Internet hype. Like many other speculative investments made in the dot com era and CDO meltdown into that were backed by 100% pure hand-picked gluten-free organic non-GMO shit from a horse.
This is one of the biggest slam dunks in bipartisan issues going today. 83% overall support keeping the rules. 75% of Republicans polled support keeping it. 89% of Democrats polled want the rules to stay the same. 86% of Independents polled want the rules.
Very rarely do issues come along where it is a slam dunk with voters.
Yes, because the Senate's time is far better spent giving yet more speeches to an empty gallery on non-binding resolutions to limit non-binding resolutions. Or having a 'colloquy' with another Senator that has the exact same stance on something, playing like it's an actual discussion when it's just more noise to get some footage from CSPAN for the Committee to Re-elect to use in the next 15-second TV spot that will aire during Monday Night Football.
If the Senate isn't actually debating on and voting for legislation, then what the hell do you think they should be doing? Attending fundraisers being thrown by the telecoms?
Yeah, forcing elected representatives to actually publicly declare their stance on government policy that affects their constituents on a day-to-day basis in a recorded vote has no virtue whatsoever. Why bother with something like that? What a waste of time!
Sometimes it's worth it to get a vote on record. By being able to force a floor vote, during a mid-term election year, they can force these Senators to either side with the 80% of the public that disagrees with the FCC, or side with the monopolistic corporate asshat ISPs that are jamming this down everyone's throats through lobbyists and schmoozing 5 unelected guys who apparently set the rules with their sole oversight being a Congressional rubber stamp session.
Let them vote no, and then hammer them with it relentlessly for the next 10 months, showing that Senator Porkbelly votes against not only your interests, but 4 out of 5 voters' interests. Make it the biggest issue of the campaign, and make Senator Porkbelly explain themselves and their vote at every single public event of their campaign.
And if you have the phone to decrypt, you likely already have a suspect in custody based on other evidence and probable cause. You can make an argument that decrypting the phone's contents may identify co-conspirators, but it's weak.
may identify. Possibly. Maybe.
They're going to need more than that weak shit argument to justify putting some slip-shod patchwork hack nonsense into the same encryption that protects literally billions of dollars of financial transfers and transactions every day. Besides, we saw what a bang-up job the government did with protecting those TSA keys that can unlock literally anyone's luggage, didn't we? Why the fuck would you trust them with something that could be used to unlock entire networks, databases, etc. in real time?
If it exists, it will get out. See: all the NSA disclosures and leaks. And when it does, we're all fucked.
Spoiler alert: it's always been possible to use undecipherable encryption to communicate with co-conspirators without law enforcement being able to do jack shit about it. It's just easier now. So why don't we need laws against the use of pen-and-paper substitution ciphers, again? Guess what, that's worked to keep people from being able to read stuff since the middle ages, and still works just as good today. Also, we should probably ban envelopes, because they really get in the way.
You're acting like murders and kidnappings were unsolvable previous to smartphones being a thing, and that's hilarious. By far, most murders are solved through forensics, canvassing the neighborhood, identifying and interviewing witnesses, and good old fashioned policework that can be banged out on a typewriter. And did you just literally make a "think of the children" argument in favor of hobbled encryption?
Seriously?
Also, how would breaking encryption move the needle AT ALL on your average kidnapping case? In order to have something to decrypt, you would have already had to know who the kidnapper is and be at the very least attempting to wiretap, if not already holding someone in custody. That all requires warrants and court orders that themselves require probable cause whether encryption is in use or not - and it's not like you can encrypt the kid who's been taken. Unless it's some conspiracy Hollywood-esque "Taken" type affair, the use of cryptography in a kidnapping case would be tangental at best, unless the kidnappers themselves are fucking idiots that deserve to be caught and locked up because they are using Whatsapp or some shit to send ransom demands. In which case there is still likely metadata that actually can be obtained under subpoena and acted upon that isn't encrypted such as originating IP address, geo-location, ISP billing data, etc. Even if they are going through a VPN provider, that VPN provider would have records that are subject to subpoena.
