along with your hair.... I don't see an "OH S**T MY HAIR IS CAUGHT IN YOUR FINGERS" button on the chair... so one would probably assume if the robo-fingers hit a knot, its bye bye to that bit of hair;-)
Most of those services remove the default useless bloatware from your new PC for you -- which means, yes, it can go faster.
However, most of us that read sites like these already know to clean slate their new PC anyway...
And just a note... that bloatware is not installed by Retailers -- it is installed by the PC manufacturer, so in some cases people do appreciate these services as they do not know how to remove them themselves.... Not any of us though, since we know how to deal with the bloat...
I do not believe their claims though, but I do agree you can get *some* improvement by removing them
The last SOFA before bush left said combat troops would be removed only from cities, not from the country.
The SOFA also stated that non-combat troops would remain up to 2 years later.
The entire agreement was renewable
So you could say Bush set it in motion, however you could also say there's no guarantee we would have left.
If people wanted to get out, Obama clearly pushed that as his platform
Another fun fact (from wiki, 'cause I'm too lazy to follow their citation trail): Apparently in the SOFA agreement if the Iraqi interim government says GTFO, the US has 1 year to leave... They haven't requested the US leave yet
'sides, If the attacker knows we're going to cut the phone line in case of an emergency, they'll design their attack to not need it (after initial attack/infection) to the best of their ability...
It may not work, but if you KNOW it's possible you're going to factor that into your attack and make the trojan/virus more independent in case it cant call home.
I hate FB for doing this, but I do agree with them
Most *****book items or objects are not inherently lending themselves to be social networking sites. AddressBook is not likely to be a new social networking site, neither is PhoneBook.. In fact.. Book is not commonly used to represent a collection of people, except for the people stated in the book. Using Book as an expansive term to include anyone that wants to be included is a bit new on the internet.
Facebook i suppose is trying to say: ____Book, being a social networking site, is too close to their trademark.
In this case, the website wanted to make a 'social network of teachers' known as 'teacherbook'.... that's kinda boarder line if you ask me.
If there are more teachers then teaching jobs...
Then wouldn't the 'price' of teachers go down? (More teachers to choose from, some lower their 'cost' to be a better pick)
Unless that DRM negatively impacts game play, (e.g. CD/DVD anti-burn technology that slows down game play--thankfully more in the past now)
Can limit your ability to play the game 'forever', (drm managing servers go poof with company)
or installs additional software on top of the game into your computer without permission. (Rootkits)
I wouldn't buy any game I felt was at risk of the above. Massive online games, while in a form/sense are DRM, I'm okay with if the company has a good track record -- and Indie game? No way I'd *hope* their servers don't die.
I think part of the issue is these moments are the best times to take a break from the game...
You finish a mission, get to that screen, and decide to go do something else for a while.. go out for coffee, a movie, sleep...
You come back and it'd be like you've been hardcore gaming/stressing your system the entire time -- Hope you didn't go to sleep for 8-9 hours! or go to work!
I'm not an expert on benchmark software, but I thought they limited to "X" many runs, such as 1-5 runs, through a set course (for visual benchmarks).. or otherwise stop after a set time period. For people with cheap graphics cards, or super high-end hot-running graphics cards, I'm sure there's heat issues (Cheap ones failing, high end ones simply overheating/stuttering or failing)
Talk to any cruiser rider and you'll get an ear full about how that stereotype could only possibly apply to crouch rockets...
I've been close to accidents on my bike 5 times, every one of them was an inattentive driver of 4 wheeled vehicle. On a bike I don't get the luxury of talking on cell phones, texting, eating fast food, drinking coffee, or headbanging to the radio.... or just not caring.
I've been forced out of my lane by texters, talkers, drinkers (of soda/coffee), and by people whom I do not know how they didn't notice me... If they hit me it would add to the 'motorcycle death toll' yes, but does it make it my fault as you state in Statistics?
It certainly isn't because I want to be hit by someone talking on their phone with an innate inability to look over their shoulder to see/hear my bike next to them. I'm not thrill-seeking... but the thrills certainly do show up when i get on the road with you all!
Maybe I'm missing something, but unless the 6-core system is clocked slower than the 4-core one, the 6-core system should outperform it easily in all tasks.
It really depends how you look at it, Say you spend $200 extra on a processor, vs. $200 more on other components (Trading an upgrade of 4 to 6 cores instead of another component).. Price to performance may be hindered if the application, as you mentioned, is not designed to handle the extra cores.
