The whole point of learning to be "always on" is that constant communication is expected, so nothing is an interruption.
Nonsense. When you're communicating one-on-one with me - whether we're face to face or miles away - it is an interruption when another person initiates unrelated communication with one of us.
people unwilling to learn modern collaboration techniques will be left behind
But we're not talking about "modern collaboration techniques". We're talking about modern techniques for social smalltalk.
Very little collaboration needs to take place in realtime, so the most useful "modern collaboration techniques" will remain e-mail and web fora. On the other hand. most smalltalk can only take place in realtime; and if you're someone I care about enough to engage in social smalltalk with, you deserve my (mostly) undivided realtime attention, a face-to-face meeting or a phone call.
There are niches where IM is useful, but only niches.
If we've gotten to that point, the constitution is already dead, and the second amendment does not apply.
Well then, Constitution is already dead. "No-knock" warrants, where jackbooted thugs kick down your door, have been SOP for a long while while now.
Under the current system, if the jackbooted thugs kick in your door, you have recourse through the courts
Well, your survivors may have recourse through the courts.
Violence should be your *last* resort, not your first.
Of course. Tell it to the jackbooted thugs.
When armed people of unknown intent come crashing into your house, you're at the time of last resort.
If the local constabulary has a legitimate warrant and wishes to search my home, they need only knock politely, show me the paperwork, and I will allow them entry. If anyone comes crashing into my house with a weapon, I must assume that they mean me harm, and will exercise my right of self-defense, by any means available and necessary. I don't really have time to check for police IDs in such a situation. I'm not running a bombing ring or a bunch of rape rooms or anything that would justify a violent attack by the cops, so I have to assume that the attackers are home invaders (like the ones who recently hit a house just a few miles from here), not legitimate law enforcement.
Even if they're yelling "Police!" as they bust in, it's not like crooks haven't impersonated cops before. And of course, a cop who takes part in such a raid is a crook, violating the law of the land, the protections of the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment.
I don't relish the idea of hurting anyone. I've put my own safety in peril a few times to protect other people, and so far have always been able to defuse the situation without damaging anyone, even if I've taken a few lumps in the process. But I made up my mind over twenty years ago, when I began studying martial arts, that if it was a case of "me or him", I would do whatever was necessary to stop a violent aggressor. The fact that such an aggressor may be wearing a badge makes no difference.
Yes neocons are leftists. They are not for the goals of smaller government, even though they pretend they are.
Left/right has nothing to do with bigger/smaller government. Anarchists are leftists and in favor of a smaller government. Members of the Libertarian party are rightists in favor of a smaller government.
We would do well to think of government as a vector, possessing both magnitude and direction. The force of government can push left or right (or through several other dimensions), and it can do so either gently or with great force. Advocating a smaller government is fine, but doesn't say anything about which way you want that government's force to be applied.
The "Left" is for strong central government--as you say, "top down"--(i.e. Federal government). The "Right" is for strong local control--as you say, bottom-up--i.e. States' rights.
So neocons who have striven to extend the power of the federal government are leftists? And Greens who work for more local control are right-wingers?
No. Federalist versus anti-federalist is a different dimension from left versus right.
The political terms left and right date to the French revolution, when nobility sat on the right and commoners on the left of the legislature. In modern terms, they refer to Labor and Capital. To be in favor of the interests of investors and owners is to be on the right; to be in favor of the interests of workers and ordinary citizens is to be on the left.
It doesn't matter whether you're an Maoist who believes in dictatorship of the peasants, or a anarchist who believes in no government and thus no private capital, you're a leftist; and it doesn't matter if you're a plutocrat who believes that the rich should control the government, or a libertarian capitalist in the minimal government that can enforce strong property rights, you're a right-winger.
Various alliances made over the years have obscured this, to the point where people think of gun control, censorship, abortion, foreign policy, and many other issues in left/right terms, but that's fuzzy thinking. Politics is multi-dimensional, and left-right is just one axis.
Voting is a privilege, not a right as some would have us believe.
Under a democratic government, the moral authority of the state (such as it is) derives from the will of the people. If any person is barred from voting, from expressing their will, the government has no moral authority to subject that person to its rule.
In other words, if you want to bar stupid people from voting, that's only fair if the government doesn't get to arrest stupid people for violating the law.
