junk mail isn't opt-in I do not know. Email is at least paperless.
3) Push has *never* succeeded online and never will.
There are more, but 3 is enough.
The internet is the ultimate pull media, and those who push stuff hate that about it, mainly because they can't get in our way.
Even the first ever push medium, the classic banner ad, has never gotten any traction. They get ignored. Newsletters are also overrated. Most mail that comes from sources that we opt-in and subscribe to get glanced and deleted. Only coupons are worthy of any motivation to act for most of us. Even ads inserted before movie clips are avoidable. Find us on a different tab, looking at something else.
The last time I clicked on a banner was in the 90s, and I think it was my own to check if it was working.
... their government for overspending. If in court we can prove that the people in charge were lobbied into doing things an expensive way or were simply uninformed, then we deserve our tax dollars back. The government should be the last to innovate, and this is just another example where people doing things the old way get caught trying to do something they don't know how to do.
How about cuttings costs per vote by 500 dollars and then paying us to vote. I predict the turnout to be over 90%. That is democracy for you.
Buyer fraud is just as prevalent as Seller fraud. In this case you got your laptop back, which is a very good thing. The worst that can happen is receiving an emtpy box. It's "swap fraud" and PayPal won't protect you in this case either. Seller protection only works when they keep the merchandise.
As a buyer, you can always get your money back. No matter what the terms of sale, if you return your item and provide tracking for it, most credit card companies will give you your refund, no questions asked. Of course, this doesn't make the terms of sale invalid. You have every right to sue, which of course is a total pain and waste of time.
Regarding the security key, see my other reply.
That's a user/human problem, not something specific to E-bay and Paypal. It most certainly is. Ebay reveals email addresses. You are given the paypal user name on a platter. And ebay is not a financial site, and is easier to hack. You can harvest email addresses from eBay, then apply the "10 most popular password" rule and you are bound to find a match. And this is the simple method. Who knows what a real hacker can do.
Many criminals are criminals because they don't have any money. Shall we lock them up if they are unable to pay? It's been tried already. Take away hope and you only force criminals into greater levels of dangerous activity. People who practice auction fraud or credit card fraud are not poor. They have computers and credit cards and in many cases have moms, meaning they are teanagers stealing from their parents or doing stuff without their permission. And you talk as if we quit giving out fines. Our traffic system is grounded on it, and the last time I checked sentencing involved fines aplenty. I agree fines aren't always effective in every case, but these are all premeditaded crimes done by sober people. Also locking people up isn't always effective either. Some people have more time than money, and the friends they meet behind bars can force criminals into greater levels of dangerous activity.. Regardless, just like the red light traffic cameras, it has been proven that funding law enforcement is a great part of enforcement itself. Make cyber crime profitable for law enforcement, and they will be all over it.
Out of everything, the worst part is these crooks can be caught. It is critical for laws to be enforced to have law enforced order. Making some crimes ok makes disorder ok, and these cyber crimes are given low priority just because they are non-violent crimes that are easy to pass off as civil disputes or careless buying habbits. International incidents or out-of-state incidents are harder to deal with, and hence the cops have "something better to do".
If you steal a stick of gum you could end up in jail. But steal 800 dollars over ebay and you are free to go. It is no surprise that anyone with a clue has gone cyber.
Also I say bill ebay not just because they should pay for what they help cause, but if they do get billed surely they will work far harder on prevention. For a business it is all about making money, and as long as there is no financial incentive to be secure, it will always be low in their list of priorities.
I call that opt-in user unfriendly security. They should take common steps first before they try and get "creative". And even if you use it, this is for you personally, only solving your hijack problems if you feel you have any. This does nothing to prevent funds being sent to you from a con artist or a hijacked account.
The worst advise law enforcement can give are along the lines of:
1) look at feedback. make sure that the seller has a positive track record.
2) if the sellers asks for cash or money orders be suspecious.
