But the bit I quoted? Really? Limit what encryption consumers can have? I find that more alarming than "old-ass insecure phone got cracked."
They can attempt to pass whatever laws they want. There's no putting the encryption genie back into the bottle, sorry. And ultimately, any such laws passing would be an economic blow to our nation and therefore, hasn't a snowballs chance in hell of actually becoming law.
And just like with attempts to pass guns laws, such laws would not stop criminals from employing strong encryption, just like they won't be taking any guns away from criminals. Just silly nonsense that makes zero sense.
Why would any one bother wasting their efforts to create when they're not compensated?
Because their love of music exceeds their love of money. It's not hard to tell the musicians who are performing for the love of music from whose who are only in it for the money.
Contrary to popular belief, musicians have to eat, put a roof over their heads, and provide for their family, just like everyone else. Unless you're suggesting that no one make music their livelihood, this is an empty reply from non-reality.
But these musicians are on target here. DMCA is protecting entities like YouTube, which you have to admit has a ton of infringing content. You can pretty much download any song you want from YouTube without paying for it, or compensating anyone. And Google is raking in the advertising dollars. I personally don't even see a point to using other illegitimate means to acquire music. Everything is on YouTube now and easily converted to MP3 format for download.
Sadly, we have to admit to ourselves, this is a problem. Why would any one bother wasting their efforts to create when they're not compensated? Seems an easy enough fix would be: Let musicians get a substantial piece of the advertising revenue. Trying to take down all the infringing content is foolhardy at best, so let the musicians get a slice of the pie (and a big slice, they deserve it!) Seems like that would be fair.
Every other currency also uses tons of electricity.
Yes, but we have to have these currencies. We don't have to have bitcoins, and they use up way more electricity than already established currencies that're electronically moved around.
Just seems to me to be utterly wasteful and pointless, all around. It doesn't serve any purpose that existing currencies don't already take care of at a much lower cost of use. All the blockchain computations needed for transactions, the continued mining which is increasingly computationally expensive and less return for invested energy. All of it serves no benefit to mankind what so ever. It's even becoming just like "real world" currencies where a small percentage of people who have bitcoins have way more than everyone else combined.
Quite frankly, the only time I hear of bitcoins being used, it's usually people ripping each other off with various schemes (ransomware anyone?), hacks of bitcoin trading sites, bank scam websites that run off with deposited bitcoins or illegal transactions. What the hell is the point of bitcoin if the best feature one can attributing to them is the enabling of lot of criminal activity?
It's completely pointless. And wasteful. Did I say that already? Yeah, because it is.
This is the most pointless waste of electricity I've heard of yet. Electricity isn't free, and the fuel expenditures devoted to utterly pointless virtual currency is astonishing. Humanity has sunk to a new low of wasteful activity.
Bitcoin needs to go away. It was never IMHO a good idea and this revelation makes it even more stupid and pointless.
You can use that EFF tool, Privacy Badger. Though, I'm finding it tends to be a little aggressive about blocking tracking cookies, and some websites don't work right. But enh, I figure if a website breaks due to it's blocking cookies, nothing of value is lost.
Yes, it's perhaps a shameless plug, but I just really like that tool.
Uhhhh.. really? I still get a ton of spam emails. I'd say 98% of the email I receive is unsolicited spam. I just don't see much of it thanks to Popfile filtering.
I have to wonder if the value and mostly anonymous nature of Bitcoins are enabling these kinds of deals. I'm not saying Bitcoin is necessarily evil, but do I have to wonder to myself, would these kinds of ransoms and/or sales of stolen data be as easily possible without Bitcoin?
How about that nice airborne aircraft carrier in the Avengers? It was even able to stay aloft with 2 broken engines. You're welcome. I'll take a cashiers check please.
Even more importantly, what's the point? How does the 'attacker' get their USB stick back with the stolen data?
This feels more like a 'inside job' type trojan, where a person can stick it into a PC they're already trusted to use, and suck everything of value off it to review later. I mean, the way it's difficult to copy and stuff makes it suspiciously not very trojan like. Trojans/malware like to spread easily.