I generally agree, as an avid and heavy multitasker.. More cores is better... However there is a significant cost difference that must be factored in when deciding 4 vs. 6 cores (at least last I checked, there was a huge price 'upgrade' for equal GHz +2 cores)
I'm not sure if that idea would work --
The BT signal might not broadcast an ID -- or if it does, there's no way to tell that the "Joe's Apple iPhone" is not the skimmer... (at least, not without intimate knowledge of blue tooth technology, the 'addresses' used by each and every BT device -- or access to a database of them -- and the proper tools)
Though, I'm assuming BT devices have an equivalent of a "MAC address," which they might not.
To quote without citation... Recently on my news local radio station (WTOP; long operating and trusted source for those that don't know it) they had a phone-in guest that spoke on the issue after reviewing the wall street journal article..
He stated that the "Black box" in the cars are not always triggered.. The black box also relies on computer/electronic signals to activate the recording. As the issue with the throttle acceleration is electronic in nature, the cause of many of the accidents may also not trigger the recording. It also apparently does not activate at low speeds (exact definition of 'low speeds' or if it also excludes 'low starting speeds' was not given)
The accidents that don't trigger the recording were not part of the sample group evaluated by the article. The WSJ Quotes toyota claiming the black box is a prototype... and the radio speaker also stated that Toyota testified in court that the "Black Box" is not in and of itself reliable for determining the cause of an accident as it's prone to failure as, already mentioned, it relies on electronic signals from the car.
My opinion: Granted, all that said, I'm sure there's people who just want a piece of the lawsuit pie and are trying to shift blame ("I swear I hit the brakes and not the accelerator") and this article *can* support that to some degree... Though, there are likely legitimate claims --- back to the radio report; the electronic 'fail safe' system apparently is not very robust at handling failures of signals (either lack of, or improper signals) from the car...
Lastly, from what I've heard these are cherry-picked by Toyota and the radio station speaker stated that there is evidence by Toyota technicians a problem does exist (contrary to the article) -- however he feels this is simply the Public Relations team of Toyota doing it's job and showing that there's no issue (or the issue is more rare than news credits due to 'false claims').
Side note: the WSJ claims a similar problem arose in 1989
Side note 2: I'm simply trying to relay what I heard as criticism to the article to provide an alternate viewpoint/more information. I personally do not own a Toyota/Lexus, and otherwise am not attempting to defame anyone/start a debate on the issue.
This is besides the point. Assuming a company runs the website(s)... The company purchased a product in the US, that company was found to violate US law as a whole, and the companies US property was seized (Regardless of the name/number mapping legality issue). The registrar information was in a US computer owned by a US Business, thus in the US "Territory" and subject to US law. Their domain was seized by the US due to illegal acts by the international business (or person). If the company had no property in the US, nothing would have happened.
That's legal justification from an IANAL standpoint.
But as for Name/number mapping... What if you ran an advertisement in a Texas newspaper listing the numbers of drug dealers. What if those contact numbers were in Mexico? You would still be arrested for illegal activity. (or, if you were out of the country, you would have an arrest warrant waiting for you and any US accounts/properties you had related to the illegal activity would likely be taken/frozen.
Again, Do not take my post as a for/against internet rights, I am actually all for internet rights as I stated previously. I am just clarifying the situation that they violated US law by operating partially in the US, and whether I, or the company, like it or not... You must follow the laws of the country you are operating in.
And yes, I wish a lot of them would change.
Just now I took the name of a Real ID Friend of mine, 'warcraft' and went for a trip on my attempt to be a stalker (The person knew i was going to attempt to). I only used information I gained from my searches, and started with the assumption the person I found was wrong (I looked for verification/encouragement)
..... Removing specifics..... as I don't want to give stalkers ideas....
within 10 minutes I had City, state, & address (within 5 miles)... Along with more information that could link quickly to a true address
I Did not spend a dime, I just used a few search engines (starting with google) and 1-2 more that any semi-creative stalker or journalist would use that are not at all related to background searches but can provide more information if you know their name & location.
The ONLY security hole I found on her part was her current city was exposed (no posts, photos other than profile, etc. were available)... However this is more of a time saver as I some scavenging can provide a narrowing of likely cities based on "friends" information.
