Re:When will the Damn Real Name Meme Die?
on
The Phantoms of Google+
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
No they did not. What they did was revoke the requirement to share your real name with everybody else on google+. They still require it internally, they just let you use one or more fake names for interacting with other people. That's only a marginal improvement because the database is still just as much a risk to your security.
And then you get angry at them when they provide you with a way to AVOID giving them information?
Avoid my ass.
This isn't about avoiding giving google more information, it's about another way for google to get more information about you.
Consider the two scenarios here:
1) Refuses to use google+ - google gets the email address the "invitation" went to and nothing else.
2) Uses one of these phatom accounts - google gets your IP address, your browser fingerprint probably drops a cookie on your browser and they get your link to the friend who "invited" you, and can link that with any other friend whose "invitation" you also responded to and any that ip/cookie/fingerprint links to any google searches you may have done
But Virgin Mobile USA's cheapest smartphone plan still provides ten times more voice minutes per month than I foresee using,
I would love a prepaid plan that had unlimited texting for, say, $10/month plus 15 cents a minute for every voice call and a 1GB of 3G data. I just don't really need voice on my cell phone any more.
Having an electronic election doesn't help or hurt election fraud in this case, however it does remove a few hundred (thousand?) people involved in counting/reading ballots, each of whom could be corrupt.
It removes many who individually could have only a marginal impact on the results while at the same time increasing the size of the "lottery" - such that it is now:
a) Possible for a single invidiual with the right access to corrupt the entire election b) Do it with much less chance of getting caught because purging an electronic audit trail is a million times easier than covering up physical ballot stuffing at thousands of polling stations
The typical example is Nazi Germany, whose persecution of Jews was perhaps hundreds of times more effective than it'd have been for the sole reason Germany had extensive, very precise information on who was a Jew and where, exactly, all of them lived.
Closer to home, at least for most slashdotters, was the WWII interment of americans of japanese descent - where the US Census Bureau handed over their names and addresses to the US Secret Service who then rounded them up.
What's more, such misuse of census data is (and was even then) forbidden, except that congress passed the war-powers act removiing those protections. Which goes to show that it does not matter what someone promises to do (or not do) with your data, if they have it, sooner or later they are going find a way to use it in ways that are not in your best interest.
And in case anyone feels the need to trivialize the internment of these people as a temporary precaution - it was NOT temporary. While they were gone, many of them had their property (land and other assests) confiscated or otherwise stolen so that when they were finally released, many were impoverished. We didn't send them to the gas chambers, but we were only marginally less cruel than the people we were fighting.
But the price was not high enough for every officer on the line to get the message. They pay more for your average car crash involving a city vehicle.
Add three more zeros to the end of that number and this practice of arresting photographers ceases everywhere in the country overnight.
How about firing everyone up the chain of command who supported them. Taxpayers pay for those fines, but taking away their jobs and pensions is more appropriate - after all when the police abuse their powers it generally ruins the lives of the people they do it. Turn about is fair play.
The constitution grants rights to the goverment. The american system is built on a foundation of "deny all with specific exceptions" for the government and "permit all with specific exceptions" for the people.
Interestingly, the Middle East is seeing the most growth of anywhere in the world, at a whopping 14% pace. You'd think people would be avoiding the region given the instability, but apparently that's not the case.
It is all the people coming to stay at jihadi training camps.
Agreed. It's weird how the article tries to spin them as separate things. "Most cybercrime now politically motivated" would have made for a more accurate headline.
One important differnce is that the "hackitivists" will tell you they did it as shaming the target is generally part of the plan. Real for-profit criminals will keep their mouths shut because they would like to do it again and not talking about it helps with that.
So, in and of itself, I think that's going to skew the numbers because what is really under discussion here are the number of cases of detected attacks, not total attacks.
I don't see how that's true. Taxes get collected on the vendor side, and it doesn't matter what kind of card you use, it all goes through the same system when the vendor charges/debits it.
You can't buy an open-loop gift card with a value greater than $500 without an ID. That's suppossedly an anti-terrorism law, as if a criminal would never have a fake ID.
What the hell does "DCE6 display watermark support" mean? I googled for it and didn't find anything useful. It sounds ominously like cinavia for video.
I'd prefer a no-paper solution. Like a standard/protocol to exchange that information between cell phones (e.g. a working Bump).
A friend is working on it. Using QR-codes - sender displays a QR-code full-screen on his phone and the receiver simply takes a picture of the sender's phone. No need for remote connection to servers for basic contact info, if you want more like file transfer then it can try ad-hoc wifi or some bluetooth thing, or on newer phones NFC.
