"it'll be in a Faraday cage"
Do you believe drug dealers studied physics? They would ask you what kind of music Faraday plays...
6209 posts • joined 28 Feb 2010
Do you believe drug dealers studied physics? They would ask you what kind of music Faraday plays...
Now that someone might found with whom senators slept in the past four years, it's time to copy the same GDPR which was seen as an attack on US companies "innovation" just a few months ago?
It's a bit different fearing to be stung directly by unrestricted personal information gathering and storage, and subsequent inevitable breaches, isn't it? Did they believe it only mattered those using Facebook directly?
I hope nobody really uses emails for that anymore - but for small networks. What are SNMP and all those expensive network monitoring systems for?? Big red lights should appear besides any device which have certificates about to expire. It's akin having and hardware components about to fail. You get proactive SMART alerts, but nothing about certificates...
I really hope so. I hope they are reachable for management only from an internal management network separated from the Internet traffic they carry. I really do no expect any management access being connected directly to the Internet.
These devices are used by the very companies that build the core network infrastructure, they should not need "the internet" or any other network to be reached by the control rooms...
Still, if the certificate was used for the management network access....
I'm surprised about how many applications using certificate, don't have any kind of management and warnings about them. You have to manage everything "out-of-band", and even most CA software more or less think they're done as soon as they issue a certificate, and doesn't make management and especially warning very friendly.
Often, applications certificate features looks "bolt-on" somehow, and nothing is done to tell when a certificate is about to expire. All the telemetry, tracking, big data analysis an nothing warns when a damned certificate is about to "die"???
Create isolated compartments and security will never work. While evidently the CSO botched completely, system administrators too failed to make system secure and ignored if for at least four years. Sure the CSO should have awakened the admins much more earlier, and had the lazy/incompetent ones fired. Now of course he/she has to be fired as well.
If I had a dime for every sysadmin that utterly ignored security warnings, advises, and even policies because they made their daily job a little harder....
... will they change the hieroglyphics to some Kamasutra images?
1) A new browser unavailable for earlier OS, meaning narrower user base
2) Having to fix two different engines, waiting for Win10 to conquer the world (if only they could fix updates...)
3) Lack of features because released too early.
4) Lots of CVE showing it wasn't much safer.
5) Too much emphasis on touch when Windows is still mostly used with a mouse
No one is accountable for such debacle? What's next? Windows 11 will be based on 7 UI?
When your reference model is the dumbest user you can find, there are no other possible outcomes. I wonder who at Microsoft is such reference user...
The question is "how long"? Even Miicrosoft for a while "scroogled" Google, just to adopt the same exact approach as soon as Nadella took the helm - as consumer OS sales revenues were probably declining, especially since very few people saw a reason to upgrade to Windows 8, and OEM sales were impacted by slow PC sales.
Right now Facebook made very unpopular the data slurping, and Google and YouTube are just behind in behavioural targeting, so Apple has an easy hand.
But if in some years the current outrage fades out, without real legislative changes and checks, and if Apple revenues decrease due to longer upgrade cycles (as we saw already in the PC market), who is ready to bet Apple stakeholders won't ask to monetize customers' data too? Who knows, Cook might really think Apple can avoid selling data on pure ethical reasons, but he can be replaced as well.
I agree - it's not for customers' sake, but because their business model is to deliver high-end models with the latest technology. It's much alike German cars, or Japanese (as in made in Japan, not China) cameras - to justify their price they need to make high-quality models.
In turn, that makes them last far longer than lower quality ones, and have a better used market appeal
Most of these products business model are based on keeping on to sell to people with the money to afford such products, or to find new markets when people reach the level they can afford them, and being also status-symbol products they usually sell well. But for the same reason increasing the market share is hard when economy shrinks, new markets don't come to life, and there are less reasons to upgrade the current model.
The customer obviously has some advantage from this model, if it can afford the price - but it's not usually the driver behind most business decisions.
Only when it had to remove the built-in obsolescence mode because ti was caught cheating customers...
Still, non user-replaceable batteries and lack of microSD cards support limits their life.
I guess Huawei products contain US technology they could be allowed to buy and resell only if they abide to existing agreements - which may exclude the export, in this case, of dual-use technology to a list of countries, and customers are bound to respect that.
That said such an arrest looks like a real escalation.
Did he menaced also the businessman with his sword, or even the mace? Maybe telling him he would have been brought to a torture chamber in the Tower of London if he didn't comply?
Your popcorn preference has been recorded in your personal profile we own... contacting popcorn brands to sell your data to them...
... from premium numbers and premium SMS used by dialers, ringtones, etc. scams?
They'll block any spam for which they don't get a slice big enough of the cake only.