But, this was just a proof of concept I did for my e-mail to blizzard. I stopped here and started posting everywhere for people to secure up their profiles... and I told my RL friend here to remove her city information from her profile.
Very bad idea this is. Good side of the story though? We're not friends on Facebook!:-D been meaning to add her.
I posted elsewhere but feel it's worth mentioning again:
Illegal property located in the USA was seized by US officials for violating US law. They used a US registrar to point to their content that was illegal in the US. (i.e. don't host your anti-china website in china, don't host your anti-uk site in the UK. If your website violates a countries laws, don't host any part of it IN THAT COUNTRY)
IN THIS CASE, No foreign countries were involved, No over reaching of US bounds. I agree sometimes the government (while spurred by big business) do this... It is NOT the case here.
The short: When in a foreign country, do not violate their laws. They 'purchased' something in a country where it was illegal. That illegal property was seized. Their fault for violating local laws.
Unfortunately I'm with the security people on this.
Disclosure of vulnerabilities is the only way to get them fixed. On top of that, how does a "security researcher" validate their claims of finding bugs if they don't release them?
If a researcher gives a week/2 week notice, then releases their information -- as far as I'm concerned their clear -- They gave notice, then published their findings for the community / other researchers. yes it's used by hackers too, but if we hide *everything* we learn less. If someone notices a problem in Microsoft's {insert function here} code, perhaps {Another company} with similar code has the same vulnerability, and would benefit from the knowledge?
What gives US the right to seize domains of companies based in other countries and force their laws, views and things like ACTA and banning of internet casinos to citizens of other countries?
If you are in another country YOU OBEY THEIR LAWS.
The US did NOT overstep their boundries. The mentioned websites Hosted part of their website (the pointer to it) In the US. That 'pointer' was seized as it was illegal in our country.
Again:
1. Internet website did business with US Company. (They used a US registrar)
2. US based Registrar now violated US Law
3. US based Registrar was required to give the US Government the illegal 'property'
Don't host any part of your 'business' or 'website' in a country that violates their laws. If you want to intentionally violate the laws of a country, don't do it IN that country. It's just common sense!
If you think the USA is wrong here, GO TO China, or the UK, and break their laws. See what happens.
Side Note: I agree with most net-neutrality ideas. I agree with free speech (as it exists in the US law) on the internet -- (e.g. illegal to yell FIRE or call in bomb threats, but mostly free). Unfortunately the US General Public has almost no control here. Sorry. Big Business buy votes and forces our government to enforce laws they created.
I'm glad the sites are running again. As they are not illegal in other countries I respect your rights to view the content in accordance with your laws... And I'll leave that at that as I'm in the USA...;-)
Secure passwords mean little in the case of Phising/Trojans.
I've seen a lot of Passwords "Stolen" over the last few weeks -- likely the adobe bug, or another vulnerability.
If your password is "!!Hell0Kitty77KeRt*?Captain" it can be stolen just as easily as any insecure password.
And in the case of Adobe / in-advertisement trojans, you can't really blame the end user for using programs that are almost 'required' nowadays to actually use websites. To expect end-users to know enough about IT security as an IT expert is silly. How do I teach my grandfather to use Firefox, and install NoScript and configure his security settings... (I unfortunately cant get to him)
And quick follow up to my post:
You have 2 business days from the time Apple sends you an e-mail to notify your bank/credit provider.
After 2 business days from the e-mail, you are liable for $50 if you linked a credit card, and $500 if you linked a debit card.
You *may* have additional protections depending on your issuer, however expect none, go remove your credit card info from apple's server now, change your password, and wait until you need to do another purchase to put it back on at least.
Footnote: 2 days from when apple sent you the e-mail is simply because there's no 'grey area' in this case.. If you read your e-mail and find out 5 days after the fact, you now may have to 'prove' that fact to your debit card company to fall in the $50 bracket.
Unfortunately the Federal Trade Commission, through the Fair Credit Billing Act, and Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Provide you only so much protection.
Lets say, BEST case scenario, you receive an e-mail from itunes saying you just purchased $45 in items, you immediately call your card company and suspend the account.
You are still responsible for your entire purchase. The FTC Will not force your card company to refund you (Letter of the law does not require it). If you notify your card company you are responsible for the first $50 in charges -- YOUR CARD COMPANY MAY be kinder, but the LAW does not require it. If you already owe them money or are not in good standing they may not care to be kind to you.
