I plan on making a business out of it. We have multiple patents on the process, and I have a new business plan that will allow people to get in at a much lower cost than our first attempt. It truly is an encrypted, decentralized peer to peer sharing system. And it doesn't rely on DNS;)
So I should tell people not to use the legal tools their competition is using? It's better to be a noble loser that can not affect change than an elected official who can? What is being offered is perfectly legal at this point. And for the record I brought up this very topic of micro targeting and shared data with a Senator last weekend urging them to make this sort of thing illegal. So while trying to get elections won I am seeding the idea of addressing the abuse legally. Until you have to navigate these waters don't be so sure that you could maintain every one your ideals at every moment.
I can see where you might see a contradiction. However I do know that my many conversations with elected officials have had an effect on net neutrality support and encryption rights. I do have to wear two hats, and I don't like it. But right now those who oppose net freedoms are using these tools to defeat those efforts. Trump is in office because of data tools like these. I cannot tell those opposing him not to use the legal tools at their disposal.
This is the biggest scandal no one cares about. I am involved in politics and the upcoming election, and was just demoed a service that was beyond creepy. Basically they provide a library that is widely used by developers, and by the saleswoman's account their stack was in an app on 80% of phones in the world. Android or iOS.
During the pitch she spoke of micro targeting people, and suggested we could see who was at a certain large political rally in DC for both of the last two years. While immediately creepy in its on right, I asked how her company could take supposedly anonymized info from location sharing and match it with an actual person. She replied that they simply geofenced the phones while people were probably asleep which after awhile gave away their home address. They could then match that location with voter files and people's names.
The implications of this one example were staggering to me. Would you suspect a popular game or restaurant app could be used to completely profile you by a third party? We do around here, but most people don't. They don't get the connections. But I asked is she thought people would be unhappy knowing that apps were being secretly being used to share such personal information. To her credit she said yes they would. And she admitted the service would be illegal in Europe.
In the end I told her that as a privacy advocate I wanted to throw up in the back of my throat (actual quote), but as an advisor to campaigns I would have to tell them to use the tech. You don't bring a knife to a data fight, and it's clear it's a data fight now.
Believe it or not politicians do listen to people with security knowledge. I have spoken to numerous Senators and members of the House on this issue over the last few years. Yes their knowledge is limited but the ones I have spoken to have grasped the complexity of the issue.
Two examples. One member of the House who is a former prosecutor explained to me how he evolved on the issue over time and now opposes backdoors. A member of the Senate who you see on the TV almost every night cornered me at a meeting to talk about encryption until his aides pulled him away. He too was originally uncertain why a back door was needed, but now understands the problem. They had mostly already come to these positions, but were seeking out further opinions. Which is exactly what we want them doing, asking questions.
And as of now there are no government requirements on backdoors. So far our arguments have won out. But this issue is not going away, and I will keep trying to have as many conversations as I can to keep the people in the position to decide informed. Members of Congress mostly know what the people around them tell them (they don't disagree with this assessment), and when it comes to tech that is mostly lobbyists. But there are groups and people working behind the scenes making the case. And they are being heard.
I have never been a fan of Google starting with gmail. Google's business from day one was to collect as much data on you as possible and either use that data themselves or sell it to others. It boggled my mind why anyone would use gmail because of the privacy issues, but then realized that email was so hard to set up at the time that it was the path of least resistance for the masses. And in the process they gave up more than they realized. All of this goes for Facebook as well.
The Newton was ahead of its time, and Apple did come back to eventually completely dominate the mobile handheld market. This wasn't a tiny market that they were just "trying", it was the market the has come to dwarf the PC market and has devalued their overall business.
This confused me at first as well. Once you've been in the community and built up your karma you may be asked to moderate at some point. For me it just kind of showed up one day as a pull down under each comment. As I have moderated over the years it seems like I am offered the chance more frequently. Probably because I actually do pay attention and try to moderate in a helpful way. Note, now that I have commented on your comment I can't moderate anything in this discussion. That's to prevent me from moderating people down if I am in the discussion itself. Makes sense really.
It seems inevitable that security holes will be in modern systems. We can argue about the why, or how this system is better than that system. But there is seemingly no end to vulnerabilities simply because of the complexities of modern systems. Too many variables, and it only takes one hole in the fence for the raptors to get through.
My therapist worked on the trials back in the 70s, and said the results were amazing when treating PTSD and anxiety. I have long hoped that this could happen, but am surprised it actually has.
I think Mac users stopped saying the Mac was immune about 10 years ago. My take on it is that out of the two major desktop options, Windows and Mac, the Mac is the safer bet. As is iOS over Android.
Linux isn't an option for me or most users on the desktop. Too complicated for average users, and for those who rely on creative apps no real options. (please don't tell me about open source alternatives to Photoshop, ProTools etc, they aren't as good. Apple products are not bullet proof, but I still believe for the average user and creative types they are the best option security wise.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want to give anything away, but if you message me I will send you to where you get on a notification email list (not a mailing list)
I plan on making a business out of it. We have multiple patents on the process, and I have a new business plan that will allow people to get in at a much lower cost than our first attempt. It truly is an encrypted, decentralized peer to peer sharing system. And it doesn't rely on DNS ;)
I've been working on just that since 2013. Open sourcing the solution this fall.
I've never thought of it that way, and it puts this stupid argument to rest. It's Linux.
