Silly alarmist article is silly and alarmist. And they're just talking about the web. This doesn't affect any of the other numerous things the internet does, besides serving web pages.
And how the hell are they going to enforce this? Who would run a website in these proposed conditions? I wouldn't, I'd relocate my server to a more friendly nation without stupid rules. In this day and age, your geological location matters less and less. I can rent a server anywhere in the world from my home, in my PJs and slippers.
How exactly are they going to 'force' a website located outside the EU to comply with their rules? Seems like they're are shooting themselves in the foot with this stupidity.
Internet knows no borders, and the EU trying to erect a wall around their internet..well.. they are going to find this all just insanely difficult to implement. So good luck with that. The internet will be just fine without you, thank you very much.
Google and Netflix pay for their connections, same as us. And in fact, pretty much every commercial internet connection is metered. You pay for every bit.
I don't think China would necessarily feel the level of pain from being cut off from US market that people think they would. US isn't the only kid on the block who's importing Chinese goods. Yes it would hurt, but I think the Chinese can tolerate the ouch a lot longer and lot more diligently than the US could. It would be a political bloodbath over here if China cut us off completely, prices would skyrocket for practically everything. Shortages might even ensue. The population of the US has no stomach for a REAL TRADE WAR.
Alas, *if* China did as I suggested, I don't think the result would be a sudden drying up of Chinese goods in US stores. Business people aren't stupid, they would find workarounds. Probably already setting up workarounds. Like exporting goods to Canada or Mexico, then bringing them into the US from there, avoiding tariffs on Chinese goods. So in the end? This is just blab and typical political hot air. China isn't going to back down because.. they don't need to, and there's no incentive to do so.
In the end it's just two governments artificially inflating the prices for goods and the real losers are everyone who now needlessly pays more for those goods. Companies don't give a flying f. This isn't hurting them, they just pass on the difference in their end product pricing.
It seems to strip the 'http://' and 'https://' COME ON GOOGLE, I've been teaching users for YEARS to watch their URL box and be wary of they don't see HTTPS. Goddamn Google you are stupid.
Second and even more important, you do realize people forget passwords right? Fortunately in the UK it appears if you don't remember the password to every encrypted item or account the police want you only get 14 months, in the US you can effectively get life (they hold you on contempt of court until you enter it, one man is approaching 3 years in for this).
Not buying it. I'd say, if a suspect in a case forgot his password and told the judge that, AND that he'd be willing to attempt to guess it, or work with password reset mechanisms to assist, (s)he'd be free to go.
I couldn't tell you any of my passwords, either. I don't know them. But I could tell you how to access my password storage thing to retrieve a password. I really don't think a judge would jail me on contempt of court for having a password manager, or forgetting a password and being willing to help get it reset or whatnot.
Writing in a language (ie cypher text) the reader doesn't understand, I don't think a judge would find you in contempt in this case either. Unless of course, in the case of cypher, you refuse to assist in reading it. That's what contempt of court means, you refuse to do what the court instructs you to do. And when you decide to behave with contempt in a court, you can expect to be punished for your behavior, and rightly so.
Y'all think it has something to do with passwords, or access to materials, or whatever you want to think it has to do with, when that's not really what it is. It's contempt of court. And that is a serious matter, in my perspective.
This will not be the only time this happens. It will happen more as time goes on and Law Enforcement has to rely upon technology to gather evidence needed to convince a jury of someone's guilt in any matter before a court of law.
In all honesty, you really shouldn't be putting anything you don't want any one in particular to see on the internet. Period. Because this will happen. Best defense against this is just don't put any compromising information on ANY website. Hell, don't put it on any 'device' you own, keep it in your brain.
And if you think this is somehow a problem, that Law Enforcement can do such a thing, let me present this to you: If a suspected murderer was keeping a written diary in his home, under his mattress and Law Enforcement believes it contains incriminating evidence, you can bet your panties there will be a warrant for that diary. Why should technology trump Law Enforcement doing it's job? People have become deluded into thinking 'online' is some sacred untouchable space. It's not.
The crux of the problem is trying to intermingle human driven cars with self-driving cars. The two simply do not mix very well, and in my opinion, they probably shouldn't be mixing.
