If it doesn't leave their AS, is it really "Internet"?
Yes, absolutely. An ASN is NOT required to interconnect private networks.
Remember, the FCC issued an "Open Internet Order", not an "Open Private Network Order".
The Internet is an interconnected global federation of public and private networks. Lets break down the particulars of stream service using this definition.
"Interconnected networks": Yes - Comcast is interconnecting with customers network. Two separate networks. Both privately owned and managed by respective parties.
Global federation - Yes, from same network address customer uses to access stream they can access any peer in the global federation.
Assuming you believe the definition of the Internet above is accurate and fair then stream is absolutely part of the Internet.
People are quite capable of compartmentalizing contradictory portions of their beliefs. Cruz's craziness is pretty much limited to abortions and chemical birth control, and it's unlikely he'll be able to overturn existing law (nonetheless, it is a risk).
By way of contrast, consider the other major candidates. Hillary is corrupt and nasty, physically ill and has probably suffered brain damage. Sanders seems genial, but he's a communist who will lead the country to poverty and probably the military loss of parts of the 50 states. Trump is a corrupt and nasty populist flibertigibbet, with a grossly exaggerated opinion of himself. Rubio is a moderate-conservative with principles that probably will not stand up against strong opposition, and who doesn't understand the border control problem.
Look at those candidates and ask who will do the least damage and who will repair the most existing problems. Cruz is far better than the rest.
The overriding issue when selecting a president is foreign policy/war. Most everything else of real consequence requires serious effort on behalf of other branches of government to achieve.
Cruz is against Iran nuclear deal and wants to carpet bomb ISIS controlled territory. I'll pass.
Apple doesn't want there to be a precedent set that says the forced creation of software to crack their own phones is not an undue burden. If they lose then any future security improvements they make won't get them off the hook, the court will just say "you did this to yourself, now expend the necessary resources to undo it".
I am not aware of any precedent in US law that allows people to be legally compelled to produce things they don't have or can't reasonably be expected to produce.
Further I fail to see how FBI asking Apple to do something it is reasonably capable of doing would set a precedent that companies must now provide what they are reasonably not capable of providing.
If anything this is a good thing as it sets a precedent for technology companies to make sure they architect their systems without unnecessary dependencies where security can be compromised by court order.
What this International front page title fight between Apple and the FBI does do however is provide plenty of cover for all the hawks on the hill to open a new front in the crypto war by working legislation that might undermine everyone's security, privacy and freedom.
Not someone, Apple. Only Apple can create such a tool, because they have to sign the code. If anyone could create it, then the FBI wouldn't be demanding Apple do it. So, stop using terms like gibberish and bullshit when you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
I take it for granted everyone here knows iPhones will only run firmware with a valid signature.
This does nothing to address my point dependency on future action/inaction on the part of Apple is unnecessary and insecure. It also runs counter to public statements apple has made about their own capabilities in this regard.
This episode clearly demonstrates why the unnecessary dependency is a really bad idea. If there was no evidence Apple was capable of complying there would be no court order and no massive International news story doing nothing but unnecessarily undermining the cause of security, privacy and freedom.
They probably already did this in the 5S and later. The 5C does not have the "secure enclave" chip, which means there is no secure hardware on the device, all of the security is implemented in software.
There is a lot of confusion on this point. 5C does not have secure enclave for touch but keying material is still protected by the application processor. Access to the encryption key is mediated by hardware even for 5C. The OS has no direct access to it.
Indeed, although the 5S and the 6-series probably do make it impossible for Apple to comply with similar demands for those devices,
My understanding they still have the ability to change query limit and delay parameters even for current hardware which is essentially all the FBI wants.
Consumer devices will never be secure against state actors with unlimited funds and sufficient motivation (e.g. NSA, GCHQ, Mossad, etc.), so really the only cases where the approach is inadequate are cases where (a) the owner of the signing keys (Apple) wants the data or (b) a government with the power to compel the owner of the signing keys wants the data.
I completely agree with the premise preventing physical access to secrets to determined adversaries is a fools errand... You can still run side channels, STMs..etc etc. Anyone who seriously tried to go there would probably end up buried in export restrictions.
