2938 posts • joined 25 Mar 2008
I can see it now
Chav 1: That Chav 2 is a pure minger
Chav 2: Yeah, mingin'
[And over on Facebook profiles]
*Auto* Chav 1 unfriends Chav 3
*Auto* Chav 2 unfriends Chav 3
Thank you for using Facebook voice recognition! (On be default)
...educating Czechs in securing their WiFi?
Google do deserve slapped for that one. How much to they pay their lawyers and that can't get a simple thing like registering as a Data Controller right? Sheesh.
How do these hacks work?
Surely after n-failed logins, the account gets locked and needs re-activating? (where n < 5)
...is this story about the USA or China? It's hard to tell sometimes.
I didn't bring them up, the OP introduced MS.
And I will repeat once again, in the futile hope that you finally get it: the information was blasted into the air. These folks may as well have gone into the street and yelled their orders to Amazon at the top of their voices.
Do I trust Google? No.
Do I think Google is a pure as the driven snow? No. I think they way they caved into China was repugnant.
Will I let MS off the hook for their past misdeeds? No.
And will you stop with the straw men? I have never said I liked (or even adored) Google. In fact I have repeatedly stated that I do not trust them. Stop reading what you think my opinion is and start reading what it actually is.
There was no theft - you CANNOT steal what is FREELY GIVEN AWAY.
"And you think that hashes of hardware strings are more "personal" than emails, passwords, and whatever communications and data packets Google intercepts?"
Where did I ever say that? Where? Kindly keep your straw men to yourself.
" "That's theft. However a stranger walking through said door is would hardly a surprise would it?"
An irrelevant point."
Nup, that's exactly the point - as far as you analogy goes anyway.
" "The stranger having to kick the door down is a different matter."
Another irrelevancy. You are on a hot streak!"
It is also relevant. Theft is theft, we can agree on that I hope. Kicking down the door is akin hacking the WiFi crypto. Walking through the open door is simply listening to what gets blasted into the air. No more. Although I repeat, IRL analogies rarely work.
"there are judges in various jurisdiction and government and law enforcement officials in various countries who think that Google's data theft *is* a serious matter."
I never said it wasn't, but I don't think it's theft and I would not class it as intercept because*the data was not encrypted and was sent into a public space*. I said below that does raise very interesting issues that society and the law need to address.
The whole *POINT* I was trying to make was that MS are using this as an excuse for a PR stunt to try and paint themselves in glory "we place a priority on privacy". But they have a past history of invading privacy and cannot be trusted. And to make the point clear, one cannot trust Google either!
Oh know! Car analogy! But yes I agree, that is theft. What would not be a crime would be someone opening the door, having a wee seat, and then leaving the car unharmed. Heck, they could even rummage through your glove box. As I said to Turtle, IRL example rarely translate.
No data was taken, that's where it IRL analogies break down. The "in the clear" transmission was merely listened to. I, to this day, do not conduct certain transaction via web/email because of that exact risk. I do them IRL to ensure security.
And I'll reiterate in case people think I'm some fanboi, I wouldn't trust Google to boil an egg!
From around 2006 it was a daily spurt of data back to Redmond on a per-boot/daily basis (later changed to bi-weekly). What data was sent? IP address, machine manufacturer, locale etc. Enought to be uniquely identifiable. The WGA was sometimes installed without consent, could download extra software and morph its own behaviour; this led many to label WGA as "spyware at the time.
"It is no different from saying that anyone who fails to lock their door is giving permission to any passer-by to come in and remove all their possessions.."
That's theft. However a stranger walking through said door is would hardly a surprise would it? And depending on where you live it wouldn't even constitute trespass. The stranger having to kick the door down is a different matter. IRL analogies rarely work, but congrats for not picking a car analogy!
Reid Kuhn's (any relation to Bradley?) is interesting, but that does not stop it being a PR stunt, not does it exonerate MS from past or future actions and people should not trust them. Nor Google, nor...
Nope, just showing up their PR stunt for what it is. MS, Google, Facebook ect are not advocates for consumer privacy, no matter what the PR wonks may claim. Their business model (wholly or partially) depends on "invading your privacy" and targeting you.
And how can Google "steal" what people are giving away for free?
...and wasn't there some hoo-hah a few years ago about "phone home" features in Windows? A spy-on-your desk is a lot worse than a time-limited data slurp IMHO.
BT we providing a service to their customers, so there was an actual relationship there. BT deserve a serious kicking for Phorm.
If Google had been providing such a service (or mined this data and linked it back to a users GMail/search account) *then* they'd deserve a similar kicking.
Of course, if Google have done that; kick away!
A do I
But only because MS don't have my data (or very little of it).
Google have slighty more (e.g. some emails) but not much.
Motto of the Internet is: Trust no one.
I get it
Google captured the network data. No question.
Google /could/ mine, index and cross-reference that data.
Google /could/ release that data and someone else /could/ do the mining etc.
This all /could/ lead to a massive loss of privacy.