Now, I can call Apple and dispute the charge too right? Wrong. Apple's website clearly states
"35. OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS [...] No Apple employee or agent has the authority to vary any of the Service's Policies or the terms and conditions governing any sale. "
So your only hopes? (Based on basic consumer protection laws and store policy)
1) Your card company decides to be nice
2) Enough BAD PR is made of the issue that Apple is forced to do something at a corporate level (as no one you'll ever reach by phone can help you)
Important note: I'm not a lawyer, there may be another law that protects you as it's done in cyberwebs, however what state does that law operate out of? do they have rights in China? Russia? Africa? Europe? for a $50 charge?
Final note: IANAL, there may be cyber laws that also factor in here. However, Apple policy, and current basic consumer protection laws involving credit/debit cards don't protect you from these small purchases like these.. you're still responsible to pay for them legally (as far as I can tell)
Except Blizzard has a track record of account restoration and decent customer service in this area.
In reality, most of the time it's neither party's fault -- The recent Adobe Flash exploit hurt a lot of people as they targeted flash advertisements for wow websites... even legitimate websites could be infected as they have to show advertisements to stay in business.
Thankfully, Blizzard realizes that blaming end-users when a large, large percentage did not 'ask' for it, only costs the company money in the end when users stop using their service.
From Terms and conditions, security section:
"You are entirely responsible for all activities that occur on or through your Account, and you agree to immediately notify Apple of any unauthorized use of your Account or any other breach of security. Apple shall not be responsible for any losses arising out of the unauthorized use of your Account. "
So better hope something else protects those people harmed, as I don't think California law (The "fall back" for iTunes T&C) will help much if a hacker steals $100-300 from you from another country.
Glad I stopped storing my CC info with iTunes after they pulled products I paid for from the store and wouldn't let me re-download. They may have nice hardware, but their policies are horrible for end-users.
Slashdot Mirror
along with your hair.... I don't see an "OH S**T MY HAIR IS CAUGHT IN YOUR FINGERS" button on the chair... so one would probably assume if the robo-fingers hit a knot, its bye bye to that bit of hair ;-)
Most of those services remove the default useless bloatware from your new PC for you -- which means, yes, it can go faster.
However, most of us that read sites like these already know to clean slate their new PC anyway...
And just a note... that bloatware is not installed by Retailers -- it is installed by the PC manufacturer, so in some cases people do appreciate these services as they do not know how to remove them themselves.... Not any of us though, since we know how to deal with the bloat...
I do not believe their claims though, but I do agree you can get *some* improvement by removing them
Disclaimer: I am an independent voter, I'm not for or against any party as a whole
Well you didn't cite, so I had to use wikipedia to find the information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement
The last SOFA before bush left said combat troops would be removed only from cities, not from the country.
The SOFA also stated that non-combat troops would remain up to 2 years later.
The entire agreement was renewable
So you could say Bush set it in motion, however you could also say there's no guarantee we would have left.
If people wanted to get out, Obama clearly pushed that as his platform
Another fun fact (from wiki, 'cause I'm too lazy to follow their citation trail): Apparently in the SOFA agreement if the Iraqi interim government says GTFO, the US has 1 year to leave... They haven't requested the US leave yet
'sides, If the attacker knows we're going to cut the phone line in case of an emergency, they'll design their attack to not need it (after initial attack/infection) to the best of their ability...
It may not work, but if you KNOW it's possible you're going to factor that into your attack and make the trojan/virus more independent in case it cant call home.
I hate FB for doing this, but I do agree with them
Most *****book items or objects are not inherently lending themselves to be social networking sites. AddressBook is not likely to be a new social networking site, neither is PhoneBook.. In fact.. Book is not commonly used to represent a collection of people, except for the people stated in the book. Using Book as an expansive term to include anyone that wants to be included is a bit new on the internet.
Facebook i suppose is trying to say: ____Book, being a social networking site, is too close to their trademark.
In this case, the website wanted to make a 'social network of teachers' known as 'teacherbook'.... that's kinda boarder line if you ask me.
Wait.. That sounds backwards....
If there are more teachers then teaching jobs...
Then wouldn't the 'price' of teachers go down? (More teachers to choose from, some lower their 'cost' to be a better pick)
Politics and logic / common sense?
:-)
What country do you live in? It's not the US!
