"I understood this to be my recollection recorded of my conversation with the President. As a private citizen, I felt free to share that."
Not sure about the law in the USA, but here in Europe, nothing you write as part of your job is your private notes. Your employer pays for the time you spend writing it down, they probably paid for the pen and paper, and they paid you for being there and having that conversation. The notes are theirs, not yours.
Whether you support the leak or not, technically speaking he did break the law, didn't he?
In your first tweet, you incite violence. In your second tweet you make a false statement about a large group of people and no, the "and some" does not change that, because grammatically, the first statement still applies to the majority.
So yes, even trollish tweets can be countered with a rational look at whether or not they are true.
Because "hate speech" clearly is the worst problem the world is facing right now.
How about we focus on the truth value of information instead of the subjective, emotional aspects? Now that would be something new. Who knows, we might end up with something worth the name "journalism" again.
...it could just be market saturation. There's only so many electric cars you can sell until everyone who wants one, has one. And then they're good for a couple years and after that there's the used market (e-cars are slowly coming to the used market. When I first had the thought that a Tesla would be cool, there was a supply of zero on the used market. Last time I checked, there were four or five).
That sentence actually is troublesome. Note that I'm not commenting on the case in general, only on this particular bit.
In my home country, and most of Europe, such arguments are explicitly illegal and if the judge is on his feet, should land the prosecutor in a big pile of trouble. One of the core principals of the legal system should be to judge the case at hand, and the case at hand only.
People should not get harsher (or lighter) sentences because of external circumstances. They should not get more prison time to deter others, or because the crime rate is high, or because we can only catch x% of criminals, so let's punish them extra hard. To deter others should not be a factor in the decision or the penalty. What's next? Punish black people harder because they need extra deterance? Punish men harder because they tend to be more violent? This is a slippery slope which is exactly why that principle exists.
Punish the crime, not the circumstances. If the punishment is not high enough for deterence, re-think the sentencing rules and change the law, but don't bend the law.
While I agree with your sentiment, let's not forget that these were stolen NSA exploits.
Even the NSA can only find what's there. We can raise the software quality (i.e. lower the bug count) by at least two orders of magnitude, this has been demonstrated. It is more expensive, but not that much (not even one order of magnitude).
We just don't because making a quick buck before the shit hits the fan is still a viable business model.
$94k is not a bad payout. Sure they hoped for more, and the worm was very successful and could've yielded more. But publicity is the enemy of every good scam, so typically, they actually do not want their scam to make headlines.
Given all that, they still made the equivalent of a yearly salary on this thing, and without the inconvenience of paying taxes or having to show up in the office. Any indy mobile games developer would be happy with getting that return from a game.
Ransomware is here to stay. But maybe with the large number of victims this time, people will actually demand that software vendors start to provide something that is better than utter crap? That we have a very serious issue in software quality and we can't afford to bet our economy, social networks and basically all of civilisation on something that's made cheap and fast (you know the third that wasn't picked).
We need some basics done right in software, and that means re-engineering a big part of it. We need to understand trust levels, MLS or its variants. We need to get away from the user model we have, where users are treated as either complete idiots or all-knowing gods. We need to get our shit sorted out instead of pushing the next shoddy "disrupting product" out the door in search of a quick buck and a profitable IPO.
Maybe if something besides $$$ still had a value in this society...
People think they are smarter than their grandparents when actually they are so much more dumb that they don't even notice it.
You see, there is a reason for regulations, for fixed fares, for trade union wages and all that "evil government" stuff. The reason is called peace of mind.
Sure I can go through life negotiating every small deal, always checking all the prices, always on the edge making sure nobody takes advantages of me while I try to use every opportunity there is. What a stressful way to live your life!
When you travel the same way multiple times, you learn very fast how much the taxi rate is. If you travel in the same city a lot, you can quickly make reasonable estimates. Because of fixed prices. I can decide to take the taxi to the airport tomorrow, estimating what it will cost me and deciding the saved time is worth it. But when prices change all the time depending on a hundred variables half of which I don't even know, then there is no such calmness. I need to check all the different driving services and compare, and just before booking, not the evening before. Then I need to make sure none of the surge charging or other modifiers changes the price at the last minute.
