There needs to be a little common-sense applied to the operation of governments.
No, there need to be fewer and better thought out laws. A blanket $300 tax on any blog that makes money, for example, is not well thought out -- a better strategy would be a tax on blogs that turn more than, say, $1000/yr. in revenue, or perhaps a tax that cannot exceed the amount of money a blog made. Or perhaps not taxing blogs, and looking at other ways to reduce the budget gap (perhaps spending less on drug enforcement and other nonviolent crimes).
Of course, there may be other things at work here. Like, lawmakers assuming that people fit into neat categories, and then passing laws that essentially enforce those categories.
There can be only one suspect for who was behind it: the U.S. government.
Why do you say that? Assange has pissed off a lot of world governments, and it does not take CIA level resources to have someone file a false report. The fact that the charges were withdrawn on the same day they were filed suggests that the CIA may not be involved after all -- they would do a better job than that.
Why is Windows so successful? Not because people give a crap about Windows, but because there is a lot of software that people want to use, or need to use, and its on Windows.
Or perhaps because it was installed by default on the overwhelming majority of PCs that people buy? Most people are not technically literate enough to know what an operating system is, let alone that they have the option to install something other than what came with their computer.
When I saw that test scores were being used, I got ready to point out that test scores are known to vary between rich and poor students. Then I read the actual evaluation, and saw this:
The fifth-graders at Broadous Elementary School come from the same world the poorest corner of the San Fernando Valley, a Pacoima neighborhood framed by two freeways where some have lost friends to the stray bullets of rival gangs.
...
Yet year after year, one fifth-grade class learns far more than the other down the hall.
If it is a compile binary, you might not have such luck. You may need to do a lot of work to get it to run, and you can forget trying to use something other than x86 (although that probably affects very few people these days).
Except they did say "and," they said "or." So you could detect the wrong password being entered too many times or you could detect that someone is trying to jailbreak.
I do not doubt that the system could be used to detect theft (in the normal sense of the word) and disable stolen phones. However, I would not be so quick to assume that the system will only be used to do that. Neither Apple nor AT&T (nor any other cell network) is particularly friendly toward consumers, so why would you doubt that they would try to disable jailbroken phones (particularly since they can no longer claim it is illegal)?
In some embodiments, an unauthorized user can be detected by noting particular activities that can indicate suspicious behavior. For example, activities such as entering an incorrect password a predetermined number of times in a row, hacking of the electronic device, jailbreaking of the electronic device, unlocking of the electronic device, removing a SIM card from the electronic device, or moving a predetermined distance away from a synced device can be used to detect an unauthorized user.
[0005]In some embodiments, an unauthorized user can be detected by noting particular activities that can indicate suspicious behavior. For example, activities such as entering an incorrect password a predetermined number of times in a row, hacking of the electronic device, jailbreaking of the electronic device, unlocking of the electronic device, removing a SIM card from the electronic device, or moving a predetermined distance away from a synced device can be used to detect an unauthorized user.
Perhaps when they say, "anti-theft," they are using a definition of "theft" that includes "using it in a way that is not prescribed by Apple."
ebooks are going to increase in popularity, and the last thing we want is a precedent of putting ads in them.
Which is precisely why we are concerned. My biggest fear is that Kindle-type devices (iPad included) will become dominant for digital textbooks. Advertising in textbooks? It may happen. DRMed textbooks? It already happens: my institution has a number of subscriptions to online electronic textbooks for our libraries, and they are DRMed, though thankfully not as badly as the Kindle.
The way I see it, eBooks should be improving our lives, not just padding the wallets of publishers. We should never have to worry about a book being "rare" or "out of print;" in fact, there should be no scarcity at all with eBooks, since everyone has the equipment necessary to copy an eBook in their home. We should be able to share books faster and more easily than ever before. Why is none of this happening?
Well, let's put it this way: why does Amazon need a patent on displaying a list of books by the same author at the beginning of your eBook? Why do they need proprietary software to accomplish that? Project Gutenberg manages to place a short message at the beginning of plaintext eBooks.
This is not going to be as innocent and unintrusive as the sort of advertisements you see in paperbacks.