I guess I just wonder how the FBI made any other case, ever, without the ability to post-facto dig through any and all communication from the accused. It's not like secure communications are some new concept - it literally goes back many hundreds of years.
What did the FBI forget about investigation since the smartphone era began? And why?
Yes, this will prevent open-air sniffing of your packets.
VPN or HTTPS is still better, because after those packets arrive at the access point, they are unencrypted over whatever wire the AP is plugged into. WPA only covers the wireless link; HTTPS or VPN (or both!) encrypt much farther through the network, if not the whole way.
The first thing I do on an open WiFi network is connect to a VPN.
Microsoft is not forcing you to uninstall the third party solution. Microsoft is not usurping the third party solution in favor of their own. Microsoft is not saying "no more updates if you use third party AV." They are simply saying "we're not installing updates that have the potential for Bad Things (tm) until any anti-virus solution you have installed sets a flag telling us it's okay to proceed."
You are no more locked in, or out, than you were before, to literally anything. If you aren't getting updates from your AV vendor that will set this flag, that's between you and the AV vendor.
I guess what I want to know is what happens if you have Windows Defender disabled, and don't have any other AV installed - does this bit never get set and you just lose Windows Update without manually setting it? That's probably not the best design, but I imagine there aren't a lot of people "brave" enough to run Windows without antivirus of some kind these days.
Really what it comes down to, is that someone will be inconvenienced. Microsoft chose you, instead of themselves - they don't want to maintain two kernels for the same architecture and double all their QA test plans for basically forever.
So the question you should ask yourself, is why you chose Microsoft.
I think this is a move on Microsoft's part to be a little more adult than they have been in the past, and give these third party software vendors a bit more time to work around a change that would completely disable their software, if not the whole computer, due to hackery involved in how these AV softwares work.
Past Microsoft would have just chucked the patch out saying "important security update available! Install now!" and then act with total indifference when your OS load is left as a twisted flaming wreck, and blame the AV vendor. Present Microsoft seems to actually give a shit about not bombing millions of PCs just because of a knee-jerk reaction to a legitimate security vulnerability with no known exploits.
I think I like Present Microsoft a lot better than Past Microsoft. I still dislike Windows, though 10 is far better than the abomination that was Windows 8.
Don't worry, the "share more" phase alluded to in TFS will be when they announce a completely different service that does the same thing, using the same technologies; but somehow none of the devices you already have will be able to make use of it, and then they will summarily execute Google Pay.
According to TFA, he sold every share, and exercised every option he could while still retaining exactly the amount of shares necessary to comply with his employment agreement.
Short version: He unloaded everything he could and still remain CEO.
Further questions: when exactly did Intel learn of the problem? When exactly did Mr. Krzanich learn of the problem? When exactly did Mr. Krzanich file the pre-arranged stock sale plan (10b5-1)?
If those all happen in a sequence, he needs to go to fucking jail. By the way, Intel employees are given restricted stock grants as part of their performance reviews - how many employees are getting the shaft on unvested shares while this guy cashes out ahead of bad news?
Yeah, spend shedloads more money and add complexity because Google and Amazon are in an anticompetitive pissing match. That'll show 'em, especially if you buy all your small, cheap, media PC parts from Amazon!
It may be priced that way, but take a look at the transaction record of every single time you've ever bought fuel - it's always in dollars and cents, rounded.
I have no idea what the significance of the use of mils is other than "that's how it's always been done" and it probably makes a difference if buying more than 100 gallons at a time. It's also common in kWh rates, but you buy hundreds per month, but still pay in dollars and cents, rounded.
Slashdot Mirror
"what is the driving force behind owning it?"
Internet hype. Like many other speculative investments made in the dot com era and CDO meltdown into that were backed by 100% pure hand-picked gluten-free organic non-GMO shit from a horse.
You want a citation? here it is.
This is one of the biggest slam dunks in bipartisan issues going today. 83% overall support keeping the rules. 75% of Republicans polled support keeping it. 89% of Democrats polled want the rules to stay the same. 86% of Independents polled want the rules.
Very rarely do issues come along where it is a slam dunk with voters.