Why should I fuck my brain like that to maybe save a few bucks? Why should the driver go to work in the morning with not the slightest clue how much he'll earn today? The slavery to market mechanics sucks the souls out of all the human beings involved in the transaction. You can do business like that when you have machine-to-machine trading, but us humans, for us all of this dealing is not an end in itself, it is just a tiny part of the life we live, and the mental burden, the uncertainty and unpleasant surprises have an effect far stronger than the monetary optimisation effect.
The "gig economy" is not a new invention. Millions of people throughout the ages lived their lives like that. Short, miserable and poor lives. Nobody ever became rich with gigs. It's just a trick to swindle us out of the health care, unemployment and other social security systems that older generations fought and died for to establish. Everyone pushing this misery ought to be ashamed and beg for forgiveness at the graves of their grand- and grand-grand-parents.
Well, maybe the answer is to stop pretending that companies can - or should - 'take care' of their employees any more.
Why?
Because competitors in other countries do it? Are these countries that you would rather live in? Maybe there is a connection between those things?
We need to stop having competition on uneven playing fields. Of course some child in Bangladesh can undercut your hourly rate. That's because it's a child, there's no workplace safety at all, you can get a meal for one dollar and a flat for a hundred, and a dozen other reasons.
But instead of all of us going to the lowest common denominator, maybe we should go to the highest? There is nothing wrong with outsourcing work to other countries - if you do it right. When the hourly rate in country A is $10 and in country B is $1, you can contract the work out for $2. Yes, $2, not $1. You will pay very good for country B standards, allowing them to increase their standard of living and spending the additional money on education, clean energy and innovation. And you can sell the product still cheap for country A standards. But your effect on the job market there is much lower (productivity needs to be 5 times higher, not 10 times) and you still make a lot of profit.
But no, we need to ruin both countries for that additional $1 in profit.
What happened to the world that layoffs became equivalent with increasing profits? One generation ago, layoffs were a sign that a company was in serious trouble, profits were down and growth was negative. Layoffs were what the directors did if the alternative was to file for bancruptcy. They would be a bad message for investors and stock price would drop. Mass layoffs were a typical sign of a company about to fold.
Today, by the logic of investors, you should fire all your workforce to increase profits to infinity!
Casual interaction and being unable to spell simple words in your native language correctly are two completely different things. You can be informal while still being correct in language, grammar and etiquette. Yes, there is an etiquette for casual interaction as well.
I don't work as a professor (though some people try to push me into that career). But if I were to receive somewhat official communication from a student with glaring language mistakes, I'd probably send it back pointing out that we are at an institute of higher learning and if you expect my time and attention, I can expect proper spelling and grammar.
One thing that education should teach you is that behaviour is context-sensitive. At a business meeting, at the bar, at the beach, at a job interview - every setting has its own rules and expectations. The better you can adapt to different roles while still staying authentic and true to yourself, the better for you.
Who says that everyone based in North Korea is working for the government? We don't assume every US hacker works for the CIA, do we? Especially in countries such as NK, China, Russia, I would first assume that they are simple criminals, or maybe people trying to make a fortune and then get the hell out of there (which takes a lot of money. I just moved to another country, just within Europe, and it cost me a fortune).
Judging from the country I know a little about - Russia - I'm sure you can find ties to the government, the police, maybe the secret service. But that's not necessarily because the whole operation is a government operation. It could very well be simple corruption. The criminals and the police are closer to each other than us ordinary people are to either of them. That's true for western countries as well, but not to the same degree.
The main issue with the bean counters is that they (often intentionally) underestimate the probability of a flaw being exploited.
If exploiting the flaw will give the attacker some kind of financial or otherwise interesting profit, even indirectly (like exploiting a OS flaw to deploy ransomware) then given a sufficient timeframe, the probability that the flaw will be found and exploited is close to 100%.
I know this is a bit of "hire me" since I'm an IS Architect, but IT is going to become a lot more expensive. As a company, you can decide if it becomes more expensive because you spend money on security, or because you keep getting hacked. You can also bugger your vendors to finally invest serious money into seriously secure systems, but we all know that the likes of MS, Oracle, etc. won't be forced by some companies saying "or else" because there isn't much else.
Funny how nobody noticed how very suddenly everything from elections not going the favorite way to bad weather is Putins fault. Let's conveniently ignore that he's been running Russia one way or the other for twenty years.
Assuming that much of this stuff is either fabricated or wasn't important some years ago and is dragged up now - the question is why? For what purpose is the public fed the old "Russia is evil" meme again? What are we being prepared for?