I get that, I really do. And it raises many questions about how society and the law deal with such things.
Is it really (really, really) a criminal offence to do little more than record what people are publicly blasting into the air? If I record on a dictaphone what someone in a public place is shouting, have I now broken some law? If someone put personal information on a billboard, are you guilty of a crime just for looking? These people are *giving* their information away.
Is Google the whipping-boy? I'm not so sure. Is it a PR disaster? Oh my yes. Should they have done it? I don't think so. Was it malicious or with bad intent? Probably not - I'm going with cock-up.
If YOU d not secure YOUR data on YOUR network, don't be too surprised when it goes AWOL.
They don't need to produce a special browser per enterprise, they need to make it possible to manage FF in an enterprise environment in general.
If you want to stop enterprises "attaching themselves upside down and sideways onto one of it's branches with their proprietary deprecated crap", then you have to make it possible for them to use something else.
One can do this with IE, the fact one cannot do it with FF is a fail of epic proportions.
Mozilla are a bunch of cocks for not getting why they need to support the enterprise.
As much as I malign MS for also being a bunch of cocks, they are (in some places) actually supporting [emerging] standards and not poisoning the well for others. IE9 is the best browser they have ever produced and is arguably the best browser available. Certainly for the enterprise now that Mozilla have finally admitted they don't give two shits.
What is the point of listening to someone flap their gums when their own websites proscribe that you use a Windows as your OS? Got OS X? Parcelforce don't care. Got Droid? Parcelforce don't care. Got a Linux? Parcelforce don't care. What non-Windows peeps will get is a big, fat warning that you must run Windows or your order may fail.
Don't believe me? Go here and try for yourself (don't use Windows, obviously): http://www.parcelforce.com/
1. Click any red "Buy" button
2. Click "Continue"
4. See nice big warning message, Parcelforce do not want your business!
And why is this a fail? Well, so long as the browser support HTML/CSS standards, the web app should not care what OS you are on. Really, for a browser based application that is (or should be) standards compliant, who give a flying crap what the OS is? It runs in the browser!
Oh yeah, and they demand you have Adobe Acrobat too. Why? Search me. It's not the only PDF game in town.
This won't be a problem...
...in the UK (and probably no in Oz either). ISPs will just be told to block all ".xxx" sites. Why? To protect the children, dammit! </daily mail>
Is there an edition...
...of Windows that isn't shit?
And it will never use one Kb. Not ever. I leave it to you to figure out why.
...Big Music is represented, Big ISP is represented; where is the public voice?
Oh wait, the public can't buy the expensive junkets, so don't matter.
VM seems fine to me
There again, I'm usually only playing Sauerbraten.
Not just web forums
There is a long history in publishing of authors for the same house giving each other glowing reviews. Will that now be stamped on?
Would the RF...
...ionising enough to damage the cells? I wouldn't have thought so (being below light), but what do I know.
WTF is that?
If ones "cloud"...
...is in one location, then one really isn't getting the point.
...use butterflies. http://xkcd.com/378/
On the one hand you have the public. You know, the whining sods who cause problems.
On the other hand you have the BPI, MPAA, RIAA etc. You know, the very nice people who bought that sumptuous dinner, tickets for football games and promised you that nice job if the public boot you out on your ear.
Who do you think they are voting in favour of?
Is it just me or is the "Mini" now actually a "Maxi"?
Has anyone told Austin?
It was "Context Information Security" who published the big report, MS who did some light-weight review.
But the question remains - Did they report it to Khronos/Mozilla/Google and give them time to fix before they went public?
Probably the same
Assuming Linux suffers from this issue, by the sounds of it it would.
Just checked FF and the options are the same on a Linux.
Here's a thing
MS found a vulnerability, jolly good. Did they report it to Khronos/Mozilla/Google and give them time to fix before they went public? Or did they just publish? (And only a short while after IE9 was spunked out - curious).
The story does not say, and it's an important question. Or should zero-days on MS products now be made public as a matter of course?
Yay! Can we get laptops with a matt display too, please? PUH-LEEZE!!!!!!
...on how the picture were taken, who took them and who they get sent to. We don't want to reduce the ability to apply the law to paedos (yes, I know this is getting very close to the "think of the children" argument). I guess one could provide advice to the courts (can they do that in the USA?) that says something like "If the sending party was between 14-18 and the act of sending/receipt was consensual, then send them away with a flea in their ear."
Actually, give that advice to the cops. Much better that the teens get some education on privacy; before they find their bits plastered all over Facebook or something.
You are quite right about the puritanical furore that grips the USA at times. Look at the "Hot Coffee" hack. It's OK for a 14 year old to play a game where they can machine-gun down passers-by ("Hell yeah! Ah gots ah raht to mah guns, commie!") but simulated sex? Oh dear.
...the Daily Mail. "Fixing" these laws is political suicide *until* enough people have been crushed by them. That's happened in the USA, so the law can be sorted. Not sure if the same problems have happened here yet.
