This isn't so much about security as it is about a consistent revenue stream. They're following the "Gillette" model where they take a loss with their actual product, but make up the money in the sale of accessories.
Sony is notorious for this. They have memory sticks that only work with Sony products. This is why I will never buy a Sony product.
True story: there was a PhD professor who called the helpdesk several times to ask us how to print.
Seriously.
This professor was notorious for asking the stupidest questions from someone who really should have know better. If I remember right, he was a kernel theorist or something obscure. He was tenured.
When I worked for my college's CompSci department, my coworkers and I were responsible for the incremental backups.
One day, we got a call from a professor who accidentally deleted a bunch of data, totally several gigs. When we restored the data, it turned out it was his pr0n folder. We never let him forget that we can see his data.
I'll echo many of the other comments here: It's not really the fact it logs everything. The question is what is it doing with that information.
While I'm not a full-fledged hacker, I know enough about logging and event triggering to know that the computer has to be able to keep track of events so that things that rely on events can be triggered. The best examine is browser events. If there's code to pop-up a window on a click, the browser has to register the click somewhere and the handler has to then pass the buck to function to open the window.
If Carrier IQ proper is collecting this data -- for any reason -- it should be disclosed and it should be able to be turned off. If Android, Apple, et al is using Carrier IQ has an event logger, it should be clear that the information is internal to the phone and is not available to other applications.
Overall, it seems like Android, Apple, et al got caught with their pants down. Assuming the best, they just forgot to mention that this software was a part of their OS.
What I meant to say is that despite all of the headaches with airport security (no matter where you are), the biggest risks are the ones that no one expects.
I'm surprised no one has done this intentionally yet.
I see this all the time at my job. The third-tier support are click monkeys. They don't know how to actually manage a domain, but they know how to type and click. So some company makes a GUI for managing users, policies, etc that's as simple is "red light-green light". When we ask them what actually was changed, they have no clue.
It's cheaper to hire click monkeys than to actually hire a Windows Domain Engineer, but they figure that the cost-benefit is better.
The only problem I see with treating internet access like a utility is that the constant changing of technology.
The technology to bring water to a house is roughly stagnant. Sure, there's new switches and gates, etc but overall, it's about pipes.
Electricity is a closer corollary but still has problems. It's relatively static (pun intended) and there isn't a lot of new technologies.
With the internet, you have coax and fiber. I'm sure someone is working on something even faster. The technology isn't settled yet to make access a right. Not saying that it shouldn't be. Definitely agree it should be, but how this works out in practice will determine whether it will actually get passed.
Back when google was cool and actually believed in "do no evil", it supported net neutrality the way most people understand it.
Ask the common geek, I would assume many of them would agree the following should be defined as Net Neutrality: * Treat all data equally, regardless of source. (e.g. data from Bob's Video Shack would be treated the same as Netflix) * Do not block services (e.g. BitTorrent should not be blocked) * Do not block web sites (e.g. Comcast/NBC should not block access to ABC/CBS/etc) * and probably a few I'm forgetting.
If an ISP wants to charge more for bandwidth, that's understandable. It's a limited resource.
But I shouldn't have to pay more to visit netflix just because 75% of the traffic goes there. I already paid for the bandwidth!
The problem I see is that corporations who control content and access are trying to define "Net Neutrality", when really they are defining a set of policies to make them more money. Maybe before putting together regulations and laws, IETF can get together a RFC of what Net Neutrality should be.
This may be a bit off-topic, so I apologize. I know that content publishers nag and nag about losing revenue so they punish the people who actually pay for the privilege.
I wonder how much piracy would happen if publishers just trusted their users and released videos without horrible amounts of DRM. (My biggest pet peeve is not being able to just play a Blu Ray disc but having to sit through at least 15 minutes of ads.)
While I know some bad eggs would copy the file, isn't it being done regardless? So my question is DRM the only thing keeping HTML5 from really taking off?
I graduated with a liberal arts degree so not all of us remember everything from science class...
which leads me to this question: I understand why you can't have fans in space (lack of air). But why couldn't you just expose the processor to the vacuum of space? Obviously, with some sort of shielding for radiation, space debris, etc.
I know that water-cooled processors pretty much just expose water-filled pipes to the actual processor and then cycle it around thus cooling it off. But with just a vacuum, couldn't that heat just go out as energy?
He's okay with exploiting legal loopholes but when people want to jailbreak their phones, it's all of the sudden "let's get litigious and sue anyone that does this!"