We don't let kid's vote, but we don't let them be held criminally responsible for their actions. (Trying minors as adults is heinous - you can't rationally stick someone with the responsibilities of adulthood if they screw up, while at the same time denying them the privileges even if they behave well.)
It just so happens that Verisign has the one you want--the glorious.com. That's a bit like whining about Intel having a monopoly on the Pentium processor or Mattel having a monopoly on the Barbie Doll.
What, Verisign invented.com? Fsck no..com was created by the U.S. government and is the property of the people of the United States.
Is there any reason Verisign wouldn't jack up prices by the max allowed in their contract?
In a sane world, behaving like a bunch of asshats by trying to squeeze us for every penny they can, would mean that their contract wouldn't be renewed by ICANN; so there would be such an incentive. In a sane world.
This argument reminds me of an old Chick Tract that stated that since bananas were so delicious and convenient to eat, that it proved the existence of a kind and benevolent god.
As Carlin put it: "I think His work.. shows that. Take a look at a mountain range - they're all crooked, they're never in line. All different sizes. There are no two leaves that same. He can't even give two people the same fingerprints! He's had BILLIONS of years to work on some of this stuff! And EVERYTHING He has ever MADE.. DIED!!"
(I'm just tired of people complaining about this place becoming a police state)
What, saying "we're not as bad as China!" is supposed to justify bad things that the U.S. government does? Poppycock. "Mom, I know you're upset with me for shoplifting that t-shirt from Hot Topic, but really you shouldn't complain, it's not like I shot up the school."
Ever wondered why educated people are far less likely to have a gun in the house?
Not accurate.
High school dropouts are the least likely to own guns. Next least likely are people with post-graduate degrees, then college grads; high school graduates are the most likely to own a gun.
Look at the column about handguns, and note that high school graduates, college grads, and those with advanced degrees are all just about equally likely to own handguns - in fact, advanced degree holders are slightly more likely to own a handgun that people with only a bachelor's degree.
The difference in total gun ownership must be in long guns. And I'm betting college graduates are less likely to get their jollies by hunting.
And you're much more likely to use a firearm defensively (which will probably not mean killing someone, just making the threat to do so tends to make people leave you alone) than to shoot a family member. There are roughly 2,000 homicides by family members per year; estimates of defensive firearms use range from around one hundred thousand into the millions, depending on who does the surveys.
The whole point of Godwin's law is that absurd hyperbolic comparisons to Hitler and Nazis diminishes the comparison when it is relevant.
But he didn't compare the actions of the TSA to the actions of Nazis. He - quite correctly - compared an argument made by Nazis to the argument you made.
"X was wrong but I was only following orders, therefore you can't hold me responsible" is a bad argument for all values of X, from retail clerks screwing customers because "the boss told me it's my job to make money for the company", to the worst abuses military and police personnel acting under color of law.
They may even be concerned with such simple concepts as keeping shelter and food available to their families.
You know, there's a good reason why the Buddha listed "right occupation" as a step in the Eightfold Path. You can't justify doing wrong by saying "I needed the job". That's exactly the meme that makes the banality of evil possible. It leads not just to harming to others, it's corrosive to one's own soul.
(Of course the TSA is no Third Reich. But an argument that tries to justify real crimes is wrong whether the criminal is a bully shaking down school kids for lunch money or a mass murderer.)
If you're only willing to collect a paycheck from a perfect organization, then your home probably looks a lot like the one where your parents live.
Perfect? No. But we all have an obligation to make our living by a means that does more good than harm. Working for the TSA, which erodes civil liberties to perform security theater which create a false sense of security, is not such an occupation. It's not "somewhat broken", it's part of a fundamentally flawed approach to security.
There's two things that make air travel safer than it was in 2001: more secure cockpit doors, and the willingness of airline crew and passengers to fight rather than surrender control of a plane. The rest - the intense screening, the "no fly" lists, the confiscation of lighters and pocketknives - is a bunch of hooey.
Just because the TSA is somewhat broken doesn't mean the workers are idiots, brutes, or power mongers.
I didn't say "idiot". I said "ignorant". Very different, a person of substantial intelligence can still be woefully ignorant on important matters. In fact I'd say that covers quite a few people in the employ of various federal TLAs.
Highly enriched uranium is not highly radioactive.
