I see no other reason for this DDoS attack but vandalism of some sort. The attackers have no political agenda (this is a small Finnish bank, not one of the big tax-haven transfer banks like UBS. It also has no political connections/owners.
The attack also has no way of obtaining any useful info, as all banks in Finland use one-time passwords for login.
That part in bold is irrelevant.
Often these are a distraction to get the manpower (management in a tizzy, IT busy) doing lots of stuff while they break in somewhere else. Customer accounts are not the target. The infrastructure NOT under attack at the time IS.
It also could be as simple as "no particular reason" sometimes it is random boredom. They chose this target because they thought the logo looked stupid, or they figured they could actually accomplish something over larger perhaps "more deserving" banks.
However they ALL NEED TO RENDER THE WEB PAGE THE SAME WAY!
Why? I like the idea of having browsers that can show off what they're better at, by rendering pages in different ways. It creates a market with a variety of browsers.
The great unwashed masses fucking EXPECT them to render in exactly the same way.
That's why.
'But it looks different at home.... blah blah blah"
If that quote above, didn't give you fits of anger, you haven't done enough web development and need to shut up on the subject you don't know anything about.
In any case, Google hasn't formally announced a decision yet, it has merely made a proposal public and started a discussion on the subject requesting feedback. The fact that everyone is condemning Google for this proposal vindicates all the companies that keep their discussions private and out of the public eye until they work them out -- all secretly first.
Google has already fucked with the icon in the address bar.
They have started to reject certain encryption protocols and now state "no public audit records available" for quite a number of domains and certificates. These changes went out a couple weeks ago.
So the "but they didn't start fucking with it yet!" comment is not valid. They'll request feedback and then do what they are already planning to do anyway.
It definitely will make the spying harder though...which is a good thing.
Harder for whom?
I am going to bet, that the big players in the data collection game already have a way to sniff traffic in SSL mode because they stole the root keys, certificates, intermediates, and even your certificate a long time ago.
Do you really think Network Solutions or GoDaddy are going to fight off the NSA or Mosad? (if they even _wanted_to?)
On topic, Google, I appreciate the focus on security, but stop deciding to simply implement however YOU THINK the web should be working. Ok, technically, it's just a change in the browser, but the semantics are obviously meant to "encourage" everyone to switch to HTTPS. However a good idea some of us think that is, it's not up to you.
This is why people are getting freaked out about the power you hold. You're starting to demonstrate that you're not afraid to *use* that influence to simply push things to work however you want them to. You've already done that once already by pushing forward an SSL-related change far ahead of when it really needed to be, and now it looks like you're floating a trial balloon to go one step further.
Am I overreacting here? Or is Google going too far, too fast with this?
They are most certainly going to far.
Last week, with the latest update of Chrome, they started putting a yellow warning triangle on any cert with SHA1 encryption. While SHA1 should be avoided, they are issuing what is basically a big "FUCK YOU" type warning. There were a number of CAs that didn't provide an option for anything else up until last year, so basically Google is forcing site owners to pony up for a new cert ahead of cycle, or do the paperwork to re-issue a cert and then re deploy it.
Likewise, Chrome is now bitching about lack of "public audit records" that have barely begun to be deployed with CAs, Let alone something that every certificate and domain have yet.
The changes mentioned in the article are not the first attempt at screwing with the function of the symbols in the address bar.
That little lock is one of the FEW things that end users have properly picked up on as part of security, now Google is undermining that. Instead of getting certs to "their standards" (who the fuck voted them boss on this?) they are going to end up teaching users what happens up there doesn't matter.
For a long time, people feared the Internet turned into something only the sanctioned big players could play in, assuming it would be media producers, TV networks, large telcos and internet providers.
Instead, we have Google doing it. If they succeed, the "little guy web site" is going to disappear from the internet.
My response is going to be "Chrome doesn't work right anymore, switch to Internet Explorer" Not going to bother complying to a standard that is unreasonable and unwanted at this time. Sure, in the FUTURE, however rushing shit through in a few months is pant-on-head retarded and extremely arrogant at the same time.
