I recently got a new Google Voice number, which I have never given out to anyone, and it gets repeated calls from the same number(s) (different numbers, but on any given day repeated calls from the same one) almost daily. I just disable notifications from Voice, and every day or two block and report as spam all of those numbers.
The problem isn't whether or not crackable consumer-grade encryption can be made - of course it can. The legislature could mandate that any consumer device sold with encryption capabilities must be crackable by authorized law enforcement, and companies would have the choice of complying or losing the total market in that jurisdiction. The problem, and the question, really is, is this a good idea?
It's a fundamental conflict between those who believe
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
is an absolute, and those who are so concerned about "safety" and "security" that they are willing to allow the security forces to suveille all of the people, all of the time. This is a political (and possibly social) question, not a technological one, and technologists would be no help in trying to answer it.
Besides real net neutrality is neutrality of content, not of service levels and speeds for different types of uses.
Wrong. Net neutrality has nothing whatsoever to do with the content of packets - it's all about the delivery of those packets. The principle of net neutrality is that all packets, regardless of their source or destination, *within the same QoS tier* are given the same priority on the wires. That's it. (percieved) censorship/"deplatforming"/whatever is an entirely different discussion.
Parliament is a funk band formed in the late 1960s by George Clinton as part of his Parliament-Funkadelic collective. Less rock-oriented than its sister act Funkadelic, Parliament drew on science-fiction and outlandish performances in their work.
I still don't get it. How would Eve be able to sign up to Netflix with an email address that she doesn't control? And no matter how this works, why on earth would you think it is Google's fault?
Because, when you sign up for Netflix, you create a username and password - then, after the account has been created you provide an email address which Netflix does not verify (they send a "Welcome to Netflix" message to it, but the scam target might not notice that), but which can be used for password recovery. Then, to exacerbate the problem, Netflix sends payment update emails to the email address on the account which allow changing payment info without otherwise logging in. IOW, Netflix treats the unverified email address as if it was verified - and that is the fundamental failure here.
You'd be better off figuring out how to sell DNA obfuscation kits to criminals - a bunch of dandruff flakes, skin cells, and hair from multiple different people that can be spread around the crime scene. I haven't figured out a good delivery mechanism yet, but just shaking out a ziploc bag would probably work.
We have been a RHEL/CentOS shop (servers and workstations) since around 1996. In our environment, it is necessary for system operators to be logged-in on the consoles of more than one computer at a time. We started out with GNOME (actually installed it on Solaris before moving to Linux), and found that the GCONF databases did not like having more than one instance of the same user (with a shared, NFS-mounted $HOME) logged in. Configuration options would get scrambled, sessions couldn't be saved, etc. These problems did not occur with KDE, so we migrated all of our workstations to KDE as our officially-supported environment. If GNOME can now function properly with multiple login instances, OK, we'll try it - but if not, looks like LXDE or something else. Good thing I'm retiring before 2024. Grumble.
Are you one of the 43% of republicans that would defend the 2nd amendment to the death, but would have no problem giving the POTUS the power to close down any news outlet arbitrarily (as long as they are liberal news outlets of course), knowning full well that this is a clear violation of the first amendment ?
Yep, we know which amendment almost half of republicans only care about. And all of Trump supporters.
Wow just what percent of internet statistics are made up on the spot ?
It is not the job of the security services to prevent crime/terrorism/kiddie porn/copyright infringement/whatever. It is their job to investigate after the fact in order to convict those responsible. That's how our justice system works. The only justification for the ability to decrypt all encryption is for (attempted - in reality it will never work) prevention.
After a crime has been committed, in order to obtain evidence, the authorities can always obtain a warrant to compel a device owner to decrypt/unlock a device. If the owner refuses, that's what contempt of court is for. If the device owner is dead, who gives a fuck what's on the phone? If the owner (presumed criminal) is willing to sit in jail indefinitely for refusing to unlock/decrypt, that is an acceptable outcome.
Now seriously, when I send an e-mail to somebody@somedomain.com, how do I know for sure their administrator isn't looking at all e-mails stored there? At least Google is transparent about it. Use their service or don't. But if you want to exchange e-mails with a private company out there, you're kept in the dark about it.
When you send an e-mail to somebody@somedomain.com, how do you know that somedomain.com isn't a GSuite-hosted domain, and you're senting it to a GMail account, anyway?
Obama and co. asked and got consent from people to download a Facebook app that collected their user/friends/likes data. CA got the info without asking, by pretending to be an academic research app. So, like entirely the same.
Worst instance of this I ever saw was a few years back when (HP? I think) sent a license certificate to $WORK packed in a 13x10x3 inch box swaddled in air bags. For a piece of paper.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, you can refuse to give them an email address, and then you don't get the monster receipt and coupons.
Ya know, you can just refuse to use your CVS "loyalty" card, and then you get a normal-sized receipt. With no coupons. Imagine that.
Only if fried with shoyu and onions, or in a musubi.
I don't get many on my mobile number, but...
I recently got a new Google Voice number, which I have never given out to anyone, and it gets repeated calls from the same number(s) (different numbers, but on any given day repeated calls from the same one) almost daily. I just disable notifications from Voice, and every day or two block and report as spam all of those numbers.
