For somebody who is supposedly against anonymous posting, abusive comments, and hate-mongering comments, you sure do seem to like to post abusive, hate-mongering comments anonymously!
WTF are you prattling on about?!?
I think I can count on one FINGER the amount of times I have posted as an AC on Slashdot, and I have the Karmic Scars to prove it.
You pointed out that all the apple articles were only from non-approved sources, so i was just pointing out that the malware from this article is also installed from non-approved sources. i didn't mention anything saying android hadn't had any other malware infections.
you want only app store apps for apple? how about this one
Research, THEN Post. Otherwise prepare to be outed as the pompous ass you are.
1. I didn't say the Articles were from "non-approved sources". Rather that the Software-containing-Malware was from sources other than the iOS App Store.
2. Actually, you DID state quite clearly that "it should also be pointed out that this android malware also only comes from non-approved channels". So I'm not sure what you are talking about with "i didn't mention anything saying android hadn't had any other malware infections." Is English a second-language for you; or are you just illiterate?
3. The "Find and Call" App WAS apparently actually a Trojan that affected both iOS and Android, I will give you that. However, it was NOT part of the original examples that I argued-against; so it constitutes a "moving of the goalposts". Also, you fail to mention that Apple not only pulled the Dev's credentials; but also modified iOS so that that type of App cannot work in the background to steal personal information. So ultimately, the system still worked. As I said, I NEVER said iOS was IMMUNE; just that the examples given were not legit examples of "Malware from Approved Sources" (in this case, the iOS App Store). That remains a true statement, sorry!
4. While the "Jekyll" App may have actually worked in a real-world application (and no, a Proof-of-Concept is not "Real-World"), there are three things that make your inclusion of this a strawman:
a. It was not in the original "List", and thus constitutes a moving of the goalposts.
b. It was never actually "In the Wild".
c. I NEVER said that iOS was IMMUNE; rather, again, I simply stated that the four EXAMPLES in the original post were not scenarios for people using Apps from the iOS App Store with non-jailbroken phones (a point which you haven't actually rebutted).
So, after your EXHAUSTIVE search, we have a sum-total of ONE legit Trojan from 2012 (which fortunately doesn't seem to have targeted the U.S.A.), and one possible Proof-of-Concept in 2013. Not 100% perfect; but the difference between a typical iOS user's exposure to Malware vs. a typical Android user is both striking and utterly undeniable.
Again, wanna compare that track-record to Android, even from the Play Store?
Fucking USELESS ACs... I wish Slashdot would get rid of the AC concept entirely. It is FAR too often simply an excuse for abuse and hate-mongering.
I'm relieved to see that you used your full legal name here, "macs4all", and not some sort of a pseudonym or alias. Otherwise we'd have to think that you're posting your hatred anonymously, like some sort of a coward!
I have used my Slashdot Username; which, I notice, is FAR more than you used, YOU STUPID FUCKTARD!!!
Who gives a shit?! This is something that's always bothered me: a major catastrophe anniversary and everyone's gotta put in their two cents worth about where THEY were and what THEY were doing at the time! That's totally fucking irrelevant! The disaster occurred, let's focus on THAT, NOT what you were fucking doing at the time, no one gives a shit about you! Buncha egomaniacs this species is...
And yet, here you are, giving YOUR opinion, like anyone cares.
Fucking USELESS ACs... I wish Slashdot would get rid of the AC concept entirely. It is FAR too often simply an excuse for abuse and hate-mongering.
Yes, yes; Slashdot breathlessly (and more to the point, hit-mongering-ly) "reports" each and every such story, as part of their unstated and ongoing mission of pandering to Apple Haters.
So, lets' take these one-by-one, shall we?
225000 accounts comporised via ios malware --- According to TFS, " The theft is executed via variants of the KeyRaider iOS malware, which targets jailbroken iOS devices.", so Doesn't Count. "Next..."