The CVE for this has already been rejected. There was an implementation problem on a specific piece of network equipment and not a general TLS implementation issue
Some huge trucks still have things based on variable transmission technology, so the entire gearbox doesn't have gears but just slides into the most convenient gearing automatically. They've been around for decades. And they work by using a strong belt that can slide up and down a conical shaft. I kid you not. Every few years, they are re-invented under another brand / patent / material and actually do quite a good job. But they are still considered specialist parts because we can't overcome their weaknesses.
For someone asserting they know all kinds of "unknoiwn" details, you sure are behind.
The description above is called a "Constant Velocity Transmission" and both Nissan (recently) and Subaru (since the 70's) have these. Subaru has had MOST of their new non-performance car fleet use CVTs for the last three years. Nisssan's CVT uses a "pusher" belt made of stacked plates connected by a chain. Subaru, a regular chain.
This is not "specialists" parts anymore. This is just a different type of automatic transmission.
True, "going back to the old" works sometimes, often that is because materials and engineering concepts have advanced far enough to actually make the stuff work now. That doesn't mean tinkering with, or taking another try at these old methods isn't worthwhile.
Society has strictly no duty to help those who truly cannot fend for themselves, just like cops have strictly no duty to put their lives on the line to save others. And before you contradict me on this point, have a look there: http://disinfo.com/2010/03/the...
Yup.
The grandparent poster is stating the socialism spin on an accurate statement.
There is no "duty" to protect the weak as it were. There just isn't. Philosophically you can't get there. That's pure political progressive ideas based on emotion and not actual thinking.
You CAN however, expand the argument a bit and come up with a compelling reason why helping the weak is actually helping yourself. First, everybody, at some point, is "weak" or "strong." For example. I am a nerd. I am generally, less physically capable than other adult men. (This is my own doing, shut up, I know.)
On the other hand, I carry a gun.
Someone, a large young man, could walk into a store and toss around a clerk or two while stealing swisher sweets and be the "strong" one. While he has no philosophical duty to protect the weak, it is SMART for him to do so, because there just may well be a nerd behind him with a loaded gun. Or, a skinny cop may tell him to get back on the sidewalk, where playing "tough" only gets the moron deaded.
The short version is, the "philosophy of using strength" gets you into conflicts in a society, where "philosophy of cooperating" tends to keep you out of conflicts. No matter how tough you are, you might end up standing in front of a nerd with a gun. This is true whether or not you are a socialist or some other political bent.
... teaching the cops how not to alienate the people?
I agree they are teaching the wrong people.
Though, this effort would be best spent on the parents of the kids that get in trouble, along with the kids who DONT SHOW UP FOR SCHOOL.
What these classes do is make it clear to the non-criminals how collossally stupid the average thuglet really is. The people that need to know how not to get beat, don't pay attention to anything anybody tells them... or they would already know how not to get beat.
Put an automated message that says the following...
"If you are calling about a recent scam involving our number, please call Level 3 at..." and give the phone number to Level 3's complaint office. If they don't have a complaint office then simply give the main number. Better yet if you can, forward the call to them via a menu system. Let them deal with the fallout. Maybe they will take the hint.
I suggest the sales department phone number. Those seem to be able to accomplish things with screeching to management and IT.
Price of any stock will go up when the demand is higher than the supply. And if supplier business is truly not currently economically viable, less fields will be used for cocoa, supply will go down, and price will go up again. No need to talk about what one ethically "should" pay for it.
Yup. The market will adjust.
The problem is, the adjustments will be wild and put companies out of business.
Cocoa comes off a tree, so switching land from bananas to coca is not a "next year we'll grow that" type of transition. While that expansion happens, the price goes where ever. Also, with that start up time, a local farmer might get burned by being a little too late where large numbers of other fields are converted too. Leaving him out of business or at least less willing to do cocoa again.