Yes, because the Senate's time is far better spent giving yet more speeches to an empty gallery on non-binding resolutions to limit non-binding resolutions. Or having a 'colloquy' with another Senator that has the exact same stance on something, playing like it's an actual discussion when it's just more noise to get some footage from CSPAN for the Committee to Re-elect to use in the next 15-second TV spot that will aire during Monday Night Football.
If the Senate isn't actually debating on and voting for legislation, then what the hell do you think they should be doing? Attending fundraisers being thrown by the telecoms?
Yeah, forcing elected representatives to actually publicly declare their stance on government policy that affects their constituents on a day-to-day basis in a recorded vote has no virtue whatsoever. Why bother with something like that? What a waste of time!
Sometimes it's worth it to get a vote on record. By being able to force a floor vote, during a mid-term election year, they can force these Senators to either side with the 80% of the public that disagrees with the FCC, or side with the monopolistic corporate asshat ISPs that are jamming this down everyone's throats through lobbyists and schmoozing 5 unelected guys who apparently set the rules with their sole oversight being a Congressional rubber stamp session.
Let them vote no, and then hammer them with it relentlessly for the next 10 months, showing that Senator Porkbelly votes against not only your interests, but 4 out of 5 voters' interests. Make it the biggest issue of the campaign, and make Senator Porkbelly explain themselves and their vote at every single public event of their campaign.
I did know that. However, they still made the decision to do that at one point, and they didn't reverse that until the somewhat recent past.
So the question stands: Who the hell decided that was a good idea?
For businesses, you can buy through Dell and have them image it without this crap on there.
Windows 8 was preschool children - it may as well have had the "tiles" outlined in crayon.
Windows 10 is at least 3rd grade UI.
Unfortunately, that font will be rendered in kernel space, because there have never been any security vulnerabilities in fonts...
Who the hell decided that was a good idea?
I'm pretty sure they already do that. It's called "contempt of court."
And if you have the phone to decrypt, you likely already have a suspect in custody based on other evidence and probable cause. You can make an argument that decrypting the phone's contents may identify co-conspirators, but it's weak.
may identify. Possibly. Maybe.
They're going to need more than that weak shit argument to justify putting some slip-shod patchwork hack nonsense into the same encryption that protects literally billions of dollars of financial transfers and transactions every day. Besides, we saw what a bang-up job the government did with protecting those TSA keys that can unlock literally anyone's luggage, didn't we? Why the fuck would you trust them with something that could be used to unlock entire networks, databases, etc. in real time?
If it exists, it will get out. See: all the NSA disclosures and leaks. And when it does, we're all fucked.
Spoiler alert: it's always been possible to use undecipherable encryption to communicate with co-conspirators without law enforcement being able to do jack shit about it. It's just easier now. So why don't we need laws against the use of pen-and-paper substitution ciphers, again? Guess what, that's worked to keep people from being able to read stuff since the middle ages, and still works just as good today. Also, we should probably ban envelopes, because they really get in the way.
You're acting like murders and kidnappings were unsolvable previous to smartphones being a thing, and that's hilarious. By far, most murders are solved through forensics, canvassing the neighborhood, identifying and interviewing witnesses, and good old fashioned policework that can be banged out on a typewriter. And did you just literally make a "think of the children" argument in favor of hobbled encryption?
Seriously?
Also, how would breaking encryption move the needle AT ALL on your average kidnapping case? In order to have something to decrypt, you would have already had to know who the kidnapper is and be at the very least attempting to wiretap, if not already holding someone in custody. That all requires warrants and court orders that themselves require probable cause whether encryption is in use or not - and it's not like you can encrypt the kid who's been taken. Unless it's some conspiracy Hollywood-esque "Taken" type affair, the use of cryptography in a kidnapping case would be tangental at best, unless the kidnappers themselves are fucking idiots that deserve to be caught and locked up because they are using Whatsapp or some shit to send ransom demands. In which case there is still likely metadata that actually can be obtained under subpoena and acted upon that isn't encrypted such as originating IP address, geo-location, ISP billing data, etc. Even if they are going through a VPN provider, that VPN provider would have records that are subject to subpoena.
