Atari Flashback has been released, discontinued, revised, a bunch of times. There are differences in versions, there are changes in licenses but I'd guess that selling memories requires driving up the artificial demand by limiting availability.
The article says that Google lost the case several months after it started in 2011, and it was gagged from telling anyone until 2015.
So thus, can we conclude that Google did in fact turn over all of the requested metadata on the user without his knowledge for nearly 4 years?
The question about whether Google should fight to protect this information should be weighed along with just how much metadata that Google collects and stores about your online behavior in the first place.
The smartphone market is consuming the point & shoot customer. The P&S market existed primarily because there were no other options in years prior for casual photography, they simply replicated the same model that existed for film P&S with digital sensors.
The mirrorless market is consuming large parts of the DSLR market. That's because the dslr market used to be made up of a lot of people who didn't want to carry a DSLR in the first place, but had no other option for interchangable lenses.
Now that viable options are avaiable, the markets are going to shift. It's funny that the DSLR makers were the last ones to realize the shift was occuring. The Canon mirorless was horribly late to the market, and they were caught with their pants down. The minor or struggling camera makers like Sony, Ricoh, Fuji and Olympus are capitalizing on it.
The DSLR market will continue to exist, but they've run out of innovation for a while now. The one area they haven't addressed, portability, is why the market is being ripped into new segments.
With a title like that, maybe the summary could point to the amount of damage and evidence on the harm to the economy without having the reader to deduce it on their own?
now I don't have a complete case history for all invasive species but I do recall reading that in one case the fish that was introduced was from the local population wanting to eat a fish that was non-native and otherwise unavailable, so they imported the live fish into the local region
Namely, don't you value Alibaba based on the size of Yahoo's investment (plus a multiple for future growth), rather than using that investment to gauge how much the investor is worth?
As myspace proved out, the social market is incredibly fickle. Facebook's billboard model is only part of the market, and there are already signs that communication is shifting towards real time. That market isn't so clear, with plenty of fragmentation across LINE, the weibos in asia and facebook's relatively poor sticker offering trying to catch up. WeChat may have been pricey, but a necessary addition to admit they missed the boat on this angle.
The only conclusions that I can draw has to do with the people who use Twitter. While twitter's user base may be sufficiently representative of the overall mobile user space, I don't see how it can correlate to wealth of platform adoption until other factors are also ruled out.
I was primarily commenting because the summary said "Gmail messages are encrypted from the time they leave a user's machine to the time they leave Google's infrastructure." which is obviously incorrect. The messages aren't encrypted at all, only the network connections are.
SSL/TLS is only for data in motion, and applications that choose to use it. Anyone who gets access to the backend will still be able to freely read as much content as they like
It all seems trivial if he is successful building this. I suppose it's true that applying tech to poop isn't something a lot of people are researching.
The simple fact is that BitCoin is drawing a lot of mainstream media interest. Given that nobody really knows who's behind it, (and for those really suspicious of a conspiracy, what all this crowd sourced crypto is analyzing), it's certain to draw questions. Like the ST:TNG episode "Clues", we have a series of minor mysteries on our hands.
But nevertheless, it isn't clear to me that Newsweek outed the right guy. As odd as Nakamoto appeared in the article, I'm left with feeling that the reporter is the one that's acting weird.
That may be true in the US, but i've heard from friends overseas that other markets prefer their own stores, like a Chinese phone will have a custom rom and local app store, of which the legitimacy of the apps may come into question.
Based on what I understand of the FIPS process (which is little, admittedly), the whole exercise to put your crypto under the microscope results in eliminating a number of coding mistakes and implementation problems. So even if the algorithms themeselves are potentially weakened (we don't know ), a FIPS approved product that's had 3rd party scrutiny is probably still better off than one that wasn't, due to cleaning up implementation issues with the keys, random numbers and algorithms.
the way that mr. fernandez comes across in the interview, it sounds like there is a single definitive history that only he knows about and resistant to share. it's not like movies are used as definitive pieces of history, it's essentially folklore at best.
is that this experience annoyed so many people, a lot of people will turn the feature off. Then when a real alert that affects a large population comes out, such as a Shelter in Place alert, a lot of people won't get the message.
The emergency system should only be used for disasters, not for amber alerts. I personally received the exact same alert 5 times.
The article found two examples of using Tor, and had already identified one from the past. That's the justification for the "increasingly using Tor" headline? Then again, I'm surprised that they didn't run with a headline of "Malware using Tor Doubled!"
"The most common requests came from police investigating crimes or searching for people". Searching for people would mean that each request would affect one account. 4,000-5,000 requests affecting 10,000 accounts implies that each request touched on average two accounts (a caller and a recipient?). In addition, it doesn't say how much data was slurped out of each request either - is it a particular imessage or a whole dump of all imessage records, or is it tapping all imessages to come?
Encryption is fine and dandy, but your metadata is still exposed. Unless you have a Tor for your mobile traffic, then your metadata is still effectively exposed in the clear.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the feature is "for users who are worried about the legitimacy of sites they want to visit" AND CLICK ANYWAYS?
Or maybe the summary is wrong, and it's really a feature for the security team, and not the user.
Atari Flashback has been released, discontinued, revised, a bunch of times. There are differences in versions, there are changes in licenses but I'd guess that selling memories requires driving up the artificial demand by limiting availability.