Remote exploit that can replicate is bad, very, very bad. The Sapphire worm reached exponential growth and infected 90% of vulnerable systems in 10 minutes. It was a single UDP packet (no timeouts, handshakes, etc.) but some research I did a decade ago proved that, at least theoretical, a TCP-based worm can perform in the same order of magnitude.
Not much has happened in this area recently, mostly because the bad guys have shifted to spam, botnets and ransomware. With the IoT, there's a lot of fun just around the corner.
You are still arguing about government interference as if that were the difficult part. Completely trapped in the "trade good, government bad" kind of thinking.
I am claiming that free markets are impossible. I am not claiming the "free" (from government interference) part is the problem. I'm claiming the "market" part is an abstraction and every real market is much more complicated than the model assumes.
I don't know how to make it more clear. So I'll try a metaphor: Planes are built by engineers, not by scientists. Not because aerodynamics is a lie, but because it is an approximation and a good helping of real-world skills and pragmatics is necessary to actually get lift in a non-laboratory setting.
Same with markets. Free or not, the real world does not have a 100% match with the economy textbooks.
You define only one part of the term, the "free". I am less paranoid about the evil government and more about what a market, according to this theory, is. Basically, you are arguing about the friction part, and I'm talking about the perfect sphere in a vacuum part.
That's forgivable as most articles about "free markets" conveniently handwave the actually tricky parts. Talking about government interference and the base evil of taxation is easy and gets you sympathies. Talking about the trick that John can sell his apples for $100 if he controls information (i.e. buyers don't know about the other people selling apples for $1) is more complicated. The whole price equillibrium thing assumes transparency without bothering to solve this problem, much like gravity in school simply assumes a vacuum while real engineers worry much more about air resistance than about gravity formulas.
A 6 year old 100 years ago would have learnt racism, sexism and a dozen other -isms that we today consider obviously silly. He would consider it quite obvious that africans, or frenchmen, or jews, or catholics, or whatever the dominant prejudice in his village was, are inferior people. That women are half-humans. That children need to be beaten to learn discipline. And a hundred other "facts".
What is "obvious" is very much a cultural artifact, much more than objective truth.
Please explain to us why (a) you dont know what I knew at 6 years old, (b) you are demanding that this knowledge be "obvious" before you will accept it.
As the famous quote (whose author I sadly forgot) goes: "Common sense is what tells us the earth is flat."
The 6 year old knows that things fall down and break if you drop them. I want to understand gravity and materials science. "Why" is a good question to start.
You are just putting your fingers in your ears and going "la-la-la". I'm trying to understand what this silly racism thing is actually about. We all have prejudices, even though many of us don't admit to them. Why do we have them? Are they still useful? Given that as shortcuts and heuristics they are often not true, should we keep or abandon them? Are there useful prejudices or are they all bad?
I don't think your 6 year old self could discuss this question at an intellectual level. It didn't understand anything, it just learnt from its environment by copying. The same way that a 6 year old one century ago would have learnt all of the things that you now consider obvious.
Still doesn't follow. You notice that there's a break in your chain of logic? That this is similar to the famous joke where the middle of the blackboard says "and here a miracle happens" ?
As I posted elsewhere, I am a racist when it comes to cats, and consider racism a silly antic when it comes to humans, but I am a strong proponent of hearing out even the most silly argument and following its logic, because you cannot engage someone if you don't understand what it is they are actually saying.
Maybe not take a neo-conservative website for definition? Their summary is as short as it is misleading, mostly because they try to get to the point fast and do some handwaving.
So what's the copyright on this tool? Can I embed it in the reports I write to spot if my competitors steal them? (they're not using LibreOffice or anything, if they were smart enough for basic security, they wouldn't have to steal my stuff...)
We'll see adaptations of this everywhere in the near future. I know a dozen consulting companies immediately who are afraid that their stuff is stolen by competitors.
Slashdot Mirror
"I understood this to be my recollection recorded of my conversation with the President. As a private citizen, I felt free to share that."
Not sure about the law in the USA, but here in Europe, nothing you write as part of your job is your private notes. Your employer pays for the time you spend writing it down, they probably paid for the pen and paper, and they paid you for being there and having that conversation. The notes are theirs, not yours.
Whether you support the leak or not, technically speaking he did break the law, didn't he?
