It should be some form of illegal 'conflict of interest' for a company to be both a content provider and an ISP. No company can do both. That includes subsidiaries of a bigger company. I suppose we can't prevent board of director mixing though.
They were dumb pipes even before... Imagine how it would be if they were not, you are talking on the phone with a friend and one of you mentions Pizza, suddenly a local Pizza delivery place is connected in to the conversation and asks if you would like to order a Pizza (You and your friend were actually just talking about how the Pizza made you both sick recently)
Or even more chilling, one of you mentions some thing that, taken out of the context of your conversation, seems dangerous or illegal - and the phone call is dropped. You were planning an attack in World of Warcraft or one of the Battle Simulators and click, no phone call anymore.
Actually, Google is a product that the ISP's provide to draw their customers. As are every other website on the Internet. Perhaps the ISPs should be paying Google and other search engines for making things on the Internet easy to find.
Just think - If the only websites you knew about was the ones that you found by clicking links on websites that you started with or ones you learned about from other people. For example: Digg or Slashdot would lead to many new sites, but pdp11.org might not take you much out of it's content realm. A vast portion of the Internet would be unavailable.
Why is it every time Facebook gets a new idea, everyone must scramble to update their settings - why not just assume people want to keep their information private? They could even have a single new setting that acts as a default:
When Facebook adds a new feature that shares my information in a new way:
(a) Share my information automatically, I can stop sharing later
(b) Do not automatically share, I can begin sharing later.
That way those who care can keep their data private or at least not be surprised by the
new way their data is being shared, and those who find that they enjoy sharing their
data in new ways can always be on the cutting edge.
Once you set your default, you can go back at your leisure and change the setting to share or to not
share. Usually you will not have to do anything because the default sets the sharing the way you like it.
Ob Disclaimer: I don't use Facebook or any of those other new-fangled things.
Or even "We have some IDs and mostly they are used for different things" therefor we need "one ID that is used for everything including full reporting on any purchase even with cash over $5.32"
1) With you - also government should not use its force in favor of the closed source pig farmer.
btw your link is 404.
2)Our most popular pig farmer sells pigs in closed boxes that are mostly healthy but are much to easy to hypnotize. (ha how's that for stretching an analogy)Lots of people yell, yet this farmer remains the most popular.
3)Really? A disassembly listing is as good as high level source code? with no proper variable names or labels. And toss in optimizing compilers?
I don't program but for fun.
4) citation needed?
Eyes for closed source are limited by employment, eyes for open source are limited by desire.
Perhaps if these auditors were paid by groups of open source and published their finding publicly.
5) Open source wrecks secrecy when the secret is the code itself.
Even if the Anti-Virus takes a week to handle today's new zero-day, the OS mfg might take much longer to
provide a patch that closes the vulnerability.
Anyone have hard facts on whether open source or closed source fixes a vulnerability sooner?
How can you have any balance of power between a computer owner and a OS producer when that OS producer can control the information shared between them. This is a free market of
[farmer]"Here is a big box with a healthy live pig in it, buy it from me",
[buyer]"Can I see the pig",
[farmer]"no"
Sure I could go to another pig farmer that does not crate up his pigs, or at least opens the box for inspection - oh, wait, that's open source.
Sometime an authority is needed because the pig buyer who cares to see the pig has no power to force the pig-in-the-box farmer to show it. There is no "balance of power"
Pla,
I mostly agree with you but I want to expand your point...
But also "No", in that if I notice some suspicious activity in a program I use, I can
have the relevant source open in front of me five minutes later to see why it did what
it did
You didn't say it but you probably would re-compile from those sources and compare the binaries
too.
Don't forget "DNSSEC is a response to DNS cache poisoning an prevents the attack where an attacker can cause your browser to go to his phishing site when you enter the URL of your bank's website"
Password and Username are both "something you know" therefore that represents a one factor authentication. To have more than one factor you need to add either "Something you are" or "Something you have"
(Just finished with that chapter in my BS-ISS program)
... So it is simply a "inventory mistake", the person who activated the "security" will simply come up with some records showing they track down every laptop on a monthly basis (or similar), and this one hadn't been accounted for in his records yet....
How would activating the laptop camera help in that case, unless the remote operator knows what the appropriate student's home looks like or the student himself/herself happens to be sitting at the machine at the time...
The best it could do is verity the spy software is still installed.
And if they check each laptop monthly they would have a lot more than 42 activations.
They could do even better than that, they could take relative position information you described and then hash it. Hashes are one way, no one can recover the respresentation once it is hashed.
To login BonesSB would present a finger, the same information points would be measured, then hashed then the two hashes compared.
I am not saying that they did go to that extent, but they could have.
Slashdot Mirror
It should be some form of illegal 'conflict of interest' for a company to be both a content provider and an ISP. No company can do both. That includes subsidiaries of a bigger company. I suppose we can't prevent board of director mixing though.