Encrypting the slurped data just feels like plausible deniability for the attacker if the USB were confiscated and inspected.
Security people have for decades said "STOP PUTTING EVERYTHING ON THE INTERNET!". And yet we have just about everything including public infrastructure on the Internet. The lies about "why" are very consistent. "Saves money" is probably the most popular, yet who is seeing that savings? Has the cost for you improved, or are the savings are going to execs and bureaucrats? You (Consumer) are the most at risk due to these policy decisions.
This. Not everything needs to be connected to the internet. There should be designated terminals that have internet access which are isolated from your organizations intranet. I personally blame the IT staff for this. Mission critical systems need to be 100% isolated from the internet, period, end of discussion. It's just too big of a risk in this day and age.
Probably for the same reason when you make a tar file, you use a separate program like bzip or bzip2 to compress. Because that's the type of environment *NIX systems were designed around. A tool does one thing, and does it well, and you combine tools in clever ways to achieve the end result you're looking for. I think dragging X through SSH tunnels is awesome myself. Just goes to show how versatile X is.
This, and Comcast's antics with intranet shennigans....... Where the heck is enforcement of Net Neutrality? NN needs to be enforced, or it's utterly pointless and we have to concede we do not have it.
And I don't mean petty fines that the big companies can absorb as a cost of doing business. REAL ENFORCEMENT!
Yes, this is on by default (and if we're being reasonable, this isn't really a horrible thing at all) however this is an optional thing that people with unlimited data or want higher quality video can turn off, either through the account management website, the tmobile app, or "you can dial #BNG# (#264#) to check your Binge On status, #BOF# (#263#) to disable Binge On, and #BON# (#266#) to enable Binge On."
Oh but we are completely reasonable. This is violating NN blatently. It is a horrible thing. It's one of the many things NN is there to prevent. Favoritism to a class of data is not a stretch no matter how you word it. It's FAVORITISM. What part of that doesn't break NN? Care to explain that, since you want to explain how Binge On works and all that, and try to tell it isn't not horrible.
If we, collectively, don't put a stop to this BS, we're collectively welcoming an internet where if your data isn't favored, it's slowed down, counts twice against your bandwidth, or whatever they want to do. This has to stop before it gets any worse.
The objections to Binge On are from some bizarro world.
Um yeah, much less bizzare than your twisted reality. This is most definitely a violation of net neutrality. People with your mentality really irk me. You just don't get what NN means. It means ALL DATA should be treated exactly the same. You are in direct violation of NN if you are giving favoritism to any class of data, which this most definitely is.
I really don't give a flying f if it's a 'good thing' overall, it's still breaking NN. Just because the favoritism benefits some majority, doesn't make it any less wrong. Once the rules are being broken and we collectively decide to 'look the other way', it opens the flood gates for all sorts of classification of data and adjusting it's speed, count against your cap, or whatever.
"The government also implicitly threatens that if Apple does not acquiesce, the government will seek to compel Apple to turn over its source code and private electronic signature.... The catastrophic security implications of that threat only highlight the government’s fundamental misunderstanding or reckless disregard of the technology at issue and the security risks implicated by its suggestion."
Again I ask, is this 'settled law' that says Apple cannot be compelled to do what's requested relevant? Apple is stuck between a rock and a hard place, now. This revelation is pretty much useless. The alternative is what we need something against.. being compelled to turn over code and keys. Settled or not, Apple is being told, 'do what we want, or we'll make you give up your stuff so we can do it.'
Is this even relevant when the DOJ is threatening to just seize the code and signing keys? At this point, Apple is no longer being required to write code.
I'm rather skeptical about this really happening. I have 1 Windows 7 machine here at home, it hasn't ever tried to install Windows 10.
Additionally, I refurbish laptops with Windows 7 Home Premium every day, and I've more than once left them running over night to do updates to themselves, not a single one has attempted to install Windows 10 on it's own.
So I dunno, I'm not saying people are lying, but there's got to be some kind of user interaction that's being done, that we're not being told about.