LMGTFY.
Seriously, they're like $15USD
The problem isn't whether or not crackable consumer-grade encryption can be made - of course it can. The legislature could mandate that any consumer device sold with encryption capabilities must be crackable by authorized law enforcement, and companies would have the choice of complying or losing the total market in that jurisdiction. The problem, and the question, really is, is this a good idea?
It's a fundamental conflict between those who believe
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
is an absolute, and those who are so concerned about "safety" and "security" that they are willing to allow the security forces to suveille all of the people, all of the time. This is a political (and possibly social) question, not a technological one, and technologists would be no help in trying to answer it.
No need. Linux already has bc(1).
Besides real net neutrality is neutrality of content, not of service levels and speeds for different types of uses.
Wrong. Net neutrality has nothing whatsoever to do with the content of packets - it's all about the delivery of those packets. The principle of net neutrality is that all packets, regardless of their source or destination, *within the same QoS tier* are given the same priority on the wires. That's it. (percieved) censorship/"deplatforming"/whatever is an entirely different discussion.
Tom Jones. Maybe not useful, but entertaining. (He's actually a pretty good blues singer - with a great voice).
We really need a "-1 Batshit Crazy" mod.
From Wikipedia:
Parliament is a funk band formed in the late 1960s by George Clinton as part of his Parliament-Funkadelic collective. Less rock-oriented than its sister act Funkadelic, Parliament drew on science-fiction and outlandish performances in their work.
I still don't get it. How would Eve be able to sign up to Netflix with an email address that she doesn't control? And no matter how this works, why on earth would you think it is Google's fault?
Because, when you sign up for Netflix, you create a username and password - then, after the account has been created you provide an email address which Netflix does not verify (they send a "Welcome to Netflix" message to it, but the scam target might not notice that), but which can be used for password recovery. Then, to exacerbate the problem, Netflix sends payment update emails to the email address on the account which allow changing payment info without otherwise logging in. IOW, Netflix treats the unverified email address as if it was verified - and that is the fundamental failure here.
You'd be better off figuring out how to sell DNA obfuscation kits to criminals - a bunch of dandruff flakes, skin cells, and hair from multiple different people that can be spread around the crime scene. I haven't figured out a good delivery mechanism yet, but just shaking out a ziploc bag would probably work.
I think your bot is broken.
Bluetooth and WiFi have been allowed on US flights since 2013:
https://www.faa.gov/news/press...
It's Georgia. They probably keep the entire voter registration "database" in a giant Excel spreadsheet.
We have been a RHEL/CentOS shop (servers and workstations) since around 1996. In our environment, it is necessary for system operators to be logged-in on the consoles of more than one computer at a time. We started out with GNOME (actually installed it on Solaris before moving to Linux), and found that the GCONF databases did not like having more than one instance of the same user (with a shared, NFS-mounted $HOME) logged in. Configuration options would get scrambled, sessions couldn't be saved, etc. These problems did not occur with KDE, so we migrated all of our workstations to KDE as our officially-supported environment. If GNOME can now function properly with multiple login instances, OK, we'll try it - but if not, looks like LXDE or something else. Good thing I'm retiring before 2024. Grumble.
Iceland is beautiful. Good beer, too.
Are you one of the 43% of republicans that would defend the 2nd amendment to the death, but would have no problem giving the POTUS the power to close down any news outlet arbitrarily (as long as they are liberal news outlets of course), knowning full well that this is a clear violation of the first amendment ?
Yep, we know which amendment almost half of republicans only care about. And all of Trump supporters.
Wow just what percent of internet statistics are made up on the spot ?
87.536%
It is not the job of the security services to prevent crime/terrorism/kiddie porn/copyright infringement/whatever. It is their job to investigate after the fact in order to convict those responsible. That's how our justice system works. The only justification for the ability to decrypt all encryption is for (attempted - in reality it will never work) prevention.
After a crime has been committed, in order to obtain evidence, the authorities can always obtain a warrant to compel a device owner to decrypt/unlock a device. If the owner refuses, that's what contempt of court is for. If the device owner is dead, who gives a fuck what's on the phone? If the owner (presumed criminal) is willing to sit in jail indefinitely for refusing to unlock/decrypt, that is an acceptable outcome.
Now seriously, when I send an e-mail to somebody@somedomain.com, how do I know for sure their administrator isn't looking at all e-mails stored there? At least Google is transparent about it. Use their service or don't. But if you want to exchange e-mails with a private company out there, you're kept in the dark about it.
When you send an e-mail to somebody@somedomain.com, how do you know that somedomain.com isn't a GSuite-hosted domain, and you're senting it to a GMail account, anyway?
They can't fuck their own assholes, because their heads are up there.
Ironic username is ironic...
Obama and co. asked and got consent from people to download a Facebook app that collected their user/friends/likes data. CA got the info without asking, by pretending to be an academic research app. So, like entirely the same.
Dumbass.
Worst instance of this I ever saw was a few years back when (HP? I think) sent a license certificate to $WORK packed in a 13x10x3 inch box swaddled in air bags. For a piece of paper.