I guess the equivalent could be that you write about where you're going next and what you've done that day on the wall of every public restroom you visit.
Then you get upset when someone creates a system that compiles the writing on all restroom walls and places the results in chronological order, linked to images gathered off the security cameras at time of exit from said restroom.
The difference, of course, being that Facebook already does that, and this app just uses a specific custom query for that data.
Alternately, we stop being so prissy about seeing things on the Internet.
The "teacher's party picture" annoys me - you can be a school teacher at 22 years old. If they go out with their doctor, lawyer, plumber, and oil-rig worker high-school buddies for a night on the town and a parent sees the photo, why is the teacher the only one who gets in trouble?
Because the teacher is the only one who becomes legal guardian of their children during the day. The others may be role models to children, but teachers actually are substitute parents -- so when parents see a teacher doing something they wouldn't let their children catch THEM doing, they get upset.
That said, the doctor may get in trouble too. The lawyer wouldn't because most people assume they've got no ethics to begin with and are legally covered.
If he really had no idea what that app could be used for, he's by no means any better than the idiots targeted with the app.
Fuck, does it really take more than two brain cells to figure out what's going to happen with this? Are people really that stupid?
Depends... this is all data available on Foursquare and Facebook. And we've seen that people really are stupid enough to use those services, even though it doesn't take more than a few brain cells to figure out how people are going to abuse THOSE services.
Again, I have never treated a woman like this, nor would I. I tend to avoid women who invite this kind of behavior, as a general rule. My wife actually has some self respect, as well as my full respect; were she the type to dress slutty and flirt with every guy she meets for attention, she would not be my wife, nor would she have my respect.
...and here's where we have the problem. In some parts of the world, a woman showing her hair/face/legs/wrists/ankles/etc. is considered to be "dressing slutty" and "flirting" is also defined as doing these things in a public place where men might see them.
In other parts of the world (such as nude beaches), a woman could be lying naked on the ground and other regulars there would hardly notice.
With the internet, as with today's multicultural society, you get these groups plus everyone in-between being pressed into the same meat/cyberspace, with predictable results.
And you've identified the real issue here too... respect. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about men or women, Foursquare/Facebook/Bar/park, etc. It's about what causes people to gain/lose respect for each other. People who break taboos through ignorance lose just as much respect as those who do it intentionally, even if for different reasons.
I agree; I think CBS must be confusing copyright with trade rights -- with trade rights, you have to vigorously defend the rights in order to keep them. With copyright, all they have to do is grant the group a license (for free or not) to use the work. Or is CBS planning to create a new CG-based Star Wars:Retro series using all the old unused scripts and they feel that this fan-based production would undercut their potential profits?
When you write the list you have no real obligation to put yourself on it as long as we are just slightly less restricted than the other guys. Short of a total internet blackout the american government will not admit to censoring the internet
I believe the common parlance is differently restricted....
...it uses an undisclosed vulnerability in the devices it targets to run a program on the phone that brute-forces its passcode.
You don't think Apple needs to patch against this? The fact that they can even get the program to run on the phone itself is an exploit and, quite obviously, this hole needs to be closed.
This is a local "exploit" -- and is the same way that Apple updates devices itself. There is no program running on the phone per-se.
However, it would definitely make sense for Apple to require that data be wiped when this operation is performed, prompting for a restore from backup after the fact. Indeed, they could use a public key check using your backup password as the private key to validate the connection -- but then they'd need a back-door in order to wipe devices for reuse.
You'd have a short fuse if you were treated the way the average person of arab descent is treated in most parts of the US too.... I believe African Americans, Hispanics, Italians and the Irish are also prone to have a "short fuse." In fact, pretty much anyone who's used to being in the social majority with minimal restrictions on freedom of expression tends to get a short fuse when marginalized.
Wikileaks had dirt on every country where the US have/had an embassy... Which doesn't leave that many.
...and the ones it leaves are generally ones where there was no embassy because of known human rights abuses (namely, places that wouldn't let WikiLeaks operate in the first place).
I don't think anyone is using Sealand's alleged statehood for tax evasion
No, but anyone who claims sovreignty there and doesn't pay UK taxes (property tax, income tax, etc) is evading UK taxes. The UK could have anyone who works there and then visits England arrested for tax evasion if they don't pay UK tax.
I wonder how well it works with a complex iPhone passcode though (if at all?) - I confess to not watching all of the video or reading the article properly.
It fails utterly, if the unspoken text in the article is anything to go by... encryption + wipe + passworded backups + long password should be enough protection for most situations. Some people just find it too inconvenient, and don't realize how much valuable data they store on their smartphones.
Um, why do these even exist on the phones in the first place?
Because the telcos requested them. The discussion slashdot had regarding the invasive possible spyware system installed by the telcos included other more niche reasons as well.