It would be nice though
Unless that DRM negatively impacts game play, (e.g. CD/DVD anti-burn technology that slows down game play--thankfully more in the past now)
Can limit your ability to play the game 'forever', (drm managing servers go poof with company)
or installs additional software on top of the game into your computer without permission. (Rootkits)
I wouldn't buy any game I felt was at risk of the above. Massive online games, while in a form/sense are DRM, I'm okay with if the company has a good track record -- and Indie game? No way I'd *hope* their servers don't die.
I think part of the issue is these moments are the best times to take a break from the game...
You finish a mission, get to that screen, and decide to go do something else for a while.. go out for coffee, a movie, sleep...
You come back and it'd be like you've been hardcore gaming/stressing your system the entire time -- Hope you didn't go to sleep for 8-9 hours! or go to work!
I'm not an expert on benchmark software, but I thought they limited to "X" many runs, such as 1-5 runs, through a set course (for visual benchmarks).. or otherwise stop after a set time period. For people with cheap graphics cards, or super high-end hot-running graphics cards, I'm sure there's heat issues (Cheap ones failing, high end ones simply overheating/stuttering or failing)
Just my thoughts...
Re: Motorcyclists are thrill seekers:
Talk to any cruiser rider and you'll get an ear full about how that stereotype could only possibly apply to crouch rockets...
I've been close to accidents on my bike 5 times, every one of them was an inattentive driver of 4 wheeled vehicle. On a bike I don't get the luxury of talking on cell phones, texting, eating fast food, drinking coffee, or headbanging to the radio.... or just not caring.
I've been forced out of my lane by texters, talkers, drinkers (of soda/coffee), and by people whom I do not know how they didn't notice me... If they hit me it would add to the 'motorcycle death toll' yes, but does it make it my fault as you state in Statistics?
It certainly isn't because I want to be hit by someone talking on their phone with an innate inability to look over their shoulder to see/hear my bike next to them. I'm not thrill-seeking... but the thrills certainly do show up when i get on the road with you all!
Maybe I'm missing something, but unless the 6-core system is clocked slower than the 4-core one, the 6-core system should outperform it easily in all tasks.
It really depends how you look at it, Say you spend $200 extra on a processor, vs. $200 more on other components (Trading an upgrade of 4 to 6 cores instead of another component).. Price to performance may be hindered if the application, as you mentioned, is not designed to handle the extra cores.
I generally agree, as an avid and heavy multitasker.. More cores is better... However there is a significant cost difference that must be factored in when deciding 4 vs. 6 cores (at least last I checked, there was a huge price 'upgrade' for equal GHz +2 cores)
I'm not sure if that idea would work --
The BT signal might not broadcast an ID -- or if it does, there's no way to tell that the "Joe's Apple iPhone" is not the skimmer... (at least, not without intimate knowledge of blue tooth technology, the 'addresses' used by each and every BT device -- or access to a database of them -- and the proper tools)
Though, I'm assuming BT devices have an equivalent of a "MAC address," which they might not.
To quote without citation... Recently on my news local radio station (WTOP; long operating and trusted source for those that don't know it) they had a phone-in guest that spoke on the issue after reviewing the wall street journal article..
He stated that the "Black box" in the cars are not always triggered.. The black box also relies on computer/electronic signals to activate the recording. As the issue with the throttle acceleration is electronic in nature, the cause of many of the accidents may also not trigger the recording. It also apparently does not activate at low speeds (exact definition of 'low speeds' or if it also excludes 'low starting speeds' was not given)
The accidents that don't trigger the recording were not part of the sample group evaluated by the article. The WSJ Quotes toyota claiming the black box is a prototype... and the radio speaker also stated that Toyota testified in court that the "Black Box" is not in and of itself reliable for determining the cause of an accident as it's prone to failure as, already mentioned, it relies on electronic signals from the car.
My opinion: Granted, all that said, I'm sure there's people who just want a piece of the lawsuit pie and are trying to shift blame ("I swear I hit the brakes and not the accelerator") and this article *can* support that to some degree... Though, there are likely legitimate claims --- back to the radio report; the electronic 'fail safe' system apparently is not very robust at handling failures of signals (either lack of, or improper signals) from the car...
Lastly, from what I've heard these are cherry-picked by Toyota and the radio station speaker stated that there is evidence by Toyota technicians a problem does exist (contrary to the article) -- however he feels this is simply the Public Relations team of Toyota doing it's job and showing that there's no issue (or the issue is more rare than news credits due to 'false claims').
