I love comments like "can increase as much as" which don't mean anything.
The attached article from the staffing company reads very well as marketing/recruiting material but strikes me as optimistic.
What are your impressions of the labor market where you are ? Do you see such demand that rates/salaries will go up the significantly this year (assuming we don't get slammed too hard by outsourcing / H1B) ?
Is he claiming he found a way to safely have backdoored communications?
Not sure what "safely backdoored" means. The system is spread out amongst many different countries in such a way that many different governments must agree to use the back door. If the USA, the Netherlands, and Russia can agree, for example, then it is probably criminal investigation and not spying going on. I reviewed many of the early drafts of this paper. It's pretty cool.
Just because something is criminal does not mean it should be criminal per our system of morals and ethics. Free speech in China or Saudi Arabia, for example.
As well, governments will cooperate on issues that may not be illegal but are inconvenient to them, for whatever reason.
You place too much confidence in government doing the right thing.
Actually I have absolute confidence that most governments will do the wrong thing. But if a system exists for which a diverse set of governments must agree, then doing anything, right or wrong, is more difficult. Not impossible, just difficult.
Point taken - I just don't think it's going to be very difficult at all to find drivers for nine governments to agree on. I figure that for the majority of requests made by a particular government for information on a particular person, the other eight are most likely to not give a shit at all and will just provide the keys and say "you owe me one".
Which means that, if the government decides depressives can't be software developers, that I cease treatment and claim it's all over with.
Depression isn't a disease in the usual sense. It's a syndrome, a collection of symptoms without a known cause. Diagnosis is based on self-reporting, and I do know how to answer all the questions.
How does it currently work for physical conditions? Not the obvious ones ("sorry, sir, we only hire bus drivers who aren't quadriplegic"), but things like coronary artery disease (bear in mind that heart attacks are not necessarily immediately incapacitating)?
If depression could be shown to be the direct cause of significant death or injury of others based on 'software development', then yes. That being said, I think it's a bit of a reach to say that software development would be on the list.
For things like coronary artery disease, you've answered your own question. If the disease has a high probability of heart attack then bus drivers (et al) who have it should be retrained for other jobs or have disability retirement.
This policy doesn't require notification of mental illness that wouldn't affect flying.
I agree that the need would have to be demonstrated unless already categorized but I think it should be law and not only company policy that defines what jobs require it. There would then be a category list of jobs : conditions where the company does not have to demonstrate anything (i.e. piloting a plane : being suicidal).
Flying is only one example but there are many where safety of others is an issue.
Specifically there are nine servers, all of which must be used together. If 8 of the 9 wish to decrypt something but 1 chooses not to assist, the message can not be decrypted.
Hello other Eight...I will decrypt whatever you want if you decrypt whatever I want.
Also I have pictures of your family in compromising positions so let's just work together on this.
Is he claiming he found a way to safely have backdoored communications?
Not sure what "safely backdoored" means. The system is spread out amongst many different countries in such a way that many different governments must agree to use the back door. If the USA, the Netherlands, and Russia can agree, for example, then it is probably criminal investigation and not spying going on. I reviewed many of the early drafts of this paper. It's pretty cool.
Just because something is criminal does not mean it should be criminal per our system of morals and ethics. Free speech in China or Saudi Arabia, for example.
As well, governments will cooperate on issues that may not be illegal but are inconvenient to them, for whatever reason.
You place too much confidence in government doing the right thing.
Google has been tilting toward evil ever since Facebook passed it in views back in 2010 and at that moment everything we had done before became no good.
...where I work mental illness would also be an immediate disqualifier for my job.
Which is, to me, an argument that such information has to be made available for certain employers. "Co-Pilot in Germanwings Crash Hid Mental Illness From Employer" http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03...
If, by that, yku mean why do theh have to spout off about thungs they don't understand, that's a question for you to answer. I've grown tired of trying to educate people and getting shit on for it, so this has become my approach: the pre-emptive attack. Blame your fellow slashdotters for making me this way, because it's a relatively recent development.