If we're going to do self-driving cars, we need to redesign everything around them, so they operate as efficiently as possible. This mingling of the two types of drivers is folly as we have repeatedly seen.
Personally, using someone's email address as some sort of metric of what kind of person owns it.. pretty stupid really. It shouldn't matter.
And if it does, or did, or will, it's not like getting a new email address is some difficult thing. They're pretty easy to come by these days. Which makes it even more worthless as a metric of what sort of person lies beyond the address.
I think this is about as useful as associating someone's street name with what sort of person they might be. It doesn't matter. At least, it shouldn't.
All the way. The day I jumped off the FreeBSD boat and into Linux camp, I chose Debian. I've been with it ever since.
And personally? I like systemd. It does the job and I find it easier to work with than init scripts. And for those cases I still want to use init scripts, it lets me. Debugging daemon/service issues has never been easier than since systemd dropped. journalctl is great for diagnosing issues. I really don't understand the fuss over it.
The issue is they all banned him nearly at once indicating collusion. The idea that you can be unpersoned by big tech in one fell swoop based on your viewpoints is the point of concern.
So what? Perhaps he was breaking rules that all those websites shared in common and they all decided they'd had enough. And even if there was a collusion of minds deciding to group-kickban someone... they're perfectly within their right to do so. There simply are no rules. Other than breaking actual laws, websites can do whatever they want.
And don't even tell me he's been 'depersoned' or whatever the hell that means. He still has his own websites he created and no one can shove him off his own sites. All is working as intended.
It all boils down to what a website operator can do, big or small. And frankly, they should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it isn't actually breaking any actual laws. And curtailing someone's 'free speech' on your website is not a violation of any laws I know of. The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution only protects speech from government interference. Private entities have a free hand in this matter, because like you, they have the same rights. I personally don't want someone else telling me I have to permit a speaker on my website cuz I have to give that person a voice. NO FUCKING WAY. And if you advocate for some sort of rights of individuals to override the rights of a website operator, you're well, you're fucking idiots.
Who cares? And there's nothing to see here. So a website bans someone? Is this suddenly a problem? Do websites have to give up their rights so someone else can have their speech on this website? No. Websites have the same rights as we do, sorry. They definitely have to right to not be associated with your speech, with or without a reason.
Case in point, if you head over to ANY technical support forum from any computer manufacturer and start posting about rabbit breeding and showing, you'd be asked to leave, your posts would be removed. That speech is not the focus of the forum, and the forum's operations have no obligation to publish your speech.
Just stop this nonsense. If Facebook, Twitter, YouTube or Granny's Cooking Website doesn't want you there, then you have to leave, you have no rights, period. You are a guest of the website operator and as part of your agreement you clicked on without reading, you relinquish any rights you thought you might have, when you signed up to that site. GTFO with this BS. You wanna speak? Head over to your favorite web hosting company and register a domain, publish whatever you damn well please on YOUR website.
When you make ANY appointment to meet with another human being, for any purpose, you need to honor it. If you can't, you should call and tell them you won't, as far in advance as humanly possible.
Doesn't matter if you don't want the job, show up, smile, shake hands, tell them you're not interested, but SHOW UP. GEEZUS PEOPLE.
90% of the stuff I own sits in boxes in a garage, taking up space, not doing anyone any good. I think a lot of us can claim this same situation, considering how often you see garages stuffed full and.. storage unit rental outfits are EVERYWHERE in this country.
I think this shift toward non-ownership is ultimately a good thing. Consumerism isn't all it's cracked up to be anyway.
Besides, as a kid, I remember it was way cooler to borrow things from friends, when you were bored of it you gave it back. And you were never likely to want anything further to do with it anyway. Seems like a legit way to function as an adult, except the lender is some company, lending us text, movies, games, apps, rides in a car, whatever you can think of. You pay for what you use, then you're done, not married to it for rest of your life, having to care for it, and store it, and move it if you move.
This is a bit on the goofy side for/. Who didn't know NFS is insecure? Neither is CIFS/Samba, they're both insecure and from my perspective these are the two most used network file system protocols used in Linux.