Well, I said "high grade", instead of "enriched" specifically because I was too lazy to check which isotopes would be most unpleasant.:-)
The story I linked says:
More than 20 people had fallen sick after being exposed to the radioactive material, the Hong Kong-based Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy said, citing an official involved in the investigation.
Court documents identified it as fissile uranium-235, the Center said, adding that it originated in a mine in Hunan province that was open from 1958 to 1985.
Maybe the court documents are wrong and it's not U-235, but whatever isotope it is, it's radioactive enough to be making exposed people sick. And a longer half-life means the danger is less intense but persists longer, which might well be more effective from a bomber's perspective.
You assume that 1) the owner actually configured it, and didn't just plug in the AP
"Just plugging it in" mean accepting the default configuration. But I've never had a wireless device that I didn't have to configure somehow, to at least tell it it's IP address.
2) that he didn't leave it open because he doesn't know how to secure it
It it the responsibility of the owner of any communications device to know how to operate it, or to hire someone who does know to operate it for them. "I don't know how to use my e-mail program so I just mailed an invitation to the party to everyone in my address book! And I don't know how to send them a 'never mind' e-mail! But if they show up they're criminals!"
3) he left it open so that he gets better wireless speeds.
You can disable WEP and still not broadcast an SSID.
There's no such sign on APs, unless the SSID has something in his name that says "come on in" or there's actually a sign that leads you to believe you can use the AP.
Broadcasting the SSID "advertises" (this is the term used in the spec) the service - advertising a service is an invitation to use it.
This is not the same as a store being unlocked, this is the same as my HOUSE being unlocked, and there is no sign.
No, a network access point is not the same as your house. Wireless is a service, not a place. If you advertise the availability of a service, and take action to make it accessible to others, you have no right to complain when they take you up on your offer.
If you made the offer mistakenly, that's your responsibility.
The one that the employee at the counter says is run by the coffee shop and is available for your use.
Nope, sorry. None of them are supplied by the coffee shop. The open ones are supplied by neighbors, for the benefit of the community. I don't know who operates them, just heard about them through word of mouth. (And the APs have been operating for a year and a half now and their owners must have noticed everyone in the place with laptops.)
Finding a weapon with a radiation detector might seem easy enough, but seemingly innocent things also set detectors off. One day it might be a shipment of medical isotopes, the next it might be a truck full of bananas or cocoa powder, [Los Alamos scientist David] Mercer said.
Wait a minute: bananas and cocoa powder?
"Cocoa power, like bananas, has potassium 40 in it," he said. "It's not harmful to humans, but it does set the detectors off. There are lots of things around us every day that have radiation in them. We even had a shipment of toilet tanks set off a detector once."
Porcelain, it turns out, has a bit of thorium and uranium in it.
Other weird things on the list: granite, which has a hint of thorium and uranium; camping lanterns, with thorium; propane, with radium 226; Brazil nuts, with potassium 40; kitty litter, with thorium and potassium 40; pottery, with uranium and thorium.
We can also look to the "clean up" in New Orleans to see just how well we could expect the government to respond to such a disaster. If a dirty bomb just needs a mop and a bucket, surely some spilled water would be even easier, right? Ha, ha. It's funny because it's tragic.
Shit, a full-on nuclear weapon exploded at altitude didn't render Hiroshima uninhabitable.
No, but it killed a whole lot of people - disproportionately children, who were working outdoors clearing firebreaks at the time of the attack - in very nasty ways. Then those who survived the first few years after the bombing had about a 9% chance of dying from cancer. (This study didn't start until 1950, so probably misses the worst of it - people who survived the initial blast and radiation exposure, but got fatal cancers in the first years afterwards.)
If you took a small amount of quality radiologicals, wrapped it around some semtex, and made it go boom! in the middle of Manhattan, you'd kill a couple of people in the explosion, create several score cancer patients, and for years you'd have an area of maybe a square kilometer where few people would be willing to live or work. That's a pretty significant impact.
When you get that many false positives, your test is useless. It's just more security theater. You need to test not just for the presence of nuclear radiation, but to set an appropriate threshold.
I suppose that the calculation of such a threshold with a formula involving the square of the distance to the object being tested is too complicated for the majority of people responsible for our security. And that, friends, is not reassuring.
because all TSA workers are mindless, buffoons. Just like all blacks like watermelons, Irishmen are drunks, and Italians are in the mob. Of course.