If my industry relied on the good stuff, I'd be looking hard at geographically spreading my supplies out and getting production in places it hasn't been done before, AND stockpiling it if it keeps well. Just set a price, buy all of it you can.
You think $26.89/hr is a low wage? Wow. That's $53780/yr! A huge amount of money. And people wonder why international outsourcing and illegal immigrants are a problem. The North American standard of living is unsustainable, pure and simple. All these rich folks have no idea that the majority of the population works for far less. Housing alone costs about 80% of earnings for most people. Ain't capitalism grand?
In the cities where they are needed, that's not a whole lot of money. I bet those guys live in hovels or commute from waaaayyy outside the cities the work in.
When they have the majority in both the house and the senate starting next Jan. they will expand the NSA's powers and try to ram it through.
IOW, continuing the good work of the current majority and the administration?
Or, just now realizing the power structure of parallel construction, back room deals to harass people for political reasons, massive and invasive domestic eavesdropping abilities etc. are all going to be in the hands of the Republicans when Democrats lose the white house in 2016... and fearing the machine they created being turned against them.
The IRS actually did not do anything wrong until they were shamed into letting the groups keep their 501(c)(3) status.
People who "didn't do anything wrong" don't destroy emails that prove that they "didn't do anything wrong." The act of destroying the emails itself, is something wrong.
If they were smart they would increase IRS funding since it results in something like a 10:1 return rate. You know where the extra money would come from? Tax cheats! People who don't pay their taxes aren't your heros, they are your parasites. While I'm being wistful about things that will never happen, increased funding might even give us more streamlined processes and overcome the turbotax lobby...which for years has been lobbying against simpler taxes that you can do yourself on the IRS website, reducing errors and thus the likelihood the IRS would want to talk to you.
No. The extra money would come from harassing politically "undesirable" non-profits out of existence.
How is LESS complication going to COST MORE? By your standards, someone putting more money into developing a better snow blower would end up with a shovel. Your ideas of how the world works are ass backwards.
I always thought this was the pipe, the faucet head and aerator and sink changing temp. Not the water itself.
You can hear the difference between a mug of hot water and a mug of cold water if you tap the outside of the mug with a spoon as well. That doesn't have any turbulent flow to it...
The front office at Newtowne elementary school did have a pistol in their desk, but they were gunned down before they had a chance to use it. And when you allow staff to have guns, now you have a problem of securing the guns so kids don't break in and take them. Just the kind of stunt that would give the "bad boys" some stature within his crowd.
You know your assertion would carry more weight if you could spell the place right.
Also, citation needed. That little tidbit would have been used by the anti-gunners and the pro-gunners alike. So, nobody is going to believe you without some reputable sources to link to.
Their argument was that the geologists said that the risk was low, which then caused harm because people trusted them and didn't prepare for the earthquake. If they had stayed quiet they would not have been blamed, but they actually made a prediction in language that conveyed some certainty.
If there is a lesson here it's that if you are not 100% sure and lives are at risk you should err on the side of caution.
Do you ever travel by airplane? Did you know a NON ZERO number of planes crash every year? And, by getting on a plane you take a risk of getting shredded and burned in a crash?
Plane travel, despite the possible end-game, is still VERY SAFE.
Gonna try to throw me in jail now if you get in a crash? Idiot?
It's important to understand; and you have to spend serious time with Google translate or reading the Italian to get this; they weren't charged for failing to predict. They were charged for predicting there wouldn't be an earthquake. They said that there was no special likelihood of it even though several signs pointed to a raised probability.
The conviction may be wrong, however it's nowhere near as stupid as people are making out.
Just wait a while.
They'll try them again three more times, twice in absentia, and once including the maids and the guys that fixed their cars.
Italian "courts" are a laughing stock, only useful for being mocked, nothing more than third world idiots now.
You can easily achieve the same with one account, controlling who sees what isn't difficult.
Superficially, yes. You can keep the trollip in HR from reading the stuff herself.
