Well I'm not so sure they need to build a new phone division at all. Surely the whole point of selling it was to concentrate on their other businesses?
Nokia and its shareholders seem to have gotten royally screwed in the process.
I'm not so sure. Nokia's phone business was not doing so well, they gave up a loss making division that was rapidly losing any prospect of becoming competitive in return for $7 billion. I think people that say this don't realise how much of Nokia is still left (back end networking/telecoms equipment, mapping data (HERE) and miscellaneous ("Nokia technologies")), or how their failing devices business could have dragged the rest of the company under.
These would be the sockets that say "not for public use" on them. The sockets that are provided for the cleaners to plug their vacuum cleaners into and, if used when the train is operating, could be subjected to power spikes and liable to fry your electronics and cause a fire? Yeah, I have no sympathy. I don't doubt the police could be doing better things (although I'm no engineer, if this really does pose a serious safety risk, perhaps it is a good use of their time) but when you're on someone else's train you play by someone else's rules. If that means not using the sockets, so be it.
He might mean banning apps where the service provider isn't involved in the crypto and thus can't decrypt messages on demand. Like Skype for example - it's basically secure crypto-wise, but since everything goes through Microsoft servers they can (and do) eavesdrop on any conversation they like.
A weak implementation of crypto is just as bad as week crypto, though. In the case of Skype, for instance, Microsoft can force clients to (silently) downgrade from p2p crypto to server-mediated crypto for eavesdropping. Even if you consider the Russian and Chinese governments (who have access to this capability) to be good guys this MITM capability is always at risk of being used by others.
Also there's little they can do about plugins like OTR: they don't need to access a server so they can't be blocked, it's difficult to force OSS projects to silently weaken their crypto and there's bugger all the IM provider can do to decrypt them or limit their usage.
That has nothing to do with export regulations and everything to do with the fact that strong implementations of asymmetric cryptography and user friendliness have, so far, proved to be mutually exclusive.
In fact, PGP has become the defacto standard for assymetric, non-centralised cryptography - so I'd say it's been very successful.
How much financial success did Phil Zimmerman enjoy?
PGP was sold to Network Associates for $36 million. I don't know how much of that Zimmerman saw personally, but I'd call that a financial success.
Whatever happened to the doctrine of first sale? Yes, I know that's about IP, but the same principle surely applies here: "I bought the f***ing motor, I'll do what the f**k I like with it!"
(Obviously there's legitimate grounds for the government to stop them flying over your house if there's an unreasonably high risk that the plane will drop out the sky, but over the sea?)
the time has come for companies such as Google, Facebook and Twitter to accept and understand that their current privacy policies are completely unsustainable?
Unsustainable means that it will become inherently impossible for Google, Facebook and Twitter to continue sustaining them, not that bad stuff will happen (which it won't); or whatever David "Call-me-Adolf" Cameron thinks it means.
focus on using its enormous data assets to make meaningful connections between people and facilitate organic engagement within a rich ecosystem. Interestingly
As far as I can tell this translates into English as "all ure privacies are belong to us".
And it's the government's business to ensure that happens. If you think that in your jurisdiction the government isn't doing enough to disqualify fraudulent accountants, campaign for changes in the law.
No, it's my business to decide who I think makes a suitable accountant for ME, not the governments. End of.
Acting on an individual level, emotions override logic, and we need someone to take a detached overview to prevent a descent into mob justice.
Do they really? Or is it just that the level of risk is too high for most people to stomach for themselves, despite their willingness to push it on others? I don't see what business anyone else has deciding what level of risk I want to accept into my business dealings.
You realise that's exactly what happens right? You know that in the UK such convictions only have to be disclosed for a certain amount of time afterwards yes?
Is/aught. And yes, I am aware of that fact.
If you weren't to know it then you're admitting that you will view them differently, which is kind of the point.
No, I'm suggesting that trying to invoke the Streisand effect will neither effectively hide the past nor effect social change. Since we can't hide the past we should go for social change instead. Which is exactly what I said in the later part of that paragraph.
The problem is that it destroys the jobs of taxi drivers, but does not create new jobs.
Well it's entirely possible that oversupply of drivers will push down the cost of taking a taxi. This in turn could lead to more taxi journeys, or more jobs in other service sectors, as people spend that saved money elsewhere. Also it could push down the cost of living. I'm not saying this will be the outcome, but that your argument relies on an assumed, and unjustified, premise.
I would say that. I would say it's not the government's business to tell me what should give me concern. Would you employee an accountant that had been previously convicted for stealing money from clients? Would you want the government to hide that record so they have a second chance? No.
I agree society isn't quick enough to grant second chance, but I also understand why many people (even those who preach second chances) aren't so quick to give them when it's their kids/money/property etc. in danger. But we do need cultural change: the level of stigma attached to bankruptcy (for instance) in Europe is far too high - I think we would do far better to adopt a bit of the US's attitude to that. But simply hiding someone's history won't make me change what I would think about their history if I were to know it - it won't address the true problem, at best it might relieve the symptoms a bit.