One chooses to work for the TSA. One doesn't choose to be black, Irish, etcetera.
It is entirely appropriate to judge people by their choices. Those who freely choose to take TSA jobs with no redeeming social value are either woefully ignorant, or get off on the petty power of their jobs.
No, but they both have all relevant qualities to this discussion. Both have systems of permissions that can be configured by their owners to allow or disallow other people to access them in various ways. Both come with default settings that owners can and should change - but occasionally neglect to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense. When you're communicating one-on-one with me - whether we're face to face or miles away - it is an interruption when another person initiates unrelated communication with one of us.
But we're not talking about "modern collaboration techniques". We're talking about modern techniques for social smalltalk.
Very little collaboration needs to take place in realtime, so the most useful "modern collaboration techniques" will remain e-mail and web fora. On the other hand. most smalltalk can only take place in realtime; and if you're someone I care about enough to engage in social smalltalk with, you deserve my (mostly) undivided realtime attention, a face-to-face meeting or a phone call.
There are niches where IM is useful, but only niches.
Fnord. I say the trademark goes to the prettiest one.
Well then, Constitution is already dead. "No-knock" warrants, where jackbooted thugs kick down your door, have been SOP for a long while while now.
Well, your survivors may have recourse through the courts.
Of course. Tell it to the jackbooted thugs.
When armed people of unknown intent come crashing into your house, you're at the time of last resort.
If the local constabulary has a legitimate warrant and wishes to search my home, they need only knock politely, show me the paperwork, and I will allow them entry. If anyone comes crashing into my house with a weapon, I must assume that they mean me harm, and will exercise my right of self-defense, by any means available and necessary. I don't really have time to check for police IDs in such a situation. I'm not running a bombing ring or a bunch of rape rooms or anything that would justify a violent attack by the cops, so I have to assume that the attackers are home invaders (like the ones who recently hit a house just a few miles from here), not legitimate law enforcement.
Even if they're yelling "Police!" as they bust in, it's not like crooks haven't impersonated cops before. And of course, a cop who takes part in such a raid is a crook, violating the law of the land, the protections of the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment.
I don't relish the idea of hurting anyone. I've put my own safety in peril a few times to protect other people, and so far have always been able to defuse the situation without damaging anyone, even if I've taken a few lumps in the process. But I made up my mind over twenty years ago, when I began studying martial arts, that if it was a case of "me or him", I would do whatever was necessary to stop a violent aggressor. The fact that such an aggressor may be wearing a badge makes no difference.
Left/right has nothing to do with bigger/smaller government. Anarchists are leftists and in favor of a smaller government. Members of the Libertarian party are rightists in favor of a smaller government.
We would do well to think of government as a vector, possessing both magnitude and direction. The force of government can push left or right (or through several other dimensions), and it can do so either gently or with great force. Advocating a smaller government is fine, but doesn't say anything about which way you want that government's force to be applied.
So neocons who have striven to extend the power of the federal government are leftists? And Greens who work for more local control are right-wingers?
No. Federalist versus anti-federalist is a different dimension from left versus right.
The political terms left and right date to the French revolution, when nobility sat on the right and commoners on the left of the legislature. In modern terms, they refer to Labor and Capital. To be in favor of the interests of investors and owners is to be on the right; to be in favor of the interests of workers and ordinary citizens is to be on the left.
It doesn't matter whether you're an Maoist who believes in dictatorship of the peasants, or a anarchist who believes in no government and thus no private capital, you're a leftist; and it doesn't matter if you're a plutocrat who believes that the rich should control the government, or a libertarian capitalist in the minimal government that can enforce strong property rights, you're a right-winger.
Various alliances made over the years have obscured this, to the point where people think of gun control, censorship, abortion, foreign policy, and many other issues in left/right terms, but that's fuzzy thinking. Politics is multi-dimensional, and left-right is just one axis.
Under a democratic government, the moral authority of the state (such as it is) derives from the will of the people. If any person is barred from voting, from expressing their will, the government has no moral authority to subject that person to its rule.
In other words, if you want to bar stupid people from voting, that's only fair if the government doesn't get to arrest stupid people for violating the law.
