As long as competitor content isn't slowed down to make your content more attractive, it seams reasonable to me to put caps on out of network usage, but no caps on usage from servers which are wholly owned by the ISP.
Bzzzzt. Wrong. Sorry. That's not the correct answer. 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. This is precisely what net neutrality is meant to guard against.. preferential treatment of any data. They need to uncap it all, or it all counts against cap.
I've never really had any issues with Windows 10. About the only issue I have with 2 machines running it, is one of them refuses to sleep automatically after the set period of idle. Still trying to figure that one out, but other than that, works good. Guess I'm just lucky.
In all truth, if you open the old Control Panel (you can search for it via the start menu), it just looks like Windows 7 underneath the new UI. And as far as privacy, I'm 2 PC's out of what, a billion installs? I turned off what can be turned off and whatever is left... Does anyone really think a human being is looking at what MY PC is submitting? I highly doubt I'm that important, and if I am, I think I'd be flattered honestly.
Bottom line for me is.. it works. Runs all my crap (and I run a lot of stuff, like cygwin, VMWare, various dev tools, games, libreoffice, and on and on) and seems to be stable (I've never had it crash or do anything weird other than that one machine refusing to sleep automatically.) So I really just fail to see the uproar over this thing. Again guess I'm just one of the lucky people.
Good. This is exactly the point. The content is worthless with the obnoxious advertising baggage, tracking garbage and malware infections that comes with it. Let the worthless advertisement laden sites sink under their own weight.
Considering it can be easily turned off (for now) I don't really see a problem here. I checked my Windows 10 settings and it was already turned off. *shrug*
If advertisers aren't going to police their own industry then, yeah, count on other people to create a blunt solution. It may not solve the problem the way that advertisers would like the problem to be solved, but then again advertisers have had a good 2 decades to figure out a workable relationship for online advertising. So far their solution has been to abuse people and not call each other out when they notice other bad actors. Thankfully we don't need to count on them for a solution, but it's not going to be the solution they want.
You forgot to mention, they've done quite the opposite over the last 2 decades, they've gone to extreme lengths to make their advertisements increasingly annoying and disruptive to the experience of using your own computer and web browser. Feels like they're been one-upping each other, "Oh yeah, I can make an ad even more annoying than those guys! That'll get people's attention!" That's definitely a relationship I want no part of. It's like.. their answer to not getting the results they want (sales, clicks, whatever) is to make the advertising even more obnoxious and annoying. Well guess what, they did get peoples attention, people are sick of it and tuning out.
And they're surprised by the "nuke 'em all" backlash? Wow. What were they expecting? Oh yeah, results. They got some results alright. Just not the results they wanted.
Is a two way street. I wonder how many businesses and business models that bit the dust over the last 15 years felt the same way about Google?
It absolutely blows my mind that the online advertisers haven't figured out how to defeat ad-blocking. It's actually retarded simple to do. All the advertisers have to do is proxy their ads through the site the users are trying to access. If www.forbes.com is directly serving the ads from their own domain, no adblocker in the world will prevent the user from seeing it, as blocking forbes.com will shut out the whole site, and the user wont get anything.
Talk about not "getting it", This really is a no-brainer from a technical standpoint.
It's actually an amusing symptom of the problem. There is just a huge disconnect between advertisers and the sites they're advertising on. Which is really part of the problem. Maybe if the disconnect between advertiser and media was erased, sites would take a more proactive stance on serving sane advertising that isn't obnoxious and completely irrelevant to the site itself. Sadly, the '3rd party' advertising engine that connects sites to advertisers is a huge problem. The answer isn't easy IMHO.. make advertisers and site owners actually.. negotiate to place advertising like say, a newspapers+advertiser do, or magazine+advertiser. There's no third party in those relationships (as far as I know.) Probably why you don't see like.. advertisements for guns in a Better Homes and Gardens magazine. A relationship between advertiser and medium needs to exist to filter the content to appeal to the audience. This is presently not happening, or being given over to our 'machine minds' to manage for us (and they're not very good at telling what's sane and what's absurdly annoying.)
