Also remember, this happened in the timeframe (mid 2015) that Apple was actively fighting the FBI to not build a software hack into iOS. So it can be fought. And won.
The scale is what wasn't know. this is every email going through there servers. Which is unconstitutional. Oh, and their poor implementation led to back door access as well.
Other questions still to be answered: Did google & microsoft do the same thing? So far, they've said 'no comment'. Which isn't good.
There are a few companies that might respond, but generally the answer is no. Because they have legal resources to threaten you. For exposing their lack of security. Cheaper for them to lawyer up than secure up.
1. She engaged in consensual sex act. 2. She approved of it being filmed (Bravo!) 3. She sent it, unbidden, to former lover & friends.
Those were her choices. There was never ANY agreement that the video was private. And most assuredly, the recipients would not have agreed to it. She gave up her privacy when she CHOSE to send the video to others, without any agreement in place.
They had the freedom to do what they wanted with it. She tried to embarrass her ex-lover by sending it, so he turned around and embarrassed her by sharing it further.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean the Trump that asked, in his first national security briefing, three times why we couldn't use the nuclear bomb?
Also remember, this happened in the timeframe (mid 2015) that Apple was actively fighting the FBI to not build a software hack into iOS. So it can be fought. And won.
They're ready, once they're as safe as humans on the road. Which happened several years ago.
The scale is what wasn't know. this is every email going through there servers. Which is unconstitutional. Oh, and their poor implementation led to back door access as well.
Other questions still to be answered: Did google & microsoft do the same thing? So far, they've said 'no comment'. Which isn't good.
Again, mistakes will happen. Self driving will not be perfect. To expect such is stupidity.
They are already an order of magnitude safer than the average driver.
They have already gone beyond their initial goals.
I don't think anyone anywhere is claiming that self driving cares will be perfect.
That's just stupid to expect.
Lowering the 100,000+ deaths per year in the world due to humans driving is the actual goal.
How often do you use your phone to actually call someone?
Ditto from another HPE employee.
HPI makes printers, ink & consumer electronics (desktops, laptops, etc)
HPE makes enterprise hardware. (servers, networking gear, SANs, etc)
Pretty easy actually. It's upstream that's the issue.
Now that's funny.
That's not really how it works in the real world.
"If"
Guess what?
The real world is that they HAVE credit cards, debit cards, phones, cars, money, drugs, sex.
Move on to the real world.
Also, most of the jobs listed are web site job listings. So you may have a point, but maybe not much of one.
Who cares? Have an 'actual' office in Seattle.
Have everyone in Santa Monica work out of their homes. No office, no law to fall afoul of.
Teens also have credit cards, 976 number redialing, botnet possibilities.
In spite of BarbarHudson's ignorance, anything at this scale is very valuable.
There are a few companies that might respond, but generally the answer is no. Because they have legal resources to threaten you. For exposing their lack of security. Cheaper for them to lawyer up than secure up.
No reason those jobs have be in Santa Monica though. Or anywhere else in CA. Move them to Seattle like the rest of the company.
My first hard drive was 10 Megabytes.
Can you figure it out?
Uh, any computer with an SD slot, or USB to SD reader?
It's not like there aren't already 128 & 256 GB SDs out there...
Except that Samsung didn't do an official recall until Sept 15.
http://www.samsung.com/us/note...
Depends on whether FloridaMan wins this lawsuit or not.
If you say something in private, that doesn't give that person the right to tell the public.
Yes, it actually does if there's no agreement in place. Especially if you're trying to be malicious as was the case here.
Again, it's not private if you share it unrequested, and especially as revenge.
You are completely and utterly wrong.
1. She engaged in consensual sex act.
2. She approved of it being filmed (Bravo!)
3. She sent it, unbidden, to former lover & friends.
Those were her choices. There was never ANY agreement that the video was private. And most assuredly, the recipients would not have agreed to it. She gave up her privacy when she CHOSE to send the video to others, without any agreement in place.
They had the freedom to do what they wanted with it. She tried to embarrass her ex-lover by sending it, so he turned around and embarrassed her by sharing it further.
The ONLY one at fault is her.
Add in a large amount of legal fees. Which are probably MUCH more than $1.3M