Aren't military medals supposed to be for noble things like bravery, heroism, or honour? What's honourable about taking out an opponent from so far away that the risk to yourself is nonexistent?
Which is exactly why their morale is so low - which in turn is what military medals are for...to raise the morale of someone doing a shit job well so that they keep doing it well.
Yes, you're correct on the cell jamming part...my bad for honing in on the cell jammer part, not reading the whole thing. That said, nobody but government is allowed to enforce those rules, so any private company would be in violation.
Except that jamming an unauthorized signal isn't 'enforcement' of anything.
If the signal is unauthorized, then jamming that signal is not illegal and anyone can do it.
And Google can do approximately...nothing about it. Google isn't the one realeasing, then not updating, devices.
Sorry but no.
Google owns the OS, the architecture for the OS and the model of distribution for that OS.
If Google were to abstract the hardware layer from the rest of said OS, allowing hardware vendors to provide only drivers and forcing telephone service providers to not block the distribution of Android then there would be no problem.
The article is not specific to cell jamming. It's quite obviously regarding any jamming. I reference it with regard to the use of the word 'authorized'.
If the drone itself is unauthorized to be where it is, the signals going to it could thus be considered to be unauthorized.
BYOD policies are meant to address your mobile handsets, tablets and personal laptops, but who's addressing all the other gadgetry?"
Existing policies should prohibit attaching new devices to the network or computer without permission from the IT department, which is the only policy you need. Anyone who installs these always-listening devices where sensitive information is communicated deserves exactly what they get.
How many managers / lawyers / whatever have iphones (for example) that have or will have an 'always on' component like Siri that doesn't even need the corporate network to be able to connect back to the manufacturer cloud ?
These people have other jobs and are generally neither technical nor tech-security aware by default and thus just aren't going to consider whether their phone is leaking confidential client/lawyer conversations (or whatever) to apple, for example.
The article is quite validly pointing out that companies security policies and user security sensitization/education need to be upgraded to take such things into account.
Easy enough if it's trying to use the corporate network but what if it's listening to confidential conversations but using another route...via a mobile phone hotspot for example, that you have no control over ?
"No matter how much you give up, the insane psychopaths running corporations will always want more, so give the fuckers nothing, fuck em. They want class conflict, give it to them."
This has been 'educated' out of the American population over the past 70 years by learning from the time we entered school that capitalism is the only way, that anything that opposes capitalism is evil and thus that the very idea of workers standing up to owners is anathema.
"The only way you can recover from this situation is to be economically competitive. That means structural changes to your society. It will mean a drastic reduction in your salary, which means you won't have that nice 3 bedroom house in the burbs and a luxury car. But you are competing with people who don't have those things and are not paying for them, so they can work for $2/hr where you demand $50/hr, because they are living 8 people to a tiny inner city apartment and own no car at all, nor big screen TV."
One 'demands' 50 an hour because that's what it costs to have a decent life in a developed country.
Yes it's basic economics and that's the way it works - but it doesn't have to work this way, this fast, unless people let it, and anyone who supports allowing this to happen supports the decline of their own civilization.
If you actually want to compete with dirt poor third world workers who have zero benefits, unsafe working conditions, unpaid overtime, seven day work weeks, etc, etc, etc, then, I'm very sorry to have to break this to you, but you are a complete fucking idiot.
2.4GHz allows very directional antennas. It is possible to hit a drone with a spot beam without wrecking all 2.4GHz comms on the ground. They must have tought of this - otherwise, the device won't be legal.
Jamming radio communications is illegal regardless of how selectively you do it.
It's illegal to jam 'authorized' signals - presumably it would not be illegal to jam the 'unauthorized' signals of a drone flying where it's not supposed to. https://www.fcc.gov/general/ja...
Protecting an area that should be drone free is a better answer than any rules, regulations or bans they can come up with. Whether this truly is as effective as they claim is a whole other matter.
You may be able to protect one end of the flight but not the other in which case you take whatever protection you can with you.
