No, I'm sure Netflix doesn't care -- probably because they know they can't do anything about it, and because it's not really hurting their bottom line.
Of course, the media cartel will start pushing for even crazier locks to ensure nobody can ever see something without their express permission.
I doubt they'd ever pull it off, but I can imagine someone demanding hardware fobs with built in GPS or something equally draconian and idiotic. Or having such a system me required to be included in computers.
Because as far as they're concerned, they should have veto rights over every piece of technology on the planet.
1) Another state comes along and demands that all phones sold can't have backdoors -- hilarity ensues. 2) The feds get in on the game and decree all phones have backdoors -- and America stops pretending it's a free country and embraces the New World Order.
Oh, and of course if all iPhones ever had to have a back door in them, the rest of the world stops buying US technology products because they can't be trusted. (Which is already becoming an issue for US tech companies who can't comply with both US law and the laws of the countries where they do business.)
You seem to be missing the point where they don't care, and aren't there to protect phones being "secure".
They don't give a crap about your security. Not even a little.
And, of course, since some animals are more equal than others, they'll insist it's OK if they have things which can't be decrypted...or at the very least will moronically make it a crime for people other than them to exploit this now useless encryption.
Do not make the mistake of thinking this is about anything other than a government who wants to exert control which defies both logic and technology... logic isn't a factor here. Fear, paranoia, and a desire to control the world around them is what drives this.
If they can't spy on everything you do, they will try to fix that with badly written laws.
Papers please, comrade. Failure to comply is not one of your options in the new America.
Do you think this is truly limited to NY? Or do you think it's part of a larger issue the entire country is facing?
Since when did America support such massive erosion of privacy and liberty?
In less than 20 years the US has gone from "give me liberty or give me death" to "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear".
That shit ain't unique to New York state.
Increasingly the populace will vote for stuff which a generation ago would have drawn outrage and (correctly) been compared to fascism. America is becoming everything it used to stand against.
Which do you think is more likely... decades of greedy corporate behavior resulting in a "patent everything" mentality... or some giant conspiracy to stop your pet project?
Companies have been doing this crap since before coreboot. They're sure as hell not doing it because of coreboot.
They want to block everybody, because they want control. They didn't get together and say "ZOMG! teh coreboot is teh enemy".
It's just another bug on the windshield of the inexorable creep of corporate power; all of which started long before Linux.
Pretty much EVERY industrial process is patented by someone. That patent is guarded by a corporation who wants to ensure they get paid... either through sales, or licensing the patent.
IBM makes a zillion patent applications every year.
There's simply no way you can bypass the sheer quantity of "intellectual property" which encumbers the world. And since pretty much every aspect of the hardware is probably covered under a patent, you're not going to get it.
Hell, even with software, Microsoft used to insinuate that Linux violated a bunch of their patents, but wouldn't ever name them.
The modern world has been structured to serve the needs to greedy corporations. They're not going to allow you to sufficiently change the rules of the game to take that away.
Which is why every treaty these days is having the intellectual property pushed even harder, because governments are on the payroll of entities which want to further entrench their rights as superseding ours.
If someone comes to you and says "I need you to sell me a system which we can use to track and arrest dissidents", you can't claim you had no idea of what it was being used for.
Companies routinely sell to nations with the fill knowledge the purpose of the technology isn't entirely benign.
In fact, according to TFA, there is a law on the books called the Alien Tort Law which specifically says you can't do this without consequences.
This is nothing at all like suing Ford because of the actions of a driver. Because in this case Cisco was likely an active participant.
My experience? Two levels of org chart at most, often only one.
The transition from "understanding technical details" to "kinda sorta understands the concept" is fairly abrupt.
I once had a manager who had coded in JCL for about 6-8 months before he moved into management... and that had been 15 years prior. He was mostly a sales guy who could give a demo, but didn't really understand things any more.
At the C-level? They mostly know how to take the union of all possible buzzwords available to them and use them freely without actually knowing they're lying.
Take the average MBA who works in tech? And they pretty much know nothing technical at all.
