Great business model, terrible for privacy advocates.
Is it really?
Nice to see some staff around. Assuming you are correct, it is also safe to assume that a privacy advocate is using adblocking software, or has set the DoNotTrack header, and thus doesn't *want* their data protected, because they don't want people collecting their data at all and are making efforts to make this happen.
The problem, however, is that even with AdBlock, and DoNotTrack the end user runs into two issues which are almost insurmountable for the user experience.
1. The user can still be tracked by script, which is where NoScript comes in, unfortunately the lack of scripts makes a large number of websites unusable, and significantly degrades the user experience. More so when, like I suggested initially, most sites are hosting their script files with any third party.
Which leads me to 2. Even with script blocking enabled, there are still cookies to consider, and the same problems arise when attempting to access most websites.
So the average user can not concern themselves too much with privacy, not so much by choice, but because if they do they can't do all the things their friends are doing - youtube videos, the escapistmagazine (who need about 9 different hosts bypassed in NoScript to make their site *work* and are representative of a non-google entity), and the like all become effectively unusable by a group of people who are not highly technically minded.
I suggested originally that there are people who successfully browse the internet in a "private" fashion. Their selection of privacy usually means: Use a search engine that is inferior to google (because most of them are - and the term "google it" is being used even by clients of mine who use bing exclusively). Have a web browsing experience that is noticeably slower (Tor), or one that is noticeably "broken" (NoScript, No Cookies). AdBlock is about the only piece of software that sits, nicely, in the background relatively unobtrusively.
So, to sum up as it were, for the end user the business policy is excellent. They get a great web experience at the compromise of (a limited amount of?) their privacy, corporations have to use less bandwidth, web designers have to host less files, etc. etc. The privacy advocate gets an inferior experience because taking advantage of these features means their web traffic is monitored very closely in the name of better targeted ads.
Note: AdBlock means I don't get targeted ads (except in gmail), and google's work means I get web search results that are relevant to me. I love that it works like that, just pointing out the other side.
Sure, and I agree totally, unfortunately we can not convince others how to host their sites. I use jQuery on my sites, for example, and host the files myself. However, and especially with the advent of "cloud" computing, I have found this to be less and less the case. Google Analytics are another good example - people don't use AWStats (or similar) as much because Google does it all for them.
Great business model, terrible for privacy advocates.
It's not much of a choice - over 65% of the 10,000 most visited websites use jQuery (for example). If you want a semi-decent web experience, giving up on Google is particularly difficult. I don't imagine that it is impossible (queue hater geeks who get away with it), but it's not going to be easy.
I do, regularly enough that when I'm attending one of the "tech only" training day the local apple guys know that I will be a source of useful information and will tell them what is shit and where, but that sort of thing doesn't make the news.
There's also the percentages problem - considering the size of the user base, it's not really surprising that people encounter problems with the product. The only piece of software I've seen work flawlessly in the last, what, 20 years would be Hobbit's netcat, and that doesn't handle IPv6.
Not defensive of either company here - Google wrote their own apps for iOS and Android and not for MS, ok, MS got given a list of requirements to comply with something that will be used in a not-insignificant market share, but there's this little gem which I almost missed the first read through:
based on HTML5 would be technically difficult and time consuming, which is why we assume YouTube has not yet made the conversion for its iPhone and Android apps.
For this reason, we made a decision this week to publish our non-HTML5 app while committing to work with Google long-term on an app based on HTML5.
Which I'm reading as "fuck it, too hard, let's just release what we've done and see what happens". Now they complain.
Funny, but bug 1 wasn't fixed by Ubuntu, and doesn't match the spirit of the discussion (e.g. a bug in software, not sales).
There were no tools around to detect and determine the fault. IIRC at the time most techs couldn't reproduce but almost every consumer I ran into (and read about) could. Figures.
Except that's a crap line (which I have spouted in the past). Gnash is the perfect example - you have the opportunity to fix it, but the source code is such a pain in the ass to get around that nobody does it. Pick any large project with long standing bugs - why are they long standing? Because nobody wants to fix it - whether for lack of ability, lack of replication of the bug, or fear of the rip-off's license agreement (which is why there are, what, 5 gnash developers on the planet). Pick a large project with long standing bugs (memory leaks in firefox were a good example until too many people complained about it) and ask yourself why those bugs are long standing and well documented.
Not if you're in on any of my contracts no, you can't. And don't even think about uttering the word "cloud" while talking about your development model.
