Re: All of my clients are on a budget...
"Now I only recommend even poor people should try to buy MBAM."
And if they're TOO poor even for that?
10812 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
"Now I only recommend even poor people should try to buy MBAM."
And if they're TOO poor even for that?
Except in this case an inside job would probably be using THE SAME certificate. No help there.
"I too have used CCleaner since the days it was known as CrapCleaner (the name didn't upset its home UK market but was eventually deemed too much for sensitive souls across the Pond) and of course, it isn't malware."
Why didn't they just rename it CrudCleaner? Same implication, cleaner cuss word.
Problem is, a determined ed opponent will simply replace any compromised seals with new ones. Plus tamper-proofing is useless against an insider who can meddle with things PRIOR to them being sealed.
Certificates can't save you from INSIDERS, and it looks like the build was infected from the inside, BEFORE it was signed.
You never heard of a drive-by attack?
"We only got to the scale we have today because the Net was open and accessible to all."
That's arguable. Some would say it was the commercial interests that drew the masses to the web in the first place: turn the Web into the next Sears Catalog, for example. Well, that and porn, of course.
Point is, money still talks, so if you tried to keep the Web open, commercial interests would simply "fork you" and go their own way, like they have with Flash and so on. Even if Flash were to disappear, they'll just enforce something else in its place, and do you think you have the cojones to take on the mass of customers that regularly use Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc.? IOW, what you describe would happen anyway, only in a different way, and since the masses follow the commercial interest...well, let's just say, you're outvoted.
"The next step is self-evident: prioritisation of DRM content. Bye bye Net neutrality."
Google has already shown the way to beat Net Neutrality: private nets. As soon as it's financially worthwhile to do it, all the big Net companies will start deploying private nets to shortcut their way around the Net. Net neutrality soon becomes inapplicable because they can bypass most of the Net. Why do you think the likes of DHL, UPS, and FedEx keep their own vehicle fleets? Same thought process.
No, because the First Amendment in this case falls to the content creators themselves (IOW, the people who WANT DRM). Not only that, but Copyright IS a congressional mandate under Article I, Section 8, so establishing rules concerning copyright IS a direct federal responsibility.
IOW, the law's on big media's side, not ours.
"...while if you rely on copyright you have to sell at least one high quality version of the content to the public via non-DRMed media but you get full copyright privileges / DMCA protection."
Doesn't the Library of Congress fulfill that by its obligation to hold a copy of every American-made work?
Still don't know whether they've actually cracked the system (since we don't know HOW they're doing it) or have sidestepped it perhaps with an insider.
If that were true, we'd already be seeing 4K BluRay rips, but so far the only rips have been web rips. Also haven't heard much about pirated Xbox One or PS4 games. Seems to me the rights holders are doing their homework and finding nigh-bulletproof systems to protect their content, unless you can prove me wrong.
What about things like the US Constitution where such grandfathering is strictly forbidden (Article I, Section 9, no retroactive or ex post facto acts allowed)? It would take an Amendment to do that, and Congress is way too divided to agree on anything enough to get the necessary two-thirds majority. And what kind of crisis can you manufacture to remove the retroactive restriction?
Don't give the software makers funny ideas...
Where are the 4K Blu-ray rips, then? All I've seen so far have been Web rips.
But as Sir Tim noted, what can you do? The Web as we know it was MADE by corporate interests. They have the money, and money talks. All else walks. If you want a purer Web, like back in the days of Gopher and unencrypted FTP and Telnet, you'll need to go back to Square 1.
"IMHO, to be blunt, if you want to play with Big Boy Data, then it's your balls on the chopping block if you don't properly secure it. If that's too difficult for your organization, then maybe your organization is in the wrong business. We need laws that punish with a severity based on impact. Maybe then a few more companies will take security seriously."
You forget that one of the jobs of business (especially corporations, who do this by design) is to deflect risks. That includes legal risks. Laws? Pay off legislators to keep that from happening. If that doesn't work, play sovereignty against them and move to a more lax country. Extreme end, probably take the Shadowrun route and become sovereign. Same for financial risks: a little bribe can go a long way, and if persuasion doesn't work, move up to intimidation. And all this can likely be had for less than the cost of actually doing it right.
Sounds like a bridge too far to me. You won't trust any app the bank provides, and the banks can't trust any app you choose, and any third party could be a Mallory posing as Trent so can't be trusted, either.
Which means if you don't have a physical branch to go to, you're in trouble.
Unless you're NOT ALLOWED to add an extra character due to length limits...
If you can't extend the length, your only option is to widen the gamut.
But at the same time, you can't make security too hard or people will blow off your hoop-jumping and find ways around you. You have to make it EASY AND SECURE at the same time or you won't be effective.
Don't you know what the immediate reply would be?
"Oh great, ANOTHER thing to lose...or get STOLEN."
Closer analogy would be you accidentally kicked a hammer hidden in the tall grass (no foreknowledge), and it flies up and hits the cat. Now it gets murky? Are you at fault for not being perceptive enough? Is the owner of the hammer at fault for not keeping track of it (since he/she may not have made the move that hid it in the grass)? Is the manufacturer at fault for not making the hammer easier to see? There's enough wiggle room that any of those three liabilities can apply.
That's why the quotes. The idea was that these professional musicians couldn't tell the compositions were created by a computer instead of a human. It's not exactly a Turing Test, but it is in the spirit of its purpose.
"This is a pretty simplistic situation as the answer is the same as it is for human driver/operators today: vehicles should not travel so fast that they cannot stop safely."