This is almost exactly the same thing as that offer from Sprint to allow streaming videos from certain providers not to count against data usage.
But almost exactly, and exactly are not the same. It's possible to draw lines. If Sprint (or potentially T-Mobile) owns the servers/service then I would say it's all in their network and fair game. But if they don't own whomever created/licensed the content, and the source of the bytes is coming from out of network, then that's a plan which does break net neutrality.
BZZZZZZTTTT! Even more wrong. This is precisely the kind of behavior we DO NOT WANT, ESPECIALLY this. NN is there to prevent this. We do NOT want content provider/internet provider conglomerates giving preferential treatment to data sourced on their own network. I don't. It gives a disadvantage to outside content providers. This is golden breakage of NN. It's also at the same time the best case for saying NN is bad. "omigosh but it's our own intranet!" No wrong, because you are competing with the INTERNET at large, you're giving yourself an advantage over outside content.
"Comcast's response is that Stream TV doesn't go over the internet, but is delivered over the same closed path as its cable streams, and so is exempt from the rules. It calls Stream TV a cable service, not an OTT service." - Note passive voice
Ugh, so flagrant violation of NN it's sickening. And defending it by saying 'omigosh, its OUR OWN intranet!' It's a good defense, and precisely why content providers need to be separated from internet providers, or be forced to play by NN rules. This is exactly what NN exists to prevent. Almost feels like Comcast looked at pro-NN discussion and decided to pick the most blatant violation they could find and do it.
Does rather feel like a gauntlet being thrown down at the FCC, "We're violating NN rules. Whacha gunna do now?":P Let's just hope the consequences are enough to discourage the behavior, rather than be an 'acceptable price of doing it.'
Slashdot Mirror
But the bit I quoted? Really? Limit what encryption consumers can have? I find that more alarming than "old-ass insecure phone got cracked."
They can attempt to pass whatever laws they want. There's no putting the encryption genie back into the bottle, sorry. And ultimately, any such laws passing would be an economic blow to our nation and therefore, hasn't a snowballs chance in hell of actually becoming law.
And just like with attempts to pass guns laws, such laws would not stop criminals from employing strong encryption, just like they won't be taking any guns away from criminals. Just silly nonsense that makes zero sense.
Why would any one bother wasting their efforts to create when they're not compensated?
Because their love of music exceeds their love of money. It's not hard to tell the musicians who are performing for the love of music from whose who are only in it for the money.
Contrary to popular belief, musicians have to eat, put a roof over their heads, and provide for their family, just like everyone else. Unless you're suggesting that no one make music their livelihood, this is an empty reply from non-reality.
But these musicians are on target here. DMCA is protecting entities like YouTube, which you have to admit has a ton of infringing content. You can pretty much download any song you want from YouTube without paying for it, or compensating anyone. And Google is raking in the advertising dollars. I personally don't even see a point to using other illegitimate means to acquire music. Everything is on YouTube now and easily converted to MP3 format for download.
Sadly, we have to admit to ourselves, this is a problem. Why would any one bother wasting their efforts to create when they're not compensated? Seems an easy enough fix would be: Let musicians get a substantial piece of the advertising revenue. Trying to take down all the infringing content is foolhardy at best, so let the musicians get a slice of the pie (and a big slice, they deserve it!) Seems like that would be fair.
Every other currency also uses tons of electricity.
Yes, but we have to have these currencies. We don't have to have bitcoins, and they use up way more electricity than already established currencies that're electronically moved around.
Just seems to me to be utterly wasteful and pointless, all around. It doesn't serve any purpose that existing currencies don't already take care of at a much lower cost of use. All the blockchain computations needed for transactions, the continued mining which is increasingly computationally expensive and less return for invested energy. All of it serves no benefit to mankind what so ever. It's even becoming just like "real world" currencies where a small percentage of people who have bitcoins have way more than everyone else combined.
Quite frankly, the only time I hear of bitcoins being used, it's usually people ripping each other off with various schemes (ransomware anyone?), hacks of bitcoin trading sites, bank scam websites that run off with deposited bitcoins or illegal transactions. What the hell is the point of bitcoin if the best feature one can attributing to them is the enabling of lot of criminal activity?
