Has any software vendor of note tried to sue people for public disclosure of security flaws? If so, what was the outcome?
I struggle to see a good-faith reason for WikiLeaks to require agreement to any terms before they tell vendors about these flaws. It gives the impression that they want the bugs to stay open and/or have a political stick to beat the vendors with.
They've done worse than that. They've had the prosecuted as criminals.
No need. They are just putting in backdoors in the firmware instead. Intel chipsets have been using encrypted binary blobs for years, and the new AM4 from AMD will have the same thing.
I'd be real leery of this, Google has demonstrated a history of abandoning and closing-down projects that people have come to depend upon. If this really does appeal then the developer and the users need to keep in mind that the floor could be yanked out from under them at any time with very little in the way of notice.
And they've inspired Microsoft to do the same! Azure, Office 365, Intune, all promoting services that get dropped and moving targets on how you should configure stuff. "Hey, you don't need backoffice servers, run all your management tools right here on the cloud!"... 6 months later... "Hey, we're discontinuing this service. Try something else!"
You just can't stop. You're spouting a lot of bullshit, as an apologist for tyranny.
Obama refused to implement it, perhaps because he knew the risks weren't worth it.
Total bullshit. Like he so WANTED to close Guantanamo, but the evil Congress wouldn't let him. He didn't WANT to drone American Citizens just because they were Muslims (and their families), he was FORCED to do it, right? Oh, and it was all Bush's fault. WHY did he open up all the spying collected by the NSA, in RAW form to ALL of the intelligence community, days before he left office? HMMMM???
I wasn't defending Trump, but you were defending some of the really nasty shit that the Obama administration did. Your only response is to divert attention to a bunch of bullshit tweets. The raid in Yemen likely was also the fault of the Obama administration - they planned it. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Obama supporters in the deep state tipped off the AQIY about the raid just to get at Trump. They are literally that corrupt.
Apparently people forget CALEA pretty much gave the government the ability to tap whatever and whenever they wanted with little to no tracking. I say this having implemented it and seeing just how open to abuse it is.
Let's not forget about the Sharyl Attkisson story. She is still in legal battles over the illegal invasion of her phones, computers, and life because she reported some uncomfortable facts about the Obama administration.
The US Congress can determine a tweet is a crime and remove the President. Some possibilities include personal enrichment, call to violence, etc. This is a difficult tool to use, but is there as an ultimate power check.
They didn't do shit to Clapper when it was proven he lied under oath to Congress. Do you seriously think they would impeach the President for a tweet?
...which is why I think Twitter needs to seriously consider removing his account. I know it'll be controversial, I know people will accuse Twitter of "censorship" (like you can shut up the President!), but their medium seems to be a serious catalyst and outlet for damaging behavior on the part of the second most powerful man on the planet, and they're pretty much the only body that can stop it.
They would be fools to do so. If they have any competitors at all, Trump simply needs to pick one of them, and Twitter would lose a ton of users overnight. It wouldn't just be Trump supporters, it would be every reporter or blogger that wants to keep up with him, all the people that want to bitch at his comments, everyone who wants to follow any one that jumps to the new platform. It would pretty much doom Twitter.
If workplaces provide more flexible schedules, allowing women to work 40 hours outside of a typical 9-5 schema, more women would be able to work full-time
It's worse because they demand that we change working hours to cater to the needs of women. In other words, by virtue of being a woman, work hours get shifted to meet your needs. I would argue that in environments where this would work, it's already happening (regardless of gender).
That's just a reasonable accommodation. Something that employers are required to provide under the ADA.
So, Twitter can do "anything they please", huh? Let's examine your premise a bit.
First, censorship can happen on a lot of levels and in a lot of places. Just because the Constitution forbids only the Federal government (and, by extension in later amendments as well as by state government Constitutions, state governments) from creating laws to censor speech, doesn't mean that what Twitter is doing here (and Facebook, Google, et.al.) isn't censorship. It is. Let's be clear about that. These companies are engaging in censorship, and they can do a great deal of it. If you're unclear just how pervasive it can be, here is a primer for you on how Google censors voices.
Next question, can they really do anything they want? Twitter and Google and other ISPs have certain protections from torts (lawsuits) through Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, a federal law. It basically says that sites like Twitter cannot be held responsible for user-generated content hosted or available from their site or services. That's a HUGE benefit provided to these companies, that individuals do not get. But, the more an operator edits or manages the user content on their site, the more they expose themselves to being liable for that content.
