Well, for one, the app also accessed the information of all their friends, who did not give permission. That seems like a pretty significant breach to me. If 500 000 gave permission, and 87 000 000 profiles were harvested, that is a breach. A pretty big breach.
It is not about the data, it is what CA does with it. Basically they can write a different message for each of the 87 Million Facebook users, a different advert, a different party political program.
And democracy only works if the options (the parties) are the same for everybody. Tailoring your party political program ultimately means that the winning party has no platform and no democratic legitimization to do anything.
To be honest, PC to PC connectivity is usually not required, and it is a prime vector for malware. PCs usually communicate via servers, and as long as you can secure those, damage is limited.
Of course if the servers are compromised, that is pretty much it.
have obviously been criminally negligent with customer and financial data. You would think there is a law for that (I am sure there is), and it would be applied (maybe not?).
Not that I am terribly surprised, but this is shocking. To me, it also is evidence of terrible *HR* departments at these places, if they let a manager continue to operate like that. (And there are much fewer excuses for HR departments to be bad at their job.)
And Whatsapp is better? They knowingly upload and store your address book when you use the app, despite the fact that it is clearly illegal under EU data protection law. Facebook at least asks first.
Maybe that is because Amazon does what others only preach: putting the customer experience first. Whatever Amazon does, it is always motivated by this.
Except that the authors of the books are German, and under contract with German publishers. I would agree if this had nothing to do with Germany, but that would be really hard to argue in this case.
We do not even have two factor authentication. But even places that do seem to lack the protection mechanisms built into Google or Facebook. You have to admit that a risk based approach, looking at a multitude of factors, is better than a dogmatic approach.
> Are they still trying to insinuate themselves into each and every transaction, so they can both datamine and line their pockets?
Maybe, but they are also trying to get a proper mobile payment platform for Android off the ground.
Android had the host based card emulation API for a long time - allowing any bank to write an app with NFC functionality. Very few banks did so.
Now that Google has done the work, they want some reward for it. Maybe 0.15% is a bit much, maybe 0.1% or 0.01% would be better, but at least the principle is sound.
Windows Phone 10 was not available until 2016, so obviously Windows Phone 8 devices were sold long into 2016. Some of those might be less than 2 years old. Granted, most will have an update to Windows Phone 10, but disabling the platform so soon will leave a sour taste.
My last tablet broke, and I am looking for a replacement: HiDPI screen, 9" or 10", light enough to hold, contemporary amount of RAM (4GB or more).
And where are all those tablets? There is the obscenely expensive Pixel C has been discontinued., and the only slightly less expensive Galaxy Tab S3 does not provide a proper Android experience. Amazon also discontinued the HDX, which never provided a great Android experience. Only cheap Android tablets are left on the market.
> The real money was in the risk-free inflation of their balance sheet.
Indeed. Except of course it was fraudulent. Thinking they could get away with opening Millions of credit accounts without anybody ever noticing is a surprising amount of hubris. Or is that normal in the banking sector?
Exactly. The issued statement is noticeable in that it actually confirms the allegations. "have not been raised" means that Lyft has done fu*k all about it.
I think you are confused - the article is about Finland, and last time I checked, Donald Trump was not the president of Finland (although he might have claimed to be exactly that, of course).
Exactly. This is not about changing the income of unemployed, or the taxation of the rich (although Slashdot always seems to assume so). This is about improving things for people on low paying job, and testing whether that is incentive enough to take these low paying jobs.
At the moment, the marginal tax rate for someone on benefits is typically near 100% - sometimes a bit higher, sometimes a bit lower, and never far. Obviously that is a disincentive to take work.
Logically, the marginal tax rate should start low and go up, according to the principle of reducing utility of money.
The fact that people are so opposed to even test something absolutely logical is bizarre.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, for one, the app also accessed the information of all their friends, who did not give permission. That seems like a pretty significant breach to me. If 500 000 gave permission, and 87 000 000 profiles were harvested, that is a breach. A pretty big breach.
It is not about the data, it is what CA does with it. Basically they can write a different message for each of the 87 Million Facebook users, a different advert, a different party political program.
And democracy only works if the options (the parties) are the same for everybody. Tailoring your party political program ultimately means that the winning party has no platform and no democratic legitimization to do anything.
To be honest, PC to PC connectivity is usually not required, and it is a prime vector for malware. PCs usually communicate via servers, and as long as you can secure those, damage is limited.