And since NFS is been insecure since...forever. I've never used this thing not-over-a-VPN or only on LANs. Traditionally, NFS was not really used across WANs due to poor linkspeed across such WANs, and I seem to recall NFS being horribly bad on slow links. So no one really cared about securing it because no one really ran NFS over the public internet. I certainly never did. I still don't. My network file system protocol of choice is CIFS/Samba over VPN, because it's just what I've always used. Windows didn't always support NFS, though I believe it does now.
Of course this mentality came from an age before WiFi and broadband internet. I'd have to guess most of use don't fool with goofy stunnel setups when a VPN does the trick nicely, and provides security to a lot more than just NFS. Personally, I consider stunnel to be what people used when they can't figure out how to create point-to-point VPN between two locations. Sticking only one protocol into an encrypted stream kinda gives a leg up to a would be interested third-party.
Better to have lots of different stuff passing through encrypted pipes. I've been there, I've used it, but I don't anymore.
I think it's a bit of a waste of court resources to be forced to deal with cheaters in video games.
But whatever, cheating in online games ruins the game for everyone, so I'm all for courts putting their foot down on this. I know in my own case, I pretty much don't play any online games anymore, because of griefing, cheating and generally barbaric manners.
Enforcing this ruling could be problematic though. It's notoriously difficult to take anything off the internet.
So, naturally, I want to know which VPN suites they broke into, any particulars on the settings used in such VPNs would also be great.
I would like to improve my own VPN to be.. not what they broke into. No real point in this article if we can't learn how to better secure our own VPNs from it.
Slashdot Mirror
Silly alarmist article is silly and alarmist. And they're just talking about the web. This doesn't affect any of the other numerous things the internet does, besides serving web pages.
And how the hell are they going to enforce this? Who would run a website in these proposed conditions? I wouldn't, I'd relocate my server to a more friendly nation without stupid rules. In this day and age, your geological location matters less and less. I can rent a server anywhere in the world from my home, in my PJs and slippers.
How exactly are they going to 'force' a website located outside the EU to comply with their rules? Seems like they're are shooting themselves in the foot with this stupidity.
Internet knows no borders, and the EU trying to erect a wall around their internet..well.. they are going to find this all just insanely difficult to implement. So good luck with that. The internet will be just fine without you, thank you very much.
We know this already. Is this the new Slashdot? Rehashing the same worn out tales?
We all already know Ajit Pai is a scum bag big ISP shill. We really don't need to hear it again.
Google and Netflix pay for their connections, same as us. And in fact, pretty much every commercial internet connection is metered. You pay for every bit.
I don't think China would necessarily feel the level of pain from being cut off from US market that people think they would. US isn't the only kid on the block who's importing Chinese goods. Yes it would hurt, but I think the Chinese can tolerate the ouch a lot longer and lot more diligently than the US could. It would be a political bloodbath over here if China cut us off completely, prices would skyrocket for practically everything. Shortages might even ensue. The population of the US has no stomach for a REAL TRADE WAR.
Alas, *if* China did as I suggested, I don't think the result would be a sudden drying up of Chinese goods in US stores. Business people aren't stupid, they would find workarounds. Probably already setting up workarounds. Like exporting goods to Canada or Mexico, then bringing them into the US from there, avoiding tariffs on Chinese goods. So in the end? This is just blab and typical political hot air. China isn't going to back down because.. they don't need to, and there's no incentive to do so.
In the end it's just two governments artificially inflating the prices for goods and the real losers are everyone who now needlessly pays more for those goods. Companies don't give a flying f. This isn't hurting them, they just pass on the difference in their end product pricing.
What could possibly go wrong?
I'd really stick it to the US. Just shut down all exports to the US, pending trade talks. We would really feel that.
Trump is playing a very dangerous game with the dragon.
It seems to strip the 'http://' and 'https://' COME ON GOOGLE, I've been teaching users for YEARS to watch their URL box and be wary of they don't see HTTPS. Goddamn Google you are stupid.
Did someone at Google suddenly forget, it is entirely possible for 'mydomain.com' to yield a different page than 'www.mydomain.com'?
It's not common, but it's doable and some people might do this. This change makes no sense to me.