"Cracka" is a cracker not a hacker. Hackers do not engage in malicious activity but explore systems to learn about them.
BULLSHIT!
You kids who have retroactively decided to re-define hacker and cracker are so full of shit it isn't funny.
Historically there is no such distinction, and "hacker" was the only word for about three decades or so. A hacker may or may not have done anything malicious. Cracker is a word which came along much later. In fact, it came along in the late 90s and suddenly people started claiming there was a semantic distinction.
For anybody who was around before that, there simply is no distinction, and claiming it has always been so is a lie.
"l337 h4x0rs" were who hacked your system, no matter if they just looked around, or burned it to the ground.
It failed to generate more energy that it consumed, it polluted like mad, and after a couple of years the city cancelled the contract and the company who had claimed they could do all of this went bankrupt.
There was no way to make it economical or compliant with emissions regulations.
It sounds great, but in practice these things don't really seem to work worth a damn.
Exactly, trying to force the tasks required for a specialized task to fit into a GUI designed by someone who has no idea of what that task actually entails is madness.
Would you do complex engineering with a checklist which looks like it was written as a first year project and which imposes the process on you, but can't me made to actually match the real world?
Hell, on numerous occasions I've been on the receiving end of some bloody accountant trying to apply his idiotic metrics to something which can't be quantified readily... why, no, I can't quantify the way in which I will find and fix bugs in a way which is meaningful to an accountant... and, no, your standard template document has nothing to do with be solving a tricky problem of semantics.
One size really doesn't fit all. Some sizes don't fit anybody.
Instead, CMS will reward health care providers for patient outcomes
Which is the only meaningful way to do it.
All of this bullshit about forcing people to use bad software is just pointless. I only wish more organizations would do this.
On more than one occasion I've been pushed to "contribute" to SharePoint or otherwise use a piece of software which in no way actually helps me do my actual job. Because someone was more concerned with showing how a useless piece of software was being adopted than understanding why it's not being adopted.
Yawn, you're going to give me a fucking badge for posting to a forum which nobody is reading and which won't solve my problem, because you stupidly believe "teh soshul networking" is going to solve all your problems, when all it's doing is creating new ones.
And I've seen far too many systems intended to replace something already in use, which clearly are written by people who just don't get it. It's an often ignored dirty little secret that absolutely crappy interfaces don't get people to use the software because you go through far too much garbage to do anything.
I've seen stuff which tried to replace custom software, with well written GUIs, for crap which mapped everything to try to look like a spreadsheet... and which was utterly un-usable. It was like some moron wrote the software with no consideration for what it was being used for.
Accepting incoming connections makes no sense at all.
If it bends over and hands out your password to any passerby who stumbles on an open port, then everyone will care.
Password managers need to handle encryption, not just take incoming API calls, and generally act like security makes a difference.
Reading TFA indicates this is none of those things.
You could take some time and competently write this in damned near anything -- even emacs if it's got a decent crypto library. Or you can do what it sounds like Trend did, and incompetently throw something together which kinda looked like a password manager.
Opening up HTTP ports for RPCs??? No, sorry, you don't get to pretend that's anything but idiotic.
This screams of some first year programming project, which then created a whole host of terrible security holes which Trend was either unable, or unwilling to spend time understanding.
So you've got a security product, and users can be idiots and give you all their passwords... and then using unsuitable technology you're going to reveal them.
Jesus fucking Christ on a flaming pogo stick... a password manager written in javascript??? It opens multiple HTTP RPC ports????
Are Trend that lazy and incompetent and just pushing crap out the door so they can claim to have one??? And we're supposed to trust you to have a security product???
This is beyond belief. It sounds like they're just phoning it in, and people should be loudly told to stay away from this pile of crap.
Hmmm.... so I'm going to have to stretch my little monkey brain and hopefully someone more knowledgeable can chime in...
I see reference to WIMPs in the article, so in some ways do we consider Dark Matter to be kind of like a neutrino? All around us but not generally interacting with us?
So instead of there being vast tracts of stuff we simply can't figure out where it is, it's spread throughout?
