$10 price difference is enough to sway a cost sensitive purchasing agent to buy a different brand. And the repair time or service call are much more expensive, taking the system offline for as much as a few weeks while the machines get pulled out of service, shipped to the vendor or an on-site tech visits, and the hosts repaired and tested.
The history of successful prosecutions against guilty people, and the public embarrassment when they fail to convict a dangerous person, both indicate their interest. I'd agree that their efforts are too often misplaced or politically diverted.
As is the empty space in a car lock. Filling the ignitio with epoxy makes the car useless. Blowing the USB ports on a school computer makes the keyboard, mouse, printer, or other devices useless.
Jails are crowded. Investing a jail cell for 10 years for a non-violent crime, when more dangerous people deserve harsh punishment, may not appreal to a prosecutor.
Trade secrets existed in Roman law. Copyright existed since the development of the printing press, with some earlier restriction on who could view or copy sacred documents. That is not even counting the "Ark of the Covenant", used to encase the 10 commandments of Hebrew law, as a form of copyright protection. There are even some signs that ancient Greece had patents.
Modern corporations and modern law have refined the practice to a ludicrous extent in many cases. But that hardly makes it a "new concept"..
On what do you base this claim? According to the last notes I've seen, most of them have overstayed their work visas, and thus I'd hate to classify them as "criminals". But they certainly could be classified as "illegal".
The Nazis originally advertised on Socialist goals, especially in their early days. As they developed, they successfully treated their perceived oppressors, Jews and foreigners, much as America's most radical left wing treats the white male patriarchy.
The point is that using an Android pone with a Lineage build does not solve the tracking privacy issue. Much of the problem is on the server side, irrelevant of the quality of the local cell phone. It's built into the services that a cell phone is most useful for, such as map functions, Lyft, and the next generation of E911 services.
I think not. Much of the stored data is on the server side, for applications like "google Maps" and "Uber" and "Lyft" and "Weather" that have legitimate reasons to know where you are. Your cell phone's identifying information, such as its connection in the cell phone data networks, its GPS, and the detected nearby wifi access points is part of how it determines the current location, and all of that can be stored on the server side, associated with any unique characteristics of your phone. Even if the attributes are not unique, such as MAC address from cheap NIC cheapsets, the data can be correlated with other data from nearby or from the same time period to help identify a target.
I am curious how the data is stored, and what it is optimized to provide answers for. Individual device tracking, and a record of all other MAC addresses seen during their use, is certainly a desirable goal for intelligence agencies.
It was because Tivo abused hardware locking to prevent any modification of the GPL based software they were providing. The freedom for users to modify software, "free as in speech", is one of the most critical aspects of "free software" licenses like the GPL. Tivo used GPLv2 software but locked its users hands by applying hardware based lockin, which was a direct violation of the spirit of the GPL.
That speech seemed to present some frighteningly bad "science". To paraphrase: by building in filters to select from extremely noisy figures, we detect an image, much like sketch artists at a crime scene.
But sketch artists are historically _awful_, with their results tainted by racial stereotype and whatever the first witness leads the other witnesses to conclude that they must have seen. The result has been many convictions of innocent people. This talk is actually quite alarming, the woman does not seem aware of the likely experimental bias of what she does.
Enforcing this order also provides a strong reason to check on illegal tenants in public housing, illegal immigrants, and homeless people in that district. It may not a purpose of the regulation, but they form a reservoir of at-risk people. It will be fascinating to see how NYC handles these people and whether they detain them or turn any immigrants over to INS.
Such privacy can be abused, especially by never actually holding a trial. Review the US prisoners in Guantanamo Bay for precisely what "secret investigations" provide: I'm afraid those have helped justify more terror and abuse against the USA than they've helped prevent, and we still have no evidence of court proceedings for those detainees after years in isolation.
The Swedish do it better. Their constitution guarantees public access to government documents. Keeping documents secret is very limited, and needs very clear justification.
There is a minor "DotCom" in progress right now. anyone whose profile shows any change on LinkedIn or Dice or Monster is flooded by recruiters for a stack of new startups, many of them sounding exactly like business plans from 2000 for companies that failed even before the crash. They have aggressive, exponential growth plans, and they don't acknowledge the risk that their technological innovation will never work or that their inevitable competitors are larger, older, and better equipped to simply add a new service.
Why do you assume that they are "watching these kids like hawks"? Does the FBI or most local police departments have _competence_ monitoring their informants or monitoring possibly bright children?
They were juveniles when convicted. Unless the prosecutor went to the extra effort to try them as adults, those records effectively evaporte on the crackers' 18th birthdays.
I've met a number of such crackers in my career. Most are not competent enough for their probing or securing work to be reliable or even competent. Those few who are competent technically have repeatedly abused the trust of their "sponsors" when hired.