Are those malware ads on pirate bay or kickass torrent? If you go to shady sites, you do need to protect yourself. If you see problems on a legit site, contact owner to fic the problem. Or just post URLs here, and one of the readers is likely working for a tech company which is in the position to help.
Wot? You want us to debug people's screwed up malware serving 3rd party advertising problems? Hahah. Good Luck With That.
Funny you mentioned that,/. is one of the very few sites I actually allow advertisements from, because they never serve annoying ads. Just simple banners. Return to simple banners, and you may join this website as a site I'll allow advertising from.
Want my to take off my adblock? Return to the simple single banner ad per page, with no audio, video, animation or other things that deliberately distract me from the content I'm trying to look at. I promise if you return to this simple advertising of the 90's WWW, I'll turn off adblock. BTW, you're still welcomed to serve me targeted advertising, I actually like seeing advertisements for things either already have, or might actually be interested in. Thank you.
In all truth, I don't really even mind the animated ones. Really quite frankly, it's when my browser starts opening new pages, playing sound and/or popping up an advertisement that I have to click to get rid of that got me interested in tools like Privoxy, Squid and AdBlock+ to put a stop to your disrupting my usage of my browser.
In short, advertise in a non-annoying fashion and I'll allow it. Kind of sucks for you that the power is on my end, rather than yours, doesn't it?
Lastly, the advertisements before playing a YouTube video (I get these on my phone, not on my PC.) are REALLY obnoxious, I vow to never buy a product or service I see advertised in that manner. Not only are you wasting both our time, you're alienating me to outright boycott and you're wasting my limited mobile broadband data usage.
Now of course, will an advertiser ever see this? Probably not, since the game goes both ways, we only see what we want to see on the internet. Deal with it.
Could this hack be reversed, ie: log keystrokes from a wireless keyboard? That sounds substantially more dangerous and more useful to a hacker than sending keystrokes. I've always been wary of wireless keyboard for this reason, but mice are pretty much a non-issue if their data could be captured. Mouse data sending is probably just as useless.
Gosh, I know what I'll do.. I'll make my crap available only through one service so it's obnoxiously inaccessible. Not that I've even heard of this guy before, but how is anyone this fricking stupid? What did you expect to happen? Celebration? People have been complaining about content accessibility issues for years and you propagate the problem?
This is a good example of why some computer networks should NOT be connected to the internet, in any way, shape or form. This is people's lives we're talking about. If there is any internet access what so ever, it's an unacceptable risk. If there MUST be internet access, it should be tightly controlled by firewalls, ie: whitelisted sites only that staff in the facility need to get to.
This kind of thing should not happen. 100% preventable.
I like this great tool from EFF. https://www.eff.org/privacybadger Lets you selectively block cookies of all kinds of tracking that occurs during casual browsing.
By making Binge On free, they have neatly avoided Net Neutrality problems.
Bzzzt. Wrong. Even free, the classification of certain data as unmetered, in my opinion, violates net neutrality. To play fair, they'd have to make all data unmetered, or metered. The whole point of net neutrality is you cannot give any favoritism to anything, all data needs to be treated the same, regardless of what that data is.
I know what T-Mobile is doing is supposed to be a benefit but it's still going against what net neutrality means.
Cops violate civilian law all the time for the sake of enforcing the law. The main thing that comes to mind is speeding, running red lights, and blocking traffic. And of course, an entire debate can start from cops usage of firearms.
Not even remotely close to comparable situations.
But if you wanted some comparable situations, you could point at Law Enforcement using under-cover officers posing as prostitutes to catch 'Johns' for soliciting prostitutes. Kind of a similar situation. I guess since Law Enforcement is allowed to do that, this probably is being allowed for much the same reason. Could also compare it to Law Enforcement attempting to buy or sell drugs in order to catch dealers and users. All of it is pretty devious if you asked me.