I would have at least given him props if he would have said, "Any item that has more than 25K votes will be presented as a bill on the floor of the house/senate."
...that summarized that the reason MPAA and RIAA get their panties in a bunch is because they no longer control the market? They've always controlled distribution, sales, etc. Now, artists have less and less of a need to have a publisher since they can publish directly to itunes, amazon, etc. leaving the companies in the analog dust.
My issue with legit copies is that there is sometimes so much protection and so much annoyances (e.g. FORCING me to watch an ad on a DVD) that it's almost easier and more convenient to pirate.
Not sure if you're serious but I'll reply to inform the masses.
In most jurisdictions, your right to legal council is not limited by the phone calls you can make. You can make as many phone calls as necessary to retain a lawyer.
I've found that if it's *REALLY* important (e.g. life or death), they will call several times before giving up.
For example, when my sister was in the hospital, her boyfriend called my phone several times. I didn't have his number so I didn't answer it. He left a message the first time and told me that he'd keep trying to call.
By his third call, I realized the same number just tried to call and it must be an emergency.
Creditors usually don't do this since they get paid only if you pi
The only problem with this is older companies where they only have a few outgoing lines and they all read the same number. I had a company like this a while back. Not sure how many still do this...
Maybe obfuscating for the purposes of deceiving...
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't so much about security as it is about a consistent revenue stream. They're following the "Gillette" model where they take a loss with their actual product, but make up the money in the sale of accessories.
Sony is notorious for this. They have memory sticks that only work with Sony products. This is why I will never buy a Sony product.
I should have read your comment closer.
True story: there was a PhD professor who called the helpdesk several times to ask us how to print.
Seriously.
This professor was notorious for asking the stupidest questions from someone who really should have know better. If I remember right, he was a kernel theorist or something obscure. He was tenured.
Yes, I was kidding about getting A's in my programming classes.
I have a humanities degree since I couldn't pass Calculus, which was a requirement for CompSci.
I'm one of the many people who don't use their degrees. I now audit code for my company.
When I worked for my college's CompSci department, my coworkers and I were responsible for the incremental backups.
One day, we got a call from a professor who accidentally deleted a bunch of data, totally several gigs. When we restored the data, it turned out it was his pr0n folder. We never let him forget that we can see his data.
I got A's in my programming classes after that...
I've found it to be very useful since it runs DD-WRT already and has many of the features you mentioned.
It's a bit on the pricey side but I didn't want to do Linksys again after they've locked their routers.
I'll echo many of the other comments here: It's not really the fact it logs everything. The question is what is it doing with that information.
While I'm not a full-fledged hacker, I know enough about logging and event triggering to know that the computer has to be able to keep track of events so that things that rely on events can be triggered. The best examine is browser events. If there's code to pop-up a window on a click, the browser has to register the click somewhere and the handler has to then pass the buck to function to open the window.
If Carrier IQ proper is collecting this data -- for any reason -- it should be disclosed and it should be able to be turned off. If Android, Apple, et al is using Carrier IQ has an event logger, it should be clear that the information is internal to the phone and is not available to other applications.
Overall, it seems like Android, Apple, et al got caught with their pants down. Assuming the best, they just forgot to mention that this software was a part of their OS.
What I meant to say is that despite all of the headaches with airport security (no matter where you are), the biggest risks are the ones that no one expects.
I'm surprised no one has done this intentionally yet.
http://xkcd.com/651/
Seems like Randall has predicted the future again!
I don't want to start a "TSA is a bunch of idiots" thread but I'm honestly surprised that this hasn't happened more often.
I see this all the time at my job. The third-tier support are click monkeys. They don't know how to actually manage a domain, but they know how to type and click. So some company makes a GUI for managing users, policies, etc that's as simple is "red light-green light". When we ask them what actually was changed, they have no clue.
It's cheaper to hire click monkeys than to actually hire a Windows Domain Engineer, but they figure that the cost-benefit is better.
The only problem I see with treating internet access like a utility is that the constant changing of technology.
The technology to bring water to a house is roughly stagnant. Sure, there's new switches and gates, etc but overall, it's about pipes.
Electricity is a closer corollary but still has problems. It's relatively static (pun intended) and there isn't a lot of new technologies.
With the internet, you have coax and fiber. I'm sure someone is working on something even faster. The technology isn't settled yet to make access a right. Not saying that it shouldn't be. Definitely agree it should be, but how this works out in practice will determine whether it will actually get passed.
