Apparently, in 2008 in the NHS Tees area (Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees, Redcar and Cleveland) there were fewer than 10 cases of syphilis - so few that, under data-protection rules, the NHS can't give out the exact number.
But in 2009, 30 cases of heterosexual syphilis were notified to the NHS. So, yes: a four-fold increase, but a very small sample from which to drawn any very big conclusions.
Long story short, they noticed an increase, asked the patient where they got the disease. The patient said they met partners on the internet, which gets translated into Facebook. I'd put my money on it being Craigslist, as someone mentioned earlier.
I think the parent was trying illustrate how ridiculous the three letter agencies will sound using that justification right after the series of attacks against wikileaks.
But the problem is the same govermnental departments that make that argument are also incredibly secretive themselves (CIA, NSA, FBI). It's a double standard. You can't have it both ways. It makes complete sense to say that when when the NSA wants to listen to my international phone calls, but then when the President wants to squelch the release of torture photos, we're told that the photos really aren't that bad, and that it's a matter of national security.
Human rights have nothing to do with it. Google was hacked. If people can't trust the contents of their GMail inbox to remain out of the hands of Chinese intelligence, and Google can't ensure that some Chinese entity isn't stealing proprietary code, Google's profits will suffer. Pulling out of China will make this less of a threat. It's a cost-benefit analysis, and that's how it would be presented to the shareholders.
If Google pulls out, the Chinese will still have censored search results, but from an inferior search provider.
Except that Baidu already dominates search in in China. If Google pulls out, most people won't notice. For the few Google users, they'll move to Baidu and search like everyone else.
But yeah, people shouldn't be surprised that publicly documenting every facet of your life results in less privacy, for you, and for everyone you know.
That isn't the surprise. The surprise is that even if you go out of your way to not publicly document some things (such as high school), this information can be found out through your friends list.
Intuitively, longer sessions can lead to session hijacking. This implies that it's safer to reconnect. I'm sure ssh has some way to prevent session hijacking though.
Actually, even your negative synopsis of the piece flies in the face of conventional wisdom, which is that attacks of Chinese origin are all a carefully orchestrated by the ruthless and scheming Chinese government.
Security researchers have identified the attacks against Google to be largely from the Chinese government, as were the politically motivated attacks against the Dala Lama and other Tibetan exiles. There is almost no doubt that the majority of the hacking that goes on in China (and elsewhere) is of the sort that TFA reports on, but linking it to the recent attacks on Google and other US government contractors is disingenuous.
Not only that, but even if you fix the double h and put the requisite slashes after the colon, you get this [warning, link doesn't work]. So you think, "oh I see, they forgot to put the dot in between 'government' and 'html'!" It is then that you realize the url has no slashes or periods at all.
For everyone's hilarious enjoyment, here is the full text of the broken url
I think you're missing the whole crux of their argument. Yes, IE was the source of at least one of the security holes, but France and Germany are mandating switching as though it's some sort of panacea. IE was just one link in the chain of exploits used in the attack. Maybe destroying one link in the chain destroys the chain, but it is more likely that they will find a different link to continue the attack. Like maybe a zero day in Firefox or one of these known exploits.
I truly believe that Firefox and probably Chrome is a more secure browser than IE, and I completely agree with the recommendation from France and Germany. But even if Google had no IE they would not have been completely protected from the attacks, and both countries aren't completely protected by some memo mandating the end of IE. To think so is foolishness. Don't let one poorly written PCWorld article convince you otherwise.
Now e-mail: encryption could be very nice but how am I going to get keys from my correspondents? Do I have to manually ask them to send me or so? It seems so. I am not aware of any automated method to get their public key. ssh is transparent in key exchange, https too. E-mail not (yet). Besides, is there any (formal) standard to encrypt mail? And if I cc: to several recipients that means the e-mail has to be split before encrypting already. Makes it quite expensive when you're on a slow uplink.
The problem with key exchange is that there is no central authority. Thinking about it in a TLS kind of way, every cert is a self signed cert.