If the manufacturers (Apple and Google) were truly interested in patching these "undisclosed" vulnerabilities, they could purchase this software and run it on test/dev devices to see how it's done.
Apple has no need to patch anything; they already recommend you use variable length passwords and not use the obsolete 4-digit PIN system. They haven't disabled it completely yet, but it's up to all end-users whether they want to decrease their security and use it, or stick with a multi-digit passcode or passphrase. The 4-digit PIN system has been known to be insecure for over two years now, and the alternative system has been available since the release of iOS 4 (not 5, which made it the default IIRC).
Think of the 4-digit pin as being "I don't want anyone casually snooping on my data" and the passcode system as being "I want to prevent brief focused attempts at accessing my data". If the data's not encrypted (that's also an option), a determined person who has the phone in their posession can just read all the data right off the flash. If it's encrypted, they'll need to crack the password, or find some way to bypass it (backups, debug mode, smudges, the patched cached file approach, etc).
I wish they had more power to be honest, the FTC is one federal thing I've come to agree with time and time again.
You know what they say... "power corrupts." As the FTC has almost no power, they aren't very corrupt. Personally, I like it this way, as they DO have a voice that will be heard, even if others with power usually overrule their recommendations. Would you rather they were like the TSA or the CBP?
Indeed. As a reference for how it should really be done, look back to the Conservative's last election campaign. Instead of baseless accusations, they used innuendo, baseless questioning, and true accusations with baseless conclusions. All legal, all political.
The opposition (NDP) got where they are today by NOT doing those things -- Canadians got fed up with all the mud slinging and decided that no matter how inept the other guy might be, at least he was less corrupt (in morality, if not in political dealings).
I long for the days when Canadians will drop all this party leader nonsense and go back to Canadian Politics how they were supposed to be: vote for the local representative who you feel would best represent you in Parliament.
Interestingly, my first thought was to wonder whether this was done on behalf of someone running in the elections, or by an outsider trying to make a point... Remember that not only is the Conservative party the one involved in the Robocall scandal (that did a similar thing to this in the last elections using the phone system and the electorate instead of just using the internet and a leadership election), but it's also the party that is using its possibly illegal majority to stonewall all legislation that isn't part of its agenda, and push through all of its agenda even with large protests from the people they claim to represent.
It could just be a protest against the Conservative party, or it could be an attack designed to cover up digital elections fixing (hiding such a fixing amidst the DDoS is an extremely effective method, as it becomes difficult to measure actual voter turnout and response).
My first thought when reading this was "so why doesn't the US do it?" I mean, under US law, both things are equally illegal. Under most moral codes, both activities are considered wrong. So why do they make the distinction if both sets of activities are equally immoral and illegal? Is it the fact that they consider messing with corporate multinationals more powerful than most world governments to be somehow less good than messing with said world governments? If you mess with the government, *people die*. If you mess with the multinationals, one steals some profit margin and growth potential from another.
I mean, is the real issue here that the Government of China has found a way to profit their country via limited communism in a way that the US Government finds reprehensibe because they are unable to do it or didn't think of it first?
Or are they implying that unlike the US, the Chinese government is actually being run by Chinese corporations?*
*The US Government of course being run by US corporations as well as Chinese corporations.
Your argument is flawed for the same reason that people say macs are more secure than pc's.
Just because something is not popular enough to attract attention (and btw, it was rooted not long after it was released, which in turn prompted microsoft to offer a legit way to do it), doesn't mean it is more secure.
Android and iOS are victims to their popularity. On the other hand, BB handsets are, by design, extremely secure. Weird that you did not mention that.
[citation needed] BB handsets are completely closed, and critical exploits have been found for them. The only open part of the BB walled garden is the QNX underpinnings, which have their own issues and exploits.
While the BB ecosystem is more manageable from an IT viewpoint, there is no proof that it is more secure from determined outside (or inside) attack. Just harder to mess up the security configurations, and you need to attack RIM's servers as well as the target company's servers.
Personally, I believe it was more "both sides tried to gain an unfair advantage over the other and ended up getting screwed" situation. Of course, getting screwed doesn't affect a multinational corporation as much as it does an individual.
Slashdot Mirror
A " girl " is like "your mom", but younger and not genetically related to you.
I'm pretty sure this app will find "your mom" too, if she uses foursquare and facebook. I wonder if people have thought of THAT....
I guess the equivalent could be that you write about where you're going next and what you've done that day on the wall of every public restroom you visit.
Then you get upset when someone creates a system that compiles the writing on all restroom walls and places the results in chronological order, linked to images gathered off the security cameras at time of exit from said restroom.
The difference, of course, being that Facebook already does that, and this app just uses a specific custom query for that data.