I just don't see it.
I guess I just wonder how the FBI made any other case, ever, without the ability to post-facto dig through any and all communication from the accused. It's not like secure communications are some new concept - it literally goes back many hundreds of years.
What did the FBI forget about investigation since the smartphone era began? And why?
Yes, this will prevent open-air sniffing of your packets.
VPN or HTTPS is still better, because after those packets arrive at the access point, they are unencrypted over whatever wire the AP is plugged into. WPA only covers the wireless link; HTTPS or VPN (or both!) encrypt much farther through the network, if not the whole way.
The first thing I do on an open WiFi network is connect to a VPN.
How is it vendor lock-in?
Microsoft is not forcing you to uninstall the third party solution. Microsoft is not usurping the third party solution in favor of their own. Microsoft is not saying "no more updates if you use third party AV." They are simply saying "we're not installing updates that have the potential for Bad Things (tm) until any anti-virus solution you have installed sets a flag telling us it's okay to proceed."
You are no more locked in, or out, than you were before, to literally anything. If you aren't getting updates from your AV vendor that will set this flag, that's between you and the AV vendor.
I guess what I want to know is what happens if you have Windows Defender disabled, and don't have any other AV installed - does this bit never get set and you just lose Windows Update without manually setting it? That's probably not the best design, but I imagine there aren't a lot of people "brave" enough to run Windows without antivirus of some kind these days.
Really what it comes down to, is that someone will be inconvenienced. Microsoft chose you, instead of themselves - they don't want to maintain two kernels for the same architecture and double all their QA test plans for basically forever.
So the question you should ask yourself, is why you chose Microsoft.
If he can find unbreakable encryption to be an urgent public safety issue, can I find him to be an urgent public privacy issue?
Also, no amount of wishing will put the AES-256 toothpaste back in the tube. Because, math.
I think this is a move on Microsoft's part to be a little more adult than they have been in the past, and give these third party software vendors a bit more time to work around a change that would completely disable their software, if not the whole computer, due to hackery involved in how these AV softwares work.
Past Microsoft would have just chucked the patch out saying "important security update available! Install now!" and then act with total indifference when your OS load is left as a twisted flaming wreck, and blame the AV vendor. Present Microsoft seems to actually give a shit about not bombing millions of PCs just because of a knee-jerk reaction to a legitimate security vulnerability with no known exploits.
I think I like Present Microsoft a lot better than Past Microsoft. I still dislike Windows, though 10 is far better than the abomination that was Windows 8.
How about "We ship silicon that is in 95% of all PCs"
Getting a taste of practically everything sometimes adds up to more than all of very little.
Don't worry, the "share more" phase alluded to in TFS will be when they announce a completely different service that does the same thing, using the same technologies; but somehow none of the devices you already have will be able to make use of it, and then they will summarily execute Google Pay.
Yeah, but that's not very appy.
Bow to your Gappsung Pay overlords!
According to TFA, he sold every share, and exercised every option he could while still retaining exactly the amount of shares necessary to comply with his employment agreement.
Short version: He unloaded everything he could and still remain CEO.
Further questions: when exactly did Intel learn of the problem? When exactly did Mr. Krzanich learn of the problem? When exactly did Mr. Krzanich file the pre-arranged stock sale plan (10b5-1)?
If those all happen in a sequence, he needs to go to fucking jail. By the way, Intel employees are given restricted stock grants as part of their performance reviews - how many employees are getting the shaft on unvested shares while this guy cashes out ahead of bad news?
Yeah, spend shedloads more money and add complexity because Google and Amazon are in an anticompetitive pissing match. That'll show 'em, especially if you buy all your small, cheap, media PC parts from Amazon!
It may be priced that way, but take a look at the transaction record of every single time you've ever bought fuel - it's always in dollars and cents, rounded.
I have no idea what the significance of the use of mils is other than "that's how it's always been done" and it probably makes a difference if buying more than 100 gallons at a time. It's also common in kWh rates, but you buy hundreds per month, but still pay in dollars and cents, rounded.