Hardly any software really supports FLAC at all. I don't use iTunes, but does it support it? I know that Zune does not. Most standalone players don't support it.
My denon receiver supports it, streamed via DLNA as well as on a USB drive. My model is 2 years old, I think all current model denons that support MP3 also support flac.
It's a token effort that only large ISPs are making. My guess is that they are doing this in exchange for something...
It is bandwidth capping by another name. Pirates probably average a lot more bandwidth usage than non-pirates. Especially up-stream bandwidth because of the way bittorrent works. So the ISPs get to knock off their most expensive customers, at least on paper.
The fight is far from over. All this move will do is spur further innovation in darknet technology.
The copyfight battles will ebb and flow, but in the long run the MAFIAA can't win - they can only get old and die. It is in our genes to share, without an innate desire to share cool stuff with other people our species would never have developed civilisation. You can fight human nature, but you can't win.
Go for foreign films. The MAFIAA doesn't give a damn about piracy of non-MAFIAA products. So get used to reading subtitles and get the added benefit of a brand new perspective on cinema. South Korea, Hong Kong and Japan all have some great filmmakers - and Europe is full of them too. Plus you will get to see the really good stuff years before Hollywood can figure out how to remake it.
Yeah, exactly, you have a pass a rigorous background check that will ensure that under no circumstances can you be bribed or threatened into bringing a bomb onto a plane by threatening or giving a pile of money to your family.
You don't even have to know it is a bomb. You've got some sort of gambling/medical/tuition/mortgage/alimony debts and somebody offers you big bucks to smuggle a couple of kilos of cocaine. You figure drug wars are bullshit anyway, its a victimless crime, so you are happy get a little bit of that "war on drugs" money for yourself. Little do you realize that embedded in the middle of each key is actually a high-grade explosive.
And get arrested for impersonating an officer of the court.
There is no such crime. Sounds like you have mashed-up "impersonating an officer of the law" (i.e. a cop) and "practicing law without a license" (i.e. pretending to be a lawyer in court).
Slashdot Mirror
No they did not. What they did was revoke the requirement to share your real name with everybody else on google+. They still require it internally, they just let you use one or more fake names for interacting with other people. That's only a marginal improvement because the database is still just as much a risk to your security.
And then you get angry at them when they provide you with a way to AVOID giving them information?
Avoid my ass.
This isn't about avoiding giving google more information, it's about another way for google to get more information about you.
Consider the two scenarios here:
1) Refuses to use google+ - google gets the email address the "invitation" went to and nothing else.
2) Uses one of these phatom accounts - google gets your IP address, your browser fingerprint probably drops a cookie on your browser and they get your link to the friend who "invited" you, and can link that with any other friend whose "invitation" you also responded to and any that ip/cookie/fingerprint links to any google searches you may have done
#2 is vastly more information than #1
But Virgin Mobile USA's cheapest smartphone plan still provides ten times more voice minutes per month than I foresee using,
I would love a prepaid plan that had unlimited texting for, say, $10/month plus 15 cents a minute for every voice call and a 1GB of 3G data. I just don't really need voice on my cell phone any more.
Having an electronic election doesn't help or hurt election fraud in this case, however it does remove a few hundred (thousand?) people involved in counting/reading ballots, each of whom could be corrupt.
It removes many who individually could have only a marginal impact on the results while at the same time increasing the size of the "lottery" - such that it is now:
a) Possible for a single invidiual with the right access to corrupt the entire election
b) Do it with much less chance of getting caught because purging an electronic audit trail is a million times easier than covering up physical ballot stuffing at thousands of polling stations
The typical example is Nazi Germany, whose persecution of Jews was perhaps hundreds of times more effective than it'd have been for the sole reason Germany had extensive, very precise information on who was a Jew and where, exactly, all of them lived.
Closer to home, at least for most slashdotters, was the WWII interment of americans of japanese descent - where the US Census Bureau handed over their names and addresses to the US Secret Service who then rounded them up.
What's more, such misuse of census data is (and was even then) forbidden, except that congress passed the war-powers act removiing those protections. Which goes to show that it does not matter what someone promises to do (or not do) with your data, if they have it, sooner or later they are going find a way to use it in ways that are not in your best interest.
And in case anyone feels the need to trivialize the internment of these people as a temporary precaution - it was NOT temporary. While they were gone, many of them had their property (land and other assests) confiscated or otherwise stolen so that when they were finally released, many were impoverished. We didn't send them to the gas chambers, but we were only marginally less cruel than the people we were fighting.
1921 is "recently?"
Or the company could risk being sued at any moment by someone who believes their data isn't 'absolutely required to do its business'.
That doesn't seem to have really hindered business in the EU where such is pretty much the law already.