The overall underground detection mechanism sounds like the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, or that Ice Cube deal in the Antarctic (Russia?)
I've always thought it wasn't assumed to be floating around us but not interacting, but I ain't no particle physicist.
Is Dark Matter more like neutrinos than not? Or entirely different, but with enough commonality to confuse a layman?
So instead let's fucking video them so we can see if they liked the ads or not.
Apple wants to use everyone's bandwidth so they can tell how effective ads are.
Fuck that. It's crap like this why I don't want a smart phone -- a smart phone is just a platform for a bunch of greedy assholes to monetize everything you do, and sell it to third parties.
Who the fuck wants to be spied on so some marketing company knows how effective its ads are?
Why would anybody believe that the ATF is even investigating illegal grease dumping into municipal sewers? You might as well expect me to believe the FBI is actively investigating people who don't mow their lawns or who spit on sidewalks.
It's completely implausible.
Yes, crap clogging sewers is a real thing. But this has nothing to do with a federal agency putting up surveillance cameras and then coming up with a bogus cover story for it.
This is the Men in Black saying "Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus"... it's a cheap cover story, by agencies who won't admit to what they're really doing.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm sure Netflix doesn't care -- probably because they know they can't do anything about it, and because it's not really hurting their bottom line.
Of course, the media cartel will start pushing for even crazier locks to ensure nobody can ever see something without their express permission.
I doubt they'd ever pull it off, but I can imagine someone demanding hardware fobs with built in GPS or something equally draconian and idiotic. Or having such a system me required to be included in computers.
Because as far as they're concerned, they should have veto rights over every piece of technology on the planet.
There's two outcomes which seem plausible to me:
1) Another state comes along and demands that all phones sold can't have backdoors -- hilarity ensues.
2) The feds get in on the game and decree all phones have backdoors -- and America stops pretending it's a free country and embraces the New World Order.
Oh, and of course if all iPhones ever had to have a back door in them, the rest of the world stops buying US technology products because they can't be trusted. (Which is already becoming an issue for US tech companies who can't comply with both US law and the laws of the countries where they do business.)
You seem to be missing the point where they don't care, and aren't there to protect phones being "secure".
They don't give a crap about your security. Not even a little.
And, of course, since some animals are more equal than others, they'll insist it's OK if they have things which can't be decrypted ...or at the very least will moronically make it a crime for people other than them to exploit this now useless encryption.
Do not make the mistake of thinking this is about anything other than a government who wants to exert control which defies both logic and technology ... logic isn't a factor here. Fear, paranoia, and a desire to control the world around them is what drives this.
If they can't spy on everything you do, they will try to fix that with badly written laws.
Papers please, comrade. Failure to comply is not one of your options in the new America.
Do you think this is truly limited to NY? Or do you think it's part of a larger issue the entire country is facing?
Since when did America support such massive erosion of privacy and liberty?
In less than 20 years the US has gone from "give me liberty or give me death" to "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear".
That shit ain't unique to New York state.
Increasingly the populace will vote for stuff which a generation ago would have drawn outrage and (correctly) been compared to fascism. America is becoming everything it used to stand against.
Such vanity. Such utter vanity.
Which do you think is more likely ... decades of greedy corporate behavior resulting in a "patent everything" mentality ... or some giant conspiracy to stop your pet project?
Companies have been doing this crap since before coreboot. They're sure as hell not doing it because of coreboot.
They want to block everybody, because they want control. They didn't get together and say "ZOMG! teh coreboot is teh enemy".
It's just another bug on the windshield of the inexorable creep of corporate power; all of which started long before Linux.
I think patents are why this can never work.
Pretty much EVERY industrial process is patented by someone. That patent is guarded by a corporation who wants to ensure they get paid ... either through sales, or licensing the patent.
IBM makes a zillion patent applications every year.
There's simply no way you can bypass the sheer quantity of "intellectual property" which encumbers the world. And since pretty much every aspect of the hardware is probably covered under a patent, you're not going to get it.
