It says in TFA that firmware is overwritten (and on a UEFI system, effectively the BIOS). So, simply reinstalling the f Operating system would not work in this case. Whether or not it's truly bricked, would depend on whether it's possible to re-flash that firmware. I'm sure that it IS possible, but how to do so would depend on how the machine is physically configured. Perhaps by putting some utility on a flash card? Perhaps by opening the computer case and doing something more pyhsical. So, no. Probably not bricked in the purest sense, but certainly more so in a practical sense than simply removing the OS.
I wouldn't say it's as obvious as you make it seem. There is a difference between erasing the entire file system (obvious) and bricking the hardware by destroying the firmware.
So, is she proposing that the authorities have the tool / keys to do this, but must pinky swear not to use it without permission? If they were in earnest about the need for a warrant / oversight, then they should have no reservation about agreeing for it to actually be impossible for the authorities to "pierce" communication without being first granted specific, targeted keys to do so. This would be a one-time expiring key pairing between the communications provider and the Court, which is handed to the authorities.
I suspect they would decline this solution, because it isn't a carte blanche opportunity to monitor at their own discretion.
Duplicate questions are discouraged on the site. This is problematic because the accepted answer will remain the apparent authority even while languages evolve or APIs change. I see it happen a lot with jQuery, for instance.
Did anyone else have trouble following the quoted text in this summary? I hesitantly clicked through, but couldn't bear to even make myself scroll through to see what the click-bait list items were. InfoWorld is like the Buzzfeed of tech, only without the proofreading.
IANAL, but I was wondering if this would be illegal under wire-tapping laws. A quick glance over the code (18 - US 2511) actually specified "oral" not "audio" communication. Would this then be exempt?
I suppose any app that takes advantage of this would have a disclosure about the recording buried deep in its legalese.
"Can it be ethical to recommend a product to consumers on the basis of its strengths, despite knowing that it contains serious faults?"
Yes. Are you disclosing those flaws honestly, so consumers can make an informed choice? Unless you're lying about your endorsement, what's the problem?
> Well, it's their fucking system. You play by their rules, or you go play somewhere else. No. Not when said company has a local monopoly on broadband. This is exactly when you should have an issue with it.
If you think that the data they are collecting is predominantly a result of things being typed into a form... you have no business acting so self-righteous. Instead, you should step back and re-think what privacy is, and how it pertains to the Internet.
Not verified, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's bogus.
All I see are claims that it was not sponsored or verified by those spearheading OPKKK. Doubts about the data's veracity are mentioned but not supported. All we know is 1) this was not likely associated w/ the release coming on 11/5. 2) Nobody has verified or disproven the names on this list.
No. It's there's no solid Anonymous identity, but there IS a known twitter account spearheading opkkk, so in a sense,that does have an identity. An identity which claims to be no part of this recent data dump.
I wonder if the Democratic Party is the wrong platform for the kind of reform Lessig is gunning for. It's a shame that Third Party candidates hardly have a chance, because this really is where his candidacy belongs.
He decided to remove the resignation component from his plans weeks ago. He was prepared to go whole hog. The Democratic Party still didn't want him in.
... She'll be doxxed and harassed to no end before this thing leaves Beta. Once it goes live, it will be battered with intrusion attempts. I cannot wait to see how it all goes down.
I initially assumed that this was written by Bennet Haselton. When I didn't see his name attached to it, I immediately wondered if he's testing Slashdot to see if his brilliant ideas invoke eye-rolls because they are associated with him, or well, they just are not that brilliant or insightful.
Slashdot Mirror
...13 hours before I believe that hoaxy is real.
http://www.howtogeek.com/22072...
It says in TFA that firmware is overwritten (and on a UEFI system, effectively the BIOS). So, simply reinstalling the f Operating system would not work in this case. Whether or not it's truly bricked, would depend on whether it's possible to re-flash that firmware. I'm sure that it IS possible, but how to do so would depend on how the machine is physically configured. Perhaps by putting some utility on a flash card? Perhaps by opening the computer case and doing something more pyhsical. So, no. Probably not bricked in the purest sense, but certainly more so in a practical sense than simply removing the OS.