It sounds like a good idea on the outset, but weather this will actually increase neutral networks through carrier competition depends on 3 things:
1. Lock in: Google has done a pretty good job of fighting against handset lock in, but we will never get past the fact that we have both CDMA and GSM networks, and even the GSM networks don't have the same 3G. So you will never be able to bring your latest and greatest unlocked phone to Verizon from AT&T, for example. Couple this with the fact that most phones have to be "unlocked" even to work on another network with the same protocol and you have a real problem. Even without handset lock in, every wireless provider will require you to sign a 2 year contract, meaning you won't be able to change phone service so easily.
2. Carrier Collusion: When one provider upped the price of texting from 10 cents to 20, every other provider followed suit. They could easily do the same thing by switching off access to Hulu at the same time.
3. Consumer Awareness: If every consumer really makes net neutrality their top priority, than they can affect change with the new competition, assuming there is no lock in and collusion between networks. The problem is, most people care more about the other things, mostly network quality and price. If you spend $75 for provider A's neutral network, but provider B blocks Hulu but gives you an alternative site provided by them, as well as free cable TV and unlimited on demand for as part of a $60 "double play" package, most people will forget their principals and go with the better value.
While Google and Verizon disagree about the degree of authority the FCC has to oversee network management, they seem to concur about the agency's limited powers in other areas. Although Congress has given the Commission oversight over radio and television broadcasters, these mandates should not be transferred over to the Internet, the companies warn. There is "no sound reason to impose communications laws or regulations on the robust marketplace of Internet content, applications, and services."
This whole "Google will work it out with ISPs on a case by case basis" is probably the scariest development in net neutrality in a long time. The only reading I can have of it is that Verizon had something that Google wanted, and they said "not until you change your stance on net neutrality". Net neutrality advocates have lost a big partner here.
it almost looks like that's exactly what they're trying to do. Surely they know they can't win, and they probably won't get a huge amount of converts just by disallowing RS access.
I know they probably are sueing in earnest but it seems as though they're trying to take the wind out of record companies sails. (IE you can't sue the ISP for being the medium)
BTW, I've heard of some diehard Mircosofties getting windows tats. Wonder if Linux coders have a Tux tat. (yuck).
I have a co worker that got a fedora tattoo a little while back.to add to his Red Hat tattoo. A quick google search shows that some people get Tux tattoos.
How about rewriting the law so that every request to my IT department doesn't result in "This functionality would break SarBox compliance", regardless of how related to SarBox the request actually is?
Slashdot Mirror
Long story short, they noticed an increase, asked the patient where they got the disease. The patient said they met partners on the internet, which gets translated into Facebook. I'd put my money on it being Craigslist, as someone mentioned earlier.
I read it as an homage to the movie 300!
THIS.. IS.. WIKILEAKS!!!!!!!!!!
No, the first amendment is the law.
I think the parent was trying illustrate how ridiculous the three letter agencies will sound using that justification right after the series of attacks against wikileaks.
But the problem is the same govermnental departments that make that argument are also incredibly secretive themselves (CIA, NSA, FBI). It's a double standard. You can't have it both ways. It makes complete sense to say that when when the NSA wants to listen to my international phone calls, but then when the President wants to squelch the release of torture photos, we're told that the photos really aren't that bad, and that it's a matter of national security.
Unfortunately, the media in this day and age only care about ratings and ad revenue.
Human rights have nothing to do with it. Google was hacked. If people can't trust the contents of their GMail inbox to remain out of the hands of Chinese intelligence, and Google can't ensure that some Chinese entity isn't stealing proprietary code, Google's profits will suffer. Pulling out of China will make this less of a threat. It's a cost-benefit analysis, and that's how it would be presented to the shareholders.
If Google pulls out, the Chinese will still have censored search results, but from an inferior search provider.
Except that Baidu already dominates search in in China. If Google pulls out, most people won't notice. For the few Google users, they'll move to Baidu and search like everyone else.
But yeah, people shouldn't be surprised that publicly documenting every facet of your life results in less privacy, for you, and for everyone you know.
That isn't the surprise. The surprise is that even if you go out of your way to not publicly document some things (such as high school), this information can be found out through your friends list.
burnallmpegs.org makes more sense, since it's technologies like h.264 that are preventing widespread use of the tag.
Intuitively, longer sessions can lead to session hijacking. This implies that it's safer to reconnect. I'm sure ssh has some way to prevent session hijacking though.
