In some ways I think of this push by Google to encrypt mail as being like that thing they do in the Israeli prisons, where they have a dummy microphone in the cell that's easily discoverable and avoidable and then they hide the real mics where people go to avoid the dummy one - and pick up all the juicy intel, undetected.
This form of encryption provides the illusion of security; it's like: 'go back to sleep, everything's fine, your government can't snoop on you with it's giant, multi-tentacled panopticon'. All the while, the NSA and GCHQ are rather happy and completely undeterred.
I can't decide who Google is trying to help with this.
I'd upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10 when I had a compelling reason to do so.
All I've had so far is compelling reasons NOT to.
From forced, pc-breaking updates, to telemetry and 'spyware' and the options for these 'resetting' after updates, to the uncertainty of whether I get an actual legit upgrade to my win7 pro retail version or just some generic update version and un-solicited download of 3 and a half gigs of win10 when I never said I wanted to do that - none of it inspires confidence.
Similar to what the Israelis do in their prisons to record unguarded conversations and gather intel: plant an easily discoverable camera/microphone, which gets disabled; the prisoners think they're safe and talk freely, not seeing the expertly hidden cameras/mics that can then gather up all their juicy intel.
*We* (the people) don't pay politicians to come up with these stupid ideas, it's the corporations and businesses who pay them to represent *their* interests.
The Tories in the UK are a wholly owned subsiduary of business. Bought and paid for. These companies want a return on their investments and politicians like Whittingdale are their errand boys.
Expect nothing less from the oligarchy that sits at the center of UK democracy; like a worm inside an apple.
They (BT) did (and do) this with Caller ID. It was free and then, just a few months ago, they silently introduced a monthly charge for it - at a time when spam calls were worse than ever and it's more important than ever to see who's calling.
They'll run this for free for a time then start charging for them.
On the plus side, landline phones with call blockers are at long, long last starting to appear.
Thank you. It's very tempting to circlejerk about this. People on Slashdot are supposed to have a few more critical thinking abilities. Doesn't always work out that way.
There are still questions about Windows 10 data transfers, but misinformation and sloppy research as found in the original Forbes article, does not help in any way.
>Has anyone analyzed the data being sent? Or is this a big assumption?
That's a good question, but I think that a better one is why is Microsoft not coming clean about all this or addressing the issue people are having with it that their monopoly OS is doing things that the user isn't fully informed about or have any choice in, or control over.
Strange. I installed "Disable Anti-Adblock" Firefox extension and Forbes most definitely did not let me into the site. I think that extension (or is it add-on...wtf Mozilla?) is broken.
Well, speaking personally, I use ABP's "Select element to hide" function on all those EU cookie banner pop-ups - if I can't just ignore them (and rather than close them via clicking 'OK') - so that would probably select the malvertisement.
Bloody EU legislators legislating mandatory spam pop-ups. What the actual F?
And what about the way Facebook allows people to steal other people's videos from Youtube or whatever, host them of Facebook, Facebook gains ad revenue and when the injured party complains, the video gets taken down a couple of months later - and after the buzz for the video has waned & Facebook had gained most of the revenue it could expect to from the pirated media.
The DMCA's text cites "effective measures" being circumvented. Not sure this little trick qualifies. Wouldn't want to have to argue it in court, of course.;)
I don't know if it was the moving on of Rusbridger, financial pressures or some sort of coup behind the scenes, but the Guardian has become a lot less Guardian in the last year or two.
I did see a pro-Corbyn artocle tere the other day. The funny thing was a comment Below The Line saying it was just some soft soap to make the next attack piece stand out less! When it gets to that level of distrust by your readers (it seemed plausible enough to me) then your readers have all but abandoned you.
Quite why the Guardian thinks there are plenty of customers in the right-wing section of the news reader marketplace, I do not know. Maybe the expansion to the USA is a factor (although Bernie Sanders' popularity would suggest there's a substantial appetite for something left of (genuine) centre there).
It's a bad day when you see Guardian readers looking to the Huffington Post for something resembling decent reporting.
The license fee payers pay for this: ie. everyone who watches broadcast TV in the UK.
It used to be, rightly, the Foreign Office who paid for it - rightly because its aim is to spread British propaganda throughout the world, but the (Murdoch-loving, privatise everything including your mum) Tories hate the BBC and so forced them to take it under their budget (in between the other hacks and slashes at their budget). So now you have the rather absurd and indefensible position where license fee payers are funding the British government's outreach objectives to North Korea (et al.), instead of having that money being used to provide programming they can enjoy/use/ignore/complain about.
The reason this happened is largely yet another spineless tit at the head of the BBC. One in a long line, I'm afraid. The last decent one was chucked out (Greg Dyke) for daring to allow a modicum of criticism of Tony's Big Iraqi Adventure. Now the BBC is fast becoming a shadow of its former self and is often considerably editorially compromised by the Conservative party's agenda (as often communicated through the posessed-by-evil pages of the hateful Daily Mail).
Slashdot Mirror
In some ways I think of this push by Google to encrypt mail as being like that thing they do in the Israeli prisons, where they have a dummy microphone in the cell that's easily discoverable and avoidable and then they hide the real mics where people go to avoid the dummy one - and pick up all the juicy intel, undetected.
This form of encryption provides the illusion of security; it's like: 'go back to sleep, everything's fine, your government can't snoop on you with it's giant, multi-tentacled panopticon'. All the while, the NSA and GCHQ are rather happy and completely undeterred.
I can't decide who Google is trying to help with this.
I'd upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10 when I had a compelling reason to do so.
All I've had so far is compelling reasons NOT to.