Alternately, we stop being so prissy about seeing things on the Internet.
The "teacher's party picture" annoys me - you can be a school teacher at 22 years old. If they go out with their doctor, lawyer, plumber, and oil-rig worker high-school buddies for a night on the town and a parent sees the photo, why is the teacher the only one who gets in trouble?
Because the teacher is the only one who becomes legal guardian of their children during the day. The others may be role models to children, but teachers actually are substitute parents -- so when parents see a teacher doing something they wouldn't let their children catch THEM doing, they get upset.
That said, the doctor may get in trouble too. The lawyer wouldn't because most people assume they've got no ethics to begin with and are legally covered.
If he really had no idea what that app could be used for, he's by no means any better than the idiots targeted with the app.
Fuck, does it really take more than two brain cells to figure out what's going to happen with this? Are people really that stupid?
Depends... this is all data available on Foursquare and Facebook. And we've seen that people really are stupid enough to use those services, even though it doesn't take more than a few brain cells to figure out how people are going to abuse THOSE services.
Oh..wait.. you want equal ability to go anywhere a man can? Well, sounds like we have a conflict...
No conflict... that's what burqas are for.
Now that we've got that out of the way, remember that any non-alpha male has the same problems, with fewer legal defenses.
Bingo! This guy gets it!
Again, I have never treated a woman like this, nor would I. I tend to avoid women who invite this kind of behavior, as a general rule. My wife actually has some self respect, as well as my full respect; were she the type to dress slutty and flirt with every guy she meets for attention, she would not be my wife, nor would she have my respect.
...and here's where we have the problem. In some parts of the world, a woman showing her hair/face/legs/wrists/ankles/etc. is considered to be "dressing slutty" and "flirting" is also defined as doing these things in a public place where men might see them.
In other parts of the world (such as nude beaches), a woman could be lying naked on the ground and other regulars there would hardly notice.
With the internet, as with today's multicultural society, you get these groups plus everyone in-between being pressed into the same meat/cyberspace, with predictable results.
And you've identified the real issue here too... respect. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about men or women, Foursquare/Facebook/Bar/park, etc. It's about what causes people to gain/lose respect for each other. People who break taboos through ignorance lose just as much respect as those who do it intentionally, even if for different reasons.
I agree; I think CBS must be confusing copyright with trade rights -- with trade rights, you have to vigorously defend the rights in order to keep them. With copyright, all they have to do is grant the group a license (for free or not) to use the work. Or is CBS planning to create a new CG-based Star Wars:Retro series using all the old unused scripts and they feel that this fan-based production would undercut their potential profits?
When you write the list you have no real obligation to put yourself on it as long as we are just slightly less restricted than the other guys. Short of a total internet blackout the american government will not admit to censoring the internet
I believe the common parlance is differently restricted....
So you're going to pay $0.01 more for each coffee?
$1.51 with card = $1.51, with cash = $1.50
$1.49 with cash = $1.50, with card = $1.49
I'll add my 0 cents:
$1.49 + 12% HST = $1.6688
This will be rounded down to $1.65, so you're paying $0.0188 LESS for each coffee at that price.
Indeed... just see Bill C-11 in Canada for as brazen an example of this as you'll find anywhere.
You don't think Apple needs to patch against this? The fact that they can even get the program to run on the phone itself is an exploit and, quite obviously, this hole needs to be closed.
This is a local "exploit" -- and is the same way that Apple updates devices itself. There is no program running on the phone per-se.
However, it would definitely make sense for Apple to require that data be wiped when this operation is performed, prompting for a restore from backup after the fact. Indeed, they could use a public key check using your backup password as the private key to validate the connection -- but then they'd need a back-door in order to wipe devices for reuse.
You'd have a short fuse if you were treated the way the average person of arab descent is treated in most parts of the US too....
I believe African Americans, Hispanics, Italians and the Irish are also prone to have a "short fuse." In fact, pretty much anyone who's used to being in the social majority with minimal restrictions on freedom of expression tends to get a short fuse when marginalized.
That's just the French you're talking about! There are plenty of other stereotypes specific to the other European nations.
Bingo!
And do all Asians live in Japan and Korea?
Wikileaks had dirt on every country where the US have/had an embassy... Which doesn't leave that many.
...and the ones it leaves are generally ones where there was no embassy because of known human rights abuses (namely, places that wouldn't let WikiLeaks operate in the first place).
Tax evasion
I don't think anyone is using Sealand's alleged statehood for tax evasion
No, but anyone who claims sovreignty there and doesn't pay UK taxes (property tax, income tax, etc) is evading UK taxes. The UK could have anyone who works there and then visits England arrested for tax evasion if they don't pay UK tax.