In this specific case Apple has claimed publically they don't have access and can't give LEA access. Given relative simplicity cutting off this method of attack by not allowing security parameters to be modified after the fact I don't think it is unreasonable given expectations Apple itself has set.
What this tells me is that being the "Godfather of Encryption" is not mutually exclusive with being a dunce on operational security.
My guess he realizes Apples argument is nonsensical gibberish.
My data is only secure so long as someone does not create a tool after the fact to compromise it... What kind of bullshit is that? Why is this technically ridiculous position worth defending politically in front of millions of people scared out of their minds of terrorists and whom do not know jack about underlying technology?
The FBI is laughing their assess off right now at the stupidity of the tech industry. Apple is succeeding in re-railing the train Snowden derailed.
Waiting for a future, better case would sure end up looking foolish when the government argues, "What's the problem? You agreed to do this exact same thing before, in the San Bernardino case..."
To wit the answer must be: "We re-architected our security hardware and no longer possess the *capability* to circumvent query limit and delay."
Any other answer is an indication data stored on the iPhone was never secure in the first place.
Once the tool/method is created, it exists. Even if the tool never leaves Apple, they could be compelled to use the tool in future cases. Tool.
If Apple really cared about security they would do the following:
1. Admit they screwed up, announce their system is vulnerable and apologize to all affected users.
2. Fix vulnerability such that security of users systems no longer hinge on whether a circumvention tool exists.
Customers should demand security live up to advertising and stand alone without unnecessary conditionality.
This particular fight is suicide for those who care about security and privacy for obvious political reasons. Neither does this make sense from a technical perspective because the government isn't asking for the creation of a vulnerability it is asking for assistance exploiting a KNOWN VULNERABILITY that has no business existing in the first place. Denying the problem exists as Apple is attempting to do with its confusing rhetoric does nothing to make anyone any more secure.
Now thanks to this one incident we have congress working legislation to create a commission which undoubtedly will lead to pushing legislation which if successful god knows will in no way serve to advance the cause of security, privacy and freedom.
The point is, instead of 20 minutes of warning you get maybe 5 before the nuke lands on you, thereby rendering all of our anti-ballistic technology useless. Oh, and you'd have no idea who deorbited their nuke so you can't even retaliate properly.
Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles, nor even nuclear bombs. Nuclear weapons include dirty bombs, nuclear dusting and various other things. Some of the later only require WW2 era technology. North Korea is capable of attacking the US with these older technologies.
Dirty bombs are the strategic equivalent of poking a polar bear with a small twig.
I work in aerospace. EVERY email we send has to be marked as Classified, Company Secret, or Unclassified. Even if you are asking your spouse to pick up some milk on the way home.
Classified emails and secret emails are oxymorons.
When will websites be more functional? When will they be faster and less riddled with glitches? I see an increasing number and variety of fancy "loading" dialogues someone somewhere must have spent a lot of time on but never a logical explanation of why I should have to wait in the first place for seemingly superficial reasons (loading cesspools of JavaScript frameworks) or why navigation is so painful (moar round trips!!) with browsers stuttering to keep up and basic navigational elements (back, forward) no longer operative.
Over the past few years my experience as a user has gotten worse not better.
Screw vetting and permission. If you want results publically announce a target and dispense with terms and conditions bullshit. Otherwise your just wasting everyone's time.
It's 2016.. If your in any way affected by SSLv2 + export ciphers and you still feel compelled to blame it on the TLS stack - please do everyone a favor and find a new line of work.
Data aggregation of your life and monitoring of your things is the goal of IoT
To what end?
- Trends from the temperature in my apartment show I had the heater turned on a good hour before I got home from work. But in the week the heater was off I realised I spent that hour leeching heat from the neighbours anyway and while it normally took an hour to get the apartment up to temperature on a week day at 4pm I could do it in 15min.
Leeching from thy neighbor in principal sounds like a great use of technology. I imagine at some point you can expect the dreaded "WARN: THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM" message to flash across your console as your neighbor gets wise and introduces retaliatory AI into the control loop of their heater.