3) make sure that the contact information is valid
This kind of advise is completely misleading, because it gives the impression that caution and education are the keys to crime prevention. On the contrary, smart crooks will use these exact elements to manipulate their victims!! How? It is easy for a crook to "steal" feedback. It is easy for a crook to dodge #2, and it is also easy for a crook to emulate #3.
The bottomline is extremely simple. If someone wishes to con someone online, it is absolutely 100% doable. The only way to protect yourself is through insurance. There is absolutely no other way. The worst thing you can say to a victim is "duh, you should have known better". Sure, there are people who will fall more easily to careless cons than others. But the bottomline is still the same. There are ways of stealing identities and getting paid that are completely unavoidable. To the victims, these cases are sheer bad luck. And the criminals deserve the worst because they know what they are doing and they will most likely do it again knowing that it works.
Currently, the only viable option for insurance is credit card fraud protection. If your merchandise doesn't arrive, then just dispute the charge. This does have a huge flipside though. This same insurance that protects buyers is used for buyer fraud. Eventhough the merchandise arrived, they would call anyway and try and get their money back. For sellers, paypal's seller protection policy is the only insurance against this tactic.
Paypal is one of the least secure financial sites on the internet. Not only are email addresses used as user names, there are no secondary passwords or pins for transactions, no confirmation emails, not even IP tracking or blocking. Then there is the issue of accounts being linked with eBay with passwords often matching. So a hijacked ebay account can easily lead to a hijacked paypal account, and often times the hijacked accounts come with great feedback.
But when paypal or ebay get's compramised, they don't go to the police. They take absolutely no responsibility for their lack of security, and they don't even try to prevent future crimes. 120% of their work goes towards dodging blame and making the victim pay for their losses and do any paper work.
These sites are the perfect accomplices for online criminals. And they profit from it. All those fake handbags and sneakers on ebay still account for millions in listing fees and work towards their usage statistics.
The police need to investigate these crimes and send the bill to the sites where the crime occured. They should also automatically fine the criminals 20x what they stole and charge them for rent for the time they lock them up (which can be as little as 3 days, I don't think this matters).
Credit card companies are also to blame. Now it is easier than ever for buyers to file false claims and get merchandise for free. If any credit card fraud occurs, even in the smallest amounts, these cases need to be processed by law enforcement and fines need to be handed out. Too many people know they can get away with it, and keep repeating the same crime.
What is y? a. farmer b. stay-at-home dad c. engineer
There are plenty of terrorists that are not engineers, but when a plot needs engineering, the guy in charge doesn't call upon the best DJ or cook in the house. They call on Mr. Gadget. At the end of the day the gadget might be what explodes, but that doesn't mean there weren't 100 non-engineers watching while the guy built it.
Terrorists need engineers. And good engineers usually have better things to do, so they usually recruit the bad ones.
Of course, not to mention this is a completely jobist comment. Saying engineers make good terrorists is like saying african americans are good at basketball. It is completely prejudicial.
"There is evidence that people we think are not buying music are buying music. They're just not buying it in formats we can measure."' I like this guys optimism. Although I thought they measured *sales*.
Ya. Mod this up. This is what I was about to say. Oh and by the way I am the CEO of the startup FreshAddress, which helps companies correct the outdated e-mail addresses in their customer databases.
Right. But you are talking about things you assume you already know. If you do not know the substance behind the label, people naturally try to infer substance from what the thing is called. And propagandists have been able to use this natural tendency to push agendas by renaming what they are for favorably, and what they are against with negative connotations.
"Greenhouse Effect" vs "Global Warming" vs "Climate change" is a good example.
It doesn't work on everybody but it is an extremely effective technique when applied to the masses, and its power cannot be underestimated. To some, they really can get "shit" to start smelling like "roses".
There are no positive articles on the topic of "behavioral targeting" because of how hard privacy activists try to publicize their views, and like "death tax", this is a case where the phrase itself is used to push an agenda. No one wants their "behavior targeted". So for the people who know and use the term "behavioral targeting", we can already assume they have a predisposition on the topic a bit. If instead we use "relevant advertising" to refer to the same technique, surely this will effect the way it is perceived.