I know I've seen some Law Enforcement reality shows where Law Enforcement busts a drug dealer, then stays in their residence for a few hours to catch users coming over to buy drugs. So that does happen, very similar to honeypotting a seized kiddie porn site. But I personally don't like it, I think it's just low. Gets a bit too close to entrapment for my taste.
It starts to go downhill when it is a crime to download or just view (which is pretty much the same thing) an underage pic on your computer (and let's not go into ludicrous things like underage cartoon characters who are also considered verbotten!).
The problem here is... just viewing the picture is creating a 'demand' for such material, and therefore a supply must be created, which exploits minors. I'm not really on board with the drawings of such things being forbidden as well, that seems like overkill to me, and drawings may supply the consumers of such materials that aren't exploitative of minors. It's an ugly nasty situation for sure.
Then they tell you the same thing is not a crime if you do it in order to catch other people doing it. So, is it a crime or isn't it? I don't know of another crime that it is OK to "perform" if you're "the good guy"...
I definitely have a problem with a honeypot situation involving child porn. I've already said in other posts, committing a crime to catch criminals is really in my opinion 'bad policing', and promoting 'do as I say, not as I do.' I also doubt the ability of such a honeypot (assuming it was TOR network site) being capable of revealing anyone's true identity. Though I think the other article said they were infecting the users of the site with some kind of malware/virus to help reveal their identities, which by the way, is also against the law. So double whammie here, hosting child porn and distributing malware.
Nasty can of worms. I definitely think kiddie porn is disgusting (though as I said, drawings of it are ok by me. Not interested, but at least there's no victims) but so is Law Enforcement breaking laws to catch criminals. Not sure which is worse, they're both pretty low in my view.
As long as the proxy can rewrite the requests sufficiently, the VPN encryption doesn't really add anything but it must chew up an insane amount of CPU time somewhere.
Given how easily modern CPUs can handle encrypting/decrypting VPN traffic.. it's really not a big deal. Overkill? Sure, but I personally love seeing the internet's tubes flooded with lots of encrypted traffic. The more the better. Keeps the spooks busy.
Linux used to be about choice; now it's about using the software the distro maintainers tell you to use, and fuck you if you don't like it.
...or by rolling your own distro (which totally defeats the purpose of using a distro in the first place).
Don't these two statements contradict themselves? Also, as far as I know, you can switch to old school System V init with Debian by fussing with the package manager.
Linux is still about choice to me. I can pick and choose whatever software/services I want in my installation. Distributions are merely a recommended set of software/services that distro suggests. You don't have to install their recommendations, you can still, choice again quite there, install a very minimal system from the distro of your choice and add onto it however you see fit.
As far as desktop (I don't use a linux deskop, FWIW, I only use Linux in a server capacity) I still think there are plenty of choices for you to set up a system however you see fit. Of course, the more non-standard your choices are, the more difficult it is to do. But the choice is still there. Just as the choice not to use Linux desktop is also there. It's all about choice, always has been, and probably always will be. Linux, FWIW, is just a kernel. Everything else is what you choose.
Yes, anything is possible, just as it is possible the sun will super nova tomorrow and destroy the earth... or the planet will get hit by an untracked meteor; or how about the nemesis theory?
This is a prime example of someone who gets their computer taken over by a botnet.. doesn't care, don't even look. Just merrily goes about their life oblivious while their computer is used for nefarious purposes, like serving malware to other idiots.
Bit of a slippery slope when Law Enforcement is breaking laws to catch criminals. This is not good policing in my opinion. There should be no excuse for breaking the law, especially in an effort to enforce the law. Law enforcement should never be 'do as I say, not as I do.'
A simple test is.. if a citizen did this to another citizen, would that be against the law? Last I checked, hacking your neighbors computer and collecting information from it is definitely against the law. (Unless you're Microsoft and say you're going to do it in your EULA, bit that's a different can of worms.)
Slashdot Mirror
As long as competitor content isn't slowed down to make your content more attractive, it seams reasonable to me to put caps on out of network usage, but no caps on usage from servers which are wholly owned by the ISP.
