I stopped reading right there.
1070 posts • joined 4 Mar 2011
I stopped reading right there.
I don't think this works the way the article implies. My interpretation is that it's not for detecting when the phone leaves your person, but rather stopping the phone from auto-locking as long as someone is carrying it. (Presumably as indicated by slight motion.)
So the idea is you set it to lock after say 5-minutes, but it won't do so while it's in your pocket, only if you set it down for that long. I suppose that's moderately useful for certain threat models, but robbery clearly isn't one of them.
Aren't they all?
Not having ever heard of Weve before, I first thought it said they had employed Weev. That would have been more interesting.
I don't know about the general public, but for myself the fact that it was from Google didn't help matters. If Samsung, or some little company I'd never heard of had come out with a similar product it wouldn't have seemed so creepy.
Well I can sort of see how it might be possible to con a browser into sending the password 67 million times (though I expect it would take a while) but CipherSaber is probably still safe.
I admit I have a soft spot for the algorithm because it's so amazingly simple. But for heavy duty uses like browsers it does make sense to move on.
I'm not so sure. Pirates are cool! The most famous torrent site even has "pirate" right in the name. Presumably this is why the MPAA et al are now trying to define it as just plain "theft".
I don't know, some of those mummy-induced illnesses can be exceptionally nasty.
That's the only explanation that makes sense. It's another scheme to force people into Google's utter failure of a social media empire.
From what little we know about it, it's already clear that it has some mass surveillance aspects. It acts as a fake cell tower after all, so presumably any phone in the area would try to connect to it. It's possible (but in my view unlikely) that it's configured to record absolutely nothing besides connections from devices with specific IMEI numbers, but until they're willing to clarify these details I think it's quite right to treat it with suspicion.
...or information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender...
Hang on. They actually made it illegal to lie on the internet?
Yeah, but it gets a little worse each time.
It's possible, especially since AV software is also frequently pre-installed on new PCs. But I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and guess that it's mainly about trying to strike balance between spotting threats and annoying the heck out of people. I mean if I were designing an anti-malware program it would flag Steam as "potentially unwanted", because I sure don't want DRM spyware on my computer. But I realize the average user doesn't see it that way. So basically they have to guess which malware is unexpected and invasive and which malware is there because the
idiotuser tolerates it.
Revenge porn wasn't illegal yet when he did it, so they had to make something else up.
I was kind of hoping this was something that really happened. But it's almost funnier that it didn't.
"What if there were bottomless men throwing ketchup?"
"What if there were nude children throwing mustard?"
You have to plan for everything.
Big numbers are funny. Coming up $100M short really bad. But their explanation of delays in delivering 1,400 cars sounds perfectly reasonable. And those cars have an MSRP of $70,000 which, sure enough works out to just about $100M.
I would, but only if it's equipped with a manual override.
Can it find him in the one where he's in a world full of clones of himself and you can only tell which he is because the real Waldo has lost a shoe?
Yes congrats on coining a new word. I googled it and got only two hits: this article and a forum post where someone had misspelled another user's name, Fearbeard.
This is what I hate about these warnings. Against all logic, whoever designed them seems to think a self-signed certificate or an expired one is more dangerous than no certificate at all. Clearly that isn't true. In fact right now I'm about to submit a form over an unsecured connection, and Firefox won't say a thing.
I think the idea, rather, is to compare the the alleged cabal of powerful "paedosadists" to Voldemort's secret followers. The analogy is vaguely fitting, I suppose, although I remain skeptical that such a conspiracy really exists.
I'm a little skeptical of broad anti-revenge porn laws since the issue does touch on freedom of speech, but I thought this case was a slam-dunk. Surely the fact that he was asking for money to take pictures down makes it outright extortion/blackmail. I don't see how pretending to be two separate organizations changes this.
What I don't understand is how these crooks can get away with using services like Ukash and GreenDot. Normally governments make a big freaking deal about preventing money laundering. I find it hard to believe that these payment methods are allowed to exist if governments can't track where the money goes.
Microsoft has already banned children from using Cortana hasn't it?