Trends from my water meter shows a leaking pipe under ground costing me money I would likely have not noticed before something actually got damaged.
A little old fashioned but you could look at the little spinning leak detector triangle on your meter.
- Trends from my power meter showed my fridge was set to the wrong temperature after a power outage. I could see that due to the duty cycle changing.
Are there fridges on the market which lack non volatile temperature settings? Or is it just the IoT models which need to download temperature settings from "the cloud" before they will even start? The excuses for caring are always like this so crazy and far fetched as to be practically indistinguishable from useless.
IoT is a great concept that unfortunately some companies are shitting on by collecting and selling your data to 3rd parties.
This isn't just a case of a few bad actors. It is the entirety of the market.
Fuck that, I want my toaster connected to the internet why again?
You don't. No one does. And the fact that you think IoT = toaster connected to the internet shows how little you understand of the concept.
So what exactly is the point of IoT in consumer space? I've been trying to figure it out for a while and honestly have no idea.
Or maybe you are just picking a useless edge case to try and make an anti-IoT point.
Trade rags seem unable to communicate a coherent value proposition other than data collection and ads. Always fridges, light bulbs, thermostats and similarly useless crap.
I go to browse the "connected home" section at my local electronics store and all I see are overpriced worthless gadgets not so dissimilar in value to an Internet connected toaster.
So what exactly is the point? What don't I understand?
In non consumer contexts "IoT" is fundamentally equivalent to 20+ year old "sensor network" meme that brought us SLAAC in IPv6.
His response to people scrawling "All Lives Matter" was "All Opinions Matter". Facebook isn't interested in taking a stand on racism, in USA, Germany, or anywhere.
I know, who cares about scientific research and progress, we are instant gratification consumers god dammit, if we can't buy it at Costco right now it has now value or interest.
This is about making extraordinary claims without evidence commensurate with claim and being surprised or upset when people elect to filter it as noise.
All of these battery breakthrough articles are the same. They talk about hopes rather than current reality and actual accomplishments, they spend no time honestly addressing downsides or risks to success of technology and are heavily biased toward attracting attention of investors.
The following is an advertisement not an informative article about scientific research and progress. http://www.biosolar.com/super_...
Wake me up when substantive information is available. Notice they don't even claim to have produced even a single working battery.
Those of you who didn't cut corners or use the wrong functions for manipulating date and time pass the test. Your reward is the lingering possibility of being fucked over by vendors who have failed the test.
Exactly. People who run their mouths off and spew racist garbage are in for a world of hurt if they think that a university prohibiting a klan meeting is the end of the world.
Prohibiting speech just because you don't like or agree with it is the end of the world. It is the end of the free world.
Employers don't have to tolerate hate speech, or a person who can't shut their mouth for ten minutes without turning the conversation towards politics, so what do they think will try to happen when they try and get a job?
Students attending college are customers not employers or employees.
Wait until you're pumping gas or flipping burgers for the next ten years because no professional employer will hire you.
Wait until no employer will hire you because your a little pussy. They sure as hell are not going to want the liability or disruption that comes with someone constantly searching for innovative new ways to be an offended a victim rather than doing their jobs.
look at these damn kids, they can't handle the real world, and everyone should be able to say whatever they want to each other without any consequences.
Tolerance of others legally and socially is a requirement for any free society to function.
I have the opposite view -- I feel there needs to be some sort of consequences for inflammatory speech.
What did you have in mind?
Look at how awful political discourse is now, on both the left and the right. Everyone is hyper-focused on their opinions, partially because social media and targeted advertising continuously reinforces it. I really don't want a country of 300 million angry loudmouth Donald Trump clones walking around.
Why should anyone care about what YOU want?
People should be sensitive to others' feelings and opinions.
People should give me a million dollars.
Even tenured professors need to operate within an authority structure, as do most of us. Anyone who has worked for a large corporation with crappy office politics knows that you don't get far by shooting your mouth off at every turn.