I wouldn't say it's as obvious as you make it seem. There is a difference between erasing the entire file system (obvious) and bricking the hardware by destroying the firmware.
It's called marriage.
So, is she proposing that the authorities have the tool / keys to do this, but must pinky swear not to use it without permission?
If they were in earnest about the need for a warrant / oversight, then they should have no reservation about agreeing for it to actually be impossible for the authorities to "pierce" communication without being first granted specific, targeted keys to do so. This would be a one-time expiring key pairing between the communications provider and the Court, which is handed to the authorities.
I suspect they would decline this solution, because it isn't a carte blanche opportunity to monitor at their own discretion.
Having to buy more cpus, which we only have to do because of their bloated system. Sounds legit.
Duplicate questions are discouraged on the site. This is problematic because the accepted answer will remain the apparent authority even while languages evolve or APIs change. I see it happen a lot with jQuery, for instance.
Did anyone else have trouble following the quoted text in this summary? I hesitantly clicked through, but couldn't bear to even make myself scroll through to see what the click-bait list items were. InfoWorld is like the Buzzfeed of tech, only without the proofreading.
IANAL, but I was wondering if this would be illegal under wire-tapping laws. A quick glance over the code (18 - US 2511) actually specified "oral" not "audio" communication. Would this then be exempt?
I suppose any app that takes advantage of this would have a disclosure about the recording buried deep in its legalese.
"Can it be ethical to recommend a product to consumers on the basis of its strengths, despite knowing that it contains serious faults?"
Yes. Are you disclosing those flaws honestly, so consumers can make an informed choice? Unless you're lying about your endorsement, what's the problem?
> Well, it's their fucking system. You play by their rules, or you go play somewhere else.
No. Not when said company has a local monopoly on broadband. This is exactly when you should have an issue with it.
If you think that the data they are collecting is predominantly a result of things being typed into a form... you have no business acting so self-righteous. Instead, you should step back and re-think what privacy is, and how it pertains to the Internet.
Not verified, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's bogus.
All I see are claims that it was not sponsored or verified by those spearheading OPKKK. Doubts about the data's veracity are mentioned but not supported.
All we know is 1) this was not likely associated w/ the release coming on 11/5. 2) Nobody has verified or disproven the names on this list.
No. It's there's no solid Anonymous identity, but there IS a known twitter account spearheading opkkk, so in a sense,that does have an identity. An identity which claims to be no part of this recent data dump.
I wonder if that dump was meant as a distraction in an attempt to pre-emptively discredit the real data when it actually does land.
I wonder if the Democratic Party is the wrong platform for the kind of reform Lessig is gunning for. It's a shame that Third Party candidates hardly have a chance, because this really is where his candidacy belongs.
He decided to remove the resignation component from his plans weeks ago. He was prepared to go whole hog. The Democratic Party still didn't want him in.
Disabling Javascript is becoming less practical as now many sites are loading content dynamically. A lot of pages simply won't work, unfortunately.
Nissan does silly marketing gimmick, and it works.
"That is exactly what it means. I wish I had mod points, they'd be yours."
Annnd this is exactly what mod points are NOT for. They are not "I agree with you" tokens.
... She'll be doxxed and harassed to no end before this thing leaves Beta. Once it goes live, it will be battered with intrusion attempts. I cannot wait to see how it all goes down.
When I read the title I thought it was going to be a 1000 character emoji. What a bummer.
Nobody said "delivers first".
I initially assumed that this was written by Bennet Haselton. When I didn't see his name attached to it, I immediately wondered if he's testing Slashdot to see if his brilliant ideas invoke eye-rolls because they are associated with him, or well, they just are not that brilliant or insightful.