You can't keep the "Big Data" from re-packaging what they know as a "background check" that's part of a package your employer might purchase in order to do all kinds of research on people. While the public, and other Facebook users might not get it directly, the HR department can still get it by spending some money.
In that case, a fake profile with the real name is a much more viable way to throw the HR folks off, as there will be a jumble of data and increased chance of them making the improper assumption "naw, that can't be this person"
A fake account with a real name and a real account with a fake name takes "they don't use facebook" to "they don't use facebook much and here it is" and stops the research before it is complete.
My inlaws use Square, and they've never had a problem processing payments.
If they deal with firearms they should do a little research. Square has refused to work with various types of firearm businesses in the past. If they sell doggie biscuits or something, no big deal.
If we start screaming, crying, and arresting people as soon as they express a view we don't like we have not defeated the Muslims. We have become like the Muslims.
This sums it up right there. We are well on our way already.
The GCHQ head is clueless. They'll just do what they think is effective and safe. When they figured out we were using voice prints and cell phones to target air strikes, they stopped using cell phones.
The same thing will happen with Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, Snapchat, or whatever else.
Another point, the ones using those things now are the dumb ones that are all talk, and not going to do much if anything effective. Worry about the ones that have hidden their messages that we aren't finding, or the ones that just meet in person or send coded snail mail letters. They don't need instructions, they need MONEY and TIME to get their goals done.
This is nothing more than yet another ploy to hook more surveillance into stuff that will be basically used to make the IRS more effective at targeting mild political opposites for harassment. The guys they need to bust in on with guns plot in mosques and living rooms in person.
Slashdot Mirror
I see no other reason for this DDoS attack but vandalism of some sort. The attackers have no political agenda (this is a small Finnish bank, not one of the big tax-haven transfer banks like UBS. It also has no political connections/owners. The attack also has no way of obtaining any useful info, as all banks in Finland use one-time passwords for login.
That part in bold is irrelevant.
Often these are a distraction to get the manpower (management in a tizzy, IT busy) doing lots of stuff while they break in somewhere else. Customer accounts are not the target. The infrastructure NOT under attack at the time IS.
It also could be as simple as "no particular reason" sometimes it is random boredom. They chose this target because they thought the logo looked stupid, or they figured they could actually accomplish something over larger perhaps "more deserving" banks.
However they ALL NEED TO RENDER THE WEB PAGE THE SAME WAY!
Why? I like the idea of having browsers that can show off what they're better at, by rendering pages in different ways. It creates a market with a variety of browsers.
The great unwashed masses fucking EXPECT them to render in exactly the same way.
That's why.
'But it looks different at home .... blah blah blah"
If that quote above, didn't give you fits of anger, you haven't done enough web development and need to shut up on the subject you don't know anything about.
nobody cares about the hackers. it's the terrorist threats of "9/11-style" violence that have people freaked out.
It will be 911 times 2356?
In any case, Google hasn't formally announced a decision yet, it has merely made a proposal public and started a discussion on the subject requesting feedback. The fact that everyone is condemning Google for this proposal vindicates all the companies that keep their discussions private and out of the public eye until they work them out -- all secretly first.
Google has already fucked with the icon in the address bar.
They have started to reject certain encryption protocols and now state "no public audit records available" for quite a number of domains and certificates. These changes went out a couple weeks ago.
So the "but they didn't start fucking with it yet!" comment is not valid. They'll request feedback and then do what they are already planning to do anyway.
https will not stop mass metadata collection.
It definitely will make the spying harder though...which is a good thing.
Harder for whom?
I am going to bet, that the big players in the data collection game already have a way to sniff traffic in SSL mode because they stole the root keys, certificates, intermediates, and even your certificate a long time ago.
Do you really think Network Solutions or GoDaddy are going to fight off the NSA or Mosad? (if they even _wanted_to?)
Yep, same here.
On topic, Google, I appreciate the focus on security, but stop deciding to simply implement however YOU THINK the web should be working. Ok, technically, it's just a change in the browser, but the semantics are obviously meant to "encourage" everyone to switch to HTTPS. However a good idea some of us think that is, it's not up to you.