Yes, let's focus on the facts of the tweets.
In your first tweet, you incite violence. In your second tweet you make a false statement about a large group of people and no, the "and some" does not change that, because grammatically, the first statement still applies to the majority.
So yes, even trollish tweets can be countered with a rational look at whether or not they are true.
Because "hate speech" clearly is the worst problem the world is facing right now.
How about we focus on the truth value of information instead of the subjective, emotional aspects? Now that would be something new. Who knows, we might end up with something worth the name "journalism" again.
...it could just be market saturation. There's only so many electric cars you can sell until everyone who wants one, has one. And then they're good for a couple years and after that there's the used market (e-cars are slowly coming to the used market. When I first had the thought that a Tesla would be cool, there was a supply of zero on the used market. Last time I checked, there were four or five).
That sentence actually is troublesome. Note that I'm not commenting on the case in general, only on this particular bit.
In my home country, and most of Europe, such arguments are explicitly illegal and if the judge is on his feet, should land the prosecutor in a big pile of trouble. One of the core principals of the legal system should be to judge the case at hand, and the case at hand only.
People should not get harsher (or lighter) sentences because of external circumstances. They should not get more prison time to deter others, or because the crime rate is high, or because we can only catch x% of criminals, so let's punish them extra hard. To deter others should not be a factor in the decision or the penalty. What's next? Punish black people harder because they need extra deterance? Punish men harder because they tend to be more violent? This is a slippery slope which is exactly why that principle exists.
Punish the crime, not the circumstances. If the punishment is not high enough for deterence, re-think the sentencing rules and change the law, but don't bend the law.
While I agree with your sentiment, let's not forget that these were stolen NSA exploits.
Even the NSA can only find what's there. We can raise the software quality (i.e. lower the bug count) by at least two orders of magnitude, this has been demonstrated. It is more expensive, but not that much (not even one order of magnitude).
We just don't because making a quick buck before the shit hits the fan is still a viable business model.
You sure the government cares so much? As long as they didn't hit the GCHQ itself, I'm not sure they'll got out of their way to find them.
$94k is not a bad payout. Sure they hoped for more, and the worm was very successful and could've yielded more. But publicity is the enemy of every good scam, so typically, they actually do not want their scam to make headlines.
Given all that, they still made the equivalent of a yearly salary on this thing, and without the inconvenience of paying taxes or having to show up in the office. Any indy mobile games developer would be happy with getting that return from a game.
Ransomware is here to stay. But maybe with the large number of victims this time, people will actually demand that software vendors start to provide something that is better than utter crap? That we have a very serious issue in software quality and we can't afford to bet our economy, social networks and basically all of civilisation on something that's made cheap and fast (you know the third that wasn't picked).
We need some basics done right in software, and that means re-engineering a big part of it. We need to understand trust levels, MLS or its variants. We need to get away from the user model we have, where users are treated as either complete idiots or all-knowing gods. We need to get our shit sorted out instead of pushing the next shoddy "disrupting product" out the door in search of a quick buck and a profitable IPO.
Maybe if something besides $$$ still had a value in this society...
Back to the robber baron times.
People think they are smarter than their grandparents when actually they are so much more dumb that they don't even notice it.
You see, there is a reason for regulations, for fixed fares, for trade union wages and all that "evil government" stuff. The reason is called peace of mind.
Sure I can go through life negotiating every small deal, always checking all the prices, always on the edge making sure nobody takes advantages of me while I try to use every opportunity there is. What a stressful way to live your life!
When you travel the same way multiple times, you learn very fast how much the taxi rate is. If you travel in the same city a lot, you can quickly make reasonable estimates. Because of fixed prices. I can decide to take the taxi to the airport tomorrow, estimating what it will cost me and deciding the saved time is worth it. But when prices change all the time depending on a hundred variables half of which I don't even know, then there is no such calmness. I need to check all the different driving services and compare, and just before booking, not the evening before. Then I need to make sure none of the surge charging or other modifiers changes the price at the last minute.
Why should I fuck my brain like that to maybe save a few bucks? Why should the driver go to work in the morning with not the slightest clue how much he'll earn today? The slavery to market mechanics sucks the souls out of all the human beings involved in the transaction. You can do business like that when you have machine-to-machine trading, but us humans, for us all of this dealing is not an end in itself, it is just a tiny part of the life we live, and the mental burden, the uncertainty and unpleasant surprises have an effect far stronger than the monetary optimisation effect.