It leads one to wonder: If government has provided this awesome protection from liability to Twitter, wouldn't it be the responsibility of government to ensure they are providing an open platform (that is, NOT engaging in damaging censorship). The censorship Twitter and especially Google engages in is certainly damaging. There are many cases, and many lawsuits about Google silencing people. In Europe and other places with less protections for free speech, Twitter must comply with guidelines that require them to censor content, and they do just that. Governments have recognized that Google is so large and so pervasive that it is one of the few companies they can go to that can effectively censor content in their country. So clearly Twitter is much more than just some private entity among a large set of competitors. And for Google, using their "malicious website" lists, they can basically censor content at user's client computers.
Think about something else. The US government imposes a large number of regulations on businesses. Using the "public accommodation" definition, business are banned from discrimination, are required to accommodate the needs of the disabled, provide specific services for patrons on an equal basis, and much more. The FCC requires broadcasters to submit ways that they are of benefit to the community. We have common carrier rules that prohibit censorship over some communication channels. In many ways, Twitter is identical to a common carrier, but with even greater influence over communications.
With only 6 corporations controlling most of the media, and only 3 companies controlling most of the Internet, I think it's time we were a little more realistic about what is happening and what can be done about it. These companies can control the narrative and basically mind-control vast portions of the public.
Do we really want to just throw up our hands and declare "Well they're private companies they can do anything they want?" Even when the result could be controlling the opinions and minds of most of the country?
Don't worry Congress & the Cheeto'n Charge will fix that so they don't have to worry about paying UI for the deadbeats they're getting rid of.
If UI (and workforce services, and reemployment services) had actually done anything except help leeches avoid working, Trump would not have been elected anyway.
I see we have another well informed Republican.
Oh, sorry. I thought we were still going by the white working class not getting support idea. I forgot we were now on the "It's Russia's fault" narrative.
Termination being acceptable by either party for any legal reason... why do these special snowflakes think they are better than the rest of us?
The practice is completely illegal in the United States because of labor laws. You can certainly get rid of people, but you can't transfer them to a subsidiary to do it, that's considered Unemployment Insurance fraud. Companies pay UI tax based on their history of employment and layoffs, and benefits are based on the amount of time people worked at the company. When you transfer people to another company before getting rid of them, it hides your real employment figures and that of the employees, fraudulently providing yourself a tax benefit.
I don't know what the system is like in Canada, but in the US they would be civilly AND criminally liable based on Federal law and state statutes.
Are you really that dense? This is just for show. The cops will keep on illegally using it to spy on people, without warrants. They don't have to use it in court, just to spy on people and help them set up the situation.
It's actually worse than that. It's a Trojan horse. Note the final paragraph: "It also aims to combat high-tech stalking by creating criminal penalties for secretly using an electronic device to track someone's movements." Yea, they claim a goal, but that won't be part of the bill, just a new criminal penalty they can use to bludgeon citizens with. I guarantee no law enforcement will ever be charged with that new "crime", but you'll see it pop up in all kinds of indictments of anyone else the feds want to go after. This would make it illegal to, for example, use FindMyiPhone to figure out where your stolen phone is. Illegal to track your kids using either their phone or your car's GPS. EVERY divorce will have lawyers using this to try to get indictments of spouses. If you try to prove your wife was cheating on you by showing how you followed their location, you've now confessed to a crime. I'm sure there are LOTS of scenarios I'm not thinking of right now, but you can be sure that prosecutors will come up with lots of novel ones.
The only way it's "like earth" is that it's a planet. It's way hotter than earth, much larger (thus the "super" adjective), closer to its star, etc. These astronomers really have an extremely wide brush they use when calling a planet "earth like". Oh, and guess what - the star it was orbiting is "sun-like". Sounds great! When can we go?
Slovenia was communist, and it was part of Yugoslavia when Melania was peddling her ass over there. While Yugoslavia was technically an "independent" state, it was really just a satellite of the USSR.
You could have done without the disgustingly derogatory remark about Melania's ass. Way to keep it classy. Also, USSR is NOT Russia, Yugoslavians are NOT Russians. They were VICTIMS of the failed socialist empire, and escaped as soon as they could. Claiming someone from Slovenia is Russian is like claiming everyone in Tibet is Chinese.
What's wrong with Huawei phones? I considered buying one when I was shopping for a phone last year. I ended up getting one from Alcatel, but the Huawei phones had really good reviews and all the features I was looking for, and made my short list. They were a very popular alternative to the big (and expensive) brands.