Or are you just saying that it's good that they can flaunt IP law so that you can have cheaper product?
The standard libertarian-capitalist viewpoint on slashdot is opposed to all laws that interfere with business. All IP laws are bad, therefore good luck to China. Also, yes, it is always seen as a good thing that consumers have cheaper products, because the free market will sort it all out anyway.
A completely free market, without laws to constrain the greed of corporations and those in power, would have the vast majority of us all living in conditions of squalor, ignorance and disease similar to the situation in low wage countries around the world.
And here's another point: Google made their support promise for Nexus devices legally binding, while other manufacturers, including Apple have not. If you want guaranteed support for some predetermined period, you get a Nexus device, period. If you really don't care about getting updates or security (in which case, shut the hell up already), then you buy something else.
While Apple has generally been good about long term device support, there is nothing indicating that they will continue to be. As my wife is an iPhone user and her and I are both iPad users, I certainly hope the keep it up, but I'll be neither surprised not disappointed if they do not; I knew what I was buying when I bought it.
Sure, and I knew what I was buying when I got my Android based Marshall music player (which also happens to be a normal Android phone but I chose it for the sound quality so I'm calling it a music player;-) ), and I accept the fact that it's insecure - which does not mean that I like the fact that it's insecure.
As such, until and unless the Android model changes I'll continue to complain about it as publicly as possible in the hope that enough people will complain to Google that something gets done about it.
but I do - and I go to Schenzhen to build my open source hardware - the thing is it's the first-mover advantage - have a bright idea and get it to market fast. If you build and sell stuff cheaply from the get-go you're less likely going to get nuked by copying,the copiers will go off an copy someone pumping their prices higher
Luckily I live in a country that doesn't allow software patents - as I said if one doesn't have to have the US's stupid rent-seeking IP laws you have a leg up - the whole TPP et al attempt to force the rest of us into the straight jacket you've made for yourselves is sad, if it succeeds, I'l just reincorporate in China, that's quite doable these days
That leg up for those who do not observe such IP protection is a leg down for those who create.
I'm sorry but I don't believe that your investment in time and effort to develop can be very significant if you really don't care that others copy what you do without you getting anything in return.
Take, for comparison, high speed train technology. China requested the three leading high speed train manufacturers to demonstrate their products in China, China subsequently copied the technology and stiffed the companies that invested unknown millions of dollars / euros / time / effort into actually developing the technology to start with.
If you were in a similar position, say you had invested all of your own money, as well as everything you could borrow from family, banks and whoever else would invest in you, and man years of time and effort into developing something different, you would not so easily accept that five hundred Chinese companies would be copying what you did and selling it cheaply against you.
That 'first mover advantage' is all well and good but it takes time to recoup that significant an investment - which is why there are patents to protect IP.
I don't think patents should be 70 years. I think a non-extendable term of 10 years would be reasonable and would allow people and companies to recover their investment and actually make a profit on what they have achieved.
Who is arguing for unregulated gun ownership? Do you normally invent strawmen just to shoot down? Does that somehow allow you to justify your beliefs?
The only thing i argued is how stupid it is to have a weapon that kills unauthorized users and that people being assassinated likely wished they had a means to stop it.
Your post had nothing to do with "how stupid it is to have a weapon that kills unauthorized users". Do I need to copy and paste what you wrote or can you go back and remind yourself?
I addressed the one point that you did make but that's obviously not sinking through so just forget it. Or reread what I wrote and try and understand it but I'm not going to bother writing it again.
The article is about Nexus devices, they are supported for many years.
Well that's the point isn't it. The updates are available for Nexus devices but the vulnerabilities are in Android...of which the vast majority are not Nexus devices and do not have, and never will have, security updates for these vulns.
Slashdot Mirror
I love comments like "can increase as much as" which don't mean anything.
The attached article from the staffing company reads very well as marketing/recruiting material but strikes me as optimistic.
What are your impressions of the labor market where you are ? Do you see such demand that rates/salaries will go up the significantly this year (assuming we don't get slammed too hard by outsourcing / H1B) ?