The "gig economy" is not a new invention. Millions of people throughout the ages lived their lives like that. Short, miserable and poor lives. Nobody ever became rich with gigs. It's just a trick to swindle us out of the health care, unemployment and other social security systems that older generations fought and died for to establish. Everyone pushing this misery ought to be ashamed and beg for forgiveness at the graves of their grand- and grand-grand-parents.
Well, maybe the answer is to stop pretending that companies can - or should - 'take care' of their employees any more.
Why?
Because competitors in other countries do it? Are these countries that you would rather live in? Maybe there is a connection between those things?
We need to stop having competition on uneven playing fields. Of course some child in Bangladesh can undercut your hourly rate. That's because it's a child, there's no workplace safety at all, you can get a meal for one dollar and a flat for a hundred, and a dozen other reasons.
But instead of all of us going to the lowest common denominator, maybe we should go to the highest? There is nothing wrong with outsourcing work to other countries - if you do it right. When the hourly rate in country A is $10 and in country B is $1, you can contract the work out for $2. Yes, $2, not $1. You will pay very good for country B standards, allowing them to increase their standard of living and spending the additional money on education, clean energy and innovation. And you can sell the product still cheap for country A standards. But your effect on the job market there is much lower (productivity needs to be 5 times higher, not 10 times) and you still make a lot of profit.
But no, we need to ruin both countries for that additional $1 in profit.
What happened to the world that layoffs became equivalent with increasing profits? One generation ago, layoffs were a sign that a company was in serious trouble, profits were down and growth was negative. Layoffs were what the directors did if the alternative was to file for bancruptcy. They would be a bad message for investors and stock price would drop. Mass layoffs were a typical sign of a company about to fold.
Today, by the logic of investors, you should fire all your workforce to increase profits to infinity!
If Facebook pulled out of the EU for a week, we'd have a paradise on Earth.
Not to mention by the end of the week, everyone would be on some competitor site and FB would lose its grip on the social media sphere.
We might finally have social instead of anti-social media. Where you own your site and content and just have a standard way of linking to others.
Not, of course, that anyone would allow that to happen, too much advertisement money at stake.
Casual interaction and being unable to spell simple words in your native language correctly are two completely different things. You can be informal while still being correct in language, grammar and etiquette. Yes, there is an etiquette for casual interaction as well.
I don't work as a professor (though some people try to push me into that career). But if I were to receive somewhat official communication from a student with glaring language mistakes, I'd probably send it back pointing out that we are at an institute of higher learning and if you expect my time and attention, I can expect proper spelling and grammar.
One thing that education should teach you is that behaviour is context-sensitive. At a business meeting, at the bar, at the beach, at a job interview - every setting has its own rules and expectations. The better you can adapt to different roles while still staying authentic and true to yourself, the better for you.
Who says that everyone based in North Korea is working for the government? We don't assume every US hacker works for the CIA, do we? Especially in countries such as NK, China, Russia, I would first assume that they are simple criminals, or maybe people trying to make a fortune and then get the hell out of there (which takes a lot of money. I just moved to another country, just within Europe, and it cost me a fortune).
Judging from the country I know a little about - Russia - I'm sure you can find ties to the government, the police, maybe the secret service. But that's not necessarily because the whole operation is a government operation. It could very well be simple corruption. The criminals and the police are closer to each other than us ordinary people are to either of them. That's true for western countries as well, but not to the same degree.
The main issue with the bean counters is that they (often intentionally) underestimate the probability of a flaw being exploited.
If exploiting the flaw will give the attacker some kind of financial or otherwise interesting profit, even indirectly (like exploiting a OS flaw to deploy ransomware) then given a sufficient timeframe, the probability that the flaw will be found and exploited is close to 100%.
I know this is a bit of "hire me" since I'm an IS Architect, but IT is going to become a lot more expensive. As a company, you can decide if it becomes more expensive because you spend money on security, or because you keep getting hacked.
You can also bugger your vendors to finally invest serious money into seriously secure systems, but we all know that the likes of MS, Oracle, etc. won't be forced by some companies saying "or else" because there isn't much else.
McCarthy called, we wants his paranoia back.
Funny how nobody noticed how very suddenly everything from elections not going the favorite way to bad weather is Putins fault. Let's conveniently ignore that he's been running Russia one way or the other for twenty years.