Some clients, most (small time?) clients, will be ok with you putting the code in a private repository. More specifically, they won't care where you put your code, bigger clients want to know exactly where everything is.
The Bendigo at least set those fields to autocomplete off - so should the browser actually be doing that then... or even keeping it for two hours plus.
Given your description nobody was aware that they were being recorded.
Well, yeah, that's kind of the point - emulate what we've seen of google glass as much as possible (and also be useful when watching morons drive). I made sure to be well aware of the local surveillance rules and all of that, clients are told about the glasses and the possibilities, people are so excited about GG technology that they're not stopping to consider the ramifications. Pretty much anyone who posts on here has thought about them (as is evidenced by the attempted testosterone flowing from some of the other comments) but they're not the general public.
However take those glasses into the gents or a changing room and I'll not be happy: context is the key.
All I see in the news lately is how good Glass is, with lots of comments about the need to be looking directly at the person to take a picture. The public are being calmed before the storm.
I've spent the last 8 months wearing a pair of sunglasses that contain a camera in the bridge, mostly because I see lots of stupid drivers on the road, but also because google glass has been coming along. I'm careful to remove the SD card fairly regularly, but in that 8 months only 3 people have questioned my very chunky glasses with half cm buttons on the left side.
People don't care about privacy, not until it's the "creepy" guy staring at them instead of the average guy.
AC has a point. This is why you get companies (here's a local example: http://www.attache.com.au/products/attache-accounts/ ) who give you your pay slips via HTTPS (because it's secure) but have the beancounters email through the base files in plain text (because they've got no idea how any of this works).
Yeah, best case we've deployed is a Citrix XenApp farm coupled with local computer access. Xen servers control medical software, local desktops are pretty free for email and porn (a surprising amount of porn for medics who are idle). We can control the Xen computers easily enough this way, local computers are wiped if they have a problem via our "perfect world" deployment policy*. It's nice, compromises are minimalistic at best and we segregate the desktops from the servers pretty solidly (with the file/print servers in the middle - "dual homed").
Doctors can do what they want, netops are happy with what they get to lock down, and we even pass a lot of the DSD compliance ratings (not that we're audited, but it's a good benchmark).
*Can't solve your problem in 10 minutes, a further 5 minutes to blow the machine back to standard image. 5 more to reconfigure default accounts and such (which is automated, but we also need to wait for download/ sync of emails etc.). 20 minutes downtime from start of call to end, maximum.
Surely you can control where that goes though - medicare billing is going to be pretty damned obvious (*.medicare.gov.au) and most sites like that have specific IP lists (and port lists) that you can use to lock your firewall down to.
Sure, it's still strictly "internet" access, but it's not like you're going to get a drive by attack when all you allow through the packet filter is access to the specified domains IP ranges and maybe the ISP DNS server to look them up for the software. This is security one-oh-one really, and something we already do for our 4d based medical magic (you know the craptastic software I mean).
Security on a medical computer like this should not be compromised for the sake of a doctors ease of use. Give the XP machine (VM or otherwise) a dedicated IP and do it properly, or stop screwing around and let someone else do it. (Not necessarily directed at you Holi)
I'm always surprised about little things - unencrypted communications is actually kind of an obvious thing to do as far as I am concerned. I mean, screw trying to get a mars rover to reconnect because the clock died and the time is out of sync so the SSL is borked. I'd love to hear from someone who built the communications protocols up, to see if they were just lazy, uneducated, or thinking like the above.
Or maybe she gets a lot of hits because of the wavebubble and the arduino tutorials. I'd give good code to see the google-reference-stats to the adafruit sites.
Terabytes of storage go into my... DVD collection... here, so not like I'm adverse to downloading stuff, but this whole concept of "watching it... without commercials" needs to be addressed. The *reason* this stuff is on TV is the advertisements. There is big money in paying for advertisements during certain TV hours, and this - combined with government funding - is how free to air TV works. Downloading the content detracts from that.
It's actually not that bad, so long as when the survey team comes along you check the TV guide and then say "why yes I watch Firefly every night at 7" because that's when it's on, that way the advertisement keeps going, and the programs end up on commercial TV. Sort of like not-adblocking *cough cough* divxden.
Slashdot Mirror
Great business model, terrible for privacy advocates.
Is it really?
Nice to see some staff around. Assuming you are correct, it is also safe to assume that a privacy advocate is using adblocking software, or has set the DoNotTrack header, and thus doesn't *want* their data protected, because they don't want people collecting their data at all and are making efforts to make this happen.
