Yep, for terms of service violation. He's still free to spout his garbage, but no private entity is required to provide him a platform. This is not a freedom of speech issue here, just basic contract law.
This is silly. They don't need to patch every possible exploit, only ones that allow privilege escalation.
OK, Mr. Armchair Problem Solver, can you just take a minute to list all those privilege escalation exploits that have been discovered by researchers, nation-states, and all others, which they are jealously guarding and will never give up voluntarily?
Frankly the people at Wired are stupid, most journalists these days are, so no surprise there.
Oh give me one big frickin' break, Elmer. Typical Slashdot response - blame the victims.
The people at Wired at just regular people juggling many things to do, and not necessarily Aspie addled, parent basement dwelling, numb nuts who obsess over crypto currency. Yes, it's unfortunate that they lost the keys, and yes it is ultimately their fault, but that doesn't make them stupid. Just makes them human.
In fact, this really points the finger back at techies like us here. We (the greater "we") created a technical product where it turns out to be common that normal users lose value, sometimes LOTS of value, as part of regular use. While some, like the parent poster, revel in technical complexity and glare at the normies who don't know how to manage this new technology, ultimately this is a gap, a hole, a glaring deficiency. It's not the users who are stupid, it's the techies who get the 'fail.'
You could build a FOSS global gossip network and it would still have it's data harvested.
Yes -- but people could audit the code and find out exactly what data was being harvested, make informed decisions, and fork it to create an alternate version that didn't harvest the same data.
Just to be clear, I don't advocate for the current situation. But I'm curious if you could elaborate on how this would work on such a "gossip network". Say a user has presence on this network, and has taken time to cultivate a list of friends, post pictures, send messages, and so forth. Then user learns that certain data is harvested, and is not happy about it, and decides to fork an alternate version.
So the user, who also has the right technical skills and available time, creates a one-off of the original gossip network and moves to it. What are the chances that all this person's friends are going to come over too? What about other users who are unhappy about different aspects of this network, who create their own one-offs? Which one do you join? Where are your friends?
With the so-called network effect, each additional user make the network more valuable. This seems like a recipe for a downward-spiraling "anti network effect."
Sounds like you are serious, can't tell if you are being facetious.
So if you want to browse to a different site, you switch logins to another user account? To each his own, I suppose. That would drive me nuts in no time fast.
Of course you realize that the advertisers are not fooled, and can gather up and identify scattered requests all having the same IP address, with the same CPU ID, with the same set of fonts loaded, and many other uniquifying tricks like hidden <canvas> element renderings...
After several years of our so-called "leaders" casting their eyes down, looking to the past, and pitting one against another in a zero-sum game, it is exhilarating to see what happened today.
America is greatest when we look for hard - some might say impossible - challenges and go for it.
I never understood why instead of contacting a company directly through well established means of bi-directional communication, people post something on the equivalent of a huge public office corkboard and hope that a potential recipient picks it up from there from among those billions of tweets sent every minute.
Sunshine, my friend. From a customer standpoint, having your own and others' interactions out in the daylight incentivizes the company to deal with them in a way that satisfies the customer. Companies are not so interested in leaving unanswered unfavorable opinions or problems that reveal patterns in such an easily-searchable, quantifiable, public medium.
Because you don't always know ahead of time what will turn out to be valuable. So the standard operating procedure these days is to collect everything. Over time, historical data becomes valuable as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Wish I had some mod points for you today.
That's why this guy went SPLAT!.
No, it seems pretty clear he went splat on purpose.
he just got booted
Yep, for terms of service violation. He's still free to spout his garbage, but no private entity is required to provide him a platform. This is not a freedom of speech issue here, just basic contract law.
Well, video killed the radio star.
It's money laundering.
Pay lots of money for an item of very little value. Money becomes legit.
This is silly. They don't need to patch every possible exploit, only ones that allow privilege escalation.
OK, Mr. Armchair Problem Solver, can you just take a minute to list all those privilege escalation exploits that have been discovered by researchers, nation-states, and all others, which they are jealously guarding and will never give up voluntarily?
Feel free to use more space if this isn't enough.
We're waiting...
Frankly the people at Wired are stupid, most journalists these days are, so no surprise there.