Advertising today is far more intrusive than advertising of 50 years ago. Yes, books have generally included advertisements for more books by the author or publishers, but when you talk about eBook advertising, you are talking about an entirely different ball game. Will the ads report back on what you read? Probably, and they will claim it is only for giving you more relevant advertisements. Will the ads get inserted into random places in the middle of the book? Probably, though they will claim that the places advertisements are displayed are chosen so as not to interfere with your enjoyment (e.g. not in the middle of an exciting section of the story). Will the ads be animated? Probably.
Nobody needs a patent to put old-style advertisements in eBooks. You do not need proprietary software to do it. These ads will not be the same as the ads you are used to seeing in books.
More likely, if this goes through, we will be asked to pay more for books with advertising, and never be given to option to get the books without. Do you really think the publishers are interested in what is best for you or anyone other than themselves?
Why am I opposed to it? Simple: it means more proprietary eBooks and more DRM, and of course, more marketing firms tracking more aspects of our lives. They are not going to allow libre software to render eBooks if they want to shove advertisements down out throats; after all, we could just remove the advertising from libre software. I want to be in control of my books, I do not want Amazon to be in control; did we not learn our lesson with the memory hole scandal?
As for the tracking, well, what if you want to read a book about explosives? What if that tips off the FBI, and they come to your house demanding to know why you are reading about bombs? Do you really think that the marketing firms are going to keep their databases secret from the government? Do you remember when the PATRIOT act was passed, and librarians publicly denounced the clause about handing library records over to the government, for the exact same reasons?
Technology is supposed to be improving our lives. Why, then, are we accepting uses of it that do not improve our lives and only serve the interests of publishing and marketing companies?
Considering that it was government officials who pushed the whole "you should be terrified of child pornography" issue...
Seriously, we have FBI officials telling the news stations that children are "re-victimized" every single time someone looks at child pornography. The executive branch is chastising judges who oppose harsher sentences for possession of child pornography, even in cases where the punishment for possession exceeds the punishment for child abuse. The government wants everyone to be afraid of child pornography; after all, gangs, satanism, drugs and terrorism are old news now.
I am beginning to think that child pornography is overtaking terrorism as the go-to scary issue. Perhaps people have become desensitized to warnings about terrorists, especially since the racial undertones make it difficult to push the "terrorists are around every corner" angle. Child pornography, on the other hand, is a great way to get people of all skin colors, religions, and professions. If you live in the suburbs, there could be someone interested in child pornography living right next door to you. Inner city? Rural? Child pornography is everywhere, they tell us, so it is easy to scare everyone; plus, it has the word "child" in it, so you get a free "think of the children" angle.
Just because criminals have not yet taken to attacking RFID does not mean that it is beyond the realm of possibility that they will do so. I propose another question, though: what problem does RFID actually solve? In particular, why put it in credit cards and other cards that really do not benefit from RFID? Are those problems really worth the risks, particularly since RFID cards are hard to make secure (because of power constraints)?
Actually, the attack allowed malicious code to bypass SELinux, which is often to used to prevent exploits that run with user privileges from accomplishing much.
Why are you downplaying the significance of this attack?
The part where an exploit that allows malicious programs to be run without the user's knowledge? Or did you think there were no such exploits?
For the record, I am a Fedora user, not a Windows user. I am willing to acknowledge when there is a security problem. I am glad it was fixed, but that does not imply that it was not a real problem.
Or Joe Sixpack visits a website with a Flash applet, and there happens to be a vulnerability in Flash player that allows those applets to issue requests directly to the X server. Or, Joe Sixpack opens a PDF file using acroread, and there is a vulnerability in acroread. Or any number of other vulnerabilities; all an attack needs is to be able to issue requests directly to the X server.
It really was not a trivial, uninteresting bug. It was a serious security problem for desktop Linux users that had been around for years.
Slashdot Mirror
There needs to be a little common-sense applied to the operation of governments.
