960 posts • joined 4 Mar 2011
What about it?
How about "Don't do that either". Does any more really need to be said.
Re: I see we're promoting the 'evil' bit
To be fair, it does mention use by human rights activists, which kind of says the same thing.
The manual control requirement is perfectly reasonable, but the insurance requirement is kind of ridiculous. Human-driven cars only need $35,000 worth of liability insurance. And you do have the option of putting up a bond for that amount instead (not that many people actually do). So I don't understand why the requirements need to be so much stricter. Surely it's already been proven that self-driving cars are not 143 times more dangerous!
Then we need a more democratic alternative to https certs. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to get https set under the current system.
Regular KeePass is open source too. As far as I can tell, KeePassX is just a fork that exists mainly for historical reasons.
So more bibles on eBay then?
Re: Slightly off-topic but
But to use the same argument, most users probably wouldn't notice if they suddenly found themselves on a completely insecure site. Shouldn't the browser throw up a series of scary looking dialog boxes every time you visit any http site? I mean to be honest I might look for the lock icon the first time I buy something on a new site (before entering CC details) but that's about the only time I think about it. I doubt I'd really notice if I somehow got sent to a perfect replica of Amazon only it was http.
Slightly off-topic but
It makes no sense to me that browsers treat a self-signed certificates as worse than no encryption at all. It still protects against passive eavesdropping, isn't that better than nothing?
It would be different because it'd be the first altcoin to be legal tender. Even outside Ecuador, that could be significant. It would be a foreign currency after all, rather than just some weird digital asset your government hasn't figured out how to handle yet. I can't say who specifically would want that or exactly in what situation, but I do think it would be enough to distinguish it from the others.
Unless they did make it a decentralized mineable cryptocurrency. If it had all the advantages of Bitcoin and official support from a government too I could definitely see that interesting some people.
I'd give you 0.00002 for it, if it really is as nice as you say, but Galvin Anderson won't let me. :(
Re: Missing a vitial point
I would argue it's intermediate in terms of snoopability between the two. Even cash is somewhat traceable due to the serial numbers, but generally pretty good. Of course it can only be used in person (or somewhat inadvisedly, by mail). Credit cards on the other hand are very convenient online but heavily regulated and closely tied to the cardholder's identity. The credit card industry is also controlled by just a few companies which makes it easy for governments to turn the screws and get whatever info they want.
Bitcoin is more traceable than cash since a complete record of transactions is available, but only by account number. You can't see that Mark paid Lisa, or Quanto LLC paid Bizmerf Inc, only that 1HiKJwUoK5eP4Rku9kFtwj2N7rXxGKRamN transfered money to 1NEjMXjPtuYRxKvyWtwKJpkkfZ2QhRCK1U. Plus, since it's decentralized* it's harder for governments to directly control.
*Kind of, this isn't as true as it was at one point.
Doesn't seem to work
I just went to gmail signup and it still allows only letters, numbers and _.
So do FON users get a separate IP address?
I noticed that. This is why I originally came to the mistaken conclusion that they were only showing the message when something had actually been removed. I googled one of the names from the lawsuits, got the message. Then I googled a some famous name (I forget who now), no message. I also tried "john doe", also no message.
While trying to figure out how they award celeb status I just noticed something else odd. If you put the name in quotes the message always shows up, even if it's "johnny depp" or "barack obama".
I was just thinking, you know what's ironic? They talk about protecting children, but this will only catch the lowest lever child porn users. Think about it, if someone is actually molesting a child and sharing the pics with their pedo pals, those pictures won't be in the database! The one guy who it would actually do some immediate good to arrest is the one who has the least to fear from this.
For all we know this picture WAS simple a naked child. Though obviously it had to be one that was reported and determined (by somebody) to be illegal in the past. "Child abuse images" is just the politically correct term for child pornography now, don't assume it actually means the pictures show abuse.
Re: I like it, but I just don't trust it (yet)
Didn't think of the magnetic field, but the vacuum test absolutely needs to be done. The possibility that it works by pushing against the air (whether by some exotic electromagnetic means or not) needs to be ruled out as soon as possible.
