Now we just need to figure out how to secure all these damned routers and IoT devices so they can't be used as botnets so easily. This wouldn't be nearly so much a problem if the fruit wasn't quite so low-hanging.
Stronger product liability laws and rulings against manufacturers or distributors would probably be a good start. Make the source responsible for the ability to compromise the device, with financial penalities based on install base when vulnerabilities are not discovered. Use the recall process like most other products are subject to as well.
If it hurts their bottom lines, companies will actually start paying attention to security.
There's no one point of prison. Everyone has their own views on what it's supposed to accomplish and even then, many people have amorphous or at least shifting views on it.
The only thing that is generally agreed upon is that prison separates the convicted from the rest of society. Beyond that, whether it's used to punish, or to rehabilitate, or to act as a deterrent, or as a form of cheap labor, or to "enforce the underclass" to maintain a population that must do the menial jobs that no one wants to otherwise do is up to debate.
As to this kind of case, where young adults commit computer-based crimes, it's common for this to essentially render them unemployable in their field of choice even without any kind of formal equivalent to disbarrment. They've done something that proves that they're not necessarily trustworthy with computers or information technology, yet they also haven't done something so novel, so ballsy as to make names for themselves as possible security consultants. In short, employers don't want workers that might attack the employer's network or services or intellectual property, so they'll just never hire those that committed computer crimes.
And 4) independently negotiate the price with the passenger.
The problem is that Uber is trying to claim that they're enabling drivers to share the cost of rides when the driver is already going a certain way, but that's not how it's actually used.
The humblebrag is probably what did it. If one rewrites the second paragraph and omits, "...outside of my six figure income..." then his post is about what he encountered, not about himself.
As far as the assertions themselves, everyone has their own motivation for what they do. I won't dispute that historically, mediums that cater toward interaction between the sexes tend to be dominated by male subscribers, but that doesn't mean that there aren't women that seek to use such a medium for their own personal reasons. It's not unreasonable to speculate on the married woman that very much needs to avoid being caught in the act of establishing the initial connection that leads to the sexual encounter who figures that everything up to the point of meeting for sex is best done as apparently anonymously as possible. It's not unreasonable to speculate that some women may get a kick out of not knowing who a sexual partner truly is until meeting for the deed. It's even reasonable to assume that some women get their kicks on seeing married men, and presumably a site dedicated to fostering affairs, rather than hookups without respect to possible existing relationships, works for them.
Either way, discounting the actual nature of the service that the site was providing, their choice to take customers' money to do something and then specifically not do that thing as a policy should earn them really big fines, arguably much bigger than they're even facing.
Specific working conditions define whether a worker is an employee or is a contractor, and the laws governing such are generally pretty straightforward. How Uber thinks it should be exempt from these rules doesn't make any sense.
Of course they're operating an unlicensed taxi service in violation of passenger livery laws too, so I guess following the law is not something they're especially good at.
You just inspect their cameras and media on the way out and if either you find content that you cannot access, or you find a discrepancy between the size of the content reported plus the free space when compared against the size of the media, you take steps anywhere from seizing the offending device to tying them to a chair, putting a football helmet on their head, and then beating their helmeted head with a baseball bat until they tell you how to access the content.
Unfortunately I cannot think of any good way to smuggle video or picture content that a photojournalist or video journalist will be able to do in the field in adverse conditions like this that couldn't somehow be detected if the investigator is committed enough to being thorough. In some ways the presence of strong encryption might actually make it more dangerous as it means to look closely at this person because they've got that strong encryption...
What the rule should be for H1B visas is that one cannot displace existing workers in the organization in order to bring in contractors on H1B status. Don't allow an abstraction layer between the job to be performed and the original company in the form of the middle-man contractor company to allow this kind of BS.