But the price was not high enough for every officer on the line to get the message. They pay more for your average car crash involving a city vehicle.
Add three more zeros to the end of that number and this practice of arresting photographers ceases everywhere in the country overnight.
How about firing everyone up the chain of command who supported them.
Taxpayers pay for those fines, but taking away their jobs and pensions is more appropriate - after all when the police abuse their powers it generally ruins the lives of the people they do it. Turn about is fair play.
Bull.
The constitution grants rights to the goverment. The american system is built on a foundation of "deny all with specific exceptions" for the government and "permit all with specific exceptions" for the people.
Interestingly, the Middle East is seeing the most growth of anywhere in the world, at a whopping 14% pace. You'd think people would be avoiding the region given the instability, but apparently that's not the case.
It is all the people coming to stay at jihadi training camps.
Yes, if facebook charged you money to participate, I'd agree that it was wrong to use facebook for this. Facebook is free.
Taking my money is not OK, but taking my privacy is?
If you aren't paying for the product, you are the product.
Agreed. It's weird how the article tries to spin them as separate things. "Most cybercrime now politically motivated" would have made for a more accurate headline.
One important differnce is that the "hackitivists" will tell you they did it as shaming the target is generally part of the plan. Real for-profit criminals will keep their mouths shut because they would like to do it again and not talking about it helps with that.
So, in and of itself, I think that's going to skew the numbers because what is really under discussion here are the number of cases of detected attacks, not total attacks.
They got a grant for a 5-year study, in 2008. So it ain't over yet.
http://www.physorg.com/news135928212.html
I don't see how that's true. Taxes get collected on the vendor side, and it doesn't matter what kind of card you use, it all goes through the same system when the vendor charges/debits it.
You can't buy an open-loop gift card with a value greater than $500 without an ID. That's suppossedly an anti-terrorism law, as if a criminal would never have a fake ID.
What the hell does "DCE6 display watermark support" mean?
I googled for it and didn't find anything useful.
It sounds ominously like cinavia for video.
Last year they blocked search results from the co.cc domain because they believed they polluted the search results
So now Google is officially a co.cc blocker.
I'd prefer a no-paper solution. Like a standard/protocol to exchange that information between cell phones (e.g. a working Bump).
A friend is working on it. Using QR-codes - sender displays a QR-code full-screen on his phone and the receiver simply takes a picture of the sender's phone. No need for remote connection to servers for basic contact info, if you want more like file transfer then it can try ad-hoc wifi or some bluetooth thing, or on newer phones NFC.
Hardly any software really supports FLAC at all. I don't use iTunes, but does it support it? I know that Zune does not. Most standalone players don't support it.
My denon receiver supports it, streamed via DLNA as well as on a USB drive. My model is 2 years old, I think all current model denons that support MP3 also support flac.
It's a token effort that only large ISPs are making. My guess is that they are doing this in exchange for something...
It is bandwidth capping by another name. Pirates probably average a lot more bandwidth usage than non-pirates. Especially up-stream bandwidth because of the way bittorrent works. So the ISPs get to knock off their most expensive customers, at least on paper.
I'm just surprised it lasted this long.
The fight is far from over. All this move will do is spur further innovation in darknet technology.
The copyfight battles will ebb and flow, but in the long run the MAFIAA can't win - they can only get old and die. It is in our genes to share, without an innate desire to share cool stuff with other people our species would never have developed civilisation. You can fight human nature, but you can't win.
Go for foreign films. The MAFIAA doesn't give a damn about piracy of non-MAFIAA products. So get used to reading subtitles and get the added benefit of a brand new perspective on cinema. South Korea, Hong Kong and Japan all have some great filmmakers - and Europe is full of them too. Plus you will get to see the really good stuff years before Hollywood can figure out how to remake it.
Yeah, exactly, you have a pass a rigorous background check that will ensure that under no circumstances can you be bribed or threatened into bringing a bomb onto a plane by threatening or giving a pile of money to your family.
You don't even have to know it is a bomb. You've got some sort of gambling/medical/tuition/mortgage/alimony debts and somebody offers you big bucks to smuggle a couple of kilos of cocaine. You figure drug wars are bullshit anyway, its a victimless crime, so you are happy get a little bit of that "war on drugs" money for yourself. Little do you realize that embedded in the middle of each key is actually a high-grade explosive.
Read the entire text, his elipses didn't just elide what's not applicable, they also elided what makes the entire statute not applicable.
And get arrested for impersonating an officer of the court.
There is no such crime.
Sounds like you have mashed-up "impersonating an officer of the law" (i.e. a cop) and "practicing law without a license" (i.e. pretending to be a lawyer in court).