Is he claiming he found a way to safely have backdoored communications?
Not sure what "safely backdoored" means. The system is spread out amongst many different countries in such a way that many different governments must agree to use the back door. If the USA, the Netherlands, and Russia can agree, for example, then it is probably criminal investigation and not spying going on. I reviewed many of the early drafts of this paper. It's pretty cool.
Just because something is criminal does not mean it should be criminal per our system of morals and ethics. Free speech in China or Saudi Arabia, for example.
As well, governments will cooperate on issues that may not be illegal but are inconvenient to them, for whatever reason.
You place too much confidence in government doing the right thing.
Actually I have absolute confidence that most governments will do the wrong thing. But if a system exists for which a diverse set of governments must agree, then doing anything, right or wrong, is more difficult. Not impossible, just difficult.
Point taken - I just don't think it's going to be very difficult at all to find drivers for nine governments to agree on. I figure that for the majority of requests made by a particular government for information on a particular person, the other eight are most likely to not give a shit at all and will just provide the keys and say "you owe me one".
Which means that, if the government decides depressives can't be software developers, that I cease treatment and claim it's all over with.
Depression isn't a disease in the usual sense. It's a syndrome, a collection of symptoms without a known cause. Diagnosis is based on self-reporting, and I do know how to answer all the questions.
How does it currently work for physical conditions? Not the obvious ones ("sorry, sir, we only hire bus drivers who aren't quadriplegic"), but things like coronary artery disease (bear in mind that heart attacks are not necessarily immediately incapacitating)?
If depression could be shown to be the direct cause of significant death or injury of others based on 'software development', then yes. That being said, I think it's a bit of a reach to say that software development would be on the list.
For things like coronary artery disease, you've answered your own question. If the disease has a high probability of heart attack then bus drivers (et al) who have it should be retrained for other jobs or have disability retirement.
This policy doesn't require notification of mental illness that wouldn't affect flying.
I agree that the need would have to be demonstrated unless already categorized but I think it should be law and not only company policy that defines what jobs require it. There would then be a category list of jobs : conditions where the company does not have to demonstrate anything (i.e. piloting a plane : being suicidal).
Flying is only one example but there are many where safety of others is an issue.
Bus driver : heart condition with risk of cardiac arrest maybe:
https://www.google.fr/search?q...
Specifically there are nine servers, all of which must be used together. If 8 of the 9 wish to decrypt something but 1 chooses not to assist, the message can not be decrypted.
Hello other Eight...I will decrypt whatever you want if you decrypt whatever I want.
Also I have pictures of your family in compromising positions so let's just work together on this.
Is he claiming he found a way to safely have backdoored communications?
Not sure what "safely backdoored" means. The system is spread out amongst many different countries in such a way that many different governments must agree to use the back door. If the USA, the Netherlands, and Russia can agree, for example, then it is probably criminal investigation and not spying going on. I reviewed many of the early drafts of this paper. It's pretty cool.
Just because something is criminal does not mean it should be criminal per our system of morals and ethics. Free speech in China or Saudi Arabia, for example.
As well, governments will cooperate on issues that may not be illegal but are inconvenient to them, for whatever reason.
You place too much confidence in government doing the right thing.
Google has been tilting toward evil ever since Facebook passed it in views back in 2010 and at that moment everything we had done before became no good.
"You couldn't even beat Facebook"
It was great a place to work up until that day.
Seems Google's still a relatively good place to work:
http://fortune.com/best-compan... (puts them in first place)
http://uk.businessinsider.com/... (puts them in second place behind Facebook)
...where I work mental illness would also be an immediate disqualifier for my job.
Which is, to me, an argument that such information has to be made available for certain employers.
"Co-Pilot in Germanwings Crash Hid Mental Illness From Employer"
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03...
If, by that, yku mean why do theh have to spout off about thungs they don't understand, that's a question for you to answer. I've grown tired of trying to educate people and getting shit on for it, so this has become my approach: the pre-emptive attack. Blame your fellow slashdotters for making me this way, because it's a relatively recent development.