I call those people ones that I out-compete. I have a good paying job that requires field work. As autonomous vehicles still aren't here and as they're probably going to be expensive, I don't expect that a lot of younger adults will be able to afford them. My job requires visiting facilities both to deal with scheduled work and to deal with unscheduled problems. Being able to drive means that I I can do this work, and I don't really care how technically skilled someone is, there's only so much someone can do remotely when equipment is not responding.
You think this is somehow different than it has been in the past?
The children now love luxury; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are tyrants, not servants of the households. They no longer rise when their elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize over their teachers.
This quote is attributed to Socrates by Plato. Like, ~2300 years ago Socrates and Plato.
Youth don't want to hear about what older people think even though experience has tempered many older people and they might have something useful to say. Older people forget that when they were young they didn't want to hear what older people had to say, and they had to attain their knowledge the hard way, through experience and misadventure.
I spent a few months on Reddit because so many other narrow-focus forums were dying. Unfortunately what initially looks like a strength of Reddit's, the fact that one can participate in discussions in multiple different disciplines or areas of interest, is also its weakness when people get malevolent.
Frankly, it's far too easy for someone that takes offense to one's comments in a specific discussion to harass them in all other subforums including those in which the offended party otherwise has no interest at all. Throw in the ability of partisan behavior, where whole groups of people decide that other groups of people are the problem, and you end up with the equivalent of digital raiding parties storming each others strongholds of opinion to intentionally disrupt discourse solely to attempt to deny that area for that discussion.
It was bad enough already, but I'd used the site less than a year before the 2016 political season came into full swing. They cranked it up to eleven and the site became almost unusable.
I can sympathize with moderators and admins of forums, as I've moderated forums myself over the years, but Reddit was the first that I saw that took to tactics like shadow-banning on a massive scale, and where punishments were made secret, and where there was basically no accounting for if moderators made bad choices. For single-purpose forums usually the moderators give warnings, then give temporary bans that the user can't readily ignore, then drop the ban-hammer in earnest, but on Reddit there seemed to be no consistency, no established set of procedures to lead to disciplinary action.
Reddit is not the first attempt at general-purpose forums for all topics, there have been web-based attempts in the past, plus Usenet and even Fidonet message bases and private forums on AOL and Compuserve and Prodigy, but they all have the same problem that if they get large enough to be popular then they inevitably collapse under their own weight. Too many people feel that the whole medium should cater to their views and should not tolerate competing views, and that makes makes the whole thing come apart when they try to enforce that attitude.
In the 1988 case that established precedent, Stevens as cited in the article summary above and presumably by the appeals court judge, wrote for the dissent, in fact the case was 8-1 and he was the only dissenter.
I very much doubt that this will be overturned on appeal. First, the case establishing precedent is fairly recent. Second, the subject at hand is similar enough to where it's easy to draw parallels if the electronic device as a container can be compared to the physical container that the strongbox presents. Third, the nature of the information needed to get into the container is substantially similar.
Maybe this appeals court judge will get lucky, but I doubt it.
If the bus service were more hop-on, hop-off without requiring specific stops, and if the frequency were good, then I could see using buses. Unfortunately if I wanted to take a bus to work it would probably take me an hour and a half. Right now it takes me fifteen minutes if I drive. For the totality of the day, losing two and a half hours because of having to work around a city transit schedule is a complete nonstarter.
I suppose the best analogy for right now is the sedan service. One can subscribe to a sedan service that provides unmarked sedans, usually black or white entry-level luxury cars like Lincolns or Chryslers, that chauffeur one from point to point. They're prompt, their drivers are courteous and dressed well, the cars are clean and well maintained. And three trips cost as much as a monthly car payment to buy your own vehicle. I know because we've looked into it for my inlaws, and it simply doesn't make fiscal sense to hire a sedan to ferry them around.
It's well possible that this service could come down in price somewhat if a driver is not necessary anymore, but I expect that autonomous vehicles will cost more than the vehicles that these services use, and even without the driver there's still labor costs associated with running the front office and with the maintenance shop, costs that will not simply go away just because there's no driver. In fact, without a driver to identify when something feels like it's starting to go wrong, the shop might have to spend more time troubleshooting and repairing because little niggling issues were not brought to their attention promptly.