Apple xcodeghost malware more malicious than originally reported --- According to the Comments to TFA, this only affected Chinese Developers that Downloaded an UNOFFICIAL BINARY from grey-market "App Stores". Does it count? Meh. The best thing is that Apple likely tightened their signature-verification process for XCode installation. Oh, and I believe that I read that the "victims" had to IGNORE a warning that the Signature didn't match, and ALSO SPECIFICALLY TURN OFF GATEKEEPER.
Advertising malware affects non-jailbroken ios devices --- Another day, another breathless Slashdot non-story. Well, according to the TFS, again, this is due to Distribution through NON-APPROVED CHANNELS (Enterprise Distribution), which SOME Users see as a way to "side load" mostly Pirated Apps from (once again) Grey-market "App Store" clones. "YiSpecter's malicious apps were signed with three iOS enterprise certificates issued by Apple so that they can be installed as enterprise apps on non-jailbroken iOS devices via in-house distribution. " So, again, meh. Sensing a pattern here?
apple cleaning up app store after is first major attack --- This non-story is simply a followup about Apple making sure that Applications built with the "tainted" XCode containing "XCode Ghost" (see above) were NOT in the iOS App Store. And in fact, that "Malware" didn't seem to do anything, anyway. According to TFS "Palo Alto Networks Director of Threat Intelligence Ryan Olson said the malware had limited functionality and his firm had uncovered no examples of data theft or other harm as a result of the attack." So, plainly, this "Story" isn't about a "Malware Attack", per se; rather, this is Apple being diligent. So, once again, meh.
So, by my tally, that's pretty much ZERO on the "Real Malware Threat" scale. The XCodeGhost incident was close, but no cigar.
Someday, it will happen; but not today...
Now, do you want to see the list of REAL Malware Articles on Slashdot for Android??? Didn't think so.
The company survives today because of the Apple II which actually promoted the hacker ethos. After they killed it their other products and Steve Jobs took them towards bankruptcy . After his quite dramatic return , Jobs ( read Apple engineers) gave the hungry audience an incomplete but good looking and well performing computer and saved the day.
Idiot.
Jobs didn't take Apple towards bankruptcy. That would be John Sculley.
The baseband in your phone has access to the memory and microphone, and the NSA can serve a secret order to the chip maker to include a backdoor in the baseband. Why would they need to break the encryption?
Oh, so you have a schematic of an iPhone?
Apple designs their own SoC. And you have NO idea what the Baseband chipset does, or does not, have DIRECT access to in an iPhone.
The amount of money involved as well as the implied exclusion of other, competing products makes it collusion in my book.
But again, working as intended.
Listen, moron: There is no "exclusion of other competing products" going on here. You can choose among several Search Providers in iOS' mobile Safari (including DuckDuckGo). Google is just the Default. And since most people (including me) don't bother to change the setting, you get Google...
By comparison, Apple cannot fab their own SOCs so they buy them from Samsung [informationweek.com], for billions of dollars yearly. Those two are also competitors (and legal adversaries) in many sectors distinct from chip supply. That's not "collusion" either -- it's the fact that a large business has many interests and generally can keep them separated so each part of the company can function.
Exactly!
In fact, Samsung just committed to a build-out of fabrication facilities costing several BILLION dollars, just to supply OLEDs for Apple.
When companies get a large as Apple, Samsung and The-Company-Formerly-Known-As-Google, they are ALL afflicted with the corporate version of Multiple-Personality Disorder. Some parts of one company are friends with some parts of the other compan(ies), some are enemies, and some are "frienemies".
Apple felt compelled to release Apple Maps to reduce reliance on Google maps....
BZZZT! WRONG!!! Thanks for playing...
Nice revisionist history, there, buddy!
Apple was FORCED to create Apple Maps because Google REFUSED to license their mapping API AT ANY COST to Apple for use with Apple's (then upcoming) Turn-by-Turn Navigation feature in iOS.
In NO way did Apple WANT to go to the considerable trouble and expense to "map the planet" to the street-level; but they essentially had no choice if they wanted to provide turn-by-turn Navigation on the iPhone.
So, should we surrender the four years that we paid for to be hip and with the times?