They found he after it was suspended. Maybe the reason is connected to that suspension?
Or it's classified as "white supremacy" song?
You're utterly wrong. Craftsmen, architects, "engineers" protected their knowledge and technology closely to avoid to give anybody else an advantage, transmitting it only to their heirs - or bringing them into their tombs. Corporations and guilds were created to keep secrets inside a restricted circle, and avoid competition. Punishment for infringers could have been severe.
Scientists didn't publish and exchanged many of their researches - again, to get an advantage. Many of their ideas were found in their papers only after their death.
Musician could not write music down, for fear someone would use it at their own advantage.
Sure, artists could find someone to sell their work to. Often they were even paid. Sometimes, they weren't, or paid nuts. And they weren't free to create - they had to please their master.
Sure, there has been some time like the Hellenistic period when some ideas, especially abstract ones, flowed more freely - but if you look at the past 2,000 years, it didn't happen most of the time.
I never had nothing against patents or copyright. The issue isn't patents or copyright - the issue may be the many silly patents USPO now issues.
Patents rewards inventors (and investors) for the time, effort and expenses made to create something new. Copyright rewards a different kind of creations. Without incentives, many may not spend the effort and money needed. And sure, the dream of becoming rich is an incentive. Didn't Page and Brin became rich thanks to their patent too? How would have they felt if someone robbed them of the idea, and all the money they got? And there are news Google is robbing people of their ideas at interviews too...
Nobody forces you to patent or copyright your creations.
If you feel it's right to let them free, it's a right of yours. It's not your right to exploit others' work if the prefer to be paid for that.
Sorry, yours is fake news:
That's the last decision insofar - and Google was found infringing Java copyright.
... DISinformed about article 13"
Fixed for you...
Google is only spreading FUD - and moreover exploiting children and teenagers. And children shouldn't be used exactly because are children. It doesn't matter if the use very entry-level technology (playing a YouTube video is not rocket science) better than their parents - they still have a lot to learn and understand to become adults (some, never).
Nobody would complain about Google objecting to the directive with its objections. But having very little to build upon, it decided just to spread fears using the less equipped to understand it.
Not true at all - "fair use" is in the copyright law. Still, "fair use" has limitations, true.
"share videos of events on the web such as wedding, birthday parties, street parties"
Same as before - unless the music in a wedding party is not in the background, but it's a clean soundtrack added later. Or if you use the video in a commercial way - in movies even background music has to be licensed.
BTW, you know I can't sell a photo I take of you at a street party (or any other situation) without your consent? Would you like I could?
And really, it's not your birthday party authors are worried about. Sure, the "dancing toddler" was a huge mistake done by the music industry - and that's why Google used it at its own advantage.
If you're reading ElReg long enough, you'll know that content ID works only for those authors who entered into an agreement with Googles at Google's terms only - which means it will pay far less than any other platform.
Otherwise Google will exploit your work (hiding behind the finger of user uploaded contents) and will do only the least it could to remove them without breaking the law.
It's a kind of blackmailing and bullying - mafia style.
Sure, even life, freedom, property are rights "insofar the law says it". There was a time when the law said some people had no right to their own lives and freedom, nor could have any property.
Now we do believe there are some basic rights that belong to all people. As society shifted from only "material" properties to "immaterial" ones, the notions of property itself had to evolve. For some people, their most valuable property is not the land, it's their intellect and skills. Why they should be at disadvantage with those who own other properties, like lands, buildings, money or gold? Intellect is a scarce resource as well.
Just like feeding a herd would be useless if everybody would be allowed to steal newborns, allowing to take advantage of someone's IPs would make people far less willingly to work on, or share them.
Before IP was protected, any new idea was jealously guarded (like Google search engine...) to avoid someone could steal it and profit from it without any effort. Many of them were lost and had to be rediscovered again, maybe centuries later. Hindering progress a lot.
The idea of IP protection stems from the idea that is far better to allow them to become public, with a level of protection that ensure the owner can have a reasonable gain from them.
Sure, the entertainment industry is not nicer than Google, and can easily overprice contents as long as it finds enough gullible people who can't live without. Just, the only difference is you pay directly - but the money Google makes from ads still comes from you, what do you believe?
Article 13 doesn't expand copyright. It closes a loophole some used to avoid to pay people's work, but at their own terms. Just like ancient kings who could tell you at what price you had to surrender your properties to them, or else.
And asking people to surrender their rights is totalitarian.
You mean the operating system that infringed Java copyright and was made putting together many pieces developed by many others? Which incidentally was needed to ensure Google's dominance in data slurping - keeping proprietary all basic services?