With that said, I don't see how harmful this can be. Browsers do a good job of protecting us from the worst case scenarios, and web sites have a hard time implementing this effectively anyway. The sites best at this are those with real information, like amazon or ebay that have your info and can track what you do. But again, you are on their turf, so its kinda like complaining about being watched by security cameras at Best Buy, or about the membership card that tracks everything you buy at CVS.
Doesn't the old cliche of "the great thing about standards is there are so many to choose from" apply here? Or does this mean a ton of people will now be forced to use it and Microsoft will reap the benefits?
Sorry, but every article I read about OOXML is about the voting and standardization irregularities, and nothing I've found reviews OOXML from the users standpoint, or implications of it being ISO-ed...
"As a trademark owner, from time to time Deutsche Telekom looks at usage that could lead to confusion in the marketplace." I have to side with the Lawyers (or at least the above comment). I have never seen this web site before, but it looks like it is a review/consumer driven site that in not necessarily corporate friendly, and I do see how some consumers (idiots) would confuse this site as being T-Mobile related. Of course give credit to the graphics guy for making such a corporate-looking site that made a mammoth corporation reveal its insecurities.
With that said making color the issue is probably the result of having nothing else to go on. Their design is parody at worst.
Slashdot Mirror
These first generation social networks are going to be the source of a lot of regret. We can only hope that the damage is minimal and that the lessons are learned quickly.
omg. Has this been submitted to /.?! This is totally awesome.
1) Isn't this an old problem? Not only is this old, but it applies to any computer system, so to single out Windows Update seems naive (as others have said).
2) I think we are forgetting that the exploits still need to be distributed, and the article refers to worms, but how is this different from any other worm/virus?
Smarter viruses will attack weaknesses that are yet widely known or patched, so those that use exploits based on public patches are 1) stupider and 2) more predictable.
So this is less of an "update how" problem, and rather more of an antivirus problem. The previous might be impossible to solve, but the latter we have solutions for.
Wear is not an issue. The available space will get smaller as some of the cells wear out, but with a drive of any serious size, this is neglegible If a 64G drive shrinks to 63Gigs after 2 years, would I care? No. And it isn't that bad.
It is true that writing speeds are a weakness for SSDs, but this is only when compared to how well they can read. Aso it is random writes, not sequential writes that are most difficult. However, the second generation drives already have faster write speeds than HDDs, so this is in no way a downside of SSD technology, but just a downside of the first generation of SSDs that don't write that fast.
... of where the Terrorists won.
Ironically, phishing sites won't block users using "unsafe" browsers, which just makes them more user-friendly than paypal.
3 reasons:
1) It takes time and effort for everyone involved
2) There will always be people who don't get it
3) There will always be newcomers
Yes, "knowing" is a good thing. However it is something the educated often take for granted because they believe the problem only applies to the uneducated, and they aren't the one's responsible for the education. Well, if it did apply to you you would be "surprised", and if you had to do the teaching, you'd try and think of something else once you realized what a waste of time it was.
When you're young everyone wants to get famous, and the new generation has used the latest and greatest. Of course you cannot become famous while remaining anonymous. However, if they had a choice would they want ad agencies using their profiles to put a target on their heads? No. If they were given a choice, they would click "deny". And if the ability to deny is value, it will emerge, and get adopted.
In the future more information will be online, but also with greater control. The campaigns that succeed will be those that can get more personal and reach people in a viral way. Like celebrities "personally" pushing products, or friends suggesting products to friends and getting kickbacks.
Walls will be built because people will want them to be built, and as things worsen, the desire will grow. Hence it is only a matter of time.
I would argue that google won in the ad industry by not pushing. Whilst all its competitors continue to cram ads on their top page and infultrate their own search results, google has done its best to stay out of the way, and to push oh so slightly. Google may be pushing ads on their search results, but they do their best to push what is pulled, keep it to the side, and not spam you or get in your way.