Assuming that much of this stuff is either fabricated or wasn't important some years ago and is dragged up now - the question is why? For what purpose is the public fed the old "Russia is evil" meme again? What are we being prepared for?
Remote exploit that can replicate is bad, very, very bad. The Sapphire worm reached exponential growth and infected 90% of vulnerable systems in 10 minutes. It was a single UDP packet (no timeouts, handshakes, etc.) but some research I did a decade ago proved that, at least theoretical, a TCP-based worm can perform in the same order of magnitude.
Not much has happened in this area recently, mostly because the bad guys have shifted to spam, botnets and ransomware. With the IoT, there's a lot of fun just around the corner.
You are still arguing about government interference as if that were the difficult part. Completely trapped in the "trade good, government bad" kind of thinking.
I am claiming that free markets are impossible. I am not claiming the "free" (from government interference) part is the problem. I'm claiming the "market" part is an abstraction and every real market is much more complicated than the model assumes.
I don't know how to make it more clear. So I'll try a metaphor: Planes are built by engineers, not by scientists. Not because aerodynamics is a lie, but because it is an approximation and a good helping of real-world skills and pragmatics is necessary to actually get lift in a non-laboratory setting.
Same with markets. Free or not, the real world does not have a 100% match with the economy textbooks.
You define only one part of the term, the "free". I am less paranoid about the evil government and more about what a market, according to this theory, is. Basically, you are arguing about the friction part, and I'm talking about the perfect sphere in a vacuum part.
That's forgivable as most articles about "free markets" conveniently handwave the actually tricky parts. Talking about government interference and the base evil of taxation is easy and gets you sympathies. Talking about the trick that John can sell his apples for $100 if he controls information (i.e. buyers don't know about the other people selling apples for $1) is more complicated. The whole price equillibrium thing assumes transparency without bothering to solve this problem, much like gravity in school simply assumes a vacuum while real engineers worry much more about air resistance than about gravity formulas.
More clear now?
On 2nd reading, last sentence isn't clear:
A 6 year old 100 years ago would have learnt racism, sexism and a dozen other -isms that we today consider obviously silly. He would consider it quite obvious that africans, or frenchmen, or jews, or catholics, or whatever the dominant prejudice in his village was, are inferior people. That women are half-humans. That children need to be beaten to learn discipline. And a hundred other "facts".
What is "obvious" is very much a cultural artifact, much more than objective truth.
Please explain to us why (a) you dont know what I knew at 6 years old, (b) you are demanding that this knowledge be "obvious" before you will accept it.
As the famous quote (whose author I sadly forgot) goes: "Common sense is what tells us the earth is flat."
The 6 year old knows that things fall down and break if you drop them. I want to understand gravity and materials science. "Why" is a good question to start.
You are just putting your fingers in your ears and going "la-la-la". I'm trying to understand what this silly racism thing is actually about. We all have prejudices, even though many of us don't admit to them. Why do we have them? Are they still useful? Given that as shortcuts and heuristics they are often not true, should we keep or abandon them? Are there useful prejudices or are they all bad?
I don't think your 6 year old self could discuss this question at an intellectual level. It didn't understand anything, it just learnt from its environment by copying. The same way that a 6 year old one century ago would have learnt all of the things that you now consider obvious.
Still doesn't follow. You notice that there's a break in your chain of logic? That this is similar to the famous joke where the middle of the blackboard says "and here a miracle happens" ?
As I posted elsewhere, I am a racist when it comes to cats, and consider racism a silly antic when it comes to humans, but I am a strong proponent of hearing out even the most silly argument and following its logic, because you cannot engage someone if you don't understand what it is they are actually saying.
Maybe not take a neo-conservative website for definition? Their summary is as short as it is misleading, mostly because they try to get to the point fast and do some handwaving.
Here's a critical article:
http://www.triplepundit.com/20...
But in the end, maybe we should discuss the book, and not the cover?
So what's the copyright on this tool? Can I embed it in the reports I write to spot if my competitors steal them? (they're not using LibreOffice or anything, if they were smart enough for basic security, they wouldn't have to steal my stuff...)
We'll see adaptations of this everywhere in the near future. I know a dozen consulting companies immediately who are afraid that their stuff is stolen by competitors.
Note to French people: America had nothing to do with Waterloo. That was the British.
You should see how they are to the British. :-)