...the browser reads-ahead on the results links to give you that "instant page"? That's Old Skool that is.
Watch your bandwidth caps and fair-usage clauses, people.
There may be more to it
That bloke fell over in a public place.
The inside of a shop is not public.
Did I just defend The Sun? I feel dirty.
A couple of devout scientists, I quickly formed the conclusion that it is not possible to be a scientist and to follow a faith. Well....maybe Bhuddism or something similar, but certainly not any Abrahamic faith or anything remotely like it.
Why? Well, a scientist must (crudely) have a theory, make a prediction, test that prediction and then publish results. Other scientists will then confirm/refute and we take a small step forward. Wall the time their is evidence, proof, invalidation, refinement etc. It all follows logical thought and it all must be supported by evidence an everything constantly questioned.
Faith? It's in a book. You must accept the book in totality. You may not question the book. The book is a translation of a translation of a translation of a.....but it is still the WORD and must be OBEYED UTTERLY WITHOUT QUESTION!
These two are, I put it to you, opposed and mutually exclusive. if you are a theistic scientist, then you are either a very bad scientist or a very bad theist. You cannot have it both way.
It's not just there
It's in the UK too. At least they have separation of church and state. Meanwhile our government continues to throw public money at faith schools.
"its image isn't helped by the fanbase of people who don't think they should have to pay any taxes, ever"
WHAT? It's backed by football players, music & movie stars, banks, supermarkets and mobile phone companies? Wow. That's some serious backing!
...it is stabilising around the USA$19. For now.
I've been trying...
...to call Mr. taxman about my new income, and I can't get through. ARGH!
I want to pay you Mr. HRMC. I have this misguided idea it might make a difference and I accept that I am too small to get cushy deals like Vodafone. I want to pay you - pick up the goddamned phone already!
No, no, no, no!
Going to let a private corporation own our legal identity? Feck that for a game of soldiers.
My on-line identities do not equate to my legal identity nor should they IMHO. Sure, my bank can match my login to my legal-self, but I trust my bank slightly more than I trust FB. Why would somewhere that I may post picture of kittens doing somersaults have any need to equate to my legal self?
Unless you are in the USA...
...where they are.
And buckets of it. After decades of using patents as a weapon to crush opposition and stifle innovation, MS have just got bitten on the ass by their own tactic. I can't say I am sorry.
The fact that they are trying to spin this into them being the wounded party and now a fighter for patent reform is laughable. These are the very same people who are blowing a gasket about the attempt to reverse-engineer the Skype protocol (to pick one example) and continue to use patent threats (Android, Linux, MPEG....).
Bend over and take your medicine, MS. You were part of making this problem, you are still part of this problem and you can never be part of the solution unless you walk the walk and much as you talk the talk.
...I think you mean "Taxpayers punished for civil servants' ineptitude", after all it's us who pay these fines to...err...ourselves in cases like this. Those who failed (if anyone) need to face the music, not our collective wallet.
Oh, wait, this is the civil service. I forgot.
No system is 100% secure. None. So a system will always starts out with, say W problems. Over time X more are found for any given time period t. So the total number of faults is W + Xt. This number grows with t.
Fixes, Y, for those problems are released. So the total number of faults is now W + t(X - Y).
Ah, but wait, those fixes may introduce some other issues, Z, so the total number of faults is W + t(X -Y +Z) where Z is some fraction of Y...say f, so Y is fY
W + t(X -Y + fY) which si W + t(X -Y(1-f))
So long as Y(1-f) > Z then a patched system actually gets more secure as time goes on rather than an un-patched one, because more are holes are getting plugged than are being discovered/created.
Just because Windows makes keeping a system up to date a raging pile of ball-ache does not make a highly patched system a bad thing. So long as those patches fix more problems than they cause.
I see no issue
Regular updates mean a secure system. The more the better.
Just let your package manager handle the updates for your OS and installed apps, authenticate once, all done. You don't even need to reboot unless the kernel changes.
The rules change depending on where one is. I think the rules in the article are for the USA and don't apply to the EU. Anyone know what the EU rules are? Can the article be updated with the EU rules?
If he did all this legally, I hope MS do respond and I hope they get told where to shove their complaint.
...Project Embrace is proceeding well.
We all know which two projects follow.
Aye, I am well aware that some herbs do have pharmaceutical properties. To quote Dara O'Brien:
"The good bits of herbal medicine became....MEDICINE!"
Although if the herb is potent enough for what ails you...may as well use that I guess.
Now where did I put those ginger pills.....?
- Very fabric of space-time RIPPED apart in latest Hubble pic
- 10 years of Facebook Inside Facebook's engineering labs: Hardware heaven, HP hell – PICTURES
- Dell charges £16 TO INSTALL FIREFOX on PCs – Mozilla is miffed
- Google! and! Facebook! IDs! face! Yahoo! login! BAN!
- Video WATCH the SILENT DEATH of mystery SPACE CRUMBLE asteroid