My problem with this isn't that I think that evidence should necessarily be allowed; I don't have the legal training to say whether that is reasonable or not. It's the the impression I get that the defense didn't have fair warning that this line of questioning wouldn't be allowed that bothers me. Almost as if they'd been set up just so the rug could be pulled out from under them later.
That was a particularly strange use of the "Think of the Children!" trope, wasn't it? It seemed very arbitrary and tacked on, even by the low standards I've come to expect.
There are at least three Los Angeleses just in California. Los Angeles City, Los Angeles County and Los Angeles metropolitan area, each containing the former. There are Los Angeleses in other states and countries as well. I'm not quite sure how to judge which of these are suburban though.
Needing 600 Mhz (not mhz) makes a whole lot more sense than 600 MB RAM. But I don't understand how anyone could mix these two things up. Please tell me nobody working for El Reg was responsible. The 4GB requirement still seems excessive, although hardly prohibitive considering what flash memory costs nowadays.
I don't think these laws apply to higher education. Of course criminal and perv aren't the same thing...
While it's true that some of the test subjects might have actually done illegal or dangerous things that weren't known, don't you think it's unlikely that 71% of them had done or experienced the same scenario the researchers invented?
It says university students, so presumably at least the majority would be at least 18.
Additionally, his draft law would require all businesses in New York State who handle such data to provide a set of basic security protections including employee training, and third-party audits to certify compliance.
So if my
small tiny business, which doesn't even take credit cards decided to add a little forum to our website where people could discuss our products, we'd have to get a 3rd party audit to make sure the passwords were safe?
Microsoft all but killed Do Not Track by turning it on by default. There was never a possibility that advertisers would respect it unless it communicated an active choice made by the user.
No, the kind that used to eat you alive in Dwarf Fortress.
I have enough familiarity with Skype to know about the random contacts from "women", although I'm not a regular user. But this article says "Someone posing as a woman called Cathy Wong befriended each of the victims on Facebook before asking them to Skype her."
Their real downfall was missing the fact that meeting through Facebook meant the "hot babe" already knew their real name and exactly who to send embarrassing video to. If they'd just been showing their junk to people on Omegle or similar they'd have been fairly safe.
It's just to bad whoever made those didn't actually speak the language they chose to deface in.
This will more likely be used to silence internet equivalents of of Charlie Hebdo than prevent violent acts. Which means, the terrorists won.
I'm trying to figure out if there's some sort of implied hierarchy. It starts out fairly reasonable, states, terrorists, organized crime. Then it gets weird with "sophisticated worldwide hackers and botnets" I must say this troubles me greatly. One doesn't normally describe people as "worldwide", and the inclusion of botnets is also strange, since no other tools are mentioned. Sounds too much like Skynet. Be that as it may, next we've got "hack-tivists", and I can understand why the NSA doesn't like them, so no surprise they feature just below the obviously scary stuff. But the last four are once again curious: weirdos, bullies, pedophiles, and creeps. What's the difference between a weirdo and a creep? What makes weirdos 3 levels eviler? I'd have thought creeps were worse than weirdos. Putting pedophiles so low on the list is a little surprising too, although I've long suspect they were just a smokescreen.
I'm inclined to think Google would be delighted to have some help figuring out this right to be forgotten stuff. Is Albrecht offering?
What could possibly go wrong?
Seems like a slightly odd comparison, since Snowden was a legit sysadmin while this was apparently an outside job.
According to one list I saw, 4 out of 9 have US IP addresses. So to get a majority (either to hijack it or take it offline) the US would need cooperation from at least one other country. Not that such a thing is unheard of by any means.
The directory servers do contain a list of list of nodes and exits, but this is public anyway. As for the idea of keeping them running and directing people to a fake Tor network, that would be possible, but it would be awful brash. It's not like it would go unnoticed.
Ban the entire corporation from doing any type of business for the same length of time a natural person would have gone to jail.
I'm really starting to think that having each transaction digitally signed by the payer is the only system that makes sense. Yeah, like bitcoin. But it could still be done with centralized authorities (i.e. banks).
More likely related to the name on the email, Kevin Mandia; perhaps suggesting the "cybersecurity firm" is just one guy. ;)