No, because there exist organizations like the NRA, who are firm and relentless warriors for the 2nd amendment, but more to the point, are well funded by a firearms industry that knows which side of the bread is buttered.
There also exist organizations like the EFF and ACLU, who fight for freedom of speech, privacy and otherwise fundamentally more important civil rights, but there's nowhere near the same level of funding because corporations have more to gain by oppressing free speech and privacy than they do by protecting it.
And of course, civil liberties are for intellectual bores, big fucking guns are full of sexy and YEEHAWWW!
Could you provide a plausible, real life situation in which your important data's security could be compromised in transit because browsers don't encrypt cookies?
Cookies don't ("shouldn't be used to") store authentication data in cleartext, it's typically a one-way hash of your username, password and possibly a salt, session string or some other data. Any reputable banking institution is SSL encrypting your session end-to-end, so you'd be safe from side-jacking even on an open AP.
You could make an argument for the case where your computer is compromised or stolen, but is it the responsibility of web browser developers to mitigate that possibility? If you're that concerned with data security, why aren't you encrypting your whole hard drive to begin with?
To answer your other question, the reason HTML5 is implementing hooks into the operating system is to make advanced functionality more accessible; the type of advanced functionality that would typically require more complex programming languages that web developers don't typically employ. For this, I certainly agree that there is a strong argument for solid security, a permissions architecture and strict practice guidelines.
You're already being leashed into a surveillance state and lapping it up, what difference does it make if some hipster is doing the same thing with a camera in hand?
He's not even bring particularly rude or snide about it, maybe a bit of a smartass, but that's it really (walking into what appears to be a private home notwithstanding).
If you're so pissy about some doofus filming in public, why aren't you pushing back against the increasing surveillance by your own government?
Hey, lady on the cell phone, you realize that acting like a prissy bitch is just going to cement it's publication on YouTube, right? Call it a Streisand effect on a smaller scale. Why not just say, hi, how ya doin', nice day ain't it? Oh, and that "private" conversation your having on your cell phone has already been traced, recorded and parsed for keywords by the NSA... and you're worried about some dipshit with a camera filming you having lunch?
This question is naive and nonsensical; no browser can really do much of anything to ensure your security against surveillance.
You could, perhaps, ask which browser developer has your interests in mind and encourages users to take steps to ensure their privacy. To that, I would answer: probably Firefox, not Chrome (Google is axiomatically not interested in your privacy) certainly not IE (do I even need to explain this one?)
No, obviously, you're not going to go digging around the Firefox source code to check for yourself, but I think there are enough developers interested in their privacy that you don't need to.
But, really, taking steps to protect your privacy is, unfortunately, up to you...
Use the HTTPS Everywhere extension for Firefox
Run JavaScript and accept cookies only on a strictly whitelist basis
Use TOR if you're surfing something that you think may come back to bite you in the ass, even if it's completely legal
Search with DuckDuckGo instead of Google
Lay off teh Facebook or be extremely wary with what you post, like and follow
Always use random aliases and never give out your name or acutely identifying information on discussion forums
Disassociate your Android phone from any Google accounts and find your APKs somewhere other than Google Play
Protecting your privacy requires your deliberate and continual effort; not just something you can package neatly into a box.
I realize you're trolling, but don't be ridiculous.
When you're making a "personal sale" to someone over Craigslist, eBay, a garage sale or whatever, you're just one person and don't have the power to strongarm a buyer into one-sided "agreements"... they'll just find what they're looking for elsewhere from one of twenty thousand other sellers.
Large vendors, however, can feasibly do this kind of thing by virtue of their monopolies and oligopolies, which is why property law should protect us from this sort of predatory non-ownership.
Instead of making little piss-ant changes that affect only specific and limited circumstances, let's make a strong amendment to property law as a pile driver through all the non-ownership bullshit that's been plaguing us for the past 15-20 years.
If I am making a purchase as a private person (ie: not a business), whatever I've bought is mine. I own it 100%, it's my goddamn property and I will do whatever I fucking want with it (within written law of course)
No amount of shrinkwrap, ckickwrap, stick-on contracts, implied or non-negotiated "agreements" can change that. Contracts, usage policies and EULAs in which you had no bargaining or direct input are automatically null and void.