What's fair and what's reality are two entirely separate things. The short answer is -yes- get with the times; IT is a moving target of progress. There are cheaper options however; you can virtualize old Windows 95 boxes if you require legacy 16bit code to run over a mapped RS232 port as an example. It's ugly, but VM-ing an obsolete OS that's bound to custom legacy applications is doable.
Another way is to run the old OS in another Partition (or another HD) and then use a bootloader. I assume that will work for Windows. That's how we do it in the OS X world when we have legacy software that is incompatible with a new OS X version, or just want to try out a new version of the OS.
Of course, OS X makes that really easy, with its built-in bootloader, and the ability to resize partitions nondestructively. But, IIRC, NTFS will allow nondestructive repartitioning, too.
Microsoft is tired of supporting old ass insecure software. They can't rely on people who won't run patches, so they are going the Apple route. They know what you need, just submit and deal with it.
Re-using the 900Mhz open spectrum is a very good idea, for very good engineering reasons - there are things you can do in 900Mhz that 2.4 and 5.1 Ghz can't at low power levels. And, in no way, is talking about fad consumer electronics that attach to the Internet for no added value whatsoever a reason not to re-use this spectrum that was relegated to garbage cordless landline telephones and the odd pair of pre-Bluetooth wireless headphones.
Too bad Zigbee is relegated to 2.4 GHz only. This sounds like a possible solution for the RF pollution problem that Comcast is having with their Zigbee-based wireless security system, as reported in Slashdot in the last week or so.
If we can get precedent then we can work on things like class actions. It still doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot for the individual but it *might* mean more appropriate levels of accountability for those who failed to keep the data secure.
Class-Actions only do 2 things:
1. First and foremost, they enrich both side's legal teams
2. They cause the Offender to increase the cost to the Consumer to pay for the Damage-Award
Nothing more. The actual Aggrieved Party (hereinafter, "Individual") is lucky to get a coupon for a free medium fries. But usually what happens is that EVERY Individual ends up paying the Damage Award.
Case in point (no pun) : The Tobacco Industry Settlement. A pack of name-brand Cigarettes in my State (Indiana) before the Tobacco Class-Action was in the neighborhood of $2. IMMEDIATELY after the Settlement, Cigarette prices SOARED to $5 to $7.
So, were the Tobacco Companies PUNISHED by the Class-Action; or was it simply the Individuals?
I would like credit issuers to have a due diligence responsibility. A SSN and a few other personal identifying pieces of info is not a 'confidential key' that they should be using to grant credit. It shouldn't be possible for identity thieves to attain such value from such information.
The SSNs of all citizens should be a matter of public record.
WRONG!
The SSNs should STOP BEING USED FOR IDENTIFICATION. They really aren't SUPPOSED to be; but every single damned database seems to think it MUST store an SSN, and every single Utility, Credit Card co, etc, seems to think that it is the best thing since the invention of the birthdate for IDENTIFICATION.
In fact, my original SS Card said in big, bold red letters a the bottom: "For Social Security and Income Tax Purposes Only - Not For Identification". See Question 21 in this FAQ. What's curious is that they apparently didn't bother to actually change the SS CODE, so SSNs are still NOT supposed to be used for Identification, period!
Hmm... Has anyone tried asserting that the loss of personally identifiable data (or even financial data) are, in fact, enough to be harmful in and of themselves? Add to that the loss of financial information - even if no direct financial harm has come, is both stressful and a loss of privacy as well as requiring one to take action - and, it seems to me, there's a good, viable, justification for standing.
Standing, maybe; damages, not so much.
It's just like the cruel facts in a Wrongful Death suit: Unless you are a breadwinner with minor children to support, your heirs have next to zero chance winning damages because "Life isn't in itself, worth anything".
Now there is an argument for "loss of consortium"; but that is kind of a tough row to hoe, unless the deceased is your spouse. Even then, it isn't so much of a cash-register-ringer, either.
Ask George Harrison.
Oh, um, to be clear, that was rhetorical, no a death threat (George Harrison is deceased; to 'ask' him you would have to also be deceased, or a medium, and the afterlife....etc.)