Back when google was cool and actually believed in "do no evil", it supported net neutrality the way most people understand it.
Ask the common geek, I would assume many of them would agree the following should be defined as Net Neutrality:
* Treat all data equally, regardless of source. (e.g. data from Bob's Video Shack would be treated the same as Netflix)
* Do not block services (e.g. BitTorrent should not be blocked)
* Do not block web sites (e.g. Comcast/NBC should not block access to ABC/CBS/etc)
* and probably a few I'm forgetting.
If an ISP wants to charge more for bandwidth, that's understandable. It's a limited resource.
But I shouldn't have to pay more to visit netflix just because 75% of the traffic goes there. I already paid for the bandwidth!
The problem I see is that corporations who control content and access are trying to define "Net Neutrality", when really they are defining a set of policies to make them more money. Maybe before putting together regulations and laws, IETF can get together a RFC of what Net Neutrality should be.
This may be a bit off-topic, so I apologize. I know that content publishers nag and nag about losing revenue so they punish the people who actually pay for the privilege.
I wonder how much piracy would happen if publishers just trusted their users and released videos without horrible amounts of DRM. (My biggest pet peeve is not being able to just play a Blu Ray disc but having to sit through at least 15 minutes of ads.)
While I know some bad eggs would copy the file, isn't it being done regardless? So my question is DRM the only thing keeping HTML5 from really taking off?
Ah. That makes sense. I figured heat from the sun makes it here, why doesn't the satelitr "cool off" the same way.
Then again the sun is frickin' huge.
If you ever need a deconstruction of Shakespearian plays, you can count on me.
I graduated with a liberal arts degree so not all of us remember everything from science class...
which leads me to this question: I understand why you can't have fans in space (lack of air). But why couldn't you just expose the processor to the vacuum of space? Obviously, with some sort of shielding for radiation, space debris, etc.
I know that water-cooled processors pretty much just expose water-filled pipes to the actual processor and then cycle it around thus cooling it off. But with just a vacuum, couldn't that heat just go out as energy?
I was exaggerating. They did, however, get in a tiff when a judge ruled jail-breaking was not illegal nor did it violate the DMCA
He's okay with exploiting legal loopholes but when people want to jailbreak their phones, it's all of the sudden "let's get litigious and sue anyone that does this!"
http://www.theonion.com/video/shelby-cross-teaches-us-how-to-protect-our-childre,26438/
Of course over exaggerated, but not too far fetched.
I would have at least given him props if he would have said, "Any item that has more than 25K votes will be presented as a bill on the floor of the house/senate."
At least then he could have said he tried.
I kind of wonder how many sockpuppets are behind some of these causes.
I wouldn't surprise me if we requested the IP addresses of all who registered and find that they belong to a few pet individuals.
...that summarized that the reason MPAA and RIAA get their panties in a bunch is because they no longer control the market? They've always controlled distribution, sales, etc. Now, artists have less and less of a need to have a publisher since they can publish directly to itunes, amazon, etc. leaving the companies in the analog dust.
My issue with legit copies is that there is sometimes so much protection and so much annoyances (e.g. FORCING me to watch an ad on a DVD) that it's almost easier and more convenient to pirate.
Not sure if you're serious but I'll reply to inform the masses.
In most jurisdictions, your right to legal council is not limited by the phone calls you can make. You can make as many phone calls as necessary to retain a lawyer.
I've found that if it's *REALLY* important (e.g. life or death), they will call several times before giving up.
For example, when my sister was in the hospital, her boyfriend called my phone several times. I didn't have his number so I didn't answer it. He left a message the first time and told me that he'd keep trying to call.
By his third call, I realized the same number just tried to call and it must be an emergency.
Creditors usually don't do this since they get paid only if you pi
The only problem with this is older companies where they only have a few outgoing lines and they all read the same number. I had a company like this a while back. Not sure how many still do this...
Maybe obfuscating for the purposes of deceiving...
With more people using their cell phones primarily and people cutting the landline, you know this was coming.
It was nice while it lasted. At least now, everyone can screen their calls.
A part of the law should be the ability for customers to block unknown numbers automatically.
I think the word "green" has become too flippantly used.
I don't see this as green, by which I mean will reduce greenhouse gasses.
I see this as green, by which I mean will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
Stupid environmentalists confusing everyone again.