Now watch the new owners completely misunderstand the userbase's culture and wreck a good thing.
CCP already did that years ago.
Seems this episode of Black Mirror, named "Nosedive" is coming true in little steps here and there. Is this really the world we want?
For the non-Netflix people, read about this dark future here: Nosedive
Second and even more important, you do realize people forget passwords right? Fortunately in the UK it appears if you don't remember the password to every encrypted item or account the police want you only get 14 months, in the US you can effectively get life (they hold you on contempt of court until you enter it, one man is approaching 3 years in for this).
Not buying it. I'd say, if a suspect in a case forgot his password and told the judge that, AND that he'd be willing to attempt to guess it, or work with password reset mechanisms to assist, (s)he'd be free to go.
I couldn't tell you any of my passwords, either. I don't know them. But I could tell you how to access my password storage thing to retrieve a password. I really don't think a judge would jail me on contempt of court for having a password manager, or forgetting a password and being willing to help get it reset or whatnot.
Writing in a language (ie cypher text) the reader doesn't understand, I don't think a judge would find you in contempt in this case either. Unless of course, in the case of cypher, you refuse to assist in reading it. That's what contempt of court means, you refuse to do what the court instructs you to do. And when you decide to behave with contempt in a court, you can expect to be punished for your behavior, and rightly so.
Y'all think it has something to do with passwords, or access to materials, or whatever you want to think it has to do with, when that's not really what it is. It's contempt of court. And that is a serious matter, in my perspective.
This will not be the only time this happens. It will happen more as time goes on and Law Enforcement has to rely upon technology to gather evidence needed to convince a jury of someone's guilt in any matter before a court of law.
In all honesty, you really shouldn't be putting anything you don't want any one in particular to see on the internet. Period. Because this will happen. Best defense against this is just don't put any compromising information on ANY website. Hell, don't put it on any 'device' you own, keep it in your brain.
And if you think this is somehow a problem, that Law Enforcement can do such a thing, let me present this to you: If a suspected murderer was keeping a written diary in his home, under his mattress and Law Enforcement believes it contains incriminating evidence, you can bet your panties there will be a warrant for that diary. Why should technology trump Law Enforcement doing it's job? People have become deluded into thinking 'online' is some sacred untouchable space. It's not.
Just use old versions of Photoshop and other offerings from Adobe. Is there really something new in any of their stuff that you can't live without?
The crux of the problem is trying to intermingle human driven cars with self-driving cars. The two simply do not mix very well, and in my opinion, they probably shouldn't be mixing.
If we're going to do self-driving cars, we need to redesign everything around them, so they operate as efficiently as possible. This mingling of the two types of drivers is folly as we have repeatedly seen.
Personally, using someone's email address as some sort of metric of what kind of person owns it.. pretty stupid really. It shouldn't matter.
And if it does, or did, or will, it's not like getting a new email address is some difficult thing. They're pretty easy to come by these days. Which makes it even more worthless as a metric of what sort of person lies beyond the address.
I think this is about as useful as associating someone's street name with what sort of person they might be. It doesn't matter. At least, it shouldn't.
All the way. The day I jumped off the FreeBSD boat and into Linux camp, I chose Debian. I've been with it ever since.
And personally? I like systemd. It does the job and I find it easier to work with than init scripts. And for those cases I still want to use init scripts, it lets me. Debugging daemon/service issues has never been easier than since systemd dropped. journalctl is great for diagnosing issues. I really don't understand the fuss over it.
The issue is they all banned him nearly at once indicating collusion. The idea that you can be unpersoned by big tech in one fell swoop based on your viewpoints is the point of concern.
So what? Perhaps he was breaking rules that all those websites shared in common and they all decided they'd had enough. And even if there was a collusion of minds deciding to group-kickban someone... they're perfectly within their right to do so. There simply are no rules. Other than breaking actual laws, websites can do whatever they want.
And don't even tell me he's been 'depersoned' or whatever the hell that means. He still has his own websites he created and no one can shove him off his own sites. All is working as intended.