Including Trek actor James Doohan
The article says that Google lost the case several months after it started in 2011, and it was gagged from telling anyone until 2015.
So thus, can we conclude that Google did in fact turn over all of the requested metadata on the user without his knowledge for nearly 4 years?
The question about whether Google should fight to protect this information should be weighed along with just how much metadata that Google collects and stores about your online behavior in the first place.
The smartphone market is consuming the point & shoot customer. The P&S market existed primarily because there were no other options in years prior for casual photography, they simply replicated the same model that existed for film P&S with digital sensors.
The mirrorless market is consuming large parts of the DSLR market. That's because the dslr market used to be made up of a lot of people who didn't want to carry a DSLR in the first place, but had no other option for interchangable lenses.
Now that viable options are avaiable, the markets are going to shift. It's funny that the DSLR makers were the last ones to realize the shift was occuring. The Canon mirorless was horribly late to the market, and they were caught with their pants down. The minor or struggling camera makers like Sony, Ricoh, Fuji and Olympus are capitalizing on it.
The DSLR market will continue to exist, but they've run out of innovation for a while now. The one area they haven't addressed, portability, is why the market is being ripped into new segments.
In other news, California courts ruled that Yelp is allowed to manipulate the ratings that users see, depending on whether the restaurant pays for advertising.
With a title like that, maybe the summary could point to the amount of damage and evidence on the harm to the economy without having the reader to deduce it on their own?
now I don't have a complete case history for all invasive species but I do recall reading that in one case the fish that was introduced was from the local population wanting to eat a fish that was non-native and otherwise unavailable, so they imported the live fish into the local region
Namely, don't you value Alibaba based on the size of Yahoo's investment (plus a multiple for future growth), rather than using that investment to gauge how much the investor is worth?
As myspace proved out, the social market is incredibly fickle. Facebook's billboard model is only part of the market, and there are already signs that communication is shifting towards real time. That market isn't so clear, with plenty of fragmentation across LINE, the weibos in asia and facebook's relatively poor sticker offering trying to catch up. WeChat may have been pricey, but a necessary addition to admit they missed the boat on this angle.
The only conclusions that I can draw has to do with the people who use Twitter. While twitter's user base may be sufficiently representative of the overall mobile user space, I don't see how it can correlate to wealth of platform adoption until other factors are also ruled out.
I was primarily commenting because the summary said "Gmail messages are encrypted from the time they leave a user's machine to the time they leave Google's infrastructure." which is obviously incorrect. The messages aren't encrypted at all, only the network connections are.
SSL/TLS is only for data in motion, and applications that choose to use it. Anyone who gets access to the backend will still be able to freely read as much content as they like
It all seems trivial if he is successful building this. I suppose it's true that applying tech to poop isn't something a lot of people are researching.
The simple fact is that BitCoin is drawing a lot of mainstream media interest. Given that nobody really knows who's behind it, (and for those really suspicious of a conspiracy, what all this crowd sourced crypto is analyzing), it's certain to draw questions. Like the ST:TNG episode "Clues", we have a series of minor mysteries on our hands.
But nevertheless, it isn't clear to me that Newsweek outed the right guy. As odd as Nakamoto appeared in the article, I'm left with feeling that the reporter is the one that's acting weird.
That may be true in the US, but i've heard from friends overseas that other markets prefer their own stores, like a Chinese phone will have a custom rom and local app store, of which the legitimacy of the apps may come into question.
On the black phone, where did the PRNG come from?
Based on what I understand of the FIPS process (which is little, admittedly), the whole exercise to put your crypto under the microscope results in eliminating a number of coding mistakes and implementation problems. So even if the algorithms themeselves are potentially weakened (we don't know ), a FIPS approved product that's had 3rd party scrutiny is probably still better off than one that wasn't, due to cleaning up implementation issues with the keys, random numbers and algorithms.
the way that mr. fernandez comes across in the interview, it sounds like there is a single definitive history that only he knows about and resistant to share. it's not like movies are used as definitive pieces of history, it's essentially folklore at best.
is that this experience annoyed so many people, a lot of people will turn the feature off. Then when a real alert that affects a large population comes out, such as a Shelter in Place alert, a lot of people won't get the message.
The emergency system should only be used for disasters, not for amber alerts. I personally received the exact same alert 5 times.
The article found two examples of using Tor, and had already identified one from the past. That's the justification for the "increasingly using Tor" headline? Then again, I'm surprised that they didn't run with a headline of "Malware using Tor Doubled!"
Seems like that's a critical part of this story and the reason is not mentioned.
"The most common requests came from police investigating crimes or searching for people". Searching for people would mean that each request would affect one account. 4,000-5,000 requests affecting 10,000 accounts implies that each request touched on average two accounts (a caller and a recipient?). In addition, it doesn't say how much data was slurped out of each request either - is it a particular imessage or a whole dump of all imessage records, or is it tapping all imessages to come?
Encryption is fine and dandy, but your metadata is still exposed. Unless you have a Tor for your mobile traffic, then your metadata is still effectively exposed in the clear.
I don't know of any other place to get most of these nowadays. Lots of memories and magazines that I miss
http://archive.org/details/computermagazines