Hell, even with software, Microsoft used to insinuate that Linux violated a bunch of their patents, but wouldn't ever name them.
The modern world has been structured to serve the needs to greedy corporations. They're not going to allow you to sufficiently change the rules of the game to take that away.
Which is why every treaty these days is having the intellectual property pushed even harder, because governments are on the payroll of entities which want to further entrench their rights as superseding ours.
Keep dreaming.
Sure, you cracked licenses but you hacked into systems.
Ah, except the US has conveniently said "but this isn't torture, it's enhanced interrogation" for the stuff they do.
Awesome, isn't it?
If someone comes to you and says "I need you to sell me a system which we can use to track and arrest dissidents", you can't claim you had no idea of what it was being used for.
Companies routinely sell to nations with the fill knowledge the purpose of the technology isn't entirely benign.
In fact, according to TFA, there is a law on the books called the Alien Tort Law which specifically says you can't do this without consequences.
This is nothing at all like suing Ford because of the actions of a driver. Because in this case Cisco was likely an active participant.
My experience? Two levels of org chart at most, often only one.
The transition from "understanding technical details" to "kinda sorta understands the concept" is fairly abrupt.
I once had a manager who had coded in JCL for about 6-8 months before he moved into management ... and that had been 15 years prior. He was mostly a sales guy who could give a demo, but didn't really understand things any more.
At the C-level? They mostly know how to take the union of all possible buzzwords available to them and use them freely without actually knowing they're lying.
Take the average MBA who works in tech? And they pretty much know nothing technical at all.
BULLSHIT!
You kids who have retroactively decided to re-define hacker and cracker are so full of shit it isn't funny.
Historically there is no such distinction, and "hacker" was the only word for about three decades or so. A hacker may or may not have done anything malicious. Cracker is a word which came along much later. In fact, it came along in the late 90s and suddenly people started claiming there was a semantic distinction.
For anybody who was around before that, there simply is no distinction, and claiming it has always been so is a lie.
"l337 h4x0rs" were who hacked your system, no matter if they just looked around, or burned it to the ground.
That's the low hanging fruit that's easy to apply. Those would probably happen if you did it to almost anybody.
Now, how many laws (secret or otherwise) start to apply when you start touching things for which they can invoke "national security"?
Suddenly a LOT of resources get thrown at finding you, and people start talking about some next-level shit in terms of consequences.
I feel bad for this kid, because his life as he understands it is about to become pretty messed up.
Just how many federal agencies have an interest in this?
On one hand, kudos for being ballsy and doing this.
On the other hand, if you go messing around with the Director of National Intelligence ... well, you should expect some pretty heavy consequences.
And I'm sure they'll find all sorts of trumped up charges to make your life miserable.
My municipality tried something like this.
It failed to generate more energy that it consumed, it polluted like mad, and after a couple of years the city cancelled the contract and the company who had claimed they could do all of this went bankrupt.
There was no way to make it economical or compliant with emissions regulations.
It sounds great, but in practice these things don't really seem to work worth a damn.
Exactly, trying to force the tasks required for a specialized task to fit into a GUI designed by someone who has no idea of what that task actually entails is madness.
Would you do complex engineering with a checklist which looks like it was written as a first year project and which imposes the process on you, but can't me made to actually match the real world?
Hell, on numerous occasions I've been on the receiving end of some bloody accountant trying to apply his idiotic metrics to something which can't be quantified readily ... why, no, I can't quantify the way in which I will find and fix bugs in a way which is meaningful to an accountant ... and, no, your standard template document has nothing to do with be solving a tricky problem of semantics.
One size really doesn't fit all. Some sizes don't fit anybody.
Which is the only meaningful way to do it.
All of this bullshit about forcing people to use bad software is just pointless. I only wish more organizations would do this.
On more than one occasion I've been pushed to "contribute" to SharePoint or otherwise use a piece of software which in no way actually helps me do my actual job. Because someone was more concerned with showing how a useless piece of software was being adopted than understanding why it's not being adopted.