Bzzzzt. Wrong. Sorry. That's not the correct answer. 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. This is precisely what net neutrality is meant to guard against.. preferential treatment of any data. They need to uncap it all, or it all counts against cap.
I've never really had any issues with Windows 10. About the only issue I have with 2 machines running it, is one of them refuses to sleep automatically after the set period of idle. Still trying to figure that one out, but other than that, works good. Guess I'm just lucky.
In all truth, if you open the old Control Panel (you can search for it via the start menu), it just looks like Windows 7 underneath the new UI. And as far as privacy, I'm 2 PC's out of what, a billion installs? I turned off what can be turned off and whatever is left... Does anyone really think a human being is looking at what MY PC is submitting? I highly doubt I'm that important, and if I am, I think I'd be flattered honestly.
Bottom line for me is.. it works. Runs all my crap (and I run a lot of stuff, like cygwin, VMWare, various dev tools, games, libreoffice, and on and on) and seems to be stable (I've never had it crash or do anything weird other than that one machine refusing to sleep automatically.) So I really just fail to see the uproar over this thing. Again guess I'm just one of the lucky people.
then that content will eventually no longer exist
Good. This is exactly the point. The content is worthless with the obnoxious advertising baggage, tracking garbage and malware infections that comes with it. Let the worthless advertisement laden sites sink under their own weight.
Sounds like the making of the next /. poll!
Advertisement or not, this is a pretty neat piece of engineering and definitely belongs on /.
Considering it can be easily turned off (for now) I don't really see a problem here. I checked my Windows 10 settings and it was already turned off. *shrug*
If advertisers aren't going to police their own industry then, yeah, count on other people to create a blunt solution. It may not solve the problem the way that advertisers would like the problem to be solved, but then again advertisers have had a good 2 decades to figure out a workable relationship for online advertising. So far their solution has been to abuse people and not call each other out when they notice other bad actors. Thankfully we don't need to count on them for a solution, but it's not going to be the solution they want.
You forgot to mention, they've done quite the opposite over the last 2 decades, they've gone to extreme lengths to make their advertisements increasingly annoying and disruptive to the experience of using your own computer and web browser. Feels like they're been one-upping each other, "Oh yeah, I can make an ad even more annoying than those guys! That'll get people's attention!" That's definitely a relationship I want no part of. It's like.. their answer to not getting the results they want (sales, clicks, whatever) is to make the advertising even more obnoxious and annoying. Well guess what, they did get peoples attention, people are sick of it and tuning out.
And they're surprised by the "nuke 'em all" backlash? Wow. What were they expecting? Oh yeah, results. They got some results alright. Just not the results they wanted.
Is a two way street. I wonder how many businesses and business models that bit the dust over the last 15 years felt the same way about Google?
It absolutely blows my mind that the online advertisers haven't figured out how to defeat ad-blocking. It's actually retarded simple to do. All the advertisers have to do is proxy their ads through the site the users are trying to access. If www.forbes.com is directly serving the ads from their own domain, no adblocker in the world will prevent the user from seeing it, as blocking forbes.com will shut out the whole site, and the user wont get anything.
Talk about not "getting it", This really is a no-brainer from a technical standpoint.
It's actually an amusing symptom of the problem. There is just a huge disconnect between advertisers and the sites they're advertising on. Which is really part of the problem. Maybe if the disconnect between advertiser and media was erased, sites would take a more proactive stance on serving sane advertising that isn't obnoxious and completely irrelevant to the site itself. Sadly, the '3rd party' advertising engine that connects sites to advertisers is a huge problem. The answer isn't easy IMHO.. make advertisers and site owners actually.. negotiate to place advertising like say, a newspapers+advertiser do, or magazine+advertiser. There's no third party in those relationships (as far as I know.) Probably why you don't see like.. advertisements for guns in a Better Homes and Gardens magazine. A relationship between advertiser and medium needs to exist to filter the content to appeal to the audience. This is presently not happening, or being given over to our 'machine minds' to manage for us (and they're not very good at telling what's sane and what's absurdly annoying.)