Any attempt by a manufacturer or producer to actively restrict, limit or deny my access to my own property, whether it be a needlessly fortified mechanism or an encrypted system to which I'm not provided the key, is met with swift punishment. The process for customers to address their grievances should be streamlined and available to the general public with minimal expense to the individual.
Hey, I can dream of a time when corporations won't be the government's puppet master, can't I?
Make a ridiculous threat that you *know* will invite revolt, then relent and follow through with the slightly less ridiculous (but still ridiculous) plan you had interned all along.
Next time, scheduled phoning home won't seem so ridiculous. Well, maybe not next time, but the time after that, or maybe the time after that... but it's coming.
Just look at the shit we put up with MS Office and new Windows installations these days. No, you can't just have a disc, you need to spend a half hour entering all your personal info (mostly re-entering those fucking captchas because their shitty forms don't validate interactively) in an MS account so we can keep tabs on you and send you spam. Even then, you're not getting an installation package file, we'll only give you some brain dead all-in-one downloader that only works on *your* computer, provides absolutely no configuration options and doesn't tell you where the installer files are located (though they probably aren't even usable if you do find them). Sure, you *can* get installation discs if you cough up another $15 and wait a week.
Fuck that, I'll head over to TPB and have a an ISO in 15 minutes.
Do you think we'd have willing to choke down this shit sandwich even a few years ago?
Indeed, my Slashdot tone differs quite a bit from my real life tone. Be polite, but firm... "sorry, I can't answer any questions without my attorney present."
No, you don't even answer questions you think couldn't possibly incriminate you -- YOU DON'T ANSWER SHIT.
There is absolutely nothing you could tell, say, state, offer, claim, express, suggest, proffer, conceptualize, indicate, discuss, confirm, deny, explain, confer, describe, disclose or elaborate that will help you in any way. Ever. Not ever.
Because, with everything, not anything, *EVERY-FUCKING-THING* you say, they will manipulate, contort, pervert, twist, conjure, fabricate, invent, expropriate, conflate, decontextualize, recontextualize, repurpose, malform, conveniently misrecollect and abuse to mold your profile before a court into whatever preconceived concept of you was in their mind before they were ever aware you existed.
The thing that almost no one seems to get is that cops live in their own delusional world where there are two types of people: cops and suspects. If you are not on their side, you are, by definition, on the side against them. It doesn't matter how innocent you are in actual fact and truth, you are a suspect, who cares if you're the wrong one?
They do not work for the public, they work for their inflated ego, the department's revenue stream and the chain of command corrupted from the top down.
Your right not to incriminate yourself is about the only defensive weapon you have against the might and resource of the police, prosecution and co. Use, assert and exploit it excessively and without relent.
The control channel along which SMS runs is used to bounce a signal back and forth between your phone and the nearest tower(s). That's a signal that triggers every few seconds for keep-alive purposes and it's the same byte size whether it carries an SMS or not (that's why SMS messages are limited to 160 characters). Broadcasting a network-wide SMS should little effect on network congestion.
And now you also know that any carrier charging you more than $0 for SMS is full of shit (it doesn't cost then anything)
Because what do emergency broadcast warnings have to do with the NSA scandal? At best, it's a very labored way of expressing distaste.
And who's the dipshit engineer who thought this would be best as a whole new system that needs to be implemented differently for every OS and only work on smartphones? Why not just broadcast an SMS and call it a day?
Slashdot Mirror
No, because there exist organizations like the NRA, who are firm and relentless warriors for the 2nd amendment, but more to the point, are well funded by a firearms industry that knows which side of the bread is buttered.
There also exist organizations like the EFF and ACLU, who fight for freedom of speech, privacy and otherwise fundamentally more important civil rights, but there's nowhere near the same level of funding because corporations have more to gain by oppressing free speech and privacy than they do by protecting it.
And of course, civil liberties are for intellectual bores, big fucking guns are full of sexy and YEEHAWWW!
Hollywood cannot survive without the web.