It really annoys me when the sensors designed to detect a fault condition fail long before the fault condition itself occurs. I've had to replace O2 sensors, oil pressure sending units, coolant temp sending units, and help others with timing sensors because the damn electronics failed before anything else.
Heh. I once had a flat tire on I-40 near Kingman, AZ and had no cell service. The drivers of the two other vehicles in the same predicament (we all ran over the same debris) also had no cell service despite not being on the same carrier as I was.
If I can end up in a situation on an interstate highway where I have no service, then I fully expect to find other places without data or cell service. Even if automakers or some third-party provides remote-control driver service and manages to get the latency on the network connection low enough to make it safe there are still plenty of scenarios in which that service would not work when needed.
I'm OK with quibbling or nitpicking or whatever, my attitudes on this stuff are not so firmly set that a convincing argument can't be enlightening. Please feel free.
As for your example of the vehicle stalling-out, it can be even simpler, they could run out of whatever it is that provides power. Whether the car detects the condition and intentionally shuts down or the vehicle unexpectedly just ceases operating, the result could be the same, a stalled vehicle in a travel lane without an easy ability to steer it. Having run out of gas once myself literally as I was waiting to turn left across traffic into the gas station, being able to push, steer , and stop the car without calling in professional help was essential.
It's been a very long time since the 240 debuted. I will not dispute that Volvo as an automaker probably has the most comprehensive crash-test and general vehicle safety lab, but it's not like the rest of the mainstream automakers are actively ignoring safety like they once did. The gap is not nearly so vast as it once was.
I've blocked the road before when a bicyclist was struck by a hit-and-run and was laying in the middle of the street. In those kinds of cases it makes sense to put the vehicle itself in the way and to activate the hazard lights, such that now the vehicle declares itself to be a hazard and for other vehicles to avoid it.
How is irrelevant. That it occurs in everything from computers to the sprinkler timer that runs one's irrigation system at home, or to the thermostats that regulate the HVAC, or to security cameras, or to water heater controls, is what's relevant, and it does not give me any warm fuzzy feelings for the automotive industry either. It's very likely they will make just as bad of decisions as everyone else that uses electronic components does.
That's a nonstarter for me too. I have seen what people do to things that are not theirs. If I wanted to put up with a vandalized or dirty or smelly vehicle I'd take a bus. Hell, even taxis, which theoretically have an interested party there to pay attention to what the fare might be doing to the vehicle, don't always have tidy vehicles.
I've known several cases where even the existing automotive PCM failed, in a climate that does not freeze, and that computer is supposed to be hardened against this kind of problem.
When there are only limited points of contact that can be regulated, yes. We do it all of the time.
In my state, any vehicles that want "wagging" lights have to be licensed. School buses, ambulances, pickup trucks used by construction, tow trucks, all licensed. All are also upfit. This means there are two layers in the process that have very few points of contact for this kind of regulation to be imposed. To get a license you have to demonstrate that you've integrated the new technology. To upfit, you have to demonstrate that you're integrating the new technology into customers' vehicles.
I expect that most states operate this way, or they have similar rules on commercial vehicles including light trucks used by business that can serve as the point where this kind of upfit is required.
You integrate into the vehicle a means to safely ensure that only legitimate users can call forth its operation. As a subsystem of this you note the demographics of each user. You define what the various users are allowed and not allowed to do, and those are coupled with the environment in which the vehicle is operated.
A person that used to have a drivers' license and gave up that license while still in good standing might have greater rights in an emergency. Someone that lost good standing in order to lose a license, or a minor that has never had a driver's license might not. Or there might be nannies in the vehicle that give the occupant a degree of driving control but still prevent the person from doing something that will cause a collision or other form of accident or from grossly violating the rules of the road.