No, there need to be fewer and better thought out laws. A blanket $300 tax on any blog that makes money, for example, is not well thought out -- a better strategy would be a tax on blogs that turn more than, say, $1000/yr. in revenue, or perhaps a tax that cannot exceed the amount of money a blog made. Or perhaps not taxing blogs, and looking at other ways to reduce the budget gap (perhaps spending less on drug enforcement and other nonviolent crimes).
Of course, there may be other things at work here. Like, lawmakers assuming that people fit into neat categories, and then passing laws that essentially enforce those categories.
There can be only one suspect for who was behind it: the U.S. government.
Why do you say that? Assange has pissed off a lot of world governments, and it does not take CIA level resources to have someone file a false report. The fact that the charges were withdrawn on the same day they were filed suggests that the CIA may not be involved after all -- they would do a better job than that.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
Why is Windows so successful? Not because people give a crap about Windows, but because there is a lot of software that people want to use, or need to use, and its on Windows.
Or perhaps because it was installed by default on the overwhelming majority of PCs that people buy? Most people are not technically literate enough to know what an operating system is, let alone that they have the option to install something other than what came with their computer.
Why? Perhaps it should not be counted as GNU/Linux, but it certainly uses the Linux kernel.
This is why I prefer to use distro names like "Ubuntu" or "Fedora" when describing Linux use on the desktop: it alleviates the confusion.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teachers-value-20100815,0,2695044.story
The fifth-graders at Broadous Elementary School come from the same world the poorest corner of the San Fernando Valley, a Pacoima neighborhood framed by two freeways where some have lost friends to the stray bullets of rival gangs.
...
Yet year after year, one fifth-grade class learns far more than the other down the hall.
If it is a compile binary, you might not have such luck. You may need to do a lot of work to get it to run, and you can forget trying to use something other than x86 (although that probably affects very few people these days).
My thoughts exactly. Why not GPL this code, and maybe then we could see it merged into other clients as well?
Except they did say "and," they said "or." So you could detect the wrong password being entered too many times or you could detect that someone is trying to jailbreak.
I do not doubt that the system could be used to detect theft (in the normal sense of the word) and disable stolen phones. However, I would not be so quick to assume that the system will only be used to do that. Neither Apple nor AT&T (nor any other cell network) is particularly friendly toward consumers, so why would you doubt that they would try to disable jailbroken phones (particularly since they can no longer claim it is illegal)?
In some embodiments, an unauthorized user can be detected by noting particular activities that can indicate suspicious behavior. For example, activities such as entering an incorrect password a predetermined number of times in a row, hacking of the electronic device, jailbreaking of the electronic device, unlocking of the electronic device, removing a SIM card from the electronic device, or moving a predetermined distance away from a synced device can be used to detect an unauthorized user.
Emphasis mine.
[0005]In some embodiments, an unauthorized user can be detected by noting particular activities that can indicate suspicious behavior. For example, activities such as entering an incorrect password a predetermined number of times in a row, hacking of the electronic device, jailbreaking of the electronic device, unlocking of the electronic device, removing a SIM card from the electronic device, or moving a predetermined distance away from a synced device can be used to detect an unauthorized user.
Perhaps when they say, "anti-theft," they are using a definition of "theft" that includes "using it in a way that is not prescribed by Apple."
Apple fanboy: What is so bad about this? Of course Apple should be able to prevent hackers from using hacked iPhones and iPads.
How stupid do these people think we are, anyway?
Do you even have to ask?
ebooks are going to increase in popularity, and the last thing we want is a precedent of putting ads in them.
Which is precisely why we are concerned. My biggest fear is that Kindle-type devices (iPad included) will become dominant for digital textbooks. Advertising in textbooks? It may happen. DRMed textbooks? It already happens: my institution has a number of subscriptions to online electronic textbooks for our libraries, and they are DRMed, though thankfully not as badly as the Kindle.
The way I see it, eBooks should be improving our lives, not just padding the wallets of publishers. We should never have to worry about a book being "rare" or "out of print;" in fact, there should be no scarcity at all with eBooks, since everyone has the equipment necessary to copy an eBook in their home. We should be able to share books faster and more easily than ever before. Why is none of this happening?
