Indeed. In fact, every person that gives up on privacy makes the TLA's jobs easier and increases their power. So please do not give up. These people are not who you want to rule the world.
It is not. It takes a little effort though. But if you encrypt email with PGP/GnuPG, use TOR or TAILS for sensitive browsing, don't post your life's story on social media and make sure your PC has reasonable security, then unless you are a priority to be spied on, you will not be.
Sure, they will still know who you did send email to, but that is about it. As far as I remember, the NSA TAO (the "hackers") has capacity for 100-1000 targets, but not much more. The rest is all mass-surveillance and that can be made much, much harder for them. And it should. Mass-surveillance has zero value to make society safer (remember all those spectacular recent failures ?) and a lot of potential to make everybody less safe and to reduce quality-of-life by eroding freedoms.
Nice examples for what I said: These hostnames should never have been selected.
Face it: Host-names can leak in other ways, for example DNS helpfully telling you about them in the "extra" section or from a reverse-lookup of the IP. ALso if you do a resolution call to a resolving DNS, that DNS (which can be an arbitrary resolving one) afterwards knows about the hostname. Hostnames are not secret in any practical sense.
If your security relies on host-names remaining secret, then you have already messed up to a stellar degree. The host-name in a certificate is decidedly not the problem in that case.
Yes, there is a reason: It costs money to make them more secure! And since management bonuses are more important than having a good product, you can imagine how that decision went. It is something you run into time and again in the security-space: Management deciding on cheaper-than-possible solutions that do not get the job done anymore in order to safe money that then goes to them. Just think of the Takata Airbag Recalls, the problems with car doors opening, the problems with borked ignition, etc. All of these are minor savings, but the non-engineer idiots in charge want these as they improve the quarterly results.
Unless we get personal civil and criminal accountability for such bad management decisions, nothing is going to change. Of course, a small part of these decisions are honest mistakes. In this case it is necessary to establish whether due diligence was followed (e.g. were independent experts consulted if the situation was not clear and the item was obviously safety/security-critical). But most will be due to decisions made to save a penny where it was pretty obviously not a good idea to do so or cases were non-expert management made a technical decision that should have been made by an expert.
Well, a networked health-tracker on the kid would be a good idea, but it would need to come with a) immunity of the manufacturer from litigation when it fails as long as it was a reasonably reliable product (which will be hard to sell to a lot of people, but it is the reality in litigation-nation and technology cannot be perfect) and b) be provided for free. In Europe, this could for example be something the health insurance provides to parents as a loan until the kids are old enough to fend for themselves in such a situation. Still, it would need to be the parents that make sure it is on the kid and there are privacy implications and risks from hacking. Despite that, I do believe it will eventually be the solution to problems like this.
Well, yes and no. One problem with such a sensor is that if it fails (and technology does fail), the manufacturer would suffer huge losses. That is apparently a key reason why there are no such sensors these days. The litigation culture of the US has shot itself in the foot here massively. Hence it must be something that the parent does and that requires discipline.
Actually, the way to deal with things like this is pretty much established: You do checklists and you never, ever skip them. When they have become part of the routine, you can rule out basically all such accidents that can reasonably be predicted. Of course, this takes a high level of discipline and that is why this is enforced only in cases where a lot of damage could ensue, like pilots. It is basically impossible to explain the necessity to ordinary people (look at all the "could never happen to me" idiots here), because ordinary people do not understand the mechanisms and that it can happen to anybody. It can also not be imposed by force, because it is too intrusive for a free society to tolerate something like that.
But if you want to prevent this happening to you, run trough a checklist that has "child" as one of the things on it whenever you lock your car. I used something like this because I kept forgetting my wallet or my work keys at home. After a few weeks it becomes a reflex which costs you a totally irrelevant 2-3 seconds each time and then the risk is mitigated.
If you advocate for people being killed just because they have trouble dealing with a complex world, well, I do not believe in the death-penalty (does not work), but a permanent stay at a mental institution seems to be about right for you.
It is called an "accident" and it can happen. Especially as many people are so much into sensory overload these days that they have trouble distinguishing "important" from "not important". Think people that manage to hurt themselves when walking/driving while focusing on their phones and the like.
It has nothing to do with "disgusting" or being an idiot. It is an effect of more and more people not having the mental equipment to deal competently with a complex world. Adding one more complexity (these "warnings") is just making the problem worse.