Are those malware ads on pirate bay or kickass torrent? If you go to shady sites, you do need to protect yourself. If you see problems on a legit site, contact owner to fic the problem. Or just post URLs here, and one of the readers is likely working for a tech company which is in the position to help.
Wot? You want us to debug people's screwed up malware serving 3rd party advertising problems? Hahah. Good Luck With That.
Funny you mentioned that, /. is one of the very few sites I actually allow advertisements from, because they never serve annoying ads. Just simple banners. Return to simple banners, and you may join this website as a site I'll allow advertising from.
Dear Advertisers,
Want my to take off my adblock? Return to the simple single banner ad per page, with no audio, video, animation or other things that deliberately distract me from the content I'm trying to look at. I promise if you return to this simple advertising of the 90's WWW, I'll turn off adblock. BTW, you're still welcomed to serve me targeted advertising, I actually like seeing advertisements for things either already have, or might actually be interested in. Thank you.
In all truth, I don't really even mind the animated ones. Really quite frankly, it's when my browser starts opening new pages, playing sound and/or popping up an advertisement that I have to click to get rid of that got me interested in tools like Privoxy, Squid and AdBlock+ to put a stop to your disrupting my usage of my browser.
In short, advertise in a non-annoying fashion and I'll allow it. Kind of sucks for you that the power is on my end, rather than yours, doesn't it?
Lastly, the advertisements before playing a YouTube video (I get these on my phone, not on my PC.) are REALLY obnoxious, I vow to never buy a product or service I see advertised in that manner. Not only are you wasting both our time, you're alienating me to outright boycott and you're wasting my limited mobile broadband data usage.
Now of course, will an advertiser ever see this? Probably not, since the game goes both ways, we only see what we want to see on the internet. Deal with it.
Could this hack be reversed, ie: log keystrokes from a wireless keyboard? That sounds substantially more dangerous and more useful to a hacker than sending keystrokes. I've always been wary of wireless keyboard for this reason, but mice are pretty much a non-issue if their data could be captured. Mouse data sending is probably just as useless.
Gosh, I know what I'll do.. I'll make my crap available only through one service so it's obnoxiously inaccessible. Not that I've even heard of this guy before, but how is anyone this fricking stupid? What did you expect to happen? Celebration? People have been complaining about content accessibility issues for years and you propagate the problem?
But just as TFA says, Good Luck With That!
Stop with the Forbes links already, this site is horrible.
This is a good example of why some computer networks should NOT be connected to the internet, in any way, shape or form. This is people's lives we're talking about. If there is any internet access what so ever, it's an unacceptable risk. If there MUST be internet access, it should be tightly controlled by firewalls, ie: whitelisted sites only that staff in the facility need to get to.
This kind of thing should not happen. 100% preventable.
I like this great tool from EFF. https://www.eff.org/privacybadger Lets you selectively block cookies of all kinds of tracking that occurs during casual browsing.
I mean this history lesson is fascinating, but really, I think most of /. knows how DSL works alongside voice on POTS.
Makes it sound like the device has an anus! I don't want that in my pocket!
By making Binge On free, they have neatly avoided Net Neutrality problems.
Bzzzt. Wrong. Even free, the classification of certain data as unmetered, in my opinion, violates net neutrality. To play fair, they'd have to make all data unmetered, or metered. The whole point of net neutrality is you cannot give any favoritism to anything, all data needs to be treated the same, regardless of what that data is.
I know what T-Mobile is doing is supposed to be a benefit but it's still going against what net neutrality means.
Cops violate civilian law all the time for the sake of enforcing the law. The main thing that comes to mind is speeding, running red lights, and blocking traffic. And of course, an entire debate can start from cops usage of firearms.
Not even remotely close to comparable situations.
But if you wanted some comparable situations, you could point at Law Enforcement using under-cover officers posing as prostitutes to catch 'Johns' for soliciting prostitutes. Kind of a similar situation. I guess since Law Enforcement is allowed to do that, this probably is being allowed for much the same reason. Could also compare it to Law Enforcement attempting to buy or sell drugs in order to catch dealers and users. All of it is pretty devious if you asked me.