We don't let kid's vote, but we don't let them be held criminally responsible for their actions. (Trying minors as adults is heinous - you can't rationally stick someone with the responsibilities of adulthood if they screw up, while at the same time denying them the privileges even if they behave well.)
What, Verisign invented .com? Fsck no. .com was created by the U.S. government and is the property of the people of the United States.
In a sane world, behaving like a bunch of asshats by trying to squeeze us for every penny they can, would mean that their contract wouldn't be renewed by ICANN; so there would be such an incentive. In a sane world.
Of course, we do not live in a sane world.
Then the fact that the species of banana most of us know is likely to be wiped out by blight proves what? That God is incompetent? Makes sense to me.
As Carlin put it: "I think His work.. shows that. Take a look at a mountain range - they're all crooked, they're never in line. All different sizes. There are no two leaves that same. He can't even give two people the same fingerprints! He's had BILLIONS of years to work on some of this stuff! And EVERYTHING He has ever MADE.. DIED!!"
You need to read the book, and think more about the nature of fairy tales.
What, saying "we're not as bad as China!" is supposed to justify bad things that the U.S. government does? Poppycock. "Mom, I know you're upset with me for shoplifting that t-shirt from Hot Topic, but really you shouldn't complain, it's not like I shot up the school."
Not accurate.
High school dropouts are the least likely to own guns. Next least likely are people with post-graduate degrees, then college grads; high school graduates are the most likely to own a gun.
Look at the column about handguns, and note that high school graduates, college grads, and those with advanced degrees are all just about equally likely to own handguns - in fact, advanced degree holders are slightly more likely to own a handgun that people with only a bachelor's degree.
The difference in total gun ownership must be in long guns. And I'm betting college graduates are less likely to get their jollies by hunting.
Actually, according to the DOJ, "Homicides committed by friends/acquaintances and strangers are more likely to involve guns than those committed by initmates or family members." So if you get shot to death, it's less likely to be by a family member than by some other sort of acquaintance.
And you're much more likely to use a firearm defensively (which will probably not mean killing someone, just making the threat to do so tends to make people leave you alone) than to shoot a family member. There are roughly 2,000 homicides by family members per year; estimates of defensive firearms use range from around one hundred thousand into the millions, depending on who does the surveys.
Eh? RTFA. MP3 is provided. For those too lazy, here: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/audiosrc/arts/1860v2.mp3
It's noisy as hell but recognizably a human voice.
But he didn't compare the actions of the TSA to the actions of Nazis. He - quite correctly - compared an argument made by Nazis to the argument you made.
"X was wrong but I was only following orders, therefore you can't hold me responsible" is a bad argument for all values of X, from retail clerks screwing customers because "the boss told me it's my job to make money for the company", to the worst abuses military and police personnel acting under color of law.
Decreasing the potential password space, and making passwords harder to remember so you're more likely to write them down. Brilliant.
"Keep your lawyers off my computer!" doesn't ring a bell? We've known Apple to be evil for a long time.
You know, there's a good reason why the Buddha listed "right occupation" as a step in the Eightfold Path. You can't justify doing wrong by saying "I needed the job". That's exactly the meme that makes the banality of evil possible. It leads not just to harming to others, it's corrosive to one's own soul.
(Of course the TSA is no Third Reich. But an argument that tries to justify real crimes is wrong whether the criminal is a bully shaking down school kids for lunch money or a mass murderer.)
Perfect? No. But we all have an obligation to make our living by a means that does more good than harm. Working for the TSA, which erodes civil liberties to perform security theater which create a false sense of security, is not such an occupation. It's not "somewhat broken", it's part of a fundamentally flawed approach to security.
There's two things that make air travel safer than it was in 2001: more secure cockpit doors, and the willingness of airline crew and passengers to fight rather than surrender control of a plane. The rest - the intense screening, the "no fly" lists, the confiscation of lighters and pocketknives - is a bunch of hooey.
I didn't say "idiot". I said "ignorant". Very different, a person of substantial intelligence can still be woefully ignorant on important matters. In fact I'd say that covers quite a few people in the employ of various federal TLAs.
Well, I said "high grade", instead of "enriched" specifically because I was too lazy to check which isotopes would be most unpleasant. :-)
The story I linked says:
Maybe the court documents are wrong and it's not U-235, but whatever isotope it is, it's radioactive enough to be making exposed people sick. And a longer half-life means the danger is less intense but persists longer, which might well be more effective from a bomber's perspective.