Only it is meant metaphorically now. So this at least gave me a laugh.
Of course it is completely useless, as somebody distracted enough to to leave a small child in a car in hot weather will also ignore such a warning. Accidents do happen, and for some people attention to critical detail is something that has to be drilled into them as they are always distracted. Of course, such drills cannot be enforced without going full-authoritarian. Punishment after the fact is not going to help one bit either (but will make things worse).
Interesting. It would be nice if MS got kicked where it hurts for this. Lets hope somebody finds sufficient motivation and proof to do this. Killed recovery partitions partitions are bad. In most cases the device manufacturer will then have to send out some recovery-media to people that need to recover their machines and that costs money.
And that is the reference here. Automatic drive systems do not need to be perfect to be a good replacement. They just need to be better than the average driver. They will start to safe lives when they are better than bad drivers though.
Of course, everybody believes themselves to be good drivers, but the simple statistical reality is that most are in the range from somewhat above average to really bad.
Well, yes. On engineering level stupidity is a distinct possibility. But on higher management-level it is far less so. One way to do very hard to prove sabotage in this way is to make sure the people responsible for the specific task are incompetent and arrogant. Not hard to do.
I do agree that MS may have overdone the push this time though. One can hope.
Messing up the boot-loader is not so bad. Messing up data-carrying partitions unless explicitly told to do so is at the very least criminal negligence.
Indeed. The amount of stupidity that has gone into the systemd design and architecture is staggering. Unselfconscious design at its best and most stupid.
Oh? I must have imagined the last decade where I have been doing that reliably on multiple computers. The only problems ever where happening (not to me) when MS upgraded their sabotage-strategies. They are nothing but a criminal enterprise in this regard.
Indeed. Detecting partitions and partition types (and then leaving them alone) is _easy_. This is intentional, no way around that. Oh, sure, they will have a very good cover-story for their criminal act (computer-sabotage) and who, if not Microsoft, will get away with a claim of incompetence, but this cannot be accidental.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. In fact, every person that gives up on privacy makes the TLA's jobs easier and increases their power. So please do not give up. These people are not who you want to rule the world.
It is not. It takes a little effort though. But if you encrypt email with PGP/GnuPG, use TOR or TAILS for sensitive browsing, don't post your life's story on social media and make sure your PC has reasonable security, then unless you are a priority to be spied on, you will not be.
Sure, they will still know who you did send email to, but that is about it. As far as I remember, the NSA TAO (the "hackers") has capacity for 100-1000 targets, but not much more. The rest is all mass-surveillance and that can be made much, much harder for them. And it should. Mass-surveillance has zero value to make society safer (remember all those spectacular recent failures ?) and a lot of potential to make everybody less safe and to reduce quality-of-life by eroding freedoms.
Nice examples for what I said: These hostnames should never have been selected.
Face it: Host-names can leak in other ways, for example DNS helpfully telling you about them in the "extra" section or from a reverse-lookup of the IP. ALso if you do a resolution call to a resolving DNS, that DNS (which can be an arbitrary resolving one) afterwards knows about the hostname. Hostnames are not secret in any practical sense.
If your security relies on host-names remaining secret, then you have already messed up to a stellar degree. The host-name in a certificate is decidedly not the problem in that case.
Yes, there is a reason: It costs money to make them more secure! And since management bonuses are more important than having a good product, you can imagine how that decision went. It is something you run into time and again in the security-space: Management deciding on cheaper-than-possible solutions that do not get the job done anymore in order to safe money that then goes to them. Just think of the Takata Airbag Recalls, the problems with car doors opening, the problems with borked ignition, etc. All of these are minor savings, but the non-engineer idiots in charge want these as they improve the quarterly results.
Unless we get personal civil and criminal accountability for such bad management decisions, nothing is going to change. Of course, a small part of these decisions are honest mistakes. In this case it is necessary to establish whether due diligence was followed (e.g. were independent experts consulted if the situation was not clear and the item was obviously safety/security-critical). But most will be due to decisions made to save a penny where it was pretty obviously not a good idea to do so or cases were non-expert management made a technical decision that should have been made by an expert.
Well, maybe you should give others a good example and start with yourself?