Take responsibility for your own actions.
Have a wonderful day :-D
"My pipe is empty, can you please share some of whatever it is that you're smoking? Seems like some good stuff and I could use a good day trip."
Why do people on this site have to be dicks?
For what?
Aren't military medals supposed to be for noble things like bravery, heroism, or honour? What's honourable about taking out an opponent from so far away that the risk to yourself is nonexistent?
Which is exactly why their morale is so low - which in turn is what military medals are for...to raise the morale of someone doing a shit job well so that they keep doing it well.
Yes, you're correct on the cell jamming part...my bad for honing in on the cell jammer part, not reading the whole thing. That said, nobody but government is allowed to enforce those rules, so any private company would be in violation.
Except that jamming an unauthorized signal isn't 'enforcement' of anything.
If the signal is unauthorized, then jamming that signal is not illegal and anyone can do it.
And Google can do approximately...nothing about it. Google isn't the one realeasing, then not updating, devices.
Sorry but no.
Google owns the OS, the architecture for the OS and the model of distribution for that OS.
If Google were to abstract the hardware layer from the rest of said OS, allowing hardware vendors to provide only drivers and forcing telephone service providers to not block the distribution of Android then there would be no problem.
The model is broken.
The article is not specific to cell jamming. It's quite obviously regarding any jamming. I reference it with regard to the use of the word 'authorized'.
If the drone itself is unauthorized to be where it is, the signals going to it could thus be considered to be unauthorized.
BYOD policies are meant to address your mobile handsets, tablets and personal laptops, but who's addressing all the other gadgetry?"
Existing policies should prohibit attaching new devices to the network or computer without permission from the IT department, which is the only policy you need. Anyone who installs these always-listening devices where sensitive information is communicated deserves exactly what they get.
How many managers / lawyers / whatever have iphones (for example) that have or will have an 'always on' component like Siri that doesn't even need the corporate network to be able to connect back to the manufacturer cloud ?
These people have other jobs and are generally neither technical nor tech-security aware by default and thus just aren't going to consider whether their phone is leaking confidential client/lawyer conversations (or whatever) to apple, for example.
The article is quite validly pointing out that companies security policies and user security sensitization/education need to be upgraded to take such things into account.
You don't allow it.......
Easy enough if it's trying to use the corporate network but what if it's listening to confidential conversations but using another route...via a mobile phone hotspot for example, that you have no control over ?
"No matter how much you give up, the insane psychopaths running corporations will always want more, so give the fuckers nothing, fuck em. They want class conflict, give it to them."
This has been 'educated' out of the American population over the past 70 years by learning from the time we entered school that capitalism is the only way, that anything that opposes capitalism is evil and thus that the very idea of workers standing up to owners is anathema.
"The only way you can recover from this situation is to be economically competitive. That means structural changes to your society. It will mean a drastic reduction in your salary, which means you won't have that nice 3 bedroom house in the burbs and a luxury car. But you are competing with people who don't have those things and are not paying for them, so they can work for $2/hr where you demand $50/hr, because they are living 8 people to a tiny inner city apartment and own no car at all, nor big screen TV."
One 'demands' 50 an hour because that's what it costs to have a decent life in a developed country.
Yes it's basic economics and that's the way it works - but it doesn't have to work this way, this fast, unless people let it, and anyone who supports allowing this to happen supports the decline of their own civilization.
If you actually want to compete with dirt poor third world workers who have zero benefits, unsafe working conditions, unpaid overtime, seven day work weeks, etc, etc, etc, then, I'm very sorry to have to break this to you, but you are a complete fucking idiot.
2.4GHz allows very directional antennas. It is possible to hit a drone with a spot beam without wrecking all 2.4GHz comms on the ground. They must have tought of this - otherwise, the device won't be legal.
Jamming radio communications is illegal regardless of how selectively you do it.
It's illegal to jam 'authorized' signals - presumably it would not be illegal to jam the 'unauthorized' signals of a drone flying where it's not supposed to.
https://www.fcc.gov/general/ja...