Side note: the WSJ claims a similar problem arose in 1989
Side note 2: I'm simply trying to relay what I heard as criticism to the article to provide an alternate viewpoint/more information. I personally do not own a Toyota/Lexus, and otherwise am not attempting to defame anyone/start a debate on the issue.
Whatever the biological/scientific case...
:-)
The irony of this article amused me
"Shrimp exposed to [Antidepressant] are 5 times more likely to [go] towards the light"
Technically this part of the ESRB is the web privacy section of the organization.
(making sure businesses protect peoples privacy online)
This is besides the point. Assuming a company runs the website(s)... The company purchased a product in the US, that company was found to violate US law as a whole, and the companies US property was seized (Regardless of the name/number mapping legality issue). The registrar information was in a US computer owned by a US Business, thus in the US "Territory" and subject to US law. Their domain was seized by the US due to illegal acts by the international business (or person). If the company had no property in the US, nothing would have happened.
That's legal justification from an IANAL standpoint.
But as for Name/number mapping... What if you ran an advertisement in a Texas newspaper listing the numbers of drug dealers. What if those contact numbers were in Mexico? You would still be arrested for illegal activity. (or, if you were out of the country, you would have an arrest warrant waiting for you and any US accounts/properties you had related to the illegal activity would likely be taken/frozen.
Again, Do not take my post as a for/against internet rights, I am actually all for internet rights as I stated previously. I am just clarifying the situation that they violated US law by operating partially in the US, and whether I, or the company, like it or not... You must follow the laws of the country you are operating in.
And yes, I wish a lot of them would change.
Very bad idea.
..... Removing specifics..... as I don't want to give stalkers ideas....
:-D been meaning to add her.
Just now I took the name of a Real ID Friend of mine, 'warcraft' and went for a trip on my attempt to be a stalker (The person knew i was going to attempt to). I only used information I gained from my searches, and started with the assumption the person I found was wrong (I looked for verification/encouragement)
within 10 minutes I had City, state, & address (within 5 miles)... Along with more information that could link quickly to a true address
I Did not spend a dime, I just used a few search engines (starting with google) and 1-2 more that any semi-creative stalker or journalist would use that are not at all related to background searches but can provide more information if you know their name & location.
The ONLY security hole I found on her part was her current city was exposed (no posts, photos other than profile, etc. were available)... However this is more of a time saver as I some scavenging can provide a narrowing of likely cities based on "friends" information.
But, this was just a proof of concept I did for my e-mail to blizzard. I stopped here and started posting everywhere for people to secure up their profiles... and I told my RL friend here to remove her city information from her profile.
Very bad idea this is. Good side of the story though? We're not friends on Facebook!
I posted elsewhere but feel it's worth mentioning again:
Illegal property located in the USA was seized by US officials for violating US law. They used a US registrar to point to their content that was illegal in the US. (i.e. don't host your anti-china website in china, don't host your anti-uk site in the UK. If your website violates a countries laws, don't host any part of it IN THAT COUNTRY)
IN THIS CASE, No foreign countries were involved, No over reaching of US bounds. I agree sometimes the government (while spurred by big business) do this... It is NOT the case here.
The short: When in a foreign country, do not violate their laws. They 'purchased' something in a country where it was illegal. That illegal property was seized. Their fault for violating local laws.
Unfortunately I'm with the security people on this.
Disclosure of vulnerabilities is the only way to get them fixed. On top of that, how does a "security researcher" validate their claims of finding bugs if they don't release them?
If a researcher gives a week/2 week notice, then releases their information -- as far as I'm concerned their clear -- They gave notice, then published their findings for the community / other researchers. yes it's used by hackers too, but if we hide *everything* we learn less. If someone notices a problem in Microsoft's {insert function here} code, perhaps {Another company} with similar code has the same vulnerability, and would benefit from the knowledge?
What gives US the right to seize domains of companies based in other countries and force their laws, views and things like ACTA and banning of internet casinos to citizens of other countries?
If you are in another country YOU OBEY THEIR LAWS.
;-)
The US did NOT overstep their boundries. The mentioned websites Hosted part of their website (the pointer to it) In the US. That 'pointer' was seized as it was illegal in our country.