SJW crowd preach at the righteous church of tolerance and respect except of course when they disagree. Then any faÃade of respect melts away to reveal the same weak confused hapless souls as all the oppressors who have lived before them.
Swell media likes to do everything in their power to assist Daesh. As long as it sounds scary and keeps people afraid and clicking back for more then it must be news and therefore worthy of being published.
So you admit it's FUD. There is no suggestion that they have network listeners (which wouldn't work anyway because most people have some kind of router level firewall, and many don't support UPNP).
What difference do modalities make? The fact capability exists and is used without explicit end user knowledge or approval is what matters.
Then you go on to wildly speculate about the mechanism being insecure. Tell
Security is nothing more than expression of value judgments made by individuals. It is not an objective measure. What is deemed secure or not differs with context, value of what is secured, consequence of failure and level trust the individual has developed in individuals and technology charged with implementing security.
The existence of an explicit targeted remote access capability that operates without user knowledge or approval is the definition of insecure in my opinion. I don't know how to trust a corporation that demonstrates such disrespect for the security and privacy of its customers. Without trust there is no security. Without security computers are worthless for many purposes.
There is a lot to be upset about with Windows 10, but I'm fed up of people making stuff up just to jump on the bandwagon. Some of us are looking for hard, objective data. I'm going to see if I can find time to create and post some Wireshark and Fiddler dumps to settle this once and for all.
I don't understand. People are complaining about shit coming from Microsoft's own site and expressed in their own privacy "agreements". Microsoft openly admits to having a backdoor to exfil whatever they want and your fed up with people making stuff up?
Slashdot Mirror
If they use NAT, that might not be true because they will have internal and external addresses
Customers public IP address is used the whole way.
Also, the SERVER isn't globally federated (because you can't access it from another ISP.)
Customer is accessing server from the Internet thus stream is delivered over the Internet. Caps apply to user not server.
If it doesn't leave their AS, is it really "Internet"?
Yes, absolutely. An ASN is NOT required to interconnect private networks.
Remember, the FCC issued an "Open Internet Order", not an "Open Private Network Order".
The Internet is an interconnected global federation of public and private networks. Lets break down the particulars of stream service using this definition.
"Interconnected networks":
Yes - Comcast is interconnecting with customers network. Two separate networks. Both privately owned and managed by respective parties.
Global federation - Yes, from same network address customer uses to access stream they can access any peer in the global federation.
Assuming you believe the definition of the Internet above is accurate and fair then stream is absolutely part of the Internet.
People are quite capable of compartmentalizing contradictory portions of their beliefs. Cruz's craziness is pretty much limited to abortions and chemical birth control, and it's unlikely he'll be able to overturn existing law (nonetheless, it is a risk).
By way of contrast, consider the other major candidates. Hillary is corrupt and nasty, physically ill and has probably suffered brain damage. Sanders seems genial, but he's a communist who will lead the country to poverty and probably the military loss of parts of the 50 states. Trump is a corrupt and nasty populist flibertigibbet, with a grossly exaggerated opinion of himself. Rubio is a moderate-conservative with principles that probably will not stand up against strong opposition, and who doesn't understand the border control problem.
Look at those candidates and ask who will do the least damage and who will repair the most existing problems. Cruz is far better than the rest.
The overriding issue when selecting a president is foreign policy/war. Most everything else of real consequence requires serious effort on behalf of other branches of government to achieve.
Cruz is against Iran nuclear deal and wants to carpet bomb ISIS controlled territory. I'll pass.
Apple doesn't want there to be a precedent set that says the forced creation of software to crack their own phones is not an undue burden. If they lose then any future security improvements they make won't get them off the hook, the court will just say "you did this to yourself, now expend the necessary resources to undo it".
I am not aware of any precedent in US law that allows people to be legally compelled to produce things they don't have or can't reasonably be expected to produce.
Further I fail to see how FBI asking Apple to do something it is reasonably capable of doing would set a precedent that companies must now provide what they are reasonably not capable of providing.
If anything this is a good thing as it sets a precedent for technology companies to make sure they architect their systems without unnecessary dependencies where security can be compromised by court order.