This is why people are getting freaked out about the power you hold. You're starting to demonstrate that you're not afraid to *use* that influence to simply push things to work however you want them to. You've already done that once already by pushing forward an SSL-related change far ahead of when it really needed to be, and now it looks like you're floating a trial balloon to go one step further.
Am I overreacting here? Or is Google going too far, too fast with this?
They are most certainly going to far.
Last week, with the latest update of Chrome, they started putting a yellow warning triangle on any cert with SHA1 encryption. While SHA1 should be avoided, they are issuing what is basically a big "FUCK YOU" type warning. There were a number of CAs that didn't provide an option for anything else up until last year, so basically Google is forcing site owners to pony up for a new cert ahead of cycle, or do the paperwork to re-issue a cert and then re deploy it.
Likewise, Chrome is now bitching about lack of "public audit records" that have barely begun to be deployed with CAs, Let alone something that every certificate and domain have yet.
The changes mentioned in the article are not the first attempt at screwing with the function of the symbols in the address bar.
That little lock is one of the FEW things that end users have properly picked up on as part of security, now Google is undermining that. Instead of getting certs to "their standards" (who the fuck voted them boss on this?) they are going to end up teaching users what happens up there doesn't matter.
For a long time, people feared the Internet turned into something only the sanctioned big players could play in, assuming it would be media producers, TV networks, large telcos and internet providers.
Instead, we have Google doing it. If they succeed, the "little guy web site" is going to disappear from the internet.
My response is going to be "Chrome doesn't work right anymore, switch to Internet Explorer" Not going to bother complying to a standard that is unreasonable and unwanted at this time. Sure, in the FUTURE, however rushing shit through in a few months is pant-on-head retarded and extremely arrogant at the same time.
The CVE for this has already been rejected. There was an implementation problem on a specific piece of network equipment and not a general TLS implementation issue
Link?
For those of us who are stuck using older browsers (FireFox v10 or IE6), even with SSL disabled and only TLS 1.0 enabled, will this be a problem?
As I said, stuck. I won't appreciate replies saying to upgrade my browser.
In IE 6.0, you can enable TLS 1.0. It is not on by default.
It is deep in the "Internet Settings" in "Security". Scroll down the list and find where it mentions TLS.
IE 6.0 does not do TLS 1.1 or later, so when TLS 1.0 gets shut off, you are done with it.
I believe RC4 is only in SSL 3.0 so that being on or off doesn't matter.
PS, most sites already have 3.0 off, so you may be in the clear already.
Some huge trucks still have things based on variable transmission technology, so the entire gearbox doesn't have gears but just slides into the most convenient gearing automatically. They've been around for decades. And they work by using a strong belt that can slide up and down a conical shaft. I kid you not. Every few years, they are re-invented under another brand / patent / material and actually do quite a good job. But they are still considered specialist parts because we can't overcome their weaknesses.
For someone asserting they know all kinds of "unknoiwn" details, you sure are behind.
The description above is called a "Constant Velocity Transmission" and both Nissan (recently) and Subaru (since the 70's) have these. Subaru has had MOST of their new non-performance car fleet use CVTs for the last three years. Nisssan's CVT uses a "pusher" belt made of stacked plates connected by a chain. Subaru, a regular chain.
This is not "specialists" parts anymore. This is just a different type of automatic transmission.
True, "going back to the old" works sometimes, often that is because materials and engineering concepts have advanced far enough to actually make the stuff work now. That doesn't mean tinkering with, or taking another try at these old methods isn't worthwhile.
Society has strictly no duty to help those who truly cannot fend for themselves, just like cops have strictly no duty to put their lives on the line to save others. And before you contradict me on this point, have a look there: http://disinfo.com/2010/03/the...
Yup.
The grandparent poster is stating the socialism spin on an accurate statement.
There is no "duty" to protect the weak as it were. There just isn't. Philosophically you can't get there. That's pure political progressive ideas based on emotion and not actual thinking.