Oh give me one big frickin' break, Elmer. Typical Slashdot response - blame the victims.
The people at Wired at just regular people juggling many things to do, and not necessarily Aspie addled, parent basement dwelling, numb nuts who obsess over crypto currency. Yes, it's unfortunate that they lost the keys, and yes it is ultimately their fault, but that doesn't make them stupid. Just makes them human.
In fact, this really points the finger back at techies like us here. We (the greater "we") created a technical product where it turns out to be common that normal users lose value, sometimes LOTS of value, as part of regular use. While some, like the parent poster, revel in technical complexity and glare at the normies who don't know how to manage this new technology, ultimately this is a gap, a hole, a glaring deficiency. It's not the users who are stupid, it's the techies who get the 'fail.'
Yes -- but people could audit the code and find out exactly what data was being harvested, make informed decisions, and fork it to create an alternate version that didn't harvest the same data.
Just to be clear, I don't advocate for the current situation. But I'm curious if you could elaborate on how this would work on such a "gossip network". Say a user has presence on this network, and has taken time to cultivate a list of friends, post pictures, send messages, and so forth. Then user learns that certain data is harvested, and is not happy about it, and decides to fork an alternate version.
So the user, who also has the right technical skills and available time, creates a one-off of the original gossip network and moves to it. What are the chances that all this person's friends are going to come over too? What about other users who are unhappy about different aspects of this network, who create their own one-offs? Which one do you join? Where are your friends?
With the so-called network effect, each additional user make the network more valuable. This seems like a recipe for a downward-spiraling "anti network effect."
In every gold rush, the ones who are guaranteed to make any money are those who sell the picks and shovels. Looks like that's Intel's strategy.
Sounds like you are serious, can't tell if you are being facetious.
So if you want to browse to a different site, you switch logins to another user account? To each his own, I suppose. That would drive me nuts in no time fast.
Of course you realize that the advertisers are not fooled, and can gather up and identify scattered requests all having the same IP address, with the same CPU ID, with the same set of fonts loaded, and many other uniquifying tricks like hidden <canvas> element renderings...
Cryptocurrency is not an investment, nor was it ever meant to be.
You beat me to the punch. Was going to say that you can smell the desperation all the way up here.
Poor Peetie thinks all the other kids are being so mean to him. Poor Peetie has to retreat to his safe space. Poor widdle snowflake indeed.
However, I worry that this is another step in censorship and the stifling political correctness taking over the US.
Methinks you worry too much. It's Google's platform, Google's terms of service. Violate the terms of service? No ad revenue for you!
While I might agree that there is some selective enforcement going on here, this is not censorship.
After several years of our so-called "leaders" casting their eyes down, looking to the past, and pitting one against another in a zero-sum game, it is exhilarating to see what happened today.
America is greatest when we look for hard - some might say impossible - challenges and go for it.
And all this because of an immigrant.
If the experience in Egypt is instructive -- and I believe it is -- look for massive looting to begin shortly.
No new coal plants are under construction or planned anywhere in America.
Actually, no.
They might decide to settle it by giving out free chips.
Naaah. The usual solution is to settle it by giving all the money to the lawyers and the users get a $20 off coupon toward the purchase of a new CPU.
Napoleon D. offers some insight on the topic of skills.
Did they take it down? Your link just ends up on the Dec 2017 summary of articles for me.
I never understood why instead of contacting a company directly through well established means of bi-directional communication, people post something on the equivalent of a huge public office corkboard and hope that a potential recipient picks it up from there from among those billions of tweets sent every minute.
Sunshine, my friend. From a customer standpoint, having your own and others' interactions out in the daylight incentivizes the company to deal with them in a way that satisfies the customer. Companies are not so interested in leaving unanswered unfavorable opinions or problems that reveal patterns in such an easily-searchable, quantifiable, public medium.
Can't tell if your attribution is serious or ironically meme-y.
yeah? why is that?
Because you don't always know ahead of time what will turn out to be valuable. So the standard operating procedure these days is to collect everything. Over time, historical data becomes valuable as well.
The tech industry should spread out. There is not all that much advantage to being nearby to other big tech.
There is the well-documented clustering effect, where companies in a particular industry tend to cluster in the close proximity.
You sound like a case of "love what you do and you'll never work a day in your life."