Well, let's put it this way: why does Amazon need a patent on displaying a list of books by the same author at the beginning of your eBook? Why do they need proprietary software to accomplish that? Project Gutenberg manages to place a short message at the beginning of plaintext eBooks.
This is not going to be as innocent and unintrusive as the sort of advertisements you see in paperbacks.
Advertising today is far more intrusive than advertising of 50 years ago. Yes, books have generally included advertisements for more books by the author or publishers, but when you talk about eBook advertising, you are talking about an entirely different ball game. Will the ads report back on what you read? Probably, and they will claim it is only for giving you more relevant advertisements. Will the ads get inserted into random places in the middle of the book? Probably, though they will claim that the places advertisements are displayed are chosen so as not to interfere with your enjoyment (e.g. not in the middle of an exciting section of the story). Will the ads be animated? Probably.
Nobody needs a patent to put old-style advertisements in eBooks. You do not need proprietary software to do it. These ads will not be the same as the ads you are used to seeing in books.
More likely, if this goes through, we will be asked to pay more for books with advertising, and never be given to option to get the books without. Do you really think the publishers are interested in what is best for you or anyone other than themselves?
Why am I opposed to it? Simple: it means more proprietary eBooks and more DRM, and of course, more marketing firms tracking more aspects of our lives. They are not going to allow libre software to render eBooks if they want to shove advertisements down out throats; after all, we could just remove the advertising from libre software. I want to be in control of my books, I do not want Amazon to be in control; did we not learn our lesson with the memory hole scandal?
As for the tracking, well, what if you want to read a book about explosives? What if that tips off the FBI, and they come to your house demanding to know why you are reading about bombs? Do you really think that the marketing firms are going to keep their databases secret from the government? Do you remember when the PATRIOT act was passed, and librarians publicly denounced the clause about handing library records over to the government, for the exact same reasons?
Technology is supposed to be improving our lives. Why, then, are we accepting uses of it that do not improve our lives and only serve the interests of publishing and marketing companies?
Considering that it was government officials who pushed the whole "you should be terrified of child pornography" issue...
Seriously, we have FBI officials telling the news stations that children are "re-victimized" every single time someone looks at child pornography. The executive branch is chastising judges who oppose harsher sentences for possession of child pornography, even in cases where the punishment for possession exceeds the punishment for child abuse. The government wants everyone to be afraid of child pornography; after all, gangs, satanism, drugs and terrorism are old news now.
I am beginning to think that child pornography is overtaking terrorism as the go-to scary issue. Perhaps people have become desensitized to warnings about terrorists, especially since the racial undertones make it difficult to push the "terrorists are around every corner" angle. Child pornography, on the other hand, is a great way to get people of all skin colors, religions, and professions. If you live in the suburbs, there could be someone interested in child pornography living right next door to you. Inner city? Rural? Child pornography is everywhere, they tell us, so it is easy to scare everyone; plus, it has the word "child" in it, so you get a free "think of the children" angle.
Just because criminals have not yet taken to attacking RFID does not mean that it is beyond the realm of possibility that they will do so. I propose another question, though: what problem does RFID actually solve? In particular, why put it in credit cards and other cards that really do not benefit from RFID? Are those problems really worth the risks, particularly since RFID cards are hard to make secure (because of power constraints)?
Actually, the attack allowed malicious code to bypass SELinux, which is often to used to prevent exploits that run with user privileges from accomplishing much.
Why are you downplaying the significance of this attack?
The part where an exploit that allows malicious programs to be run without the user's knowledge? Or did you think there were no such exploits?
For the record, I am a Fedora user, not a Windows user. I am willing to acknowledge when there is a security problem. I am glad it was fixed, but that does not imply that it was not a real problem.
Or Joe Sixpack visits a website with a Flash applet, and there happens to be a vulnerability in Flash player that allows those applets to issue requests directly to the X server. Or, Joe Sixpack opens a PDF file using acroread, and there is a vulnerability in acroread. Or any number of other vulnerabilities; all an attack needs is to be able to issue requests directly to the X server.
It really was not a trivial, uninteresting bug. It was a serious security problem for desktop Linux users that had been around for years.