There is lots of blame to go around. Or are you seriously trying to claim that Russia had nothing to do with this election?
That's right, Russia had nothing to do with the election. Russia is the enemy of the US multinational corporations, that want control of the European energy market. Providing asylum to Snowden angered the entire military industrial complex and the intelligence community that had been fighting proxy wars with Russia for years. Most of the hot fights in the middle east are really about control of territory for pipelines. Russia wants that European market, and the US has been fighting to prevent them from getting control of it. Hillary's nod to supporting that battle came all throughout the campaign. There are elements in the US government itching for all-out war with Russia.
Most of those elements are still there, and they are working to undermine the Trump administration any way they can, just to get the Russia hate ramped back up. I think Trump believes there is a way to SHARE the European energy market. Not sure how that's going to work, because you give up a lot of profit if you can't have monopoly control over the supplies. We will see. But I, for one, and sick of the Neo-mccarthyism, and prefer to stay out of another cold war or war at all with Russia, if it can be avoided.
The attack ads practically write themselves. All they had to do was point out that Chavez, in Venezuela, was an actual Socialist, and look how well Venezuela is doing, and Bernie will do for America what Chavez did for Venezuela. Repeat at high volume for 3 months. Heck, look at how well the attacks claiming Obama and Bill Clinton were Socialists worked, and they were nowhere near socialism.
Bernie, unlike Hillary, would've lost the popular vote too.
I don't know where you get this crap. If the DNC had not actively worked against Bernie and he had won the nomination, the entire Democratic apparatus would have put everything behind him. What swayed the election this time, as it very often does, is simply turnout. ALL the every-election voters would have come out and voted for their side (R/D), just like they did in this election. What matters is who had the enthusiasm of the voters in order to drive turnout. In this election, that went to Trump, but if Bernie had been on the democratic ticket, then at least the Dems would have had a candidate with enthusiastic voter base, and that would have turned out a LOT more people to vote for the Democrat. Claiming that Bernie would have lost the election against Trump has no credibility whatsoever. I knew all along that Trump was more likely to win, because his base was the more enthusiastic one. The size of the rallies told the tale.
Slashdot Mirror
Equally plausible: They're doing it because they're a front for the Kremlin.
Found the neoMcCarthyite.
Has any software vendor of note tried to sue people for public disclosure of security flaws? If so, what was the outcome?
I struggle to see a good-faith reason for WikiLeaks to require agreement to any terms before they tell vendors about these flaws. It gives the impression that they want the bugs to stay open and/or have a political stick to beat the vendors with.
They've done worse than that. They've had the prosecuted as criminals.
Pure BS. No way he's trying to extort money from them. Someone would have posted the terms by now. Not like Mozilla is going to pay up, either.
No need. They are just putting in backdoors in the firmware instead. Intel chipsets have been using encrypted binary blobs for years, and the new AM4 from AMD will have the same thing.
:) do sources! seeing this too
I'd be real leery of this, Google has demonstrated a history of abandoning and closing-down projects that people have come to depend upon. If this really does appeal then the developer and the users need to keep in mind that the floor could be yanked out from under them at any time with very little in the way of notice.
And they've inspired Microsoft to do the same! Azure, Office 365, Intune, all promoting services that get dropped and moving targets on how you should configure stuff. "Hey, you don't need backoffice servers, run all your management tools right here on the cloud!" ... 6 months later ... "Hey, we're discontinuing this service. Try something else!"
You just can't stop. You're spouting a lot of bullshit, as an apologist for tyranny.
Obama refused to implement it, perhaps because he knew the risks weren't worth it.
Total bullshit. Like he so WANTED to close Guantanamo, but the evil Congress wouldn't let him. He didn't WANT to drone American Citizens just because they were Muslims (and their families), he was FORCED to do it, right? Oh, and it was all Bush's fault. WHY did he open up all the spying collected by the NSA, in RAW form to ALL of the intelligence community, days before he left office? HMMMM???
Shill.
I wasn't defending Trump, but you were defending some of the really nasty shit that the Obama administration did. Your only response is to divert attention to a bunch of bullshit tweets. The raid in Yemen likely was also the fault of the Obama administration - they planned it. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Obama supporters in the deep state tipped off the AQIY about the raid just to get at Trump. They are literally that corrupt.
TL;DR:
"It's okay when my guy does it!"
Apparently people forget CALEA pretty much gave the government the ability to tap whatever and whenever they wanted with little to no tracking. I say this having implemented it and seeing just how open to abuse it is.