The problem, however, is that even with AdBlock, and DoNotTrack the end user runs into two issues which are almost insurmountable for the user experience.
1. The user can still be tracked by script, which is where NoScript comes in, unfortunately the lack of scripts makes a large number of websites unusable, and significantly degrades the user experience. More so when, like I suggested initially, most sites are hosting their script files with any third party.
Which leads me to 2. Even with script blocking enabled, there are still cookies to consider, and the same problems arise when attempting to access most websites.
So the average user can not concern themselves too much with privacy, not so much by choice, but because if they do they can't do all the things their friends are doing - youtube videos, the escapistmagazine (who need about 9 different hosts bypassed in NoScript to make their site *work* and are representative of a non-google entity), and the like all become effectively unusable by a group of people who are not highly technically minded.
I suggested originally that there are people who successfully browse the internet in a "private" fashion. Their selection of privacy usually means: Use a search engine that is inferior to google (because most of them are - and the term "google it" is being used even by clients of mine who use bing exclusively). Have a web browsing experience that is noticeably slower (Tor), or one that is noticeably "broken" (NoScript, No Cookies). AdBlock is about the only piece of software that sits, nicely, in the background relatively unobtrusively.
So, to sum up as it were, for the end user the business policy is excellent. They get a great web experience at the compromise of (a limited amount of?) their privacy, corporations have to use less bandwidth, web designers have to host less files, etc. etc. The privacy advocate gets an inferior experience because taking advantage of these features means their web traffic is monitored very closely in the name of better targeted ads.
Note: AdBlock means I don't get targeted ads (except in gmail), and google's work means I get web search results that are relevant to me. I love that it works like that, just pointing out the other side.
Sure, and I agree totally, unfortunately we can not convince others how to host their sites. I use jQuery on my sites, for example, and host the files myself. However, and especially with the advent of "cloud" computing, I have found this to be less and less the case. Google Analytics are another good example - people don't use AWStats (or similar) as much because Google does it all for them.
Great business model, terrible for privacy advocates.
It's not much of a choice - over 65% of the 10,000 most visited websites use jQuery (for example). If you want a semi-decent web experience, giving up on Google is particularly difficult. I don't imagine that it is impossible (queue hater geeks who get away with it), but it's not going to be easy.
Open Source - "where the source code is freely available". Different from "Free Open Source" - which includes definition of license.
One client in 4 years of greylisting has had that problem, for something like 40,000 unique senders per month. I like those numbers.
I do, regularly enough that when I'm attending one of the "tech only" training day the local apple guys know that I will be a source of useful information and will tell them what is shit and where, but that sort of thing doesn't make the news.
There's also the percentages problem - considering the size of the user base, it's not really surprising that people encounter problems with the product. The only piece of software I've seen work flawlessly in the last, what, 20 years would be Hobbit's netcat, and that doesn't handle IPv6.
based on HTML5 would be technically difficult and time consuming, which is why we assume YouTube has not yet made the conversion for its iPhone and Android apps.
For this reason, we made a decision this week to publish our non-HTML5 app while committing to work with Google long-term on an app based on HTML5.
Which I'm reading as "fuck it, too hard, let's just release what we've done and see what happens". Now they complain.
I don't care what they say about me, just make sure they spell my name right! - P.T. Barnum
:)
*Disclaimer* I may not be quoting directly/ correctly from memory
Funny, but bug 1 wasn't fixed by Ubuntu, and doesn't match the spirit of the discussion (e.g. a bug in software, not sales). There were no tools around to detect and determine the fault. IIRC at the time most techs couldn't reproduce but almost every consumer I ran into (and read about) could. Figures.
Except that's a crap line (which I have spouted in the past). Gnash is the perfect example - you have the opportunity to fix it, but the source code is such a pain in the ass to get around that nobody does it. Pick any large project with long standing bugs - why are they long standing? Because nobody wants to fix it - whether for lack of ability, lack of replication of the bug, or fear of the rip-off's license agreement (which is why there are, what, 5 gnash developers on the planet). Pick a large project with long standing bugs (memory leaks in firefox were a good example until too many people complained about it) and ask yourself why those bugs are long standing and well documented.
Fuck that. I usually propose running Cat 5e in a single strand for 300m. If the project is approved.....
Not if you're in on any of my contracts no, you can't. And don't even think about uttering the word "cloud" while talking about your development model. Some clients, most (small time?) clients, will be ok with you putting the code in a private repository. More specifically, they won't care where you put your code, bigger clients want to know exactly where everything is.