Of course if the servers are compromised, that is pretty much it.
Exactly, and that is strange, isn't it?
Because
> Target, Equifax, etc.
have obviously been criminally negligent with customer and financial data. You would think there is a law for that (I am sure there is), and it would be applied (maybe not?).
Not that I am terribly surprised, but this is shocking. To me, it also is evidence of terrible *HR* departments at these places, if they let a manager continue to operate like that. (And there are much fewer excuses for HR departments to be bad at their job.)
And Whatsapp is better? They knowingly upload and store your address book when you use the app, despite the fact that it is clearly illegal under EU data protection law. Facebook at least asks first.
Maybe that is because Amazon does what others only preach: putting the customer experience first. Whatever Amazon does, it is always motivated by this.
Yes, this is weird. What is the point of a beta if it is not feature complete? Surely you can only find bugs if the code is actually in there.
And just like ground hog day, twice annually, slashdot gives us our DST story. Is it original this time, and no duplicate?
Indeed, more pointless than most slashdot articles. And at least here, it seems to be wrong, unless I am missing something.
Slashdot, fake news for nerds.
And why, o enlightened slashdot poster, should the US have the right to determine internet copyright, but nobody else?
Except that the authors of the books are German, and under contract with German publishers. I would agree if this had nothing to do with Germany, but that would be really hard to argue in this case.
We do not even have two factor authentication. But even places that do seem to lack the protection mechanisms built into Google or Facebook. You have to admit that a risk based approach, looking at a multitude of factors, is better than a dogmatic approach.
I did. About 5 apps I use were not available, and some were not free. Most apps were of really poor quality compared to Android.
And even on Android I miss 2 apps that are only available on iOS (the same would be the case on iOS - so that is not clearly better).
Yes, the technology is the same, but stores can decide not to support certain cards. Both Apply Pay and Google Pay are clearly recognisable.
> Are they still trying to insinuate themselves into each and every transaction, so they can both datamine and line their pockets?
Maybe, but they are also trying to get a proper mobile payment platform for Android off the ground.
Android had the host based card emulation API for a long time - allowing any bank to write an app with NFC functionality. Very few banks did so.
Now that Google has done the work, they want some reward for it. Maybe 0.15% is a bit much, maybe 0.1% or 0.01% would be better, but at least the principle is sound.
Windows Phone 10 was not available until 2016, so obviously Windows Phone 8 devices were sold long into 2016. Some of those might be less than 2 years old. Granted, most will have an update to Windows Phone 10, but disabling the platform so soon will leave a sour taste.
That is exactly the problem.
My last tablet broke, and I am looking for a replacement: HiDPI screen, 9" or 10", light enough to hold, contemporary amount of RAM (4GB or more).
And where are all those tablets? There is the obscenely expensive Pixel C has been discontinued., and the only slightly less expensive Galaxy Tab S3 does not provide a proper Android experience. Amazon also discontinued the HDX, which never provided a great Android experience. Only cheap Android tablets are left on the market.
> The real money was in the risk-free inflation of their balance sheet.
Indeed. Except of course it was fraudulent. Thinking they could get away with opening Millions of credit accounts without anybody ever noticing is a surprising amount of hubris. Or is that normal in the banking sector?
Yes, and after that 8850 W/kg exposure, it is most certainly dead.
> Funny, it said it wasn't a drill, so the worker treated the alert as the real deal.
Exactly. The worker did not misunderstand the message - the message *was* wrong.
Exactly. The issued statement is noticeable in that it actually confirms the allegations. "have not been raised" means that Lyft has done fu*k all about it.
You have made a perfectly intelligent statement there, and then ruined it with a racial / classist undertone. Shame.
I think you are confused - the article is about Finland, and last time I checked, Donald Trump was not the president of Finland (although he might have claimed to be exactly that, of course).
Exactly. This is not about changing the income of unemployed, or the taxation of the rich (although Slashdot always seems to assume so). This is about improving things for people on low paying job, and testing whether that is incentive enough to take these low paying jobs.
At the moment, the marginal tax rate for someone on benefits is typically near 100% - sometimes a bit higher, sometimes a bit lower, and never far. Obviously that is a disincentive to take work.
Logically, the marginal tax rate should start low and go up, according to the principle of reducing utility of money.
The fact that people are so opposed to even test something absolutely logical is bizarre.