I wonder how well it works with a complex iPhone passcode though (if at all?) - I confess to not watching all of the video or reading the article properly.
It fails utterly, if the unspoken text in the article is anything to go by... encryption + wipe + passworded backups + long password should be enough protection for most situations. Some people just find it too inconvenient, and don't realize how much valuable data they store on their smartphones.
Um, why do these even exist on the phones in the first place?
Because the telcos requested them. The discussion slashdot had regarding the invasive possible spyware system installed by the telcos included other more niche reasons as well.
If the manufacturers (Apple and Google) were truly interested in patching these "undisclosed" vulnerabilities, they could purchase this software and run it on test/dev devices to see how it's done.
Apple has no need to patch anything; they already recommend you use variable length passwords and not use the obsolete 4-digit PIN system. They haven't disabled it completely yet, but it's up to all end-users whether they want to decrease their security and use it, or stick with a multi-digit passcode or passphrase. The 4-digit PIN system has been known to be insecure for over two years now, and the alternative system has been available since the release of iOS 4 (not 5, which made it the default IIRC).
Think of the 4-digit pin as being "I don't want anyone casually snooping on my data" and the passcode system as being "I want to prevent brief focused attempts at accessing my data". If the data's not encrypted (that's also an option), a determined person who has the phone in their posession can just read all the data right off the flash. If it's encrypted, they'll need to crack the password, or find some way to bypass it (backups, debug mode, smudges, the patched cached file approach, etc).
I wish they had more power to be honest, the FTC is one federal thing I've come to agree with time and time again.
You know what they say... "power corrupts." As the FTC has almost no power, they aren't very corrupt. Personally, I like it this way, as they DO have a voice that will be heard, even if others with power usually overrule their recommendations. Would you rather they were like the TSA or the CBP?
Indeed. As a reference for how it should really be done, look back to the Conservative's last election campaign. Instead of baseless accusations, they used innuendo, baseless questioning, and true accusations with baseless conclusions. All legal, all political.
The opposition (NDP) got where they are today by NOT doing those things -- Canadians got fed up with all the mud slinging and decided that no matter how inept the other guy might be, at least he was less corrupt (in morality, if not in political dealings).
I long for the days when Canadians will drop all this party leader nonsense and go back to Canadian Politics how they were supposed to be: vote for the local representative who you feel would best represent you in Parliament.
Interestingly, my first thought was to wonder whether this was done on behalf of someone running in the elections, or by an outsider trying to make a point...
Remember that not only is the Conservative party the one involved in the Robocall scandal (that did a similar thing to this in the last elections using the phone system and the electorate instead of just using the internet and a leadership election), but it's also the party that is using its possibly illegal majority to stonewall all legislation that isn't part of its agenda, and push through all of its agenda even with large protests from the people they claim to represent.
It could just be a protest against the Conservative party, or it could be an attack designed to cover up digital elections fixing (hiding such a fixing amidst the DDoS is an extremely effective method, as it becomes difficult to measure actual voter turnout and response).
My first thought when reading this was "so why doesn't the US do it?" I mean, under US law, both things are equally illegal. Under most moral codes, both activities are considered wrong. So why do they make the distinction if both sets of activities are equally immoral and illegal? Is it the fact that they consider messing with corporate multinationals more powerful than most world governments to be somehow less good than messing with said world governments? If you mess with the government, *people die*. If you mess with the multinationals, one steals some profit margin and growth potential from another.
I mean, is the real issue here that the Government of China has found a way to profit their country via limited communism in a way that the US Government finds reprehensibe because they are unable to do it or didn't think of it first?
Or are they implying that unlike the US, the Chinese government is actually being run by Chinese corporations?*
*The US Government of course being run by US corporations as well as Chinese corporations.
Your argument is flawed for the same reason that people say macs are more secure than pc's.
Just because something is not popular enough to attract attention (and btw, it was rooted not long after it was released, which in turn prompted microsoft to offer a legit way to do it), doesn't mean it is more secure.
Android and iOS are victims to their popularity. On the other hand, BB handsets are, by design, extremely secure. Weird that you did not mention that.
[citation needed]
BB handsets are completely closed, and critical exploits have been found for them. The only open part of the BB walled garden is the QNX underpinnings, which have their own issues and exploits.
While the BB ecosystem is more manageable from an IT viewpoint, there is no proof that it is more secure from determined outside (or inside) attack. Just harder to mess up the security configurations, and you need to attack RIM's servers as well as the target company's servers.
I've been using them longer than I've been reading slashdot (over a decade)... hence my publicly viewable email address ;)
Personally, I believe it was more "both sides tried to gain an unfair advantage over the other and ended up getting screwed" situation. Of course, getting screwed doesn't affect a multinational corporation as much as it does an individual.