Grow a pair, call their fucking bluff already and tell them to get stuffed.
Could you provide a plausible, real life situation in which your important data's security could be compromised in transit because browsers don't encrypt cookies?
Cookies don't ("shouldn't be used to") store authentication data in cleartext, it's typically a one-way hash of your username, password and possibly a salt, session string or some other data. Any reputable banking institution is SSL encrypting your session end-to-end, so you'd be safe from side-jacking even on an open AP.
You could make an argument for the case where your computer is compromised or stolen, but is it the responsibility of web browser developers to mitigate that possibility? If you're that concerned with data security, why aren't you encrypting your whole hard drive to begin with?
To answer your other question, the reason HTML5 is implementing hooks into the operating system is to make advanced functionality more accessible; the type of advanced functionality that would typically require more complex programming languages that web developers don't typically employ. For this, I certainly agree that there is a strong argument for solid security, a permissions architecture and strict practice guidelines.
Suspicious of what? Wasting their time on FaceTwitstaGram when they should be getting shit done?
You're already being leashed into a surveillance state and lapping it up, what difference does it make if some hipster is doing the same thing with a camera in hand?
He's not even bring particularly rude or snide about it, maybe a bit of a smartass, but that's it really (walking into what appears to be a private home notwithstanding).
If you're so pissy about some doofus filming in public, why aren't you pushing back against the increasing surveillance by your own government?
Hey, lady on the cell phone, you realize that acting like a prissy bitch is just going to cement it's publication on YouTube, right? Call it a Streisand effect on a smaller scale. Why not just say, hi, how ya doin', nice day ain't it? Oh, and that "private" conversation your having on your cell phone has already been traced, recorded and parsed for keywords by the NSA ... and you're worried about some dipshit with a camera filming you having lunch?
This question is naive and nonsensical; no browser can really do much of anything to ensure your security against surveillance.
You could, perhaps, ask which browser developer has your interests in mind and encourages users to take steps to ensure their privacy. To that, I would answer: probably Firefox, not Chrome (Google is axiomatically not interested in your privacy) certainly not IE (do I even need to explain this one?)
No, obviously, you're not going to go digging around the Firefox source code to check for yourself, but I think there are enough developers interested in their privacy that you don't need to.
But, really, taking steps to protect your privacy is, unfortunately, up to you...
Use the HTTPS Everywhere extension for Firefox
Run JavaScript and accept cookies only on a strictly whitelist basis
Use TOR if you're surfing something that you think may come back to bite you in the ass, even if it's completely legal
Search with DuckDuckGo instead of Google
Lay off teh Facebook or be extremely wary with what you post, like and follow
Always use random aliases and never give out your name or acutely identifying information on discussion forums
Disassociate your Android phone from any Google accounts and find your APKs somewhere other than Google Play
Protecting your privacy requires your deliberate and continual effort; not just something you can package neatly into a box.
When did I say anything about privacy?
I'm discussing a matter of personal property, whether it affects your privacy is a separate matter.
I realize you're trolling, but don't be ridiculous.
When you're making a "personal sale" to someone over Craigslist, eBay, a garage sale or whatever, you're just one person and don't have the power to strongarm a buyer into one-sided "agreements" ... they'll just find what they're looking for elsewhere from one of twenty thousand other sellers.
Large vendors, however, can feasibly do this kind of thing by virtue of their monopolies and oligopolies, which is why property law should protect us from this sort of predatory non-ownership.
It's just called "Facebook"
And they're going to enforce it how? China's going to extradite him? Riiiiight...
Fuck this fucking fuck
Only the government is allowed to invade your privacy.
Instead of making little piss-ant changes that affect only specific and limited circumstances, let's make a strong amendment to property law as a pile driver through all the non-ownership bullshit that's been plaguing us for the past 15-20 years.
If I am making a purchase as a private person (ie: not a business), whatever I've bought is mine. I own it 100%, it's my goddamn property and I will do whatever I fucking want with it (within written law of course)
No amount of shrinkwrap, ckickwrap, stick-on contracts, implied or non-negotiated "agreements" can change that. Contracts, usage policies and EULAs in which you had no bargaining or direct input are automatically null and void.