He lost a lawsuit over his hit song My Sweet Lord. It has the same chord progressions and He's So Fine. Legally, what counts in this case was the chords/notes on the sheet music. The timbral quality, tonal quality, etc, etc. are irrelevant. Some of the jurors even said they were fans of Harrison but the law was clear.
Harrison lost, paid out, and then bought the rights to He's So Fine, probably for much higher than he could have picked it up before his song was released.
Harrison also said that it was purely unintentional; which I can believe in his case, since he certainly had enough popular songs published by the time My Sweet Lord came out.
Having said that, if I had been on the Jury, I probably would have found against him, too; because if you listen to the two songs (My Sweet Lord and She's So Fine), the melody and chord progression is pretty much 1:1 the same.
I do believe that one of the things that did come out of that trial was that there is a minimum 16-"bar" (measure) length-threshold that must be met before a copyright violation can be found. That's pretty much a complete verse or chorus in most popular songs; so Harrison's "copying" (unintentional or not) was not likely the result of an "unhappy coincidence" caused by the fact that only certain chord progressions and melodies will be deemed "musical" by most people.
Slashdot Mirror
For somebody who is supposedly against anonymous posting, abusive comments, and hate-mongering comments, you sure do seem to like to post abusive, hate-mongering comments anonymously!
WTF are you prattling on about?!?
I think I can count on one FINGER the amount of times I have posted as an AC on Slashdot, and I have the Karmic Scars to prove it.
Now STFU and GO AWAY
You pointed out that all the apple articles were only from non-approved sources, so i was just pointing out that the malware from this article is also installed from non-approved sources. i didn't mention anything saying android hadn't had any other malware infections.
you want only app store apps for apple? how about this one
and here is a proof of concept showing that apple isn't immune.
BTW, that took exactly ONE SECOND of Google-ing.
Research, THEN Post. Otherwise prepare to be outed as the pompous ass you are.
1. I didn't say the Articles were from "non-approved sources". Rather that the Software-containing-Malware was from sources other than the iOS App Store.
2. Actually, you DID state quite clearly that "it should also be pointed out that this android malware also only comes from non-approved channels". So I'm not sure what you are talking about with "i didn't mention anything saying android hadn't had any other malware infections." Is English a second-language for you; or are you just illiterate?
3. The "Find and Call" App WAS apparently actually a Trojan that affected both iOS and Android, I will give you that. However, it was NOT part of the original examples that I argued-against; so it constitutes a "moving of the goalposts". Also, you fail to mention that Apple not only pulled the Dev's credentials; but also modified iOS so that that type of App cannot work in the background to steal personal information. So ultimately, the system still worked. As I said, I NEVER said iOS was IMMUNE; just that the examples given were not legit examples of "Malware from Approved Sources" (in this case, the iOS App Store). That remains a true statement, sorry!
4. While the "Jekyll" App may have actually worked in a real-world application (and no, a Proof-of-Concept is not "Real-World"), there are three things that make your inclusion of this a strawman: a. It was not in the original "List", and thus constitutes a moving of the goalposts.
b. It was never actually "In the Wild".
c. I NEVER said that iOS was IMMUNE; rather, again, I simply stated that the four EXAMPLES in the original post were not scenarios for people using Apps from the iOS App Store with non-jailbroken phones (a point which you haven't actually rebutted).
So, after your EXHAUSTIVE search, we have a sum-total of ONE legit Trojan from 2012 (which fortunately doesn't seem to have targeted the U.S.A.), and one possible Proof-of-Concept in 2013. Not 100% perfect; but the difference between a typical iOS user's exposure to Malware vs. a typical Android user is both striking and utterly undeniable.
Again, wanna compare that track-record to Android, even from the Play Store?
well if you are going that route then it should also be pointed out that this android malware also only comes from non-approved channels
Bzzt! WRONG!!! Thanks for Playing!
:
What "route" is that? You mean the "FACTS" route? Then yes, I will go that route every single time. Unlike you, apparently...To wit(less)
Malware has been found on the Google Play store MANY times. Where the FUCK have YOU been?!?
BTW, that took exactly ONE SECOND of Google-ing.
Research, THEN Post. Otherwise prepare to be outed as the idiot you are.