Yawn, you're going to give me a fucking badge for posting to a forum which nobody is reading and which won't solve my problem, because you stupidly believe "teh soshul networking" is going to solve all your problems, when all it's doing is creating new ones.
And I've seen far too many systems intended to replace something already in use, which clearly are written by people who just don't get it. It's an often ignored dirty little secret that absolutely crappy interfaces don't get people to use the software because you go through far too much garbage to do anything.
I've seen stuff which tried to replace custom software, with well written GUIs, for crap which mapped everything to try to look like a spreadsheet ... and which was utterly un-usable. It was like some moron wrote the software with no consideration for what it was being used for.
Grammatically incorrect, but eerily semantically accurate.
Accepting incoming connections makes no sense at all.
If it bends over and hands out your password to any passerby who stumbles on an open port, then everyone will care.
Password managers need to handle encryption, not just take incoming API calls, and generally act like security makes a difference.
Reading TFA indicates this is none of those things.
You could take some time and competently write this in damned near anything -- even emacs if it's got a decent crypto library. Or you can do what it sounds like Trend did, and incompetently throw something together which kinda looked like a password manager.
Opening up HTTP ports for RPCs??? No, sorry, you don't get to pretend that's anything but idiotic.
This screams of some first year programming project, which then created a whole host of terrible security holes which Trend was either unable, or unwilling to spend time understanding.
No, they're letting their web developers pretend to write security software, when they clearly have no idea of what the hell they're doing.
This sounds like something you get summer students or a random web-site to code for you.
I can't decide if this is gross incompetence, or outright fraud.
The stupidity of this is epic.
So you've got a security product, and users can be idiots and give you all their passwords ... and then using unsuitable technology you're going to reveal them.
Jesus fucking Christ on a flaming pogo stick ... a password manager written in javascript??? It opens multiple HTTP RPC ports????
Are Trend that lazy and incompetent and just pushing crap out the door so they can claim to have one??? And we're supposed to trust you to have a security product???
This is beyond belief. It sounds like they're just phoning it in, and people should be loudly told to stay away from this pile of crap.
Hmmm .... so I'm going to have to stretch my little monkey brain and hopefully someone more knowledgeable can chime in ...
I see reference to WIMPs in the article, so in some ways do we consider Dark Matter to be kind of like a neutrino? All around us but not generally interacting with us?
So instead of there being vast tracts of stuff we simply can't figure out where it is, it's spread throughout?
The overall underground detection mechanism sounds like the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, or that Ice Cube deal in the Antarctic (Russia?)
I've always thought it wasn't assumed to be floating around us but not interacting, but I ain't no particle physicist.
Is Dark Matter more like neutrinos than not? Or entirely different, but with enough commonality to confuse a layman?
Right, asking them is a terrible idea.
So instead let's fucking video them so we can see if they liked the ads or not.
Apple wants to use everyone's bandwidth so they can tell how effective ads are.
Fuck that. It's crap like this why I don't want a smart phone -- a smart phone is just a platform for a bunch of greedy assholes to monetize everything you do, and sell it to third parties.
Who the fuck wants to be spied on so some marketing company knows how effective its ads are?
Everything after 1) is completely irrelevant.
Why would anybody believe that the ATF is even investigating illegal grease dumping into municipal sewers? You might as well expect me to believe the FBI is actively investigating people who don't mow their lawns or who spit on sidewalks.
It's completely implausible.
Yes, crap clogging sewers is a real thing. But this has nothing to do with a federal agency putting up surveillance cameras and then coming up with a bogus cover story for it.
This is the Men in Black saying "Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus" ... it's a cheap cover story, by agencies who won't admit to what they're really doing.
WTF does the ATF have to do with illegal grease dumping? What's that? Nothing at all?
They have neither the jurisdiction nor the interest in these crimes. If they're claiming it's for policing this kind of stuff, it's a big fucking lie.
This is just making shit up to allow them to put up cameras, against local laws, and then refuse to explain what the hell they're doing.
Yet more evidence that law enforcement doesn't give a crap about the law.
We are all moocow guy. Moo you damned moocow guys, MOO!!
You too can be moocow guy!