I know I've seen some Law Enforcement reality shows where Law Enforcement busts a drug dealer, then stays in their residence for a few hours to catch users coming over to buy drugs. So that does happen, very similar to honeypotting a seized kiddie porn site. But I personally don't like it, I think it's just low. Gets a bit too close to entrapment for my taste.
It starts to go downhill when it is a crime to download or just view (which is pretty much the same thing) an underage pic on your computer (and let's not go into ludicrous things like underage cartoon characters who are also considered verbotten!).
The problem here is... just viewing the picture is creating a 'demand' for such material, and therefore a supply must be created, which exploits minors. I'm not really on board with the drawings of such things being forbidden as well, that seems like overkill to me, and drawings may supply the consumers of such materials that aren't exploitative of minors. It's an ugly nasty situation for sure.
Then they tell you the same thing is not a crime if you do it in order to catch other people doing it. So, is it a crime or isn't it? I don't know of another crime that it is OK to "perform" if you're "the good guy"...
I definitely have a problem with a honeypot situation involving child porn. I've already said in other posts, committing a crime to catch criminals is really in my opinion 'bad policing', and promoting 'do as I say, not as I do.' I also doubt the ability of such a honeypot (assuming it was TOR network site) being capable of revealing anyone's true identity. Though I think the other article said they were infecting the users of the site with some kind of malware/virus to help reveal their identities, which by the way, is also against the law. So double whammie here, hosting child porn and distributing malware.
Nasty can of worms. I definitely think kiddie porn is disgusting (though as I said, drawings of it are ok by me. Not interested, but at least there's no victims) but so is Law Enforcement breaking laws to catch criminals. Not sure which is worse, they're both pretty low in my view.
As long as the proxy can rewrite the requests sufficiently, the VPN encryption doesn't really add anything but it must chew up an insane amount of CPU time somewhere.
Given how easily modern CPUs can handle encrypting/decrypting VPN traffic.. it's really not a big deal. Overkill? Sure, but I personally love seeing the internet's tubes flooded with lots of encrypted traffic. The more the better. Keeps the spooks busy.
Linux used to be about choice; now it's about using the software the distro maintainers tell you to use, and fuck you if you don't like it.
Don't these two statements contradict themselves? Also, as far as I know, you can switch to old school System V init with Debian by fussing with the package manager.
Linux is still about choice to me. I can pick and choose whatever software/services I want in my installation. Distributions are merely a recommended set of software/services that distro suggests. You don't have to install their recommendations, you can still, choice again quite there, install a very minimal system from the distro of your choice and add onto it however you see fit.
As far as desktop (I don't use a linux deskop, FWIW, I only use Linux in a server capacity) I still think there are plenty of choices for you to set up a system however you see fit. Of course, the more non-standard your choices are, the more difficult it is to do. But the choice is still there. Just as the choice not to use Linux desktop is also there. It's all about choice, always has been, and probably always will be. Linux, FWIW, is just a kernel. Everything else is what you choose.
Yes, anything is possible, just as it is possible the sun will super nova tomorrow and destroy the earth... or the planet will get hit by an untracked meteor; or how about the nemesis theory?
This is a prime example of someone who gets their computer taken over by a botnet.. doesn't care, don't even look. Just merrily goes about their life oblivious while their computer is used for nefarious purposes, like serving malware to other idiots.
Bit of a slippery slope when Law Enforcement is breaking laws to catch criminals. This is not good policing in my opinion. There should be no excuse for breaking the law, especially in an effort to enforce the law. Law enforcement should never be 'do as I say, not as I do.'
A simple test is.. if a citizen did this to another citizen, would that be against the law? Last I checked, hacking your neighbors computer and collecting information from it is definitely against the law. (Unless you're Microsoft and say you're going to do it in your EULA, bit that's a different can of worms.)