Any attempt by a manufacturer or producer to actively restrict, limit or deny my access to my own property, whether it be a needlessly fortified mechanism or an encrypted system to which I'm not provided the key, is met with swift punishment. The process for customers to address their grievances should be streamlined and available to the general public with minimal expense to the individual.
Hey, I can dream of a time when corporations won't be the government's puppet master, can't I?
Nah, we'll just have to start speaking Klingon
Xbone
I guess that means if you buy one, you're Xboned
Make a ridiculous threat that you *know* will invite revolt, then relent and follow through with the slightly less ridiculous (but still ridiculous) plan you had interned all along.
Next time, scheduled phoning home won't seem so ridiculous. Well, maybe not next time, but the time after that, or maybe the time after that ... but it's coming.
Also known as the Anchoring Effect
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/07/27/anchoring-effect/
Just look at the shit we put up with MS Office and new Windows installations these days. No, you can't just have a disc, you need to spend a half hour entering all your personal info (mostly re-entering those fucking captchas because their shitty forms don't validate interactively) in an MS account so we can keep tabs on you and send you spam. Even then, you're not getting an installation package file, we'll only give you some brain dead all-in-one downloader that only works on *your* computer, provides absolutely no configuration options and doesn't tell you where the installer files are located (though they probably aren't even usable if you do find them). Sure, you *can* get installation discs if you cough up another $15 and wait a week.
Fuck that, I'll head over to TPB and have a an ISO in 15 minutes.
Do you think we'd have willing to choke down this shit sandwich even a few years ago?
Silly pleb, laws don't apply to corporations
Indeed, my Slashdot tone differs quite a bit from my real life tone. Be polite, but firm ... "sorry, I can't answer any questions without my attorney present."
Indeed, it does not. Which is all the more reason to shut up, lawyer up and not give them any more ammo for their bullshit gun.
NEVER, EVER, EVER FUCKING TALK TO THE MOTHERFUCKING POLICE
No, you don't even answer questions you think couldn't possibly incriminate you -- YOU DON'T ANSWER SHIT.
There is absolutely nothing you could tell, say, state, offer, claim, express, suggest, proffer, conceptualize, indicate, discuss, confirm, deny, explain, confer, describe, disclose or elaborate that will help you in any way. Ever. Not ever.
Because, with everything, not anything, *EVERY-FUCKING-THING* you say, they will manipulate, contort, pervert, twist, conjure, fabricate, invent, expropriate, conflate, decontextualize, recontextualize, repurpose, malform, conveniently misrecollect and abuse to mold your profile before a court into whatever preconceived concept of you was in their mind before they were ever aware you existed.
The thing that almost no one seems to get is that cops live in their own delusional world where there are two types of people: cops and suspects. If you are not on their side, you are, by definition, on the side against them. It doesn't matter how innocent you are in actual fact and truth, you are a suspect, who cares if you're the wrong one?
They do not work for the public, they work for their inflated ego, the department's revenue stream and the chain of command corrupted from the top down.
Your right not to incriminate yourself is about the only defensive weapon you have against the might and resource of the police, prosecution and co. Use, assert and exploit it excessively and without relent.
Hmmm, that's interesting. Well, into the trash it goes.
Because while most people want to do the right thing, they're not going to if you ensure that no good deed goes unpunished.
If it belongs to the public, then the public should pay for it.
Those pictures of $politician with his metaphorical pants down.
I doubt it.
The control channel along which SMS runs is used to bounce a signal back and forth between your phone and the nearest tower(s). That's a signal that triggers every few seconds for keep-alive purposes and it's the same byte size whether it carries an SMS or not (that's why SMS messages are limited to 160 characters). Broadcasting a network-wide SMS should little effect on network congestion.
And now you also know that any carrier charging you more than $0 for SMS is full of shit (it doesn't cost then anything)
Because what do emergency broadcast warnings have to do with the NSA scandal? At best, it's a very labored way of expressing distaste.
And who's the dipshit engineer who thought this would be best as a whole new system that needs to be implemented differently for every OS and only work on smartphones? Why not just broadcast an SMS and call it a day?