Well, a networked health-tracker on the kid would be a good idea, but it would need to come with a) immunity of the manufacturer from litigation when it fails as long as it was a reasonably reliable product (which will be hard to sell to a lot of people, but it is the reality in litigation-nation and technology cannot be perfect) and b) be provided for free. In Europe, this could for example be something the health insurance provides to parents as a loan until the kids are old enough to fend for themselves in such a situation. Still, it would need to be the parents that make sure it is on the kid and there are privacy implications and risks from hacking. Despite that, I do believe it will eventually be the solution to problems like this.
Well, yes and no. One problem with such a sensor is that if it fails (and technology does fail), the manufacturer would suffer huge losses. That is apparently a key reason why there are no such sensors these days. The litigation culture of the US has shot itself in the foot here massively. Hence it must be something that the parent does and that requires discipline.
Actually, the way to deal with things like this is pretty much established: You do checklists and you never, ever skip them. When they have become part of the routine, you can rule out basically all such accidents that can reasonably be predicted. Of course, this takes a high level of discipline and that is why this is enforced only in cases where a lot of damage could ensue, like pilots. It is basically impossible to explain the necessity to ordinary people (look at all the "could never happen to me" idiots here), because ordinary people do not understand the mechanisms and that it can happen to anybody. It can also not be imposed by force, because it is too intrusive for a free society to tolerate something like that.
But if you want to prevent this happening to you, run trough a checklist that has "child" as one of the things on it whenever you lock your car. I used something like this because I kept forgetting my wallet or my work keys at home. After a few weeks it becomes a reflex which costs you a totally irrelevant 2-3 seconds each time and then the risk is mitigated.
That is a very interesting reference!
If you advocate for people being killed just because they have trouble dealing with a complex world, well, I do not believe in the death-penalty (does not work), but a permanent stay at a mental institution seems to be about right for you.
It is called an "accident" and it can happen. Especially as many people are so much into sensory overload these days that they have trouble distinguishing "important" from "not important". Think people that manage to hurt themselves when walking/driving while focusing on their phones and the like.
It has nothing to do with "disgusting" or being an idiot. It is an effect of more and more people not having the mental equipment to deal competently with a complex world. Adding one more complexity (these "warnings") is just making the problem worse.
Only it is meant metaphorically now. So this at least gave me a laugh.
Of course it is completely useless, as somebody distracted enough to to leave a small child in a car in hot weather will also ignore such a warning. Accidents do happen, and for some people attention to critical detail is something that has to be drilled into them as they are always distracted. Of course, such drills cannot be enforced without going full-authoritarian. Punishment after the fact is not going to help one bit either (but will make things worse).
Interesting. It would be nice if MS got kicked where it hurts for this. Lets hope somebody finds sufficient motivation and proof to do this. Killed recovery partitions partitions are bad. In most cases the device manufacturer will then have to send out some recovery-media to people that need to recover their machines and that costs money.
Depends how hard it turns out to be. But it is a definite possibility and they are going to try pretty hard to make it work.
And that is the reference here. Automatic drive systems do not need to be perfect to be a good replacement. They just need to be better than the average driver. They will start to safe lives when they are better than bad drivers though.
Of course, everybody believes themselves to be good drivers, but the simple statistical reality is that most are in the range from somewhat above average to really bad.
Probably best give the storage job to Backblaze if possible. They really know what they are doing. For such requirements, redundancy is key.
Well, yes. On engineering level stupidity is a distinct possibility. But on higher management-level it is far less so. One way to do very hard to prove sabotage in this way is to make sure the people responsible for the specific task are incompetent and arrogant. Not hard to do.
I do agree that MS may have overdone the push this time though. One can hope.
Messing up the boot-loader is not so bad. Messing up data-carrying partitions unless explicitly told to do so is at the very least criminal negligence.
Indeed. The amount of stupidity that has gone into the systemd design and architecture is staggering. Unselfconscious design at its best and most stupid.
Indeed. Windows 10 must at this time be regarded as malware that needs to be isolated.
Oh? I must have imagined the last decade where I have been doing that reliably on multiple computers. The only problems ever where happening (not to me) when MS upgraded their sabotage-strategies. They are nothing but a criminal enterprise in this regard.
Indeed. Detecting partitions and partition types (and then leaving them alone) is _easy_. This is intentional, no way around that. Oh, sure, they will have a very good cover-story for their criminal act (computer-sabotage) and who, if not Microsoft, will get away with a claim of incompetence, but this cannot be accidental.
These go hand-in-hand.
More like Seagate 8TB not being utter trash (like so many other Seagate drives).