What this International front page title fight between Apple and the FBI does do however is provide plenty of cover for all the hawks on the hill to open a new front in the crypto war by working legislation that might undermine everyone's security, privacy and freedom.
Not someone, Apple. Only Apple can create such a tool, because they have to sign the code. If anyone could create it, then the FBI wouldn't be demanding Apple do it. So, stop using terms like gibberish and bullshit when you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
I take it for granted everyone here knows iPhones will only run firmware with a valid signature.
This does nothing to address my point dependency on future action/inaction on the part of Apple is unnecessary and insecure. It also runs counter to public statements apple has made about their own capabilities in this regard.
This episode clearly demonstrates why the unnecessary dependency is a really bad idea. If there was no evidence Apple was capable of complying there would be no court order and no massive International news story doing nothing but unnecessarily undermining the cause of security, privacy and freedom.
They probably already did this in the 5S and later. The 5C does not have the "secure enclave" chip, which means there is no secure hardware on the device, all of the security is implemented in software.
There is a lot of confusion on this point. 5C does not have secure enclave for touch but keying material is still protected by the application processor. Access to the encryption key is mediated by hardware even for 5C. The OS has no direct access to it.
Indeed, although the 5S and the 6-series probably do make it impossible for Apple to comply with similar demands for those devices,
My understanding they still have the ability to change query limit and delay parameters even for current hardware which is essentially all the FBI wants.
Consumer devices will never be secure against state actors with unlimited funds and sufficient motivation (e.g. NSA, GCHQ, Mossad, etc.), so really the only cases where the approach is inadequate are cases where (a) the owner of the signing keys (Apple) wants the data or (b) a government with the power to compel the owner of the signing keys wants the data.
I completely agree with the premise preventing physical access to secrets to determined adversaries is a fools errand... You can still run side channels, STMs..etc etc. Anyone who seriously tried to go there would probably end up buried in export restrictions.
In this specific case Apple has claimed publically they don't have access and can't give LEA access. Given relative simplicity cutting off this method of attack by not allowing security parameters to be modified after the fact I don't think it is unreasonable given expectations Apple itself has set.
What this tells me is that being the "Godfather of Encryption" is not mutually exclusive with being a dunce on operational security.
My guess he realizes Apples argument is nonsensical gibberish.
My data is only secure so long as someone does not create a tool after the fact to compromise it... What kind of bullshit is that? Why is this technically ridiculous position worth defending politically in front of millions of people scared out of their minds of terrorists and whom do not know jack about underlying technology?
The FBI is laughing their assess off right now at the stupidity of the tech industry. Apple is succeeding in re-railing the train Snowden derailed.
Waiting for a future, better case would sure end up looking foolish when the government argues, "What's the problem? You agreed to do this exact same thing before, in the San Bernardino case..."
To wit the answer must be: "We re-architected our security hardware and no longer possess the *capability* to circumvent query limit and delay."
Any other answer is an indication data stored on the iPhone was never secure in the first place.
Once the tool/method is created, it exists. Even if the tool never leaves Apple, they could be compelled to use the tool in future cases. Tool.
If Apple really cared about security they would do the following:
1. Admit they screwed up, announce their system is vulnerable and apologize to all affected users.
2. Fix vulnerability such that security of users systems no longer hinge on whether a circumvention tool exists.
Customers should demand security live up to advertising and stand alone without unnecessary conditionality.
This particular fight is suicide for those who care about security and privacy for obvious political reasons. Neither does this make sense from a technical perspective because the government isn't asking for the creation of a vulnerability it is asking for assistance exploiting a KNOWN VULNERABILITY that has no business existing in the first place. Denying the problem exists as Apple is attempting to do with its confusing rhetoric does nothing to make anyone any more secure.
Now thanks to this one incident we have congress working legislation to create a commission which undoubtedly will lead to pushing legislation which if successful god knows will in no way serve to advance the cause of security, privacy and freedom.