That's different! We do that through the command line so we know it's secure.
Isn't that one of the highest forms of posting?
Bingo. The argument for toll roads has validity. But it inevitably turns into a form a graft for the private sector.
I posted the company elsewhere in this thread, but here ya go. www.phunware.com. Contact me if you would like more info
www.phunware.com
So I should tell people not to use the legal tools their competition is using? It's better to be a noble loser that can not affect change than an elected official who can? What is being offered is perfectly legal at this point. And for the record I brought up this very topic of micro targeting and shared data with a Senator last weekend urging them to make this sort of thing illegal. So while trying to get elections won I am seeding the idea of addressing the abuse legally. Until you have to navigate these waters don't be so sure that you could maintain every one your ideals at every moment.
I can see where you might see a contradiction. However I do know that my many conversations with elected officials have had an effect on net neutrality support and encryption rights. I do have to wear two hats, and I don't like it. But right now those who oppose net freedoms are using these tools to defeat those efforts. Trump is in office because of data tools like these. I cannot tell those opposing him not to use the legal tools at their disposal.
This is the biggest scandal no one cares about. I am involved in politics and the upcoming election, and was just demoed a service that was beyond creepy. Basically they provide a library that is widely used by developers, and by the saleswoman's account their stack was in an app on 80% of phones in the world. Android or iOS.
During the pitch she spoke of micro targeting people, and suggested we could see who was at a certain large political rally in DC for both of the last two years. While immediately creepy in its on right, I asked how her company could take supposedly anonymized info from location sharing and match it with an actual person. She replied that they simply geofenced the phones while people were probably asleep which after awhile gave away their home address. They could then match that location with voter files and people's names.
The implications of this one example were staggering to me. Would you suspect a popular game or restaurant app could be used to completely profile you by a third party? We do around here, but most people don't. They don't get the connections. But I asked is she thought people would be unhappy knowing that apps were being secretly being used to share such personal information. To her credit she said yes they would. And she admitted the service would be illegal in Europe.
In the end I told her that as a privacy advocate I wanted to throw up in the back of my throat (actual quote), but as an advisor to campaigns I would have to tell them to use the tech. You don't bring a knife to a data fight, and it's clear it's a data fight now.
Ignoring your political opponents is how they win.
Believe it or not politicians do listen to people with security knowledge. I have spoken to numerous Senators and members of the House on this issue over the last few years. Yes their knowledge is limited but the ones I have spoken to have grasped the complexity of the issue.
Two examples. One member of the House who is a former prosecutor explained to me how he evolved on the issue over time and now opposes backdoors. A member of the Senate who you see on the TV almost every night cornered me at a meeting to talk about encryption until his aides pulled him away. He too was originally uncertain why a back door was needed, but now understands the problem. They had mostly already come to these positions, but were seeking out further opinions. Which is exactly what we want them doing, asking questions.
And as of now there are no government requirements on backdoors. So far our arguments have won out. But this issue is not going away, and I will keep trying to have as many conversations as I can to keep the people in the position to decide informed. Members of Congress mostly know what the people around them tell them (they don't disagree with this assessment), and when it comes to tech that is mostly lobbyists. But there are groups and people working behind the scenes making the case. And they are being heard.
Well I guess I don't need my Firewire 400 to 800 adaptor anymore.
I have never been a fan of Google starting with gmail. Google's business from day one was to collect as much data on you as possible and either use that data themselves or sell it to others. It boggled my mind why anyone would use gmail because of the privacy issues, but then realized that email was so hard to set up at the time that it was the path of least resistance for the masses. And in the process they gave up more than they realized. All of this goes for Facebook as well.
The Newton was ahead of its time, and Apple did come back to eventually completely dominate the mobile handheld market. This wasn't a tiny market that they were just "trying", it was the market the has come to dwarf the PC market and has devalued their overall business.
First hammer analogy!
This confused me at first as well. Once you've been in the community and built up your karma you may be asked to moderate at some point. For me it just kind of showed up one day as a pull down under each comment. As I have moderated over the years it seems like I am offered the chance more frequently. Probably because I actually do pay attention and try to moderate in a helpful way. Note, now that I have commented on your comment I can't moderate anything in this discussion. That's to prevent me from moderating people down if I am in the discussion itself. Makes sense really.
It seems inevitable that security holes will be in modern systems. We can argue about the why, or how this system is better than that system. But there is seemingly no end to vulnerabilities simply because of the complexities of modern systems. Too many variables, and it only takes one hole in the fence for the raptors to get through.
It wasn't directed by Villeneuve, but rather Luke Scott. Who I would wager has some relationship to Ridley.
My therapist worked on the trials back in the 70s, and said the results were amazing when treating PTSD and anxiety. I have long hoped that this could happen, but am surprised it actually has.
I never said Windows and Linux users were idiots, I said that the Mac was a better option on security issues for average users.
I think Mac users stopped saying the Mac was immune about 10 years ago. My take on it is that out of the two major desktop options, Windows and Mac, the Mac is the safer bet. As is iOS over Android.
Linux isn't an option for me or most users on the desktop. Too complicated for average users, and for those who rely on creative apps no real options. (please don't tell me about open source alternatives to Photoshop, ProTools etc, they aren't as good. Apple products are not bullet proof, but I still believe for the average user and creative types they are the best option security wise.
My son and I updated the phrase to "sucks Gungan balls". Try it out...