Google's success has everything to do with them recognizing the internet is a pull medium.
This won't work with spam as we all know since most spam is already sent illegally. I do wish they had this for regular mail though. That is so much trash just being handed out. How all junk mail isn't opt-in I do not know. Email is at least paperless.
Because,
1) Desire for privacy will win out.
2) The data will totally get spammed.
3) Push has *never* succeeded online and never will.
There are more, but 3 is enough.
The internet is the ultimate pull media, and those who push stuff hate that about it, mainly because they can't get in our way.
Even the first ever push medium, the classic banner ad, has never gotten any traction. They get ignored. Newsletters are also overrated. Most mail that comes from sources that we opt-in and subscribe to get glanced and deleted. Only coupons are worthy of any motivation to act for most of us. Even ads inserted before movie clips are avoidable. Find us on a different tab, looking at something else.
The last time I clicked on a banner was in the 90s, and I think it was my own to check if it was working.
... their government for overspending. If in court we can prove that the people in charge were lobbied into doing things an expensive way or were simply uninformed, then we deserve our tax dollars back. The government should be the last to innovate, and this is just another example where people doing things the old way get caught trying to do something they don't know how to do.
How about cuttings costs per vote by 500 dollars and then paying us to vote. I predict the turnout to be over 90%. That is democracy for you.
Buyer fraud is just as prevalent as Seller fraud. In this case you got your laptop back, which is a very good thing. The worst that can happen is receiving an emtpy box. It's "swap fraud" and PayPal won't protect you in this case either. Seller protection only works when they keep the merchandise.
As a buyer, you can always get your money back. No matter what the terms of sale, if you return your item and provide tracking for it, most credit card companies will give you your refund, no questions asked. Of course, this doesn't make the terms of sale invalid. You have every right to sue, which of course is a total pain and waste of time.
Out of everything, the worst part is these crooks can be caught. It is critical for laws to be enforced to have law enforced order. Making some crimes ok makes disorder ok, and these cyber crimes are given low priority just because they are non-violent crimes that are easy to pass off as civil disputes or careless buying habbits. International incidents or out-of-state incidents are harder to deal with, and hence the cops have "something better to do".
If you steal a stick of gum you could end up in jail. But steal 800 dollars over ebay and you are free to go. It is no surprise that anyone with a clue has gone cyber.
Also I say bill ebay not just because they should pay for what they help cause, but if they do get billed surely they will work far harder on prevention. For a business it is all about making money, and as long as there is no financial incentive to be secure, it will always be low in their list of priorities.
I call that opt-in user unfriendly security. They should take common steps first before they try and get "creative". And even if you use it, this is for you personally, only solving your hijack problems if you feel you have any. This does nothing to prevent funds being sent to you from a con artist or a hijacked account.
The worst advise law enforcement can give are along the lines of:
1) look at feedback. make sure that the seller has a positive track record.
2) if the sellers asks for cash or money orders be suspecious.
3) make sure that the contact information is valid
This kind of advise is completely misleading, because it gives the impression that caution and education are the keys to crime prevention. On the contrary, smart crooks will use these exact elements to manipulate their victims!! How? It is easy for a crook to "steal" feedback. It is easy for a crook to dodge #2, and it is also easy for a crook to emulate #3.
The bottomline is extremely simple. If someone wishes to con someone online, it is absolutely 100% doable. The only way to protect yourself is through insurance. There is absolutely no other way. The worst thing you can say to a victim is "duh, you should have known better". Sure, there are people who will fall more easily to careless cons than others. But the bottomline is still the same. There are ways of stealing identities and getting paid that are completely unavoidable. To the victims, these cases are sheer bad luck. And the criminals deserve the worst because they know what they are doing and they will most likely do it again knowing that it works.
Currently, the only viable option for insurance is credit card fraud protection. If your merchandise doesn't arrive, then just dispute the charge. This does have a huge flipside though. This same insurance that protects buyers is used for buyer fraud. Eventhough the merchandise arrived, they would call anyway and try and get their money back. For sellers, paypal's seller protection policy is the only insurance against this tactic.