"Just plugging it in" mean accepting the default configuration. But I've never had a wireless device that I didn't have to configure somehow, to at least tell it it's IP address.
It it the responsibility of the owner of any communications device to know how to operate it, or to hire someone who does know to operate it for them. "I don't know how to use my e-mail program so I just mailed an invitation to the party to everyone in my address book! And I don't know how to send them a 'never mind' e-mail! But if they show up they're criminals!"
You can disable WEP and still not broadcast an SSID.
Broadcasting the SSID "advertises" (this is the term used in the spec) the service - advertising a service is an invitation to use it.
No, a network access point is not the same as your house. Wireless is a service, not a place. If you advertise the availability of a service, and take action to make it accessible to others, you have no right to complain when they take you up on your offer.
If you made the offer mistakenly, that's your responsibility.
Nope, sorry. None of them are supplied by the coffee shop. The open ones are supplied by neighbors, for the benefit of the community. I don't know who operates them, just heard about them through word of mouth. (And the APs have been operating for a year and a half now and their owners must have noticed everyone in the place with laptops.)
D'oh! My bad. The link should have been here:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/167212_radiation01.html. Forgive me, they're both seattle*.nwsource.com URLs and I mixed up which tab was which. Here's the relevant bit:
Mopping every square centimeter of every surface in a large area would be quite an undertaking. Then, how do you dispose of the slop?
Think clean-up from a toxic bomb would be easy? Seventy-five recovery workers from the WTC site have been diagnosed with blood cell cancers that were likely caused by their exposure to the toxic stew of Ground Zero, while the EPA said everything was honky-dory. The total number of cancer cases caused by the toxic cloud may be in the hundreds. That wasn't even at attack designed to be toxic.
We can also look to the "clean up" in New Orleans to see just how well we could expect the government to respond to such a disaster. If a dirty bomb just needs a mop and a bucket, surely some spilled water would be even easier, right? Ha, ha. It's funny because it's tragic.
No, but it killed a whole lot of people - disproportionately children, who were working outdoors clearing firebreaks at the time of the attack - in very nasty ways. Then those who survived the first few years after the bombing had about a 9% chance of dying from cancer. (This study didn't start until 1950, so probably misses the worst of it - people who survived the initial blast and radiation exposure, but got fatal cancers in the first years afterwards.)
If you took a small amount of quality radiologicals, wrapped it around some semtex, and made it go boom! in the middle of Manhattan, you'd kill a couple of people in the explosion, create several score cancer patients, and for years you'd have an area of maybe a square kilometer where few people would be willing to live or work. That's a pretty significant impact.
According to FAS, with a one-foot-long chunk (about a kilogram and a half, if I calculated right) of radioactive cobalt from a food irradiation plant, you could contaminate 1,000 square kilometers and raise the cancer risk for everyone who stayed in Manhattan to 1 in 100. Manhattan real estate would get really cheap.
Now imagine a Ryder truck full of fuel oil, fertilizer, and various other common nitrate/hydrocarbon mixes to make up an explosive sundae, and for the cherry on top, say 8 kilograms of high grade uranium. Place in a highly populated area, preferably on a breezy day, and let the good times roll.
The problem, as the other posts in this thread show, is that having something NUCLEAR! is not all that unusual, and usually quite benign. It's not just radiation therapy patients - these radiation detectors get set off by some foods (bananas, cocoa powder, Brazil nuts) camping equipment (lanterns, propane), and stone and clay products (granite, kitty litter, pottery).
When you get that many false positives, your test is useless. It's just more security theater. You need to test not just for the presence of nuclear radiation, but to set an appropriate threshold.
I suppose that the calculation of such a threshold with a formula involving the square of the distance to the object being tested is too complicated for the majority of people responsible for our security. And that, friends, is not reassuring.
One chooses to work for the TSA. One doesn't choose to be black, Irish, etcetera.
It is entirely appropriate to judge people by their choices. Those who freely choose to take TSA jobs with no redeeming social value are either woefully ignorant, or get off on the petty power of their jobs.
No, but they both have all relevant qualities to this discussion. Both have systems of permissions that can be configured by their owners to allow or disallow other people to access them in various ways. Both come with default settings that owners can and should change - but occasionally neglect to do so.