I'm relieved to see that you used your full legal name here, "macs4all", and not some sort of a pseudonym or alias. Otherwise we'd have to think that you're posting your hatred anonymously, like some sort of a coward!
I have used my Slashdot Username; which, I notice, is FAR more than you used, YOU STUPID FUCKTARD!!!
Who gives a shit?! This is something that's always bothered me: a major catastrophe anniversary and everyone's gotta put in their two cents worth about where THEY were and what THEY were doing at the time! That's totally fucking irrelevant! The disaster occurred, let's focus on THAT, NOT what you were fucking doing at the time, no one gives a shit about you! Buncha egomaniacs this species is...
And yet, here you are, giving YOUR opinion, like anyone cares.
Fucking USELESS ACs... I wish Slashdot would get rid of the AC concept entirely. It is FAR too often simply an excuse for abuse and hate-mongering.
are you sure about that?
these were even posted to slashdot. and i am sure this isn't all of them.
225000 accounts comporised via ios malware
Apple xcodeghost malware more malicious than originally reported
Advertising malware affects non-jailbroken ios devices
apple cleaning up app store after is first major attack
Yes, yes; Slashdot breathlessly (and more to the point, hit-mongering-ly) "reports" each and every such story, as part of their unstated and ongoing mission of pandering to Apple Haters.
So, lets' take these one-by-one, shall we?
225000 accounts comporised via ios malware --- According to TFS, " The theft is executed via variants of the KeyRaider iOS malware, which targets jailbroken iOS devices.", so Doesn't Count. "Next..."
Apple xcodeghost malware more malicious than originally reported --- According to the Comments to TFA, this only affected Chinese Developers that Downloaded an UNOFFICIAL BINARY from grey-market "App Stores". Does it count? Meh. The best thing is that Apple likely tightened their signature-verification process for XCode installation. Oh, and I believe that I read that the "victims" had to IGNORE a warning that the Signature didn't match, and ALSO SPECIFICALLY TURN OFF GATEKEEPER.
Advertising malware affects non-jailbroken ios devices --- Another day, another breathless Slashdot non-story. Well, according to the TFS, again, this is due to Distribution through NON-APPROVED CHANNELS (Enterprise Distribution), which SOME Users see as a way to "side load" mostly Pirated Apps from (once again) Grey-market "App Store" clones. "YiSpecter's malicious apps were signed with three iOS enterprise certificates issued by Apple so that they can be installed as enterprise apps on non-jailbroken iOS devices via in-house distribution. " So, again, meh. Sensing a pattern here?
apple cleaning up app store after is first major attack --- This non-story is simply a followup about Apple making sure that Applications built with the "tainted" XCode containing "XCode Ghost" (see above) were NOT in the iOS App Store. And in fact, that "Malware" didn't seem to do anything, anyway. According to TFS "Palo Alto Networks Director of Threat Intelligence Ryan Olson said the malware had limited functionality and his firm had uncovered no examples of data theft or other harm as a result of the attack." So, plainly, this "Story" isn't about a "Malware Attack", per se; rather, this is Apple being diligent. So, once again, meh.
So, by my tally, that's pretty much ZERO on the "Real Malware Threat" scale. The XCodeGhost incident was close, but no cigar.
Someday, it will happen; but not today...
Now, do you want to see the list of REAL Malware Articles on Slashdot for Android??? Didn't think so.
Get your history right, idiot.
End-to-End control ?
WTF does that even mean?
No, but you could buy a new phone already. That thing has got to be like 4 years old already.
Wow, and people talk about Apple creating forced obsolescence (which they generally have a MUCH better track-record of NOT doing)...
Thank you for that. Your hugely statistically significant data point will add so much to the discussion.
Hey, that's like all the snarky "Works for me" "help" on Linux forums.
The company survives today because of the Apple II which actually promoted the hacker ethos. After they killed it their other products and Steve Jobs took them towards bankruptcy . After his quite dramatic return , Jobs ( read Apple engineers) gave the hungry audience an incomplete but good looking and well performing computer and saved the day.
Idiot.
Jobs didn't take Apple towards bankruptcy. That would be John Sculley.