It all boils down to what a website operator can do, big or small. And frankly, they should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it isn't actually breaking any actual laws. And curtailing someone's 'free speech' on your website is not a violation of any laws I know of. The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution only protects speech from government interference. Private entities have a free hand in this matter, because like you, they have the same rights. I personally don't want someone else telling me I have to permit a speaker on my website cuz I have to give that person a voice. NO FUCKING WAY. And if you advocate for some sort of rights of individuals to override the rights of a website operator, you're well, you're fucking idiots.
Who cares? And there's nothing to see here. So a website bans someone? Is this suddenly a problem? Do websites have to give up their rights so someone else can have their speech on this website? No. Websites have the same rights as we do, sorry. They definitely have to right to not be associated with your speech, with or without a reason.
Case in point, if you head over to ANY technical support forum from any computer manufacturer and start posting about rabbit breeding and showing, you'd be asked to leave, your posts would be removed. That speech is not the focus of the forum, and the forum's operations have no obligation to publish your speech.
Just stop this nonsense. If Facebook, Twitter, YouTube or Granny's Cooking Website doesn't want you there, then you have to leave, you have no rights, period. You are a guest of the website operator and as part of your agreement you clicked on without reading, you relinquish any rights you thought you might have, when you signed up to that site. GTFO with this BS. You wanna speak? Head over to your favorite web hosting company and register a domain, publish whatever you damn well please on YOUR website.
The more companies and individuals that give the middle finger to 'App Stores' and their kin, the sooner they will go away. Abominations.
When you make ANY appointment to meet with another human being, for any purpose, you need to honor it. If you can't, you should call and tell them you won't, as far in advance as humanly possible.
Doesn't matter if you don't want the job, show up, smile, shake hands, tell them you're not interested, but SHOW UP. GEEZUS PEOPLE.
90% of the stuff I own sits in boxes in a garage, taking up space, not doing anyone any good. I think a lot of us can claim this same situation, considering how often you see garages stuffed full and .. storage unit rental outfits are EVERYWHERE in this country.
I think this shift toward non-ownership is ultimately a good thing. Consumerism isn't all it's cracked up to be anyway.
Besides, as a kid, I remember it was way cooler to borrow things from friends, when you were bored of it you gave it back. And you were never likely to want anything further to do with it anyway. Seems like a legit way to function as an adult, except the lender is some company, lending us text, movies, games, apps, rides in a car, whatever you can think of. You pay for what you use, then you're done, not married to it for rest of your life, having to care for it, and store it, and move it if you move.
This is a bit on the goofy side for /. Who didn't know NFS is insecure? Neither is CIFS/Samba, they're both insecure and from my perspective these are the two most used network file system protocols used in Linux.
And since NFS is been insecure since...forever. I've never used this thing not-over-a-VPN or only on LANs. Traditionally, NFS was not really used across WANs due to poor linkspeed across such WANs, and I seem to recall NFS being horribly bad on slow links. So no one really cared about securing it because no one really ran NFS over the public internet. I certainly never did. I still don't. My network file system protocol of choice is CIFS/Samba over VPN, because it's just what I've always used. Windows didn't always support NFS, though I believe it does now.
Of course this mentality came from an age before WiFi and broadband internet. I'd have to guess most of use don't fool with goofy stunnel setups when a VPN does the trick nicely, and provides security to a lot more than just NFS. Personally, I consider stunnel to be what people used when they can't figure out how to create point-to-point VPN between two locations. Sticking only one protocol into an encrypted stream kinda gives a leg up to a would be interested third-party.
Better to have lots of different stuff passing through encrypted pipes. I've been there, I've used it, but I don't anymore.
I think it's a bit of a waste of court resources to be forced to deal with cheaters in video games.
But whatever, cheating in online games ruins the game for everyone, so I'm all for courts putting their foot down on this. I know in my own case, I pretty much don't play any online games anymore, because of griefing, cheating and generally barbaric manners.
Enforcing this ruling could be problematic though. It's notoriously difficult to take anything off the internet.
So, naturally, I want to know which VPN suites they broke into, any particulars on the settings used in such VPNs would also be great.
I would like to improve my own VPN to be.. not what they broke into. No real point in this article if we can't learn how to better secure our own VPNs from it.