Security researchers have identified the attacks against Google to be largely from the Chinese government, as were the politically motivated attacks against the Dala Lama and other Tibetan exiles. There is almost no doubt that the majority of the hacking that goes on in China (and elsewhere) is of the sort that TFA reports on, but linking it to the recent attacks on Google and other US government contractors is disingenuous.
For everyone's hilarious enjoyment, here is the full text of the broken url
I think you're missing the whole crux of their argument. Yes, IE was the source of at least one of the security holes, but France and Germany are mandating switching as though it's some sort of panacea. IE was just one link in the chain of exploits used in the attack. Maybe destroying one link in the chain destroys the chain, but it is more likely that they will find a different link to continue the attack. Like maybe a zero day in Firefox or one of these known exploits.
I truly believe that Firefox and probably Chrome is a more secure browser than IE, and I completely agree with the recommendation from France and Germany. But even if Google had no IE they would not have been completely protected from the attacks, and both countries aren't completely protected by some memo mandating the end of IE. To think so is foolishness. Don't let one poorly written PCWorld article convince you otherwise.
Now e-mail: encryption could be very nice but how am I going to get keys from my correspondents? Do I have to manually ask them to send me or so? It seems so. I am not aware of any automated method to get their public key. ssh is transparent in key exchange, https too. E-mail not (yet). Besides, is there any (formal) standard to encrypt mail? And if I cc: to several recipients that means the e-mail has to be split before encrypting already. Makes it quite expensive when you're on a slow uplink.
The problem with key exchange is that there is no central authority. Thinking about it in a TLS kind of way, every cert is a self signed cert.
It sounds like a good idea on the outset, but weather this will actually increase neutral networks through carrier competition depends on 3 things:
1. Lock in: Google has done a pretty good job of fighting against handset lock in, but we will never get past the fact that we have both CDMA and GSM networks, and even the GSM networks don't have the same 3G. So you will never be able to bring your latest and greatest unlocked phone to Verizon from AT&T, for example. Couple this with the fact that most phones have to be "unlocked" even to work on another network with the same protocol and you have a real problem. Even without handset lock in, every wireless provider will require you to sign a 2 year contract, meaning you won't be able to change phone service so easily.
2. Carrier Collusion: When one provider upped the price of texting from 10 cents to 20, every other provider followed suit. They could easily do the same thing by switching off access to Hulu at the same time.
3. Consumer Awareness: If every consumer really makes net neutrality their top priority, than they can affect change with the new competition, assuming there is no lock in and collusion between networks. The problem is, most people care more about the other things, mostly network quality and price. If you spend $75 for provider A's neutral network, but provider B blocks Hulu but gives you an alternative site provided by them, as well as free cable TV and unlimited on demand for as part of a $60 "double play" package, most people will forget their principals and go with the better value.
This whole "Google will work it out with ISPs on a case by case basis" is probably the scariest development in net neutrality in a long time. The only reading I can have of it is that Verizon had something that Google wanted, and they said "not until you change your stance on net neutrality". Net neutrality advocates have lost a big partner here.
Man, I know exactly what you mean! This reminds me of that lame device with "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad". Who the hell is going to buy that!?
I think I've seen rant before. It's pretty unoriginal.
Right. Just so we're clear about this...
Democrat is to Republican as:
C) Pot is to Kettle
Careful! The answer is not always C!
it almost looks like that's exactly what they're trying to do. Surely they know they can't win, and they probably won't get a huge amount of converts just by disallowing RS access.
I know they probably are sueing in earnest but it seems as though they're trying to take the wind out of record companies sails. (IE you can't sue the ISP for being the medium)
BTW, I've heard of some diehard Mircosofties getting windows tats. Wonder if Linux coders have a Tux tat. (yuck).
I have a co worker that got a fedora tattoo a little while back.to add to his Red Hat tattoo. A quick google search shows that some people get Tux tattoos.
You're exactly the type of person I was talking about.
How about rewriting the law so that every request to my IT department doesn't result in "This functionality would break SarBox compliance", regardless of how related to SarBox the request actually is?
(most modern PCs have just one or two processors)
Aren't we expected to know that? This is /. after all...