Oh they're still extant. But you're not allowed to talk about them (at least, not if your name's Google and it's within the context that right to be forgotten is about). Which make the fact they exist, rightly or wrongly, rather impotent. Please stop pretending this is a non-issue. If right-to-be-forgotten had as little effect as you make out people wouldn't submit requests. The fact that this is being used proves that there are consequences - consequences that we are right to debate. So don't take the cheating way out and claim there's no effect, provide a proper defence (or attack) of this so-called right.
You should be able to engage in hyperbolic speech, that nobody would believe is intended in any other fashion, without legal consequences, so even if the consequences were entirely foreseeable (thousand of such comments are made online every day without consequence, so I'd dispute that assertion) that doesn't make the governments actions right. I'm sure you wouldn't be invoking this logic in a discussion about rape?
Typically speaking these connections are made via a third party (such as Fon) who would appear as the IP address owner/ISP for that connection. So Bob buys an access voucher and accesses some kind of illegal content through my router. His connection, however doesn't go to my ISP, but is VPNed (or similar) straight to Fon, by the router. So when the feds get his IP address and they look it up they see that it is owned by Fon. They'll ask Fon who it is and, depending on how they keep their records, they'll either say "ain't got a clue" or "It was Bob. This is his credit card number". The only time I can see the identity of the owner of the router being relevant is if the police needed to pin down an IRL location (say to try and figure out the region in which a paedophile lives).
IANAL, but provided you don't breach your ISPs rules about connection sharing (in many cases Fon is built into the router by the ISP, so this should be a non issue in those cases) all potential liability would lie on Fon as the service provider. All your router does is provide a route for Fon's customers to connect to the Fon network.
Wait, what? Did you just say that committing to reducing CO2 emissions is "a core value of democratic representation"? And that if we don't reduce CO2 emissions we don't have democracy? And if we reduce CO2 emissions, irrespective of whether or not it's the will of the people, we will have democracy?
Slashdot Mirror
To be precise, the collected data will include: ... network connectivity or not
I'm mostly impressed (or concerned) that they've found a way for machines without network connectivity to phone home.
Well I'm not so sure they need to build a new phone division at all. Surely the whole point of selling it was to concentrate on their other businesses?
Nokia and its shareholders seem to have gotten royally screwed in the process.
I'm not so sure. Nokia's phone business was not doing so well, they gave up a loss making division that was rapidly losing any prospect of becoming competitive in return for $7 billion. I think people that say this don't realise how much of Nokia is still left (back end networking/telecoms equipment, mapping data (HERE) and miscellaneous ("Nokia technologies")), or how their failing devices business could have dragged the rest of the company under.
These would be the sockets that say "not for public use" on them. The sockets that are provided for the cleaners to plug their vacuum cleaners into and, if used when the train is operating, could be subjected to power spikes and liable to fry your electronics and cause a fire? Yeah, I have no sympathy. I don't doubt the police could be doing better things (although I'm no engineer, if this really does pose a serious safety risk, perhaps it is a good use of their time) but when you're on someone else's train you play by someone else's rules. If that means not using the sockets, so be it.
Funny you should say that: https://www.citizensadvice.org...
It's all theater.
Or something more sinister.
He might mean banning apps where the service provider isn't involved in the crypto and thus can't decrypt messages on demand. Like Skype for example - it's basically secure crypto-wise, but since everything goes through Microsoft servers they can (and do) eavesdrop on any conversation they like.
A weak implementation of crypto is just as bad as week crypto, though. In the case of Skype, for instance, Microsoft can force clients to (silently) downgrade from p2p crypto to server-mediated crypto for eavesdropping. Even if you consider the Russian and Chinese governments (who have access to this capability) to be good guys this MITM capability is always at risk of being used by others.
Also there's little they can do about plugins like OTR: they don't need to access a server so they can't be blocked, it's difficult to force OSS projects to silently weaken their crypto and there's bugger all the IM provider can do to decrypt them or limit their usage.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is why you should never take legal advice from a Slashdot commenter.
To be fair, he wasn't swatted for trespass. He was swatted for "teh chemicals!!11!!11!one!1!".
That has nothing to do with export regulations and everything to do with the fact that strong implementations of asymmetric cryptography and user friendliness have, so far, proved to be mutually exclusive.
In fact, PGP has become the defacto standard for assymetric, non-centralised cryptography - so I'd say it's been very successful.
How much financial success did Phil Zimmerman enjoy?
PGP was sold to Network Associates for $36 million. I don't know how much of that Zimmerman saw personally, but I'd call that a financial success.
Whatever happened to the doctrine of first sale? Yes, I know that's about IP, but the same principle surely applies here: "I bought the f***ing motor, I'll do what the f**k I like with it!"
(Obviously there's legitimate grounds for the government to stop them flying over your house if there's an unreasonably high risk that the plane will drop out the sky, but over the sea?)