Slashdot Mirror
Now we just need to figure out how to secure all these damned routers and IoT devices so they can't be used as botnets so easily. This wouldn't be nearly so much a problem if the fruit wasn't quite so low-hanging.
Stronger product liability laws and rulings against manufacturers or distributors would probably be a good start. Make the source responsible for the ability to compromise the device, with financial penalities based on install base when vulnerabilities are not discovered. Use the recall process like most other products are subject to as well.
If it hurts their bottom lines, companies will actually start paying attention to security.
There's no one point of prison. Everyone has their own views on what it's supposed to accomplish and even then, many people have amorphous or at least shifting views on it.
The only thing that is generally agreed upon is that prison separates the convicted from the rest of society. Beyond that, whether it's used to punish, or to rehabilitate, or to act as a deterrent, or as a form of cheap labor, or to "enforce the underclass" to maintain a population that must do the menial jobs that no one wants to otherwise do is up to debate.
As to this kind of case, where young adults commit computer-based crimes, it's common for this to essentially render them unemployable in their field of choice even without any kind of formal equivalent to disbarrment. They've done something that proves that they're not necessarily trustworthy with computers or information technology, yet they also haven't done something so novel, so ballsy as to make names for themselves as possible security consultants. In short, employers don't want workers that might attack the employer's network or services or intellectual property, so they'll just never hire those that committed computer crimes.
Sharma you for that...
And 4) independently negotiate the price with the passenger.
The problem is that Uber is trying to claim that they're enabling drivers to share the cost of rides when the driver is already going a certain way, but that's not how it's actually used.
The humblebrag is probably what did it. If one rewrites the second paragraph and omits, "...outside of my six figure income..." then his post is about what he encountered, not about himself.
As far as the assertions themselves, everyone has their own motivation for what they do. I won't dispute that historically, mediums that cater toward interaction between the sexes tend to be dominated by male subscribers, but that doesn't mean that there aren't women that seek to use such a medium for their own personal reasons. It's not unreasonable to speculate on the married woman that very much needs to avoid being caught in the act of establishing the initial connection that leads to the sexual encounter who figures that everything up to the point of meeting for sex is best done as apparently anonymously as possible. It's not unreasonable to speculate that some women may get a kick out of not knowing who a sexual partner truly is until meeting for the deed. It's even reasonable to assume that some women get their kicks on seeing married men, and presumably a site dedicated to fostering affairs, rather than hookups without respect to possible existing relationships, works for them.
Either way, discounting the actual nature of the service that the site was providing, their choice to take customers' money to do something and then specifically not do that thing as a policy should earn them really big fines, arguably much bigger than they're even facing.
Specific working conditions define whether a worker is an employee or is a contractor, and the laws governing such are generally pretty straightforward. How Uber thinks it should be exempt from these rules doesn't make any sense.
Of course they're operating an unlicensed taxi service in violation of passenger livery laws too, so I guess following the law is not something they're especially good at.
Don't even have to do that.
You just inspect their cameras and media on the way out and if either you find content that you cannot access, or you find a discrepancy between the size of the content reported plus the free space when compared against the size of the media, you take steps anywhere from seizing the offending device to tying them to a chair, putting a football helmet on their head, and then beating their helmeted head with a baseball bat until they tell you how to access the content.
Unfortunately I cannot think of any good way to smuggle video or picture content that a photojournalist or video journalist will be able to do in the field in adverse conditions like this that couldn't somehow be detected if the investigator is committed enough to being thorough. In some ways the presence of strong encryption might actually make it more dangerous as it means to look closely at this person because they've got that strong encryption...
To play devil's advocate, maybe the intent is to advise to push to revoke or amend that bit of law.
What the rule should be for H1B visas is that one cannot displace existing workers in the organization in order to bring in contractors on H1B status. Don't allow an abstraction layer between the job to be performed and the original company in the form of the middle-man contractor company to allow this kind of BS.