Jobs RESCUED them from the brink of bankruptcy.
Get your history right, idiot.
The baseband in your phone has access to the memory and microphone, and the NSA can serve a secret order to the chip maker to include a backdoor in the baseband. Why would they need to break the encryption?
Oh, so you have a schematic of an iPhone?
Apple designs their own SoC. And you have NO idea what the Baseband chipset does, or does not, have DIRECT access to in an iPhone.
Period.
The amount of money involved as well as the implied exclusion of other, competing products makes it collusion in my book.
But again, working as intended.
Listen, moron: There is no "exclusion of other competing products" going on here. You can choose among several Search Providers in iOS' mobile Safari (including DuckDuckGo). Google is just the Default. And since most people (including me) don't bother to change the setting, you get Google...
By comparison, Apple cannot fab their own SOCs so they buy them from Samsung [informationweek.com], for billions of dollars yearly. Those two are also competitors (and legal adversaries) in many sectors distinct from chip supply. That's not "collusion" either -- it's the fact that a large business has many interests and generally can keep them separated so each part of the company can function.
Exactly!
In fact, Samsung just committed to a build-out of fabrication facilities costing several BILLION dollars, just to supply OLEDs for Apple.
When companies get a large as Apple, Samsung and The-Company-Formerly-Known-As-Google, they are ALL afflicted with the corporate version of Multiple-Personality Disorder. Some parts of one company are friends with some parts of the other compan(ies), some are enemies, and some are "frienemies".
Apple felt compelled to release Apple Maps to reduce reliance on Google maps....
BZZZT! WRONG!!! Thanks for playing...
Nice revisionist history, there, buddy!
Apple was FORCED to create Apple Maps because Google REFUSED to license their mapping API AT ANY COST to Apple for use with Apple's (then upcoming) Turn-by-Turn Navigation feature in iOS.
In NO way did Apple WANT to go to the considerable trouble and expense to "map the planet" to the street-level; but they essentially had no choice if they wanted to provide turn-by-turn Navigation on the iPhone.
Company makes money and colludes with competitor to make more money.
Nothing to see here; Working as intended.
I have a couple of questions for you: "What is the difference between a simple Agreement and 'Collusion' ?" And "How is this 'Collusion' ?"
What's fair and what's reality are two entirely separate things. The short answer is -yes- get with the times; IT is a moving target of progress. There are cheaper options however; you can virtualize old Windows 95 boxes if you require legacy 16bit code to run over a mapped RS232 port as an example. It's ugly, but VM-ing an obsolete OS that's bound to custom legacy applications is doable.
Another way is to run the old OS in another Partition (or another HD) and then use a bootloader. I assume that will work for Windows. That's how we do it in the OS X world when we have legacy software that is incompatible with a new OS X version, or just want to try out a new version of the OS.
Of course, OS X makes that really easy, with its built-in bootloader, and the ability to resize partitions nondestructively. But, IIRC, NTFS will allow nondestructive repartitioning, too.
Microsoft is tired of supporting old ass insecure software. They can't rely on people who won't run patches, so they are going the Apple route. They know what you need, just submit and deal with it.
What do you mean "Going the Apple route?"
Just like everyone else, Apple defaults their Updates to automatically download and install, but not only do they do a much better job of telling you what they are doing; but they also make it extremely easy to not have automatic updates.
Quit assigning the name "Apple" to just any-old-thing you don't think is right.
Exactly.
Re-using the 900Mhz open spectrum is a very good idea, for very good engineering reasons - there are things you can do in 900Mhz that 2.4 and 5.1 Ghz can't at low power levels. And, in no way, is talking about fad consumer electronics that attach to the Internet for no added value whatsoever a reason not to re-use this spectrum that was relegated to garbage cordless landline telephones and the odd pair of pre-Bluetooth wireless headphones.
Too bad Zigbee is relegated to 2.4 GHz only. This sounds like a possible solution for the RF pollution problem that Comcast is having with their Zigbee-based wireless security system, as reported in Slashdot in the last week or so.
such as Cassandra Wilson, were to die, would Slashdot have a feature article about it?