Again:
1. Internet website did business with US Company. (They used a US registrar)
2. US based Registrar now violated US Law
3. US based Registrar was required to give the US Government the illegal 'property'
Don't host any part of your 'business' or 'website' in a country that violates their laws. If you want to intentionally violate the laws of a country, don't do it IN that country. It's just common sense!
If you think the USA is wrong here, GO TO China, or the UK, and break their laws. See what happens.
Side Note: I agree with most net-neutrality ideas. I agree with free speech (as it exists in the US law) on the internet -- (e.g. illegal to yell FIRE or call in bomb threats, but mostly free). Unfortunately the US General Public has almost no control here. Sorry. Big Business buy votes and forces our government to enforce laws they created.
I'm glad the sites are running again. As they are not illegal in other countries I respect your rights to view the content in accordance with your laws... And I'll leave that at that as I'm in the USA...
Secure passwords mean little in the case of Phising/Trojans.
I've seen a lot of Passwords "Stolen" over the last few weeks -- likely the adobe bug, or another vulnerability.
If your password is "!!Hell0Kitty77KeRt*?Captain" it can be stolen just as easily as any insecure password.
And in the case of Adobe / in-advertisement trojans, you can't really blame the end user for using programs that are almost 'required' nowadays to actually use websites. To expect end-users to know enough about IT security as an IT expert is silly. How do I teach my grandfather to use Firefox, and install NoScript and configure his security settings... (I unfortunately cant get to him)
And quick follow up to my post:
You have 2 business days from the time Apple sends you an e-mail to notify your bank/credit provider.
After 2 business days from the e-mail, you are liable for $50 if you linked a credit card, and $500 if you linked a debit card.
You *may* have additional protections depending on your issuer, however expect none, go remove your credit card info from apple's server now, change your password, and wait until you need to do another purchase to put it back on at least.
Footnote: 2 days from when apple sent you the e-mail is simply because there's no 'grey area' in this case.. If you read your e-mail and find out 5 days after the fact, you now may have to 'prove' that fact to your debit card company to fall in the $50 bracket.
Unfortunately the Federal Trade Commission, through the Fair Credit Billing Act, and Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Provide you only so much protection.
Lets say, BEST case scenario, you receive an e-mail from itunes saying you just purchased $45 in items, you immediately call your card company and suspend the account.
You are still responsible for your entire purchase. The FTC Will not force your card company to refund you (Letter of the law does not require it). If you notify your card company you are responsible for the first $50 in charges -- YOUR CARD COMPANY MAY be kinder, but the LAW does not require it. If you already owe them money or are not in good standing they may not care to be kind to you.
Now, I can call Apple and dispute the charge too right? Wrong. Apple's website clearly states
"35. OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS [...] No Apple employee or agent has the authority to vary any of the Service's Policies or the terms and conditions governing any sale. "
So your only hopes? (Based on basic consumer protection laws and store policy)
1) Your card company decides to be nice
2) Enough BAD PR is made of the issue that Apple is forced to do something at a corporate level (as no one you'll ever reach by phone can help you)
Important note: I'm not a lawyer, there may be another law that protects you as it's done in cyberwebs, however what state does that law operate out of? do they have rights in China? Russia? Africa? Europe? for a $50 charge?
Final note: IANAL, there may be cyber laws that also factor in here. However, Apple policy, and current basic consumer protection laws involving credit/debit cards don't protect you from these small purchases like these.. you're still responsible to pay for them legally (as far as I can tell)
Except Blizzard has a track record of account restoration and decent customer service in this area.
In reality, most of the time it's neither party's fault -- The recent Adobe Flash exploit hurt a lot of people as they targeted flash advertisements for wow websites... even legitimate websites could be infected as they have to show advertisements to stay in business.
Thankfully, Blizzard realizes that blaming end-users when a large, large percentage did not 'ask' for it, only costs the company money in the end when users stop using their service.
Other problem with iTunes,
"All sales are final."
From Terms and conditions, security section:
"You are entirely responsible for all activities that occur on or through your Account, and you agree to immediately notify Apple of any unauthorized use of your Account or any other breach of security. Apple shall not be responsible for any losses arising out of the unauthorized use of your Account. "
So better hope something else protects those people harmed, as I don't think California law (The "fall back" for iTunes T&C) will help much if a hacker steals $100-300 from you from another country.
Glad I stopped storing my CC info with iTunes after they pulled products I paid for from the store and wouldn't let me re-download. They may have nice hardware, but their policies are horrible for end-users.