For security reasons, "free software" is better than "open source". One of the ongoing dangers of open source is that it can contain proprietary, non-published components with unknown behavior. It's critical to the business model of many vendors, but it represents an ongoing security problem. Linux, the kernel has been _very_ good about avoiding these. Installing them for video drivers or proprietary DRM makes the kernel "tainted".
Red Hat has been very, very good about making their software "free software" and publishing nearly all of their open source work. SuSE has, historically at least, not been as cautious about that.
There are a number of IPv6 enthusiasts who insist that NAT is evil and unnecessary and insist that all IP addresses should be public, that all should be left to an intelligently confifured and sophisticated firewall to protect the internal IP addresses even if they are routable. In the last 10 years, I haven't met any of these enthusiasts who competently run their firewalls, or who sensibly use the non-routable IPv6 address spaces for their devices.
I'm afraid your question was "how such technology different". I provided a few distinctions. I also meant to say that the _doorman_ can actually provide assistance. They are, in fact, expected to provide assistance, to accept packages and to screen visitors in a way that a mere visual recording cannot. A doorman is a more transparent resource, accessible to the residents who might reasonably ask "did my kids get home?". They might also be notified that "I'm divorced, and my husband is not welcome." or actually report if a dozen underage children show up with alcohol, permitted by a particular tenant. Facial recognition has no sense of smell, nor can facial recognition hold a door for someone with a cane carrying groceries.
This does not make it right, or worthwhile. I've merely pointed out some of the differences between that doorman and a camera with facial recognition.
It's misused. I've seen a number of so-called professionals who did a second job while logged in from their current workplace, using their primary employer's laptops and networks to reach out to their "gig" or part-time contract work. I became particularly concerned when these employers did work behind my back on the same system I was doing formally contracted, scheduled work on without notification and disrupted the admin privileged tasks I was doing, especially including reboots.
That particular contract work was eventually deemed a failure, and all contracting money returned in order to avoid contractual responsibility for the consequences of the work. I'd never been in that kind dangerous contract before, and know better now how to avoid it.
You know who the doormen is, and have an opportunity to explain strange circumstances to them, and can actually provide assistance in case of difficulty. An anonymous tracking report, scannable by unknown people with no verification to the residents is a different. And it provides none of the help that a human doorman provides.
Slashdot Mirror
$10 price difference is enough to sway a cost sensitive purchasing agent to buy a different brand. And the repair time or service call are much more expensive, taking the system offline for as much as a few weeks while the machines get pulled out of service, shipped to the vendor or an on-site tech visits, and the hosts repaired and tested.
The history of successful prosecutions against guilty people, and the public embarrassment when they fail to convict a dangerous person, both indicate their interest. I'd agree that their efforts are too often misplaced or politically diverted.
> Diodes are cheap.
As is the empty space in a car lock. Filling the ignitio with epoxy makes the car useless. Blowing the USB ports on a school computer makes the keyboard, mouse, printer, or other devices useless.
Jails are crowded. Investing a jail cell for 10 years for a non-violent crime, when more dangerous people deserve harsh punishment, may not appreal to a prosecutor.
Trade secrets existed in Roman law. Copyright existed since the development of the printing press, with some earlier restriction on who could view or copy sacred documents. That is not even counting the "Ark of the Covenant", used to encase the 10 commandments of Hebrew law, as a form of copyright protection. There are even some signs that ancient Greece had patents.
Modern corporations and modern law have refined the practice to a ludicrous extent in many cases. But that hardly makes it a "new concept"..
On what do you base this claim? According to the last notes I've seen, most of them have overstayed their work visas, and thus I'd hate to classify them as "criminals". But they certainly could be classified as "illegal".
The Nazis originally advertised on Socialist goals, especially in their early days. As they developed, they successfully treated their perceived oppressors, Jews and foreigners, much as America's most radical left wing treats the white male patriarchy.
It's a troubling comparison.
The point is that using an Android pone with a Lineage build does not solve the tracking privacy issue. Much of the problem is on the server side, irrelevant of the quality of the local cell phone. It's built into the services that a cell phone is most useful for, such as map functions, Lyft, and the next generation of E911 services.
I think not. Much of the stored data is on the server side, for applications like "google Maps" and "Uber" and "Lyft" and "Weather" that have legitimate reasons to know where you are. Your cell phone's identifying information, such as its connection in the cell phone data networks, its GPS, and the detected nearby wifi access points is part of how it determines the current location, and all of that can be stored on the server side, associated with any unique characteristics of your phone. Even if the attributes are not unique, such as MAC address from cheap NIC cheapsets, the data can be correlated with other data from nearby or from the same time period to help identify a target.
I am curious how the data is stored, and what it is optimized to provide answers for. Individual device tracking, and a record of all other MAC addresses seen during their use, is certainly a desirable goal for intelligence agencies.