And, of course, just before leaving office, Obama ordered that the NSA provide all their collected intelligence information, in the raw, to the entire IC community, making it "widely disseminated."
Let's not forget about the Sharyl Attkisson story. She is still in legal battles over the illegal invasion of her phones, computers, and life because she reported some uncomfortable facts about the Obama administration.
The US Congress can determine a tweet is a crime and remove the President. Some possibilities include personal enrichment, call to violence, etc. This is a difficult tool to use, but is there as an ultimate power check.
They didn't do shit to Clapper when it was proven he lied under oath to Congress. Do you seriously think they would impeach the President for a tweet?
They would be fools to do so. If they have any competitors at all, Trump simply needs to pick one of them, and Twitter would lose a ton of users overnight. It wouldn't just be Trump supporters, it would be every reporter or blogger that wants to keep up with him, all the people that want to bitch at his comments, everyone who wants to follow any one that jumps to the new platform. It would pretty much doom Twitter.
We're gonna win so much, we're gonna get tired of winning!
If workplaces provide more flexible schedules, allowing women to work 40 hours outside of a typical 9-5 schema, more women would be able to work full-time
It's worse because they demand that we change working hours to cater to the needs of women. In other words, by virtue of being a woman, work hours get shifted to meet your needs. I would argue that in environments where this would work, it's already happening (regardless of gender).
That's just a reasonable accommodation. Something that employers are required to provide under the ADA.
;)
They fall under the definition of an "ISP" as defined in the CDA and section 230.
So, Twitter can do "anything they please", huh? Let's examine your premise a bit.
First, censorship can happen on a lot of levels and in a lot of places. Just because the Constitution forbids only the Federal government (and, by extension in later amendments as well as by state government Constitutions, state governments) from creating laws to censor speech, doesn't mean that what Twitter is doing here (and Facebook, Google, et.al.) isn't censorship. It is. Let's be clear about that. These companies are engaging in censorship, and they can do a great deal of it. If you're unclear just how pervasive it can be, here is a primer for you on how Google censors voices.
Next question, can they really do anything they want? Twitter and Google and other ISPs have certain protections from torts (lawsuits) through Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, a federal law. It basically says that sites like Twitter cannot be held responsible for user-generated content hosted or available from their site or services. That's a HUGE benefit provided to these companies, that individuals do not get. But, the more an operator edits or manages the user content on their site, the more they expose themselves to being liable for that content.
It leads one to wonder: If government has provided this awesome protection from liability to Twitter, wouldn't it be the responsibility of government to ensure they are providing an open platform (that is, NOT engaging in damaging censorship). The censorship Twitter and especially Google engages in is certainly damaging. There are many cases, and many lawsuits about Google silencing people. In Europe and other places with less protections for free speech, Twitter must comply with guidelines that require them to censor content, and they do just that. Governments have recognized that Google is so large and so pervasive that it is one of the few companies they can go to that can effectively censor content in their country. So clearly Twitter is much more than just some private entity among a large set of competitors. And for Google, using their "malicious website" lists, they can basically censor content at user's client computers.
Think about something else. The US government imposes a large number of regulations on businesses. Using the "public accommodation" definition, business are banned from discrimination, are required to accommodate the needs of the disabled, provide specific services for patrons on an equal basis, and much more. The FCC requires broadcasters to submit ways that they are of benefit to the community. We have common carrier rules that prohibit censorship over some communication channels. In many ways, Twitter is identical to a common carrier, but with even greater influence over communications.
With only 6 corporations controlling most of the media, and only 3 companies controlling most of the Internet, I think it's time we were a little more realistic about what is happening and what can be done about it. These companies can control the narrative and basically mind-control vast portions of the public.
Do we really want to just throw up our hands and declare "Well they're private companies they can do anything they want?" Even when the result could be controlling the opinions and minds of most of the country?
Don't worry Congress & the Cheeto'n Charge will fix that so they don't have to worry about paying UI for the deadbeats they're getting rid of.
If UI (and workforce services, and reemployment services) had actually done anything except help leeches avoid working, Trump would not have been elected anyway.
I see we have another well informed Republican.
Oh, sorry. I thought we were still going by the white working class not getting support idea. I forgot we were now on the "It's Russia's fault" narrative.
Termination being acceptable by either party for any legal reason... why do these special snowflakes think they are better than the rest of us?