The point is, instead of 20 minutes of warning you get maybe 5 before the nuke lands on you, thereby rendering all of our anti-ballistic technology useless. Oh, and you'd have no idea who deorbited their nuke so you can't even retaliate properly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles, nor even nuclear bombs. Nuclear weapons include dirty bombs, nuclear dusting and various other things. Some of the later only require WW2 era technology. North Korea is capable of attacking the US with these older technologies.
Dirty bombs are the strategic equivalent of poking a polar bear with a small twig.
I work in aerospace. EVERY email we send has to be marked as Classified, Company Secret, or Unclassified. Even if you are asking your spouse to pick up some milk on the way home.
Classified emails and secret emails are oxymorons.
When will websites be more functional? When will they be faster and less riddled with glitches? I see an increasing number and variety of fancy "loading" dialogues someone somewhere must have spent a lot of time on but never a logical explanation of why I should have to wait in the first place for seemingly superficial reasons (loading cesspools of JavaScript frameworks) or why navigation is so painful (moar round trips!!) with browsers stuttering to keep up and basic navigational elements (back, forward) no longer operative.
Over the past few years my experience as a user has gotten worse not better.
Where's the pudding?
Screw vetting and permission. If you want results publically announce a target and dispense with terms and conditions bullshit. Otherwise your just wasting everyone's time.
It's 2016.. If your in any way affected by SSLv2 + export ciphers and you still feel compelled to blame it on the TLS stack - please do everyone a favor and find a new line of work.
So glad that I'm using a webserver that does NOT use this abomination called OpenSSL
It uses the abomination called PolarSSL with its own history of exploitable vulnerabilities.
and was writting with security in mind
Using naÃve heuristics to defend against SQLi and XSS demonstrates the opposite.
Drown, Heartbleed, Slowloris, etc, never caused me any trouble.
Whose fault is allowing SSLv2 and export ciphers in 2016? All those poor site operators... OpenSSL made me do it!!
--
https://technet.microsoft.com/...
Data aggregation of your life and monitoring of your things is the goal of IoT
To what end?
- Trends from the temperature in my apartment show I had the heater turned on a good hour before I got home from work. But in the week the heater was off I realised I spent that hour leeching heat from the neighbours anyway and while it normally took an hour to get the apartment up to temperature on a week day at 4pm I could do it in 15min.
Leeching from thy neighbor in principal sounds like a great use of technology. I imagine at some point you can expect the dreaded "WARN: THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM" message to flash across your console as your neighbor gets wise and introduces retaliatory AI into the control loop of their heater.
Trends from my water meter shows a leaking pipe under ground costing me money I would likely have not noticed before something actually got damaged.
A little old fashioned but you could look at the little spinning leak detector triangle on your meter.
- Trends from my power meter showed my fridge was set to the wrong temperature after a power outage. I could see that due to the duty cycle changing.
Are there fridges on the market which lack non volatile temperature settings? Or is it just the IoT models which need to download temperature settings from "the cloud" before they will even start? The excuses for caring are always like this so crazy and far fetched as to be practically indistinguishable from useless.
IoT is a great concept that unfortunately some companies are shitting on by collecting and selling your data to 3rd parties.
This isn't just a case of a few bad actors. It is the entirety of the market.
Fuck that, I want my toaster connected to the internet why again?
You don't.
No one does.
And the fact that you think IoT = toaster connected to the internet shows how little you understand of the concept.
So what exactly is the point of IoT in consumer space? I've been trying to figure it out for a while and honestly have no idea.
Or maybe you are just picking a useless edge case to try and make an anti-IoT point.
Trade rags seem unable to communicate a coherent value proposition other than data collection and ads. Always fridges, light bulbs, thermostats and similarly useless crap.
I go to browse the "connected home" section at my local electronics store and all I see are overpriced worthless gadgets not so dissimilar in value to an Internet connected toaster.
So what exactly is the point? What don't I understand?
In non consumer contexts "IoT" is fundamentally equivalent to 20+ year old "sensor network" meme that brought us SLAAC in IPv6.
His response to people scrawling "All Lives Matter" was "All Opinions Matter". Facebook isn't interested in taking a stand on racism, in USA, Germany, or anywhere.
Nor should they.