Paypal is one of the least secure financial sites on the internet. Not only are email addresses used as user names, there are no secondary passwords or pins for transactions, no confirmation emails, not even IP tracking or blocking. Then there is the issue of accounts being linked with eBay with passwords often matching. So a hijacked ebay account can easily lead to a hijacked paypal account, and often times the hijacked accounts come with great feedback.
But when paypal or ebay get's compramised, they don't go to the police. They take absolutely no responsibility for their lack of security, and they don't even try to prevent future crimes. 120% of their work goes towards dodging blame and making the victim pay for their losses and do any paper work.
These sites are the perfect accomplices for online criminals. And they profit from it. All those fake handbags and sneakers on ebay still account for millions in listing fees and work towards their usage statistics.
The police need to investigate these crimes and send the bill to the sites where the crime occured. They should also automatically fine the criminals 20x what they stole and charge them for rent for the time they lock them up (which can be as little as 3 days, I don't think this matters).
Credit card companies are also to blame. Now it is easier than ever for buyers to file false claims and get merchandise for free. If any credit card fraud occurs, even in the smallest amounts, these cases need to be processed by law enforcement and fines need to be handed out. Too many people know they can get away with it, and keep repeating the same crime.
x + y = z
where
x = bomb
z = terrorist
What is y?
a. farmer
b. stay-at-home dad
c. engineer
There are plenty of terrorists that are not engineers, but when a plot needs engineering, the guy in charge doesn't call upon the best DJ or cook in the house. They call on Mr. Gadget. At the end of the day the gadget might be what explodes, but that doesn't mean there weren't 100 non-engineers watching while the guy built it.
Terrorists need engineers. And good engineers usually have better things to do, so they usually recruit the bad ones.
Of course, not to mention this is a completely jobist comment. Saying engineers make good terrorists is like saying african americans are good at basketball. It is completely prejudicial.
Ya. Mod this up. This is what I was about to say. Oh and by the way I am the CEO of the startup FreshAddress, which helps companies correct the outdated e-mail addresses in their customer databases.
Right. But you are talking about things you assume you already know. If you do not know the substance behind the label, people naturally try to infer substance from what the thing is called. And propagandists have been able to use this natural tendency to push agendas by renaming what they are for favorably, and what they are against with negative connotations.
"Greenhouse Effect" vs "Global Warming" vs "Climate change" is a good example.
It doesn't work on everybody but it is an extremely effective technique when applied to the masses, and its power cannot be underestimated. To some, they really can get "shit" to start smelling like "roses".
There are no positive articles on the topic of "behavioral targeting" because of how hard privacy activists try to publicize their views, and like "death tax", this is a case where the phrase itself is used to push an agenda. No one wants their "behavior targeted". So for the people who know and use the term "behavioral targeting", we can already assume they have a predisposition on the topic a bit. If instead we use "relevant advertising" to refer to the same technique, surely this will effect the way it is perceived.
With that said, I don't see how harmful this can be. Browsers do a good job of protecting us from the worst case scenarios, and web sites have a hard time implementing this effectively anyway. The sites best at this are those with real information, like amazon or ebay that have your info and can track what you do. But again, you are on their turf, so its kinda like complaining about being watched by security cameras at Best Buy, or about the membership card that tracks everything you buy at CVS.
Doesn't the old cliche of "the great thing about standards is there are so many to choose from" apply here? Or does this mean a ton of people will now be forced to use it and Microsoft will reap the benefits?
Sorry, but every article I read about OOXML is about the voting and standardization irregularities, and nothing I've found reviews OOXML from the users standpoint, or implications of it being ISO-ed...
With that said making color the issue is probably the result of having nothing else to go on. Their design is parody at worst.
Oh, never mind, so they did it on purpose. Well, that will really help, because in protest it looks like they have made a legitimate violation.