The practice is completely illegal in the United States because of labor laws. You can certainly get rid of people, but you can't transfer them to a subsidiary to do it, that's considered Unemployment Insurance fraud. Companies pay UI tax based on their history of employment and layoffs, and benefits are based on the amount of time people worked at the company. When you transfer people to another company before getting rid of them, it hides your real employment figures and that of the employees, fraudulently providing yourself a tax benefit.
I don't know what the system is like in Canada, but in the US they would be civilly AND criminally liable based on Federal law and state statutes.
Are you really that dense? This is just for show. The cops will keep on illegally using it to spy on people, without warrants. They don't have to use it in court, just to spy on people and help them set up the situation.
It's actually worse than that. It's a Trojan horse. Note the final paragraph: "It also aims to combat high-tech stalking by creating criminal penalties for secretly using an electronic device to track someone's movements." Yea, they claim a goal, but that won't be part of the bill, just a new criminal penalty they can use to bludgeon citizens with. I guarantee no law enforcement will ever be charged with that new "crime", but you'll see it pop up in all kinds of indictments of anyone else the feds want to go after. This would make it illegal to, for example, use FindMyiPhone to figure out where your stolen phone is. Illegal to track your kids using either their phone or your car's GPS. EVERY divorce will have lawyers using this to try to get indictments of spouses. If you try to prove your wife was cheating on you by showing how you followed their location, you've now confessed to a crime. I'm sure there are LOTS of scenarios I'm not thinking of right now, but you can be sure that prosecutors will come up with lots of novel ones.
The only way it's "like earth" is that it's a planet. It's way hotter than earth, much larger (thus the "super" adjective), closer to its star, etc. These astronomers really have an extremely wide brush they use when calling a planet "earth like". Oh, and guess what - the star it was orbiting is "sun-like". Sounds great! When can we go?
Slovenia was communist, and it was part of Yugoslavia when Melania was peddling her ass over there. While Yugoslavia was technically an "independent" state, it was really just a satellite of the USSR.
You could have done without the disgustingly derogatory remark about Melania's ass. Way to keep it classy. Also, USSR is NOT Russia, Yugoslavians are NOT Russians. They were VICTIMS of the failed socialist empire, and escaped as soon as they could. Claiming someone from Slovenia is Russian is like claiming everyone in Tibet is Chinese.
As opposed to Huawei?
What's wrong with Huawei phones? I considered buying one when I was shopping for a phone last year. I ended up getting one from Alcatel, but the Huawei phones had really good reviews and all the features I was looking for, and made my short list. They were a very popular alternative to the big (and expensive) brands.
There is lots of blame to go around. Or are you seriously trying to claim that Russia had nothing to do with this election?
That's right, Russia had nothing to do with the election. Russia is the enemy of the US multinational corporations, that want control of the European energy market. Providing asylum to Snowden angered the entire military industrial complex and the intelligence community that had been fighting proxy wars with Russia for years. Most of the hot fights in the middle east are really about control of territory for pipelines. Russia wants that European market, and the US has been fighting to prevent them from getting control of it. Hillary's nod to supporting that battle came all throughout the campaign. There are elements in the US government itching for all-out war with Russia.
Most of those elements are still there, and they are working to undermine the Trump administration any way they can, just to get the Russia hate ramped back up. I think Trump believes there is a way to SHARE the European energy market. Not sure how that's going to work, because you give up a lot of profit if you can't have monopoly control over the supplies. We will see. But I, for one, and sick of the Neo-mccarthyism, and prefer to stay out of another cold war or war at all with Russia, if it can be avoided.
The attack ads practically write themselves. All they had to do was point out that Chavez, in Venezuela, was an actual Socialist, and look how well Venezuela is doing, and Bernie will do for America what Chavez did for Venezuela. Repeat at high volume for 3 months. Heck, look at how well the attacks claiming Obama and Bill Clinton were Socialists worked, and they were nowhere near socialism.
Bernie, unlike Hillary, would've lost the popular vote too.
I don't know where you get this crap. If the DNC had not actively worked against Bernie and he had won the nomination, the entire Democratic apparatus would have put everything behind him. What swayed the election this time, as it very often does, is simply turnout. ALL the every-election voters would have come out and voted for their side (R/D), just like they did in this election. What matters is who had the enthusiasm of the voters in order to drive turnout. In this election, that went to Trump, but if Bernie had been on the democratic ticket, then at least the Dems would have had a candidate with enthusiastic voter base, and that would have turned out a LOT more people to vote for the Democrat. Claiming that Bernie would have lost the election against Trump has no credibility whatsoever. I knew all along that Trump was more likely to win, because his base was the more enthusiastic one. The size of the rallies told the tale.