It was because Tivo abused hardware locking to prevent any modification of the GPL based software they were providing. The freedom for users to modify software, "free as in speech", is one of the most critical aspects of "free software" licenses like the GPL. Tivo used GPLv2 software but locked its users hands by applying hardware based lockin, which was a direct violation of the spirit of the GPL.
That speech seemed to present some frighteningly bad "science". To paraphrase: by building in filters to select from extremely noisy figures, we detect an image, much like sketch artists at a crime scene.
But sketch artists are historically _awful_, with their results tainted by racial stereotype and whatever the first witness leads the other witnesses to conclude that they must have seen. The result has been many convictions of innocent people. This talk is actually quite alarming, the woman does not seem aware of the likely experimental bias of what she does.
I was shocked by this claim, but found this article on the problem among Orhodox Jews in the Brooklyn.
https://www.vox.com/science-an...
Enforcing this order also provides a strong reason to check on illegal tenants in public housing, illegal immigrants, and homeless people in that district. It may not a purpose of the regulation, but they form a reservoir of at-risk people. It will be fascinating to see how NYC handles these people and whether they detain them or turn any immigrants over to INS.
Such privacy can be abused, especially by never actually holding a trial. Review the US prisoners in Guantanamo Bay for precisely what "secret investigations" provide: I'm afraid those have helped justify more terror and abuse against the USA than they've helped prevent, and we still have no evidence of court proceedings for those detainees after years in isolation.
The Swedish do it better. Their constitution guarantees public access to government documents. Keeping documents secret is very limited, and needs very clear justification.
There is a minor "DotCom" in progress right now. anyone whose profile shows any change on LinkedIn or Dice or Monster is flooded by recruiters for a stack of new startups, many of them sounding exactly like business plans from 2000 for companies that failed even before the crash. They have aggressive, exponential growth plans, and they don't acknowledge the risk that their technological innovation will never work or that their inevitable competitors are larger, older, and better equipped to simply add a new service.
Why do you assume that they are "watching these kids like hawks"? Does the FBI or most local police departments have _competence_ monitoring their informants or monitoring possibly bright children?
They were juveniles when convicted. Unless the prosecutor went to the extra effort to try them as adults, those records effectively evaporte on the crackers' 18th birthdays.
I've met a number of such crackers in my career. Most are not competent enough for their probing or securing work to be reliable or even competent. Those few who are competent technically have repeatedly abused the trust of their "sponsors" when hired.
Or the driver's clothing, if they've had alcohol spilled on them?
I believe the acronym you're looking for is "PLEASE", "Provide Legal Exculpation And Sign Everything". The relevant TV clip is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
For security reasons, "free software" is better than "open source". One of the ongoing dangers of open source is that it can contain proprietary, non-published components with unknown behavior. It's critical to the business model of many vendors, but it represents an ongoing security problem. Linux, the kernel has been _very_ good about avoiding these. Installing them for video drivers or proprietary DRM makes the kernel "tainted".
Red Hat has been very, very good about making their software "free software" and publishing nearly all of their open source work. SuSE has, historically at least, not been as cautious about that.
There are a number of IPv6 enthusiasts who insist that NAT is evil and unnecessary and insist that all IP addresses should be public, that all should be left to an intelligently confifured and sophisticated firewall to protect the internal IP addresses even if they are routable. In the last 10 years, I haven't met any of these enthusiasts who competently run their firewalls, or who sensibly use the non-routable IPv6 address spaces for their devices.
I'm afraid your question was "how such technology different". I provided a few distinctions. I also meant to say that the _doorman_ can actually provide assistance. They are, in fact, expected to provide assistance, to accept packages and to screen visitors in a way that a mere visual recording cannot. A doorman is a more transparent resource, accessible to the residents who might reasonably ask "did my kids get home?". They might also be notified that "I'm divorced, and my husband is not welcome." or actually report if a dozen underage children show up with alcohol, permitted by a particular tenant. Facial recognition has no sense of smell, nor can facial recognition hold a door for someone with a cane carrying groceries.
This does not make it right, or worthwhile. I've merely pointed out some of the differences between that doorman and a camera with facial recognition.
It's misused. I've seen a number of so-called professionals who did a second job while logged in from their current workplace, using their primary employer's laptops and networks to reach out to their "gig" or part-time contract work. I became particularly concerned when these employers did work behind my back on the same system I was doing formally contracted, scheduled work on without notification and disrupted the admin privileged tasks I was doing, especially including reboots.
That particular contract work was eventually deemed a failure, and all contracting money returned in order to avoid contractual responsibility for the consequences of the work. I'd never been in that kind dangerous contract before, and know better now how to avoid it.
You know who the doormen is, and have an opportunity to explain strange circumstances to them, and can actually provide assistance in case of difficulty. An anonymous tracking report, scannable by unknown people with no verification to the residents is a different. And it provides none of the help that a human doorman provides.