It's completely pointless. And wasteful. Did I say that already? Yeah, because it is.
This is the most pointless waste of electricity I've heard of yet. Electricity isn't free, and the fuel expenditures devoted to utterly pointless virtual currency is astonishing. Humanity has sunk to a new low of wasteful activity.
Bitcoin needs to go away. It was never IMHO a good idea and this revelation makes it even more stupid and pointless.
You can use that EFF tool, Privacy Badger. Though, I'm finding it tends to be a little aggressive about blocking tracking cookies, and some websites don't work right. But enh, I figure if a website breaks due to it's blocking cookies, nothing of value is lost.
Yes, it's perhaps a shameless plug, but I just really like that tool.
The company also announced that it will be releasing Windows 10 Anniversary Update this summer for all Windows 10 users free of charge.
Why does this statement make me nervous...? It really hints at the possibility that updates will not be free at some point in the future...
I don't really support the current nuclear reactors were using, which were designed what, almost 60, 70 years ago?
I wholeheartedly support new reactor designs that are much safer and have a nearly zero risk associated with operating them.
Spam is largely a solved problem.
Uhhhh.. really? I still get a ton of spam emails. I'd say 98% of the email I receive is unsolicited spam. I just don't see much of it thanks to Popfile filtering.
I have to wonder if the value and mostly anonymous nature of Bitcoins are enabling these kinds of deals. I'm not saying Bitcoin is necessarily evil, but do I have to wonder to myself, would these kinds of ransoms and/or sales of stolen data be as easily possible without Bitcoin?
How about that nice airborne aircraft carrier in the Avengers? It was even able to stay aloft with 2 broken engines. You're welcome. I'll take a cashiers check please.
Even more importantly, what's the point? How does the 'attacker' get their USB stick back with the stolen data?
This feels more like a 'inside job' type trojan, where a person can stick it into a PC they're already trusted to use, and suck everything of value off it to review later. I mean, the way it's difficult to copy and stuff makes it suspiciously not very trojan like. Trojans/malware like to spread easily.
Encrypting the slurped data just feels like plausible deniability for the attacker if the USB were confiscated and inspected.
Security people have for decades said "STOP PUTTING EVERYTHING ON THE INTERNET!". And yet we have just about everything including public infrastructure on the Internet. The lies about "why" are very consistent. "Saves money" is probably the most popular, yet who is seeing that savings? Has the cost for you improved, or are the savings are going to execs and bureaucrats? You (Consumer) are the most at risk due to these policy decisions.
This. Not everything needs to be connected to the internet. There should be designated terminals that have internet access which are isolated from your organizations intranet. I personally blame the IT staff for this. Mission critical systems need to be 100% isolated from the internet, period, end of discussion. It's just too big of a risk in this day and age.
Probably for the same reason when you make a tar file, you use a separate program like bzip or bzip2 to compress. Because that's the type of environment *NIX systems were designed around. A tool does one thing, and does it well, and you combine tools in clever ways to achieve the end result you're looking for. I think dragging X through SSH tunnels is awesome myself. Just goes to show how versatile X is.
I was a bit shocked to not see this offered by anyone... but... captain obvious chiming in... give them to a trusted friend?
Despite everything you read, the US isn't a police state.
....Yet. Give them a little more time. These things take time.
This, and Comcast's antics with intranet shennigans....... Where the heck is enforcement of Net Neutrality? NN needs to be enforced, or it's utterly pointless and we have to concede we do not have it.
And I don't mean petty fines that the big companies can absorb as a cost of doing business. REAL ENFORCEMENT!
Yes, this is on by default (and if we're being reasonable, this isn't really a horrible thing at all) however this is an optional thing that people with unlimited data or want higher quality video can turn off, either through the account management website, the tmobile app, or "you can dial #BNG# (#264#) to check your Binge On status, #BOF# (#263#) to disable Binge On, and #BON# (#266#) to enable Binge On."