The Bendigo at least set those fields to autocomplete off - so should the browser actually be doing that then... or even keeping it for two hours plus.
Not really a banks fault though - why is the browser hanging on to post'd data after it's been post'd??
Given your description nobody was aware that they were being recorded.
Well, yeah, that's kind of the point - emulate what we've seen of google glass as much as possible (and also be useful when watching morons drive). I made sure to be well aware of the local surveillance rules and all of that, clients are told about the glasses and the possibilities, people are so excited about GG technology that they're not stopping to consider the ramifications. Pretty much anyone who posts on here has thought about them (as is evidenced by the attempted testosterone flowing from some of the other comments) but they're not the general public.
However take those glasses into the gents or a changing room and I'll not be happy: context is the key.
All I see in the news lately is how good Glass is, with lots of comments about the need to be looking directly at the person to take a picture. The public are being calmed before the storm.
I've spent the last 8 months wearing a pair of sunglasses that contain a camera in the bridge, mostly because I see lots of stupid drivers on the road, but also because google glass has been coming along. I'm careful to remove the SD card fairly regularly, but in that 8 months only 3 people have questioned my very chunky glasses with half cm buttons on the left side.
People don't care about privacy, not until it's the "creepy" guy staring at them instead of the average guy.
AC has a point. This is why you get companies (here's a local example: http://www.attache.com.au/products/attache-accounts/ ) who give you your pay slips via HTTPS (because it's secure) but have the beancounters email through the base files in plain text (because they've got no idea how any of this works).
Are you using SCTP or have you rolled your own standard?
My first thought was the clouds version of the y2k defined SCTP protocol
What makes you think our helldesk is under staffed?
If the phone isn't picked up by the second ring, there's a major network fault and the staff know it. That's happened twice in the past three years.
Yeah, best case we've deployed is a Citrix XenApp farm coupled with local computer access. Xen servers control medical software, local desktops are pretty free for email and porn (a surprising amount of porn for medics who are idle). We can control the Xen computers easily enough this way, local computers are wiped if they have a problem via our "perfect world" deployment policy*. It's nice, compromises are minimalistic at best and we segregate the desktops from the servers pretty solidly (with the file/print servers in the middle - "dual homed").
Doctors can do what they want, netops are happy with what they get to lock down, and we even pass a lot of the DSD compliance ratings (not that we're audited, but it's a good benchmark).
*Can't solve your problem in 10 minutes, a further 5 minutes to blow the machine back to standard image. 5 more to reconfigure default accounts and such (which is automated, but we also need to wait for download/ sync of emails etc.). 20 minutes downtime from start of call to end, maximum.
Surely you can control where that goes though - medicare billing is going to be pretty damned obvious (*.medicare.gov.au) and most sites like that have specific IP lists (and port lists) that you can use to lock your firewall down to.
Sure, it's still strictly "internet" access, but it's not like you're going to get a drive by attack when all you allow through the packet filter is access to the specified domains IP ranges and maybe the ISP DNS server to look them up for the software. This is security one-oh-one really, and something we already do for our 4d based medical magic (you know the craptastic software I mean).
Security on a medical computer like this should not be compromised for the sake of a doctors ease of use. Give the XP machine (VM or otherwise) a dedicated IP and do it properly, or stop screwing around and let someone else do it. (Not necessarily directed at you Holi)
I'm always surprised about little things - unencrypted communications is actually kind of an obvious thing to do as far as I am concerned. I mean, screw trying to get a mars rover to reconnect because the clock died and the time is out of sync so the SSL is borked. I'd love to hear from someone who built the communications protocols up, to see if they were just lazy, uneducated, or thinking like the above.
Or maybe she gets a lot of hits because of the wavebubble and the arduino tutorials. I'd give good code to see the google-reference-stats to the adafruit sites.
Terabytes of storage go into my... DVD collection... here, so not like I'm adverse to downloading stuff, but this whole concept of "watching it... without commercials" needs to be addressed. The *reason* this stuff is on TV is the advertisements. There is big money in paying for advertisements during certain TV hours, and this - combined with government funding - is how free to air TV works. Downloading the content detracts from that.
It's actually not that bad, so long as when the survey team comes along you check the TV guide and then say "why yes I watch Firefly every night at 7" because that's when it's on, that way the advertisement keeps going, and the programs end up on commercial TV. Sort of like not-adblocking *cough cough* divxden.