And if someone is able to compromise both the card and that image of "what it should look like"?
If an attacker has sufficient access to change what's being displayed on the ATM screen, then they can probably skip the external card-reader and just yoink the customer's bank data out of RAM.
Simple. Release images to every single person who requests one, with "fair use" degraded quality, with a "degradation signature" based deterministically on the identity of the requesting party.
Viola: the resulting video is, from one frame to the next, a list of the "guilty". Maybe subsequent video compression will bury the telltale artifacts. Maybe not.
But we're not talking about whether TPB should censor such a list (though they undoubtedly should), we're talking about whether the haxors should redistribute it in the first place.
So yes, per your point, if they did do this, TPB's complicity in the act of distribution would be minimal, and if they did stomp it out but the haxors were even moderately determined, they could ensure that the list's contents become public knowledge. But this does nothing to address the hypothetical dick-moveness of their endeavouring to redistribute this data in the first place.
What's inconsistent between those two things? Just because people use TPB for copyrighted works, doesn't mean TPB itself is providing anything more than a matchmaking service between different clients.
Because it conflates privacy issues with intellectual property issues. There is nothing hypocritical in trying to contain private data but not copyrighted works.
That's a great outcome. Remember, the people who have a strain of HIV from the other 90%, aren't going to get re-infected with one from the 10%. They will just be rendered effectively uncontagious.
It's a one-time thing, to be sure; the resistant strain will spread at the same rate of growth - but it will do so from a severely stunted starting point.
Assuming this works, it means a one-time epidemiological "rewind" - suddenly we'll have the much lower HIV rates we had 30 or 40 years ago, but we'll have the knowledge and preparedness of today. Imagine if we could use 2010's pharmaceuticals to nip the epidemic in the bud back then!
This comment... While it itself has "-1 Troll" moderation status, it's self-referential and, it seems, a little bit ironically prophetic. Which, IMHO, deserves a +1 Funny or Insightful, depending on which kind of pedant you are.
But the moment it earns that +1, it loses that magical quality and is once again an overrated comment which ought to get a -1 Troll. Which in turn makes it a pretty cool comment.
if malicious patterns were detected perhaps an auto-cutoff of the plant from the internet could be triggered.
This seems, to me, like a dynamic that's exploitable in itself.
Assuming that the plant is connected to the Internet in the first place for a real purpose, whatever that purpose is is suddenly vulnerable to a denial-of-service attack. All you gotta do is trip the IDS deliberately.
My employer knows perfectly well they can't fire me for being drunk on my own time. And if I use passwords which can be derived from my 'habits and favorites', which I more or less assume are public knowledge, then I have no business using a secure computer.
if you play loose in your personal life you are more likely to play loose in your professional one.
Company bases a business model on offering their resources for free, only to discover to their chagrin that people will take them up on it. Where oh where have I heard this one before?
I have to take issue with this. Just because you play loose with your "personal" life does not mean you play loose with your security or your privacy. Perhaps you only happen to value privacy in a more limited sphere.
Looks like the lag is associated with TVs, which might be doing some internal processing and enhancing to the signal before putting it onto the screen - for TV and movie watching, this is presumably not a big deal.
But I can't imagine a TV manufacturer building this sort of functionality without some sort of low-/no-latency bypass function. Xbox owners would riot.
Slashdot Mirror
As if there are any women on that site at all except for the ones whose photos they paid to use.
What're you, stoned or stupid? You don't hack a bank across state lines from your house.
And if someone is able to compromise both the card and that image of "what it should look like"?
If an attacker has sufficient access to change what's being displayed on the ATM screen, then they can probably skip the external card-reader and just yoink the customer's bank data out of RAM.
If you aren't already versed in the finer points of duck-fucking, you shouldn't ask.
A+ hilarity.
nadgers
Simple. Release images to every single person who requests one, with "fair use" degraded quality, with a "degradation signature" based deterministically on the identity of the requesting party.
Viola: the resulting video is, from one frame to the next, a list of the "guilty". Maybe subsequent video compression will bury the telltale artifacts. Maybe not.
Hey, what does this Slashdot comment say? Can anyone help me determine this?
Maybe if I throw in a licensing fee?
Your IP address and the md5sum of your passwords, not so much.
But we're not talking about whether TPB should censor such a list (though they undoubtedly should), we're talking about whether the haxors should redistribute it in the first place.
So yes, per your point, if they did do this, TPB's complicity in the act of distribution would be minimal, and if they did stomp it out but the haxors were even moderately determined, they could ensure that the list's contents become public knowledge. But this does nothing to address the hypothetical dick-moveness of their endeavouring to redistribute this data in the first place.
What's inconsistent between those two things? Just because people use TPB for copyrighted works, doesn't mean TPB itself is providing anything more than a matchmaking service between different clients.
Because it conflates privacy issues with intellectual property issues. There is nothing hypocritical in trying to contain private data but not copyrighted works.
That's a great outcome. Remember, the people who have a strain of HIV from the other 90%, aren't going to get re-infected with one from the 10%. They will just be rendered effectively uncontagious.
It's a one-time thing, to be sure; the resistant strain will spread at the same rate of growth - but it will do so from a severely stunted starting point.
Assuming this works, it means a one-time epidemiological "rewind" - suddenly we'll have the much lower HIV rates we had 30 or 40 years ago, but we'll have the knowledge and preparedness of today. Imagine if we could use 2010's pharmaceuticals to nip the epidemic in the bud back then!
This cheer might be best appreciated in the Bronx.
This comment... While it itself has "-1 Troll" moderation status, it's self-referential and, it seems, a little bit ironically prophetic. Which, IMHO, deserves a +1 Funny or Insightful, depending on which kind of pedant you are.
But the moment it earns that +1, it loses that magical quality and is once again an overrated comment which ought to get a -1 Troll. Which in turn makes it a pretty cool comment.
This... This is Epimenides' Slashdot Comment.
Isn't the definition of "prior art", that you can't do exactly this?
And there are no slow news days.
if malicious patterns were detected perhaps an auto-cutoff of the plant from the internet could be triggered.
This seems, to me, like a dynamic that's exploitable in itself.
Assuming that the plant is connected to the Internet in the first place for a real purpose, whatever that purpose is is suddenly vulnerable to a denial-of-service attack. All you gotta do is trip the IDS deliberately.
the only question about our children that matters is "is they learning?"
*coughautismcough*
My employer knows perfectly well they can't fire me for being drunk on my own time. And if I use passwords which can be derived from my 'habits and favorites', which I more or less assume are public knowledge, then I have no business using a secure computer.
if you play loose in your personal life you are more likely to play loose in your professional one.
Pure conjecture.
Hanlon's RAZR: Never attribute to hangups that which is adequately explained by dropped calls?
Company bases a business model on offering their resources for free, only to discover to their chagrin that people will take them up on it. Where oh where have I heard this one before?
I have to take issue with this. Just because you play loose with your "personal" life does not mean you play loose with your security or your privacy. Perhaps you only happen to value privacy in a more limited sphere.
Looks like the lag is associated with TVs, which might be doing some internal processing and enhancing to the signal before putting it onto the screen - for TV and movie watching, this is presumably not a big deal.
But I can't imagine a TV manufacturer building this sort of functionality without some sort of low-/no-latency bypass function. Xbox owners would riot.