I call those people ones that I out-compete. I have a good paying job that requires field work. As autonomous vehicles still aren't here and as they're probably going to be expensive, I don't expect that a lot of younger adults will be able to afford them. My job requires visiting facilities both to deal with scheduled work and to deal with unscheduled problems. Being able to drive means that I I can do this work, and I don't really care how technically skilled someone is, there's only so much someone can do remotely when equipment is not responding.
You think this is somehow different than it has been in the past?
The children now love luxury; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are tyrants, not servants of the households. They no longer rise when their elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize over their teachers.
This quote is attributed to Socrates by Plato. Like, ~2300 years ago Socrates and Plato.
Youth don't want to hear about what older people think even though experience has tempered many older people and they might have something useful to say. Older people forget that when they were young they didn't want to hear what older people had to say, and they had to attain their knowledge the hard way, through experience and misadventure.
I spent a few months on Reddit because so many other narrow-focus forums were dying. Unfortunately what initially looks like a strength of Reddit's, the fact that one can participate in discussions in multiple different disciplines or areas of interest, is also its weakness when people get malevolent.
Frankly, it's far too easy for someone that takes offense to one's comments in a specific discussion to harass them in all other subforums including those in which the offended party otherwise has no interest at all. Throw in the ability of partisan behavior, where whole groups of people decide that other groups of people are the problem, and you end up with the equivalent of digital raiding parties storming each others strongholds of opinion to intentionally disrupt discourse solely to attempt to deny that area for that discussion.
It was bad enough already, but I'd used the site less than a year before the 2016 political season came into full swing. They cranked it up to eleven and the site became almost unusable.
I can sympathize with moderators and admins of forums, as I've moderated forums myself over the years, but Reddit was the first that I saw that took to tactics like shadow-banning on a massive scale, and where punishments were made secret, and where there was basically no accounting for if moderators made bad choices. For single-purpose forums usually the moderators give warnings, then give temporary bans that the user can't readily ignore, then drop the ban-hammer in earnest, but on Reddit there seemed to be no consistency, no established set of procedures to lead to disciplinary action.
Reddit is not the first attempt at general-purpose forums for all topics, there have been web-based attempts in the past, plus Usenet and even Fidonet message bases and private forums on AOL and Compuserve and Prodigy, but they all have the same problem that if they get large enough to be popular then they inevitably collapse under their own weight. Too many people feel that the whole medium should cater to their views and should not tolerate competing views, and that makes makes the whole thing come apart when they try to enforce that attitude.
In the 1988 case that established precedent, Stevens as cited in the article summary above and presumably by the appeals court judge, wrote for the dissent, in fact the case was 8-1 and he was the only dissenter.
I very much doubt that this will be overturned on appeal. First, the case establishing precedent is fairly recent. Second, the subject at hand is similar enough to where it's easy to draw parallels if the electronic device as a container can be compared to the physical container that the strongbox presents. Third, the nature of the information needed to get into the container is substantially similar.
Maybe this appeals court judge will get lucky, but I doubt it.
If the bus service were more hop-on, hop-off without requiring specific stops, and if the frequency were good, then I could see using buses. Unfortunately if I wanted to take a bus to work it would probably take me an hour and a half. Right now it takes me fifteen minutes if I drive. For the totality of the day, losing two and a half hours because of having to work around a city transit schedule is a complete nonstarter.
I suppose the best analogy for right now is the sedan service. One can subscribe to a sedan service that provides unmarked sedans, usually black or white entry-level luxury cars like Lincolns or Chryslers, that chauffeur one from point to point. They're prompt, their drivers are courteous and dressed well, the cars are clean and well maintained. And three trips cost as much as a monthly car payment to buy your own vehicle. I know because we've looked into it for my inlaws, and it simply doesn't make fiscal sense to hire a sedan to ferry them around.
It's well possible that this service could come down in price somewhat if a driver is not necessary anymore, but I expect that autonomous vehicles will cost more than the vehicles that these services use, and even without the driver there's still labor costs associated with running the front office and with the maintenance shop, costs that will not simply go away just because there's no driver. In fact, without a driver to identify when something feels like it's starting to go wrong, the shop might have to spend more time troubleshooting and repairing because little niggling issues were not brought to their attention promptly.