You CAN however, expand the argument a bit and come up with a compelling reason why helping the weak is actually helping yourself. First, everybody, at some point, is "weak" or "strong." For example. I am a nerd. I am generally, less physically capable than other adult men. (This is my own doing, shut up, I know.)
On the other hand, I carry a gun.
Someone, a large young man, could walk into a store and toss around a clerk or two while stealing swisher sweets and be the "strong" one. While he has no philosophical duty to protect the weak, it is SMART for him to do so, because there just may well be a nerd behind him with a loaded gun. Or, a skinny cop may tell him to get back on the sidewalk, where playing "tough" only gets the moron deaded.
The short version is, the "philosophy of using strength" gets you into conflicts in a society, where "philosophy of cooperating" tends to keep you out of conflicts. No matter how tough you are, you might end up standing in front of a nerd with a gun. This is true whether or not you are a socialist or some other political bent.
... teaching the cops how not to alienate the people?
I agree they are teaching the wrong people.
Though, this effort would be best spent on the parents of the kids that get in trouble, along with the kids who DONT SHOW UP FOR SCHOOL.
What these classes do is make it clear to the non-criminals how collossally stupid the average thuglet really is. The people that need to know how not to get beat, don't pay attention to anything anybody tells them... or they would already know how not to get beat.
I've got a better solution for both of you...
Put an automated message that says the following...
"If you are calling about a recent scam involving our number, please call Level 3 at..." and give the phone number to Level 3's complaint office. If they don't have a complaint office then simply give the main number. Better yet if you can, forward the call to them via a menu system. Let them deal with the fallout. Maybe they will take the hint.
I suggest the sales department phone number. Those seem to be able to accomplish things with screeching to management and IT.
Price of any stock will go up when the demand is higher than the supply. And if supplier business is truly not currently economically viable, less fields will be used for cocoa, supply will go down, and price will go up again. No need to talk about what one ethically "should" pay for it.
Yup. The market will adjust.
The problem is, the adjustments will be wild and put companies out of business.
Cocoa comes off a tree, so switching land from bananas to coca is not a "next year we'll grow that" type of transition. While that expansion happens, the price goes where ever. Also, with that start up time, a local farmer might get burned by being a little too late where large numbers of other fields are converted too. Leaving him out of business or at least less willing to do cocoa again.
If my industry relied on the good stuff, I'd be looking hard at geographically spreading my supplies out and getting production in places it hasn't been done before, AND stockpiling it if it keeps well. Just set a price, buy all of it you can.
You think $26.89/hr is a low wage? Wow. That's $53780/yr! A huge amount of money. And people wonder why international outsourcing and illegal immigrants are a problem. The North American standard of living is unsustainable, pure and simple. All these rich folks have no idea that the majority of the population works for far less. Housing alone costs about 80% of earnings for most people. Ain't capitalism grand?
In the cities where they are needed, that's not a whole lot of money. I bet those guys live in hovels or commute from waaaayyy outside the cities the work in.
When they have the majority in both the house and the senate starting next Jan. they will expand the NSA's powers and try to ram it through.
IOW, continuing the good work of the current majority and the administration?
Or, just now realizing the power structure of parallel construction, back room deals to harass people for political reasons, massive and invasive domestic eavesdropping abilities etc. are all going to be in the hands of the Republicans when Democrats lose the white house in 2016... and fearing the machine they created being turned against them.
The IRS actually did not do anything wrong until they were shamed into letting the groups keep their 501(c)(3) status.
People who "didn't do anything wrong" don't destroy emails that prove that they "didn't do anything wrong." The act of destroying the emails itself, is something wrong.
roll back IRS harassment powers
If they were smart they would increase IRS funding since it results in something like a 10:1 return rate. You know where the extra money would come from? Tax cheats! People who don't pay their taxes aren't your heros, they are your parasites. While I'm being wistful about things that will never happen, increased funding might even give us more streamlined processes and overcome the turbotax lobby...which for years has been lobbying against simpler taxes that you can do yourself on the IRS website, reducing errors and thus the likelihood the IRS would want to talk to you.