But sometimes there's NO safe speed because you're FORCED into a no-win situation. Think, for example, something extreme occurs, like a car suddenly crossing over and "ghost driving" straight towards you. You really can't account for everything because, even if you do nothing in indecision, you could get hit from behind. This is Book of Questions territory here (a book full of such situations where there's no right answer), but we're expecting AI to come up with an answer where WE can't (by attaching legal/criminal liability).
"Exactly,wherefore common sense governing ,if ever in existence,would mandate limits on childbirths,planned population portals..."
IOW, Overpopulation, which seems to be about as politically suicidal as being caught with kiddie porn.
"According to one school of thought, we don't know why we do things."
I believe they call it "intuition": responding to something SUBconsciously, without any thought as to WHY we did it. We just do it: practically reflex. This is one reason AI research can't even begin to look into the problem of intuition: because, on a fundamental level, WE don't know how intuition works, and by definition we can't teach something we don't know.
And what's to stop someone (say an insider) switching the votes out while you're not looking?
So how do you get things done if you're POOR?
Classic intractable problem. You can't have a vote that's simultaneously secure AND secret. Anonymity (required for secrecy) means votes can be altered without your knowledge. Attribution (required for security) means your vote can be traced and you can be pressured as a result.
"But you don't trust them. Not entirely. Not ever."
But if they're all you can turn to, how do you actually get things done?
And if he's your ONLY option, as in beggars can't be choosers?
Now ask. Who's the manufacturer for Linux? Now do you see why everyone's looking around?
Oh? When the average computer user looks for Windows on the wall and doesn't understand what's a mouse? If that isn't idiocy, that places an extremely low standing on the entire the human race.
Point is, if you want the Year of Linux, the year when FOSS gets professional endorsement over and above proprietary systems, you're going to need mass adoption, and that means catering to people who, like I said, see the computer more like a TV and less like a car (after all, you don't need a license to use a computer). Otherwise, stop looking for the Year of Linux, declare once and for all that "Linux Is NOT For You" and be content in your geekiness.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world moves on: will ye, nil ye.
People who know what to look for are in the great minority. Most users see computers as an appliance and will treat is as such. If you're going to keep people on, you have to cater to idiots.
"They also do not apply to US citizens here, US Marshals cannot come over here and pick up some US citizen and take him back to the USA for trial, not legally anyway."
Oh? What specific law says this cannot apply? And what about extradition and the like?
"So all it will take for Google to get off the hook is to make its EULA legal per Eu law."
First, they're ALREADY on trial (facto has already been established), so trying to change the EULA's now would be closing the stable after the horse bolted. Second, since Google's global headquarters is in the US, doesn't the US law take precedence over all other laws because that's where the (insert currency here) ultimately stops? After all, it's not like Google execs can be arrested under EU law and extradited to the EU for trial.
OK, then. Suppose you LOSE your YubiKey? OR it gets STOLEN? Now you're locked out of your phone. Security is now in the way of your productivity; what good is security if it's turned against you? And security people wonder why so many people are so against hoop-jumping...
"I know that my favourite add-in NoScript has an android version but not an IOS version for this reason (although I may be wron)."
Hmm, last time I checked I had to settle for uBlock Origin, which still helps.
So why have just one default? Have a selection? If that's too much for you, perhaps you're in the wrong market.
"We hate the whole touchscreen display trend anyway and the current fashion towards 5"/6" monstrosities is truly off-putting. Why we can't see a return to flip & slider phones is beyond me.'
I actually LIKE big 5-6-inch phones. Maybe it's because I have a big hand. So one size doesn't fit all.
Even putting aside the risk of thermal runaway, there's still the matter of wear and tear (not to mention bulging batteries, which bridges the two issues). Non-removable batteries smacks of lock-in, which is one big reason why my most sophisticated phone is a Samsung Note 4 (the LAST one to have a removable battery). I've switched out the battery twice already due to bulging (and the coincidental reduced charge capacity).
Just because there's a demand doesn't mean it'll be filled. If the supplier feels they can coerce the demand, they'll pull the supply graph away from the demand graph in hopes that it follows. Most people are dumb enough to do so, leaving the smart ones among us in the lurch.
Let me get this straight. Vanilla Bear Latte?
Besides, encrypted internal storage means if the phone goes, so does your music collection. Also a PITA when it comes times to transplant the collection. Thus I keep them on an external SD and keep them unencrypted (no biggie if it's stolen; low-priority stuff, after all).
"Hong Kong get by with a widely respected tax code of less than 300 pages."
It ALSO gets by with a tiny area (meaning travel is easy), a relatively small population, and subjugation to China over greater matters. Basically, it's not like they have crazy infrastructure and operating expenses.
IOW, different horses for different courses. Can you govern and operate a country 50 million people and assorted businesses of all shapes and sizes using a tax code of less than 300 pages?
I think the problem behind the problem is that large businesses (be they corporations or whatever), by dint of their sheer value, have an inherent advantage in their ability to influence governments in their favor no matter what the situation previously. It's for this reasons that tax codes, even after simplifications, can't STAY simplified. Either advantageous modifications are added or PO'd constituents demand modifications to deal with edge cases. Transnational corporations muddy the waters even further by pitting sovereign states against each other in a race to the bottom. Probably the next logical step will be like in the Sprawl and Shadowrun where these transnationals decide the best way to maintain their power is to declare themselves sovereign.
Unless someone CRACKS the algorithm...
Vista tried that. We ended up with Click Fatigue.
Because it's more or less a captive market, especially re: new computers. Why play nice if your customers have no practical alternatives? It's not like most of these people can simply unplug.
Until they start shocking you or worse for telling lies. Some torturers are savvy enough to check for lies, and Microsoft is no different. Plus consider data allowances...
But since so much software (including business-critical software) REQUIRES Windows, as the song goes, "You might as well be Walking on the Sun..."
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017