PGP: Source Code and Internals - Phil Zimmerman - books have 1A protection. So I have no doubt we'll soon see "The Liberator: Source Plans and Internals - Cody Wilson".
Also, WTF does "If it's an executable digital file, any foreign interests can get a hold of it" mean? Is ISIS unable to use non-executable files?
They said "all languages" not "in English for all TLDs".
the time has come for companies such as Google, Facebook and Twitter to accept and understand that their current privacy policies are completely unsustainable?
Unsustainable means that it will become inherently impossible for Google, Facebook and Twitter to continue sustaining them, not that bad stuff will happen (which it won't); or whatever David "Call-me-Adolf" Cameron thinks it means.
focus on using its enormous data assets to make meaningful connections between people and facilitate organic engagement within a rich ecosystem. Interestingly
As far as I can tell this translates into English as "all ure privacies are belong to us".
And it's the government's business to ensure that happens. If you think that in your jurisdiction the government isn't doing enough to disqualify fraudulent accountants, campaign for changes in the law.
No, it's my business to decide who I think makes a suitable accountant for ME, not the governments. End of.
Acting on an individual level, emotions override logic, and we need someone to take a detached overview to prevent a descent into mob justice.
Do they really? Or is it just that the level of risk is too high for most people to stomach for themselves, despite their willingness to push it on others? I don't see what business anyone else has deciding what level of risk I want to accept into my business dealings.
You realise that's exactly what happens right? You know that in the UK such convictions only have to be disclosed for a certain amount of time afterwards yes?
Is/aught. And yes, I am aware of that fact.
If you weren't to know it then you're admitting that you will view them differently, which is kind of the point.
No, I'm suggesting that trying to invoke the Streisand effect will neither effectively hide the past nor effect social change. Since we can't hide the past we should go for social change instead. Which is exactly what I said in the later part of that paragraph.
The problem is that it destroys the jobs of taxi drivers, but does not create new jobs.
Well it's entirely possible that oversupply of drivers will push down the cost of taking a taxi. This in turn could lead to more taxi journeys, or more jobs in other service sectors, as people spend that saved money elsewhere. Also it could push down the cost of living. I'm not saying this will be the outcome, but that your argument relies on an assumed, and unjustified, premise.
I would say that. I would say it's not the government's business to tell me what should give me concern. Would you employee an accountant that had been previously convicted for stealing money from clients? Would you want the government to hide that record so they have a second chance? No.
I agree society isn't quick enough to grant second chance, but I also understand why many people (even those who preach second chances) aren't so quick to give them when it's their kids/money/property etc. in danger. But we do need cultural change: the level of stigma attached to bankruptcy (for instance) in Europe is far too high - I think we would do far better to adopt a bit of the US's attitude to that. But simply hiding someone's history won't make me change what I would think about their history if I were to know it - it won't address the true problem, at best it might relieve the symptoms a bit.
Oh they're still extant. But you're not allowed to talk about them (at least, not if your name's Google and it's within the context that right to be forgotten is about). Which make the fact they exist, rightly or wrongly, rather impotent. Please stop pretending this is a non-issue. If right-to-be-forgotten had as little effect as you make out people wouldn't submit requests. The fact that this is being used proves that there are consequences - consequences that we are right to debate. So don't take the cheating way out and claim there's no effect, provide a proper defence (or attack) of this so-called right.
You should be able to engage in hyperbolic speech, that nobody would believe is intended in any other fashion, without legal consequences, so even if the consequences were entirely foreseeable (thousand of such comments are made online every day without consequence, so I'd dispute that assertion) that doesn't make the governments actions right. I'm sure you wouldn't be invoking this logic in a discussion about rape?
But, but, but I need that internet connected pet rock!
Typically speaking these connections are made via a third party (such as Fon) who would appear as the IP address owner/ISP for that connection. So Bob buys an access voucher and accesses some kind of illegal content through my router. His connection, however doesn't go to my ISP, but is VPNed (or similar) straight to Fon, by the router. So when the feds get his IP address and they look it up they see that it is owned by Fon. They'll ask Fon who it is and, depending on how they keep their records, they'll either say "ain't got a clue" or "It was Bob. This is his credit card number". The only time I can see the identity of the owner of the router being relevant is if the police needed to pin down an IRL location (say to try and figure out the region in which a paedophile lives).
IANAL, but provided you don't breach your ISPs rules about connection sharing (in many cases Fon is built into the router by the ISP, so this should be a non issue in those cases) all potential liability would lie on Fon as the service provider. All your router does is provide a route for Fon's customers to connect to the Fon network.
Yet the article gives no legal basis for this ruling. I'd rather be swamped by rising seas than live under the dictats of some random judge.
Wait, what? Did you just say that committing to reducing CO2 emissions is "a core value of democratic representation"? And that if we don't reduce CO2 emissions we don't have democracy? And if we reduce CO2 emissions, irrespective of whether or not it's the will of the people, we will have democracy?