Protecting an area that should be drone free is a better answer than any rules, regulations or bans they can come up with. Whether this truly is as effective as they claim is a whole other matter.
You may be able to protect one end of the flight but not the other in which case you take whatever protection you can with you.
Or are you just saying that it's good that they can flaunt IP law so that you can have cheaper product?
The standard libertarian-capitalist viewpoint on slashdot is opposed to all laws that interfere with business. All IP laws are bad, therefore good luck to China. Also, yes, it is always seen as a good thing that consumers have cheaper products, because the free market will sort it all out anyway.
A completely free market, without laws to constrain the greed of corporations and those in power, would have the vast majority of us all living in conditions of squalor, ignorance and disease similar to the situation in low wage countries around the world.
And here's another point: Google made their support promise for Nexus devices legally binding, while other manufacturers, including Apple have not. If you want guaranteed support for some predetermined period, you get a Nexus device, period. If you really don't care about getting updates or security (in which case, shut the hell up already), then you buy something else.
While Apple has generally been good about long term device support, there is nothing indicating that they will continue to be. As my wife is an iPhone user and her and I are both iPad users, I certainly hope the keep it up, but I'll be neither surprised not disappointed if they do not; I knew what I was buying when I bought it.
Sure, and I knew what I was buying when I got my Android based Marshall music player (which also happens to be a normal Android phone but I chose it for the sound quality so I'm calling it a music player ;-) ), and I accept the fact that it's insecure - which does not mean that I like the fact that it's insecure.
As such, until and unless the Android model changes I'll continue to complain about it as publicly as possible in the hope that enough people will complain to Google that something gets done about it.
but I do - and I go to Schenzhen to build my open source hardware - the thing is it's the first-mover advantage - have a bright idea and get it to market fast. If you build and sell stuff cheaply from the get-go you're less likely going to get nuked by copying,the copiers will go off an copy someone pumping their prices higher
Luckily I live in a country that doesn't allow software patents - as I said if one doesn't have to have the US's stupid rent-seeking IP laws you have a leg up - the whole TPP et al attempt to force the rest of us into the straight jacket you've made for yourselves is sad, if it succeeds, I'l just reincorporate in China, that's quite doable these days
That leg up for those who do not observe such IP protection is a leg down for those who create.
I'm sorry but I don't believe that your investment in time and effort to develop can be very significant if you really don't care that others copy what you do without you getting anything in return.
Take, for comparison, high speed train technology. China requested the three leading high speed train manufacturers to demonstrate their products in China, China subsequently copied the technology and stiffed the companies that invested unknown millions of dollars / euros / time / effort into actually developing the technology to start with.
If you were in a similar position, say you had invested all of your own money, as well as everything you could borrow from family, banks and whoever else would invest in you, and man years of time and effort into developing something different, you would not so easily accept that five hundred Chinese companies would be copying what you did and selling it cheaply against you.
That 'first mover advantage' is all well and good but it takes time to recoup that significant an investment - which is why there are patents to protect IP.
I don't think patents should be 70 years. I think a non-extendable term of 10 years would be reasonable and would allow people and companies to recover their investment and actually make a profit on what they have achieved.
Who is arguing for unregulated gun ownership? Do you normally invent strawmen just to shoot down? Does that somehow allow you to justify your beliefs?
The only thing i argued is how stupid it is to have a weapon that kills unauthorized users and that people being assassinated likely wished they had a means to stop it.
Your post had nothing to do with "how stupid it is to have a weapon that kills unauthorized users". Do I need to copy and paste what you wrote or can you go back and remind yourself?
I addressed the one point that you did make but that's obviously not sinking through so just forget it. Or reread what I wrote and try and understand it but I'm not going to bother writing it again.
The article is about Nexus devices, they are supported for many years.
Well that's the point isn't it. The updates are available for Nexus devices but the vulnerabilities are in Android...of which the vast majority are not Nexus devices and do not have, and never will have, security updates for these vulns.