It's not rocket scie...oh.
Or is it? It sounds to me like the fact it isn't a rocket is precisely what's so amazing about it.
Isn't it ironic
that "1Password" looks like a classic example of a terrible password? (That would still pass the security requirements of most sites.) Only difference is you usually put the one on the other side.
Because 1. they love acronyms, and 2. it's specifically intended to be an antidote to that, so I assume they thought it made sense to name it in the same style.
It's sounds like he covered that to be honest. Obviously Netflix puts a different spin on it, but it really says the same thing. "ISPs can do this either by free peering with us at common Internet exchanges," but if that isn't nearby you'll have to pay for the link yourself "or can save even more transit costs by putting our free storage appliances in or near their network." i.e. host their power-hungry servers for free.
It's not too hard to imagine that neither option is very appealing for a small ISP.
So it's a bug in I2P but...
They claim it works on the on a default install with no configuration changes, but as of the last time I used Tails (admittedly several versions back) it didn't even start I2P automatically. I guess it's strictly true that launching a program is not a "configuration change", but if that's their game, it's more than a little dishonest to call this a vulnerability in Tails.
It's possible Tails has changed since I used it, or maybe there's some hook left for I2P that makes this attack work even when the main program isn't running, but I doubt it.
Re: Department of the Obvious....
Didn't they also handle UK's last census? Or was it some other merchant of death I'm thinking of?
Well, if you believe the theory that the scam are intentionally made unbelievable so as the weed out anyone the a lick of common sense right from the start...
Just speculating here, but it seems like the biggest concern for the university lawyers would be the claim that the presenters had actually unmasked illegal hidden services (if I understood the claims correctly). They would open themselves up to libel lawsuits if they reveal that information, and open themselves up to subpoenas if they don't. Publicly claiming that you know who runs Silk Road or <insert popular CP site> is just asking for trouble.
Assuming this is true and all, you can't blame them for setting their sights high, but there are other hidden services hosting things like political rants, legal porn Tor directories, and privacy guides. They could have proved the concept on one of these without risking anyone (guilty or innocent) getting hurt.
Okay, for the most part this is a terrible idea, but does this mean cloud services and such will be able to sue the NSA for lost business?
Re: What worries me about this
Although this hasn't been officially confirmed, it seems likely these are simply P2P file sharers. Due to their collaborative nature, it's really quite easy to track what people are doing on those programs. Of course the anchorites would prefer to leave the impression that pretty much read anything anywhere.
I don't know about the Royal Mail, but the US Postal Service does something similar:
Huh! I never made that connection before. Makes sense though. IIRC the official explanation was the quotes were more natural, but that doesn't explain why they needed to drop support for the old syntax.
Good. I guess.
I still have no plans to use Google+, but I suppose, now I would consider it if I have had a reason or something.
"There is no justification as to why the content of a document can only be displayed properly if the execution of macros is enabled."
I helped out in a computer class for seniors some time ago, and double-clicking (or sometimes just plain clicking) was a challenge for them. Part of the problem was that when it didn't work the first time, their natural inclination was to try hitting the button harder, but of course that just made their precision even worse.
It's not the porn part I'm questioning, it's the revenge. It could be an orgy with creative uses for vegetables, and it still wouldn't be revenge porn unless it's posted for revenge. Unless that element is required, it's just yet another example of a new law being sold for one purpose when it will inevitably be used for something else.
Most crimes require an element of intent. I really doesn't think this is such a hard thing to prove. Was it posted right after a breakup? Probably revenge pron. Was it posted with nasty comments and identifying information? Probably revenge pron. Was it posted on a website explicitly for revenge pron? Probably revenge pron.
While I'm not completely opposed to some type of law on the subject, I think it needs to be focused on the revenge aspect. Suppose A hooks up with B and then posts an intimate picture taken during the encounter with the caption "Hottie I banged last night!". B may well be distressed by that, and A is almost certainly an asshole. But it's not revenge porn. What's missing is any clear evidence of maliciousness.