Are you even BEGINNING to insinuate that Bowie wasn't a competent singer?
If we can get precedent then we can work on things like class actions. It still doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot for the individual but it *might* mean more appropriate levels of accountability for those who failed to keep the data secure.
Class-Actions only do 2 things:
1. First and foremost, they enrich both side's legal teams
2. They cause the Offender to increase the cost to the Consumer to pay for the Damage-Award
Nothing more. The actual Aggrieved Party (hereinafter, "Individual") is lucky to get a coupon for a free medium fries. But usually what happens is that EVERY Individual ends up paying the Damage Award.
Case in point (no pun) : The Tobacco Industry Settlement. A pack of name-brand Cigarettes in my State (Indiana) before the Tobacco Class-Action was in the neighborhood of $2. IMMEDIATELY after the Settlement, Cigarette prices SOARED to $5 to $7.
So, were the Tobacco Companies PUNISHED by the Class-Action; or was it simply the Individuals?
I would like credit issuers to have a due diligence responsibility. A SSN and a few other personal identifying pieces of info is not a 'confidential key' that they should be using to grant credit. It shouldn't be possible for identity thieves to attain such value from such information.
The SSNs of all citizens should be a matter of public record.
WRONG!
The SSNs should STOP BEING USED FOR IDENTIFICATION. They really aren't SUPPOSED to be; but every single damned database seems to think it MUST store an SSN, and every single Utility, Credit Card co, etc, seems to think that it is the best thing since the invention of the birthdate for IDENTIFICATION.
In fact, my original SS Card said in big, bold red letters a the bottom: "For Social Security and Income Tax Purposes Only - Not For Identification". See Question 21 in this FAQ. What's curious is that they apparently didn't bother to actually change the SS CODE, so SSNs are still NOT supposed to be used for Identification, period!
Yet Here. We. Are.
Hmm... Has anyone tried asserting that the loss of personally identifiable data (or even financial data) are, in fact, enough to be harmful in and of themselves? Add to that the loss of financial information - even if no direct financial harm has come, is both stressful and a loss of privacy as well as requiring one to take action - and, it seems to me, there's a good, viable, justification for standing.
Standing, maybe; damages, not so much.
It's just like the cruel facts in a Wrongful Death suit: Unless you are a breadwinner with minor children to support, your heirs have next to zero chance winning damages because "Life isn't in itself, worth anything".
Now there is an argument for "loss of consortium"; but that is kind of a tough row to hoe, unless the deceased is your spouse. Even then, it isn't so much of a cash-register-ringer, either.
Ask George Harrison. Oh, um, to be clear, that was rhetorical, no a death threat (George Harrison is deceased; to 'ask' him you would have to also be deceased, or a medium, and the afterlife....etc.) He lost a lawsuit over his hit song My Sweet Lord. It has the same chord progressions and He's So Fine. Legally, what counts in this case was the chords/notes on the sheet music. The timbral quality, tonal quality, etc, etc. are irrelevant. Some of the jurors even said they were fans of Harrison but the law was clear. Harrison lost, paid out, and then bought the rights to He's So Fine, probably for much higher than he could have picked it up before his song was released.
Harrison also said that it was purely unintentional; which I can believe in his case, since he certainly had enough popular songs published by the time My Sweet Lord came out.
Having said that, if I had been on the Jury, I probably would have found against him, too; because if you listen to the two songs (My Sweet Lord and She's So Fine), the melody and chord progression is pretty much 1:1 the same.
I do believe that one of the things that did come out of that trial was that there is a minimum 16-"bar" (measure) length-threshold that must be met before a copyright violation can be found. That's pretty much a complete verse or chorus in most popular songs; so Harrison's "copying" (unintentional or not) was not likely the result of an "unhappy coincidence" caused by the fact that only certain chord progressions and melodies will be deemed "musical" by most people.
I know you're being a ridiculous troll
Says the Anonymous COWARD.
No, actually, I was being quite serious. Swift is Open Source under the Apache License; so why not?
Danger is my middle name.
No. It's "I spell my name, Danger!"