--
https://technet.microsoft.com/...
I know, who cares about scientific research and progress, we are instant gratification consumers god dammit, if we can't buy it at Costco right now it has now value or interest.
This is about making extraordinary claims without evidence commensurate with claim and being surprised or upset when people elect to filter it as noise.
All of these battery breakthrough articles are the same. They talk about hopes rather than current reality and actual accomplishments, they spend no time honestly addressing downsides or risks to success of technology and are heavily biased toward attracting attention of investors.
The following is an advertisement not an informative article about scientific research and progress.
http://www.biosolar.com/super_...
Wake me up when substantive information is available. Notice they don't even claim to have produced even a single working battery.
For anyone responsible to even see a trial.
--
https://technet.microsoft.com/...
Those of you who didn't cut corners or use the wrong functions for manipulating date and time pass the test. Your reward is the lingering possibility of being fucked over by vendors who have failed the test.
https://azure.microsoft.com/en...
--
https://technet.microsoft.com/...
Exactly. People who run their mouths off and spew racist garbage are in for a world of hurt if they think that a university prohibiting a klan meeting is the end of the world.
Prohibiting speech just because you don't like or agree with it is the end of the world. It is the end of the free world.
Employers don't have to tolerate hate speech, or a person who can't shut their mouth for ten minutes without turning the conversation towards politics, so what do they think will try to happen when they try and get a job?
Students attending college are customers not employers or employees.
Wait until you're pumping gas or flipping burgers for the next ten years because no professional employer will hire you.
Wait until no employer will hire you because your a little pussy. They sure as hell are not going to want the liability or disruption that comes with someone constantly searching for innovative new ways to be an offended a victim rather than doing their jobs.
look at these damn kids, they can't handle the real world, and everyone should be able to say whatever they want to each other without any consequences.
Tolerance of others legally and socially is a requirement for any free society to function.
I have the opposite view -- I feel there needs to be some sort of consequences for inflammatory speech.
What did you have in mind?
Look at how awful political discourse is now, on both the left and the right. Everyone is hyper-focused on their opinions, partially because social media and targeted advertising continuously reinforces it. I really don't want a country of 300 million angry loudmouth Donald Trump clones walking around.
Why should anyone care about what YOU want?
People should be sensitive to others' feelings and opinions.
People should give me a million dollars.
Even tenured professors need to operate within an authority structure, as do most of us. Anyone who has worked for a large corporation with crappy office politics knows that you don't get far by shooting your mouth off at every turn.
SJW crowd preach at the righteous church of tolerance and respect except of course when they disagree. Then any faÃade of respect melts away to reveal the same weak confused hapless souls as all the oppressors who have lived before them.
Swell media likes to do everything in their power to assist Daesh. As long as it sounds scary and keeps people afraid and clicking back for more then it must be news and therefore worthy of being published.
So you admit it's FUD. There is no suggestion that they have network listeners (which wouldn't work anyway because most people have some kind of router level firewall, and many don't support UPNP).
What difference do modalities make? The fact capability exists and is used without explicit end user knowledge or approval is what matters.
Then you go on to wildly speculate about the mechanism being insecure. Tell
Security is nothing more than expression of value judgments made by individuals. It is not an objective measure. What is deemed secure or not differs with context, value of what is secured, consequence of failure and level trust the individual has developed in individuals and technology charged with implementing security.
The existence of an explicit targeted remote access capability that operates without user knowledge or approval is the definition of insecure in my opinion. I don't know how to trust a corporation that demonstrates such disrespect for the security and privacy of its customers. Without trust there is no security. Without security computers are worthless for many purposes.
There is a lot to be upset about with Windows 10, but I'm fed up of people making stuff up just to jump on the bandwagon. Some of us are looking for hard, objective data. I'm going to see if I can find time to create and post some Wireshark and Fiddler dumps to settle this once and for all.
I don't understand. People are complaining about shit coming from Microsoft's own site and expressed in their own privacy "agreements". Microsoft openly admits to having a backdoor to exfil whatever they want and your fed up with people making stuff up?
https://technet.microsoft.com/...