No. The extra money would come from harassing politically "undesirable" non-profits out of existence.
How is LESS complication going to COST MORE? By your standards, someone putting more money into developing a better snow blower would end up with a shovel. Your ideas of how the world works are ass backwards.
I always thought this was the pipe, the faucet head and aerator and sink changing temp. Not the water itself.
You can hear the difference between a mug of hot water and a mug of cold water if you tap the outside of the mug with a spoon as well. That doesn't have any turbulent flow to it...
The front office at Newtowne elementary school did have a pistol in their desk, but they were gunned down before they had a chance to use it. And when you allow staff to have guns, now you have a problem of securing the guns so kids don't break in and take them. Just the kind of stunt that would give the "bad boys" some stature within his crowd.
You know your assertion would carry more weight if you could spell the place right.
Also, citation needed. That little tidbit would have been used by the anti-gunners and the pro-gunners alike. So, nobody is going to believe you without some reputable sources to link to.
Clearly, if they have time and money to spend on these very rare events, they have too much money. I see budget cuts in the future.
Their argument was that the geologists said that the risk was low, which then caused harm because people trusted them and didn't prepare for the earthquake. If they had stayed quiet they would not have been blamed, but they actually made a prediction in language that conveyed some certainty.
If there is a lesson here it's that if you are not 100% sure and lives are at risk you should err on the side of caution.
Do you ever travel by airplane? Did you know a NON ZERO number of planes crash every year? And, by getting on a plane you take a risk of getting shredded and burned in a crash?
Plane travel, despite the possible end-game, is still VERY SAFE.
Gonna try to throw me in jail now if you get in a crash? Idiot?
It's important to understand; and you have to spend serious time with Google translate or reading the Italian to get this; they weren't charged for failing to predict. They were charged for predicting there wouldn't be an earthquake. They said that there was no special likelihood of it even though several signs pointed to a raised probability.
The conviction may be wrong, however it's nowhere near as stupid as people are making out.
Just wait a while.
They'll try them again three more times, twice in absentia, and once including the maids and the guys that fixed their cars.
Italian "courts" are a laughing stock, only useful for being mocked, nothing more than third world idiots now.
You can easily achieve the same with one account, controlling who sees what isn't difficult.
Superficially, yes. You can keep the trollip in HR from reading the stuff herself.
You can't keep the "Big Data" from re-packaging what they know as a "background check" that's part of a package your employer might purchase in order to do all kinds of research on people. While the public, and other Facebook users might not get it directly, the HR department can still get it by spending some money.
In that case, a fake profile with the real name is a much more viable way to throw the HR folks off, as there will be a jumble of data and increased chance of them making the improper assumption "naw, that can't be this person"
A fake account with a real name and a real account with a fake name takes "they don't use facebook" to "they don't use facebook much and here it is" and stops the research before it is complete.
My inlaws use Square, and they've never had a problem processing payments.
If they deal with firearms they should do a little research. Square has refused to work with various types of firearm businesses in the past. If they sell doggie biscuits or something, no big deal.
If we start screaming, crying, and arresting people as soon as they express a view we don't like we have not defeated the Muslims. We have become like the Muslims.
This sums it up right there. We are well on our way already.
The GCHQ head is clueless. They'll just do what they think is effective and safe. When they figured out we were using voice prints and cell phones to target air strikes, they stopped using cell phones.
The same thing will happen with Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, Snapchat, or whatever else.
Another point, the ones using those things now are the dumb ones that are all talk, and not going to do much if anything effective. Worry about the ones that have hidden their messages that we aren't finding, or the ones that just meet in person or send coded snail mail letters. They don't need instructions, they need MONEY and TIME to get their goals done.
This is nothing more than yet another ploy to hook more surveillance into stuff that will be basically used to make the IRS more effective at targeting mild political opposites for harassment. The guys they need to bust in on with guns plot in mosques and living rooms in person.