Oh but we are completely reasonable. This is violating NN blatently. It is a horrible thing. It's one of the many things NN is there to prevent. Favoritism to a class of data is not a stretch no matter how you word it. It's FAVORITISM. What part of that doesn't break NN? Care to explain that, since you want to explain how Binge On works and all that, and try to tell it isn't not horrible.
If we, collectively, don't put a stop to this BS, we're collectively welcoming an internet where if your data isn't favored, it's slowed down, counts twice against your bandwidth, or whatever they want to do. This has to stop before it gets any worse.
The objections to Binge On are from some bizarro world.
Um yeah, much less bizzare than your twisted reality. This is most definitely a violation of net neutrality. People with your mentality really irk me. You just don't get what NN means. It means ALL DATA should be treated exactly the same. You are in direct violation of NN if you are giving favoritism to any class of data, which this most definitely is.
I really don't give a flying f if it's a 'good thing' overall, it's still breaking NN. Just because the favoritism benefits some majority, doesn't make it any less wrong. Once the rules are being broken and we collectively decide to 'look the other way', it opens the flood gates for all sorts of classification of data and adjusting it's speed, count against your cap, or whatever.
Every bit should be the same, end of discussion.
As Apple said in it is brief:
"The government also implicitly threatens that if Apple does not acquiesce, the government will seek to compel Apple to turn over its source code and private ... The catastrophic security implications of that threat only highlight the government’s fundamental misunderstanding or reckless
electronic signature.
disregard of the technology at issue and the security risks implicated by its suggestion."
Again I ask, is this 'settled law' that says Apple cannot be compelled to do what's requested relevant? Apple is stuck between a rock and a hard place, now. This revelation is pretty much useless. The alternative is what we need something against.. being compelled to turn over code and keys. Settled or not, Apple is being told, 'do what we want, or we'll make you give up your stuff so we can do it.'
Is this even relevant when the DOJ is threatening to just seize the code and signing keys? At this point, Apple is no longer being required to write code.
I'm rather skeptical about this really happening. I have 1 Windows 7 machine here at home, it hasn't ever tried to install Windows 10.
Additionally, I refurbish laptops with Windows 7 Home Premium every day, and I've more than once left them running over night to do updates to themselves, not a single one has attempted to install Windows 10 on it's own.
So I dunno, I'm not saying people are lying, but there's got to be some kind of user interaction that's being done, that we're not being told about.
Microsoft suddenly cares about piracy of it's OS? That's new.
This is almost exactly the same thing as that offer from Sprint to allow streaming videos from certain providers not to count against data usage.
But almost exactly, and exactly are not the same. It's possible to draw lines. If Sprint (or potentially T-Mobile) owns the servers/service then I would say it's all in their network and fair game. But if they don't own whomever created/licensed the content, and the source of the bytes is coming from out of network, then that's a plan which does break net neutrality.
BZZZZZZTTTT! Even more wrong. This is precisely the kind of behavior we DO NOT WANT, ESPECIALLY this. NN is there to prevent this. We do NOT want content provider/internet provider conglomerates giving preferential treatment to data sourced on their own network. I don't. It gives a disadvantage to outside content providers. This is golden breakage of NN. It's also at the same time the best case for saying NN is bad. "omigosh but it's our own intranet!" No wrong, because you are competing with the INTERNET at large, you're giving yourself an advantage over outside content.
"Comcast's response is that Stream TV doesn't go over the internet, but is delivered over the same closed path as its cable streams, and so is exempt from the rules. It calls Stream TV a cable service, not an OTT service." - Note passive voice
Ugh, so flagrant violation of NN it's sickening. And defending it by saying 'omigosh, its OUR OWN intranet!' It's a good defense, and precisely why content providers need to be separated from internet providers, or be forced to play by NN rules. This is exactly what NN exists to prevent. Almost feels like Comcast looked at pro-NN discussion and decided to pick the most blatant violation they could find and do it.
Does rather feel like a gauntlet being thrown down at the FCC, "We're violating NN rules. Whacha gunna do now?" :P Let's just hope the consequences are enough to discourage the behavior, rather than be an 'acceptable price of doing it.'