From forced, pc-breaking updates, to telemetry and 'spyware' and the options for these 'resetting' after updates, to the uncertainty of whether I get an actual legit upgrade to my win7 pro retail version or just some generic update version and un-solicited download of 3 and a half gigs of win10 when I never said I wanted to do that - none of it inspires confidence.
Similar to what the Israelis do in their prisons to record unguarded conversations and gather intel: plant an easily discoverable camera/microphone, which gets disabled; the prisoners think they're safe and talk freely, not seeing the expertly hidden cameras/mics that can then gather up all their juicy intel.
The question is: are the FBI that smart?
I've had a not entirely dissimilar experience myself.
To summarise, then: Microsoft are liars.
*We* (the people) don't pay politicians to come up with these stupid ideas, it's the corporations and businesses who pay them to represent *their* interests.
The Tories in the UK are a wholly owned subsiduary of business. Bought and paid for. These companies want a return on their investments and politicians like Whittingdale are their errand boys.
Expect nothing less from the oligarchy that sits at the center of UK democracy; like a worm inside an apple.
I find myself Googling all the updates before I even think of applying them to Windows 7 these days; before I consider them safe.
What the world has come to.
Correctamundo.
They (BT) did (and do) this with Caller ID. It was free and then, just a few months ago, they silently introduced a monthly charge for it - at a time when spam calls were worse than ever and it's more important than ever to see who's calling.
They'll run this for free for a time then start charging for them.
On the plus side, landline phones with call blockers are at long, long last starting to appear.
Thank you. It's very tempting to circlejerk about this. People on Slashdot are supposed to have a few more critical thinking abilities. Doesn't always work out that way.
There are still questions about Windows 10 data transfers, but misinformation and sloppy research as found in the original Forbes article, does not help in any way.
>Has anyone analyzed the data being sent? Or is this a big assumption?
That's a good question, but I think that a better one is why is Microsoft not coming clean about all this or addressing the issue people are having with it that their monopoly OS is doing things that the user isn't fully informed about or have any choice in, or control over.
Microsoft could clear all this up in a moment.
Try listening to the radio.
Ah, thanks!
How can we trust that there isn't a deal (perhaps made under duress) to give one of those countries access to all keys in secret?
It's called "enclosure". It's the desire by individuals and companies to take common culture and own it exclusively, renting it back to us.
Strange. I installed "Disable Anti-Adblock" Firefox extension and Forbes most definitely did not let me into the site. I think that extension (or is it add-on ...wtf Mozilla?) is broken.
Well, speaking personally, I use ABP's "Select element to hide" function on all those EU cookie banner pop-ups - if I can't just ignore them (and rather than close them via clicking 'OK') - so that would probably select the malvertisement.
Bloody EU legislators legislating mandatory spam pop-ups. What the actual F?
And what about the way Facebook allows people to steal other people's videos from Youtube or whatever, host them of Facebook, Facebook gains ad revenue and when the injured party complains, the video gets taken down a couple of months later - and after the buzz for the video has waned & Facebook had gained most of the revenue it could expect to from the pirated media.
The DMCA's text cites "effective measures" being circumvented. Not sure this little trick qualifies. Wouldn't want to have to argue it in court, of course. ;)
Yep.
You don't owe tax when you own the people who make the tax law and they make it so you don't owe the tax.
All entirely legal. Which proves that what is legal is not necessarily the right thing.
If they're in the USA and log, they're effectively agents for the state, now.
I read a rather insightful comment elsewhere saying that our securocrats have simply redefined privacy.
Privacy is now defined as 'the state not currently looking at what information they hold on you'.
Rather chilling, I thought.
What I want to know, is why Firefox doesn't protect against this kind of fingerprinting.
I can't disagree with a single word here.
I don't know if it was the moving on of Rusbridger, financial pressures or some sort of coup behind the scenes, but the Guardian has become a lot less Guardian in the last year or two.
I did see a pro-Corbyn artocle tere the other day. The funny thing was a comment Below The Line saying it was just some soft soap to make the next attack piece stand out less! When it gets to that level of distrust by your readers (it seemed plausible enough to me) then your readers have all but abandoned you.
Quite why the Guardian thinks there are plenty of customers in the right-wing section of the news reader marketplace, I do not know. Maybe the expansion to the USA is a factor (although Bernie Sanders' popularity would suggest there's a substantial appetite for something left of (genuine) centre there).
It's a bad day when you see Guardian readers looking to the Huffington Post for something resembling decent reporting.
Wow, are you some kind of whistleblower of David Cameron's plans to bomb Syria?
That's a play-by-play account of what the Tories are doing.
The license fee payers pay for this: ie. everyone who watches broadcast TV in the UK.
It used to be, rightly, the Foreign Office who paid for it - rightly because its aim is to spread British propaganda throughout the world, but the (Murdoch-loving, privatise everything including your mum) Tories hate the BBC and so forced them to take it under their budget (in between the other hacks and slashes at their budget). So now you have the rather absurd and indefensible position where license fee payers are funding the British government's outreach objectives to North Korea (et al.), instead of having that money being used to provide programming they can enjoy/use/ignore/complain about.
The reason this happened is largely yet another spineless tit at the head of the BBC. One in a long line, I'm afraid. The last decent one was chucked out (Greg Dyke) for daring to allow a modicum of criticism of Tony's Big Iraqi Adventure. Now the BBC is fast becoming a shadow of its former self and is often considerably editorially compromised by the Conservative party's agenda (as often communicated through the posessed-by-evil pages of the hateful Daily Mail).
I was looking at one yesterday regarding this story.
Have a look at blid.de (it's in German) - it does exactly what OP was talking about.