No, the last thing they ever did would be to unblock youtube, then hope their customers come back.
They were dumb pipes even before... Imagine how it would be if they were not, you are talking on the phone with a friend and one of you mentions Pizza, suddenly a local Pizza delivery place is connected in to the conversation and asks if you would like to order a Pizza (You and your friend were actually just talking about how the Pizza made you both sick recently)
Or even more chilling, one of you mentions some thing that, taken out of the context of your conversation, seems dangerous or illegal - and the phone call is dropped. You were planning an attack in World of Warcraft or one of the Battle Simulators and click, no phone call anymore.
No Telcos have *always* been dumb pipes.
Just think - If the only websites you knew about was the ones that you found by clicking links on websites that you started with or ones you learned about from other people. For example: Digg or Slashdot would lead to many new sites, but pdp11.org might not take you much out of it's content realm. A vast portion of the Internet would be unavailable.
Not to say that dumb criminals do not exist. It would only take one to ruin your day.
When Facebook adds a new feature that shares my information in a new way:
(a) Share my information automatically, I can stop sharing later
(b) Do not automatically share, I can begin sharing later.
That way those who care can keep their data private or at least not be surprised by the new way their data is being shared, and those who find that they enjoy sharing their data in new ways can always be on the cutting edge.
Once you set your default, you can go back at your leisure and change the setting to share or to not share. Usually you will not have to do anything because the default sets the sharing the way you like it.
Ob Disclaimer: I don't use Facebook or any of those other new-fangled things.
It's called a slippery slope for a reason. It could happen and perhaps it is not all that unlikely.
Or even "We have some IDs and mostly they are used for different things" therefor we need "one ID that is used for everything including full reporting on any purchase even with cash over $5.32"
2)Our most popular pig farmer sells pigs in closed boxes that are mostly healthy but are much to easy to hypnotize. (ha how's that for stretching an analogy)Lots of people yell, yet this farmer remains the most popular.
3)Really? A disassembly listing is as good as high level source code? with no proper variable names or labels. And toss in optimizing compilers?
I don't program but for fun.
4) citation needed?
Eyes for closed source are limited by employment, eyes for open source are limited by desire.
Perhaps if these auditors were paid by groups of open source and published their finding publicly.
5) Open source wrecks secrecy when the secret is the code itself.
Even if the Anti-Virus takes a week to handle today's new zero-day, the OS mfg might take much longer to provide a patch that closes the vulnerability.
Anyone have hard facts on whether open source or closed source fixes a vulnerability sooner?
Where you work, have you been able to disallow the user of a machine having the local administrator password, or an administrator level account?
How were you able to overcome the political battle that this would cause? Did your management support the idea?
[farmer]"Here is a big box with a healthy live pig in it, buy it from me",
[buyer]"Can I see the pig",
[farmer]"no"
Sure I could go to another pig farmer that does not crate up his pigs, or at least opens the box for inspection - oh, wait, that's open source.
Sometime an authority is needed because the pig buyer who cares to see the pig has no power to force the pig-in-the-box farmer to show it. There is no "balance of power"
But also "No", in that if I notice some suspicious activity in a program I use, I can have the relevant source open in front of me five minutes later to see why it did what it did
You didn't say it but you probably would re-compile from those sources and compare the binaries too.
If I could, I'd astroturf my lawn.
A guy in a suburb of Sacramento (Natomas) did just that and had a better looking yard than many of his neighbors but the city cited him anyway.
That same tax is paid by every business so it is not a "network" tax.
We all would now.
Hercules? http://www.hercules-390.org/
* State Income Taxes
* Sales Taxes
* Federal Income Taxes
* Sometimes even Fees like DMV/Car Registration
Did you calculate every dollar you earned but did not get to control how it was spent?
But then again your neighbors don't get to choose the station either.
Don't forget "DNSSEC is a response to DNS cache poisoning an prevents the attack where an attacker can cause your browser to go to his phishing site when you enter the URL of your bank's website"
http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/KDND#Death_of_a_contestant_in_KDND_radio_contest
(Just finished with that chapter in my BS-ISS program)
... So it is simply a "inventory mistake", the person who activated the "security" will simply come up with some records showing they track down every laptop on a monthly basis (or similar), and this one hadn't been accounted for in his records yet. ...
How would activating the laptop camera help in that case, unless the remote operator knows what the appropriate student's home looks like or the student himself/herself happens to be sitting at the machine at the time...
The best it could do is verity the spy software is still installed.
And if they check each laptop monthly they would have a lot more than 42 activations.
To login BonesSB would present a finger, the same information points would be measured, then hashed then the two hashes compared.
I am not saying that they did go to that extent, but they could have.
But at least with open source you can find and apply the proper eyes to software you did not write yourself instead of just trusting the vendor.