Some might say that kind of behavior is bad enough it still deserves to be punished, but I think the bar needs to be set higher to avoid catching people who really didn't mean any harm.
To be fair, these are the bitcoins from Silk Road itself. Further bitcoins (although not all of what DPR should have earned) were found on Ulbricht's computer. Those are being held, pending the outcome of his trial.
Re: The Rule Is....
What about the reverse? Starting a company with your significant other? It's not totally clear, but it sounds like that may be what happened here.
Aww, Dogecoin isn't really mentioned in the bill, only in the legislative analysis.
As I understand it that's what Diaspora set out to be. But I've never tried it though, so I don't know how well it accomplishes that goal.
Re: Really, El Reg?
Oh really? I guess I was mistaken. It certainly doesn't do that for every search, or even every name. I wonder how it works then. That does explain why it says "may have been removed" though.
I owe the author an apology. Although I still think the tone was a bit over the top.
Really, El Reg?
Normally I trust the Register to report things in an unbiased way (Except Orlowski, of course) but this is pretty sad. You make it sound like Google is either plastering a giant warning over their localized sites tying to push everyone to .com or have set up some kind of explicit click-through to evade blocked results. Neither is true.
The data protection removal notice only shows up when you do a search for someone who has been "forgotten", such as Mario Costeja-González. This is the same policy they use when search results are removed for other legal reasons, and it seems perfectly reasonable to me. And in this case they don't even disclose any details about the case like they do with copyright claims. Nor is there link to google.com on either the search result page or page explaining how they handle that law, only on the front page.
I just don't see any kind of "wink-wink nudge-nudge use the link for the good stuff" message here.
Re: cant this be solved
That's not a silly question, actually. Apparently it matters in Ontario. But as far as I've heard the US ruling doesn't require this. Obviously I prefer the rule that they always need a warrant, but it does make some sense that a supposed "incidental" search would have to have to stop upon encountering a lock.
Hang on a sec. Attempted to blow up a van he thought was full of explosives? This was another one of those FBi set-ups wasn't it? Why do they even need phone records for this?
Re: The obvious reason...
Why hasn't? It's just another free image host, but it was quite popular already.
Re: Not a feminist
As I understand it, the the campaign really is directed mainly at girls, i.e. female children and adolescents. Slightly confusing since the site features lots of pictures of women, not girls, but I think the idea is "you can do cool stuff like this when you grow up" or something.
The other problem is that even if it's a good idea, the only way to roll out a change in the Bitcoin protocol is to convince a majority of the minors to switch. But since mining is currently dominated by pools...
Re: @Wowfood - Don't quote me on this
I'm inclined to believe he really is that idiotic. The reason I believe it is that I've heard this weird confusion about the "deep web" before. He didn't actually use the words "deep web" but both hidden sites (such as those on Tor) and the vast amount of non-indexed data have been called that. They are not, of course, the same thing, but some people seem to think they are. House of Cards (US version) made practically the same mistake, except this guy took it an extra step by using "The Tor" as a synonym for "the deep web", rather than an example of it.
Re: More likely - 90% of TOR traffic is P2P
It would make more sense, but it's still almost certainly wrong. Tor is really pretty terrible for P2P. It doesn't support UDP which almost all the P2P programs use now. At least if we're talking about file sharing. Other types of peer-to-peer network (such as Bitcoin) might do better on Tor, but it's still hard to believe they make up 90% of it.
I was hoping it was Kali.
Still, it's good news. Maybe those guys from "Windows" who call me about once a month with a virus warning can get honest jobs now.
Re: It was inevitable when you really think about it.
In the same sense that Enron was "not great at accounting".
- Product round-up Six of the best gaming keyboard and mouse combos
- LinuxCon 2014 GitHub.io killed the distro star: Why are people so bored with the top Linux makers?
- China building SUPERSONIC SUBMARINE that travels in a BUBBLE
- Boffins attempt to prove the UNIVERSE IS JUST A HOLOGRAM
- 6 Obvious Reasons Why Facebook Will Ban This Article (Thank God)