It really annoys me when the sensors designed to detect a fault condition fail long before the fault condition itself occurs. I've had to replace O2 sensors, oil pressure sending units, coolant temp sending units, and help others with timing sensors because the damn electronics failed before anything else.
Heh. I once had a flat tire on I-40 near Kingman, AZ and had no cell service. The drivers of the two other vehicles in the same predicament (we all ran over the same debris) also had no cell service despite not being on the same carrier as I was.
If I can end up in a situation on an interstate highway where I have no service, then I fully expect to find other places without data or cell service. Even if automakers or some third-party provides remote-control driver service and manages to get the latency on the network connection low enough to make it safe there are still plenty of scenarios in which that service would not work when needed.
I'm OK with quibbling or nitpicking or whatever, my attitudes on this stuff are not so firmly set that a convincing argument can't be enlightening. Please feel free.
As for your example of the vehicle stalling-out, it can be even simpler, they could run out of whatever it is that provides power. Whether the car detects the condition and intentionally shuts down or the vehicle unexpectedly just ceases operating, the result could be the same, a stalled vehicle in a travel lane without an easy ability to steer it. Having run out of gas once myself literally as I was waiting to turn left across traffic into the gas station, being able to push, steer , and stop the car without calling in professional help was essential.
It's been a very long time since the 240 debuted. I will not dispute that Volvo as an automaker probably has the most comprehensive crash-test and general vehicle safety lab, but it's not like the rest of the mainstream automakers are actively ignoring safety like they once did. The gap is not nearly so vast as it once was.
I've blocked the road before when a bicyclist was struck by a hit-and-run and was laying in the middle of the street. In those kinds of cases it makes sense to put the vehicle itself in the way and to activate the hazard lights, such that now the vehicle declares itself to be a hazard and for other vehicles to avoid it.
How is irrelevant. That it occurs in everything from computers to the sprinkler timer that runs one's irrigation system at home, or to the thermostats that regulate the HVAC, or to security cameras, or to water heater controls, is what's relevant, and it does not give me any warm fuzzy feelings for the automotive industry either. It's very likely they will make just as bad of decisions as everyone else that uses electronic components does.
That's a nonstarter for me too. I have seen what people do to things that are not theirs. If I wanted to put up with a vandalized or dirty or smelly vehicle I'd take a bus. Hell, even taxis, which theoretically have an interested party there to pay attention to what the fare might be doing to the vehicle, don't always have tidy vehicles.
*grin*
I've known several cases where even the existing automotive PCM failed, in a climate that does not freeze, and that computer is supposed to be hardened against this kind of problem.
When there are only limited points of contact that can be regulated, yes. We do it all of the time.
In my state, any vehicles that want "wagging" lights have to be licensed. School buses, ambulances, pickup trucks used by construction, tow trucks, all licensed. All are also upfit. This means there are two layers in the process that have very few points of contact for this kind of regulation to be imposed. To get a license you have to demonstrate that you've integrated the new technology. To upfit, you have to demonstrate that you're integrating the new technology into customers' vehicles.
I expect that most states operate this way, or they have similar rules on commercial vehicles including light trucks used by business that can serve as the point where this kind of upfit is required.
You integrate into the vehicle a means to safely ensure that only legitimate users can call forth its operation. As a subsystem of this you note the demographics of each user. You define what the various users are allowed and not allowed to do, and those are coupled with the environment in which the vehicle is operated.
A person that used to have a drivers' license and gave up that license while still in good standing might have greater rights in an emergency. Someone that lost good standing in order to lose a license, or a minor that has never had a driver's license might not. Or there might be nannies in the vehicle that give the occupant a degree of driving control but still prevent the person from doing something that will cause a collision or other form of accident or from grossly violating the rules of the road.