The company who offers some basic free services to lure more data slurping, while keeping very closely secret all its internal money-making software? Why doesn't Google make open source its search engine, if it's so against IP and copyright? Because releasing its code will kill its business, maybe?
Try too look beyond the finger Google is using to poke into your eyes... Google is not a charity....
Just look at those who made a lot of money extracting and manufacturing asbestos... how many products became forbidden as soon it was demonstrated they were highly dangerous? Someone had to sustain the economic impact of such changes "for the greater good" - even if the business was legal when it was started. Would you like to work or live nearby an asbestos plant today?
In Google's case, it was never legal to upload and distributed copyrighted contents without an agreement - Google took advantage of a loophole to avoid accountability. Business models built on wacky foundations could collapse easily.
Then, if someone believes the sheer size of a company puts it above the law, and asserting of being unable to comply on a system it created itself is a good excuse, well, I've a bridge to sell you could be interested in....
Evidently I was talking about stuff that isn't available for free legally...
Actually, I put the blame on parents - raising children is a difficult task, and you can't "offshore" it to other people, or the government (which immediately will try to take advantage of it). You can't expect teachers to teach them what is wrong and what is right - that's is up to parents. Schools have been overburdened by bad parents - expecting they will fill in for their lack of commitment.
If you don't have time to spend with your children, avoid to have them - they can't be a proof you can reproduce only.
BTW, can't you see that "useful idiots" like Doctorow just help Molochs like Google to become bigger, richer (without doing much work on their own, but exploiting others'), more arrogant, and thereby more dangerous?
Do you really believe it will bring more freedom for the "regular citizens"? Do you really believe Google priorities and citizen ones are aligned? Or do you really believe the actual definition of "panem et circenses" - "music and videos" - is all that "citizens" need?
Remember what Orwell in 1984 uses to keep quiet the "proles", and distract them from what is really happening...
No. Article 13 is fine. Sure, the ideological anti-copyright crowd will fight it. No surprise Doctorow and Stallman people are there. They want to give away their work for free? Fine, it's a right of theirs. Other wish to be paid for their work, and it's a right of theirs too. Is the price too high? Avoid their work. But trying to force people to abdicate their rights is a totalitarian mentality. And trying to get stuff without paying is a greedy one.
Still, Google is threatening that cat videos and other silly stuff on YouTube will go away, and that's a plain lie.
Only the copyrighted contents for which Google has no right will go away, which incidentally are those that make Google rich because it can have the cake and eat it...
They have accumulated an enormous propaganda firepower, and will use it anytime they like. Not surprisingly, they are turning facts upside down to sustain their business based on exploitation of someone else's production - and they are also exploiting the fake "pretty face" they built, and most media contributed to spread.
These companies are very dangerous now, much more dangerous than any company that focused only in selling software ever was. These are no longer IT companies. They're turning into mind-controlling ones - and even the dirtiest tricks are OK to increase profits.
Which, incidentally, is the same reasons Google produces its browser....
It looks under Nadella MS is refusing to invest in any sector it doesn't have a big lead to start from (excluding Azure) - a loser approach.
That in turn, as you point out, will just worry many people about investing in any Microsoft technology - it's better to adopt any technology MS itself will adopt in one year of two. New icons may not be enough to convince users.
That means MS will shrink more and more - and companies who survive on a single product/service are at bigger risks. They're going to lose a lot of skills, too.
In this instance, an agreement with Mozilla could have been a better strategy. Unless Nadella eyes a job at Google in his future...
If it avoids apartment towers to get fire and kill tens of people, maybe it won't that bad...
Here the line is the "terminal equipment" - although FTTB has been included in "fibre", which could be fair - as local Ethernet speeds are symmetric and on par, and only larger buildings or site usually have internal fibre networks.
I think it is correct to explain what medium is used, because you'll know which improvement margin there is. Today they could deliver say 300/100 Mb on both fibre and VDSL, but you know the former can scale up to 1Gb and beyond, while the latter can't. Or that the former goes at full speed even several km away, while the latter degrades quickly, and you may not get the full advertised speed a few hundreds of meters away from the cabinet.
In the initial draft there was a distinction, radio technologies should have added a "W" for wireless, but there was negative feedback about having too many symbols and names, thus it was dropped.
Anyway in ads it it involves delivering the connection on a radio link it must be specified explicitly, regardless of the speed.
There was also a distinction between FTTH and FTTB, which was quite useless - as most "LAN" networks speed are on par with end-user fibre, even on copper.
Just because it fits their interests - evidently if you sell fibre cables and devices, install them, or sell the service, you are damaged by the other technologies....
Italian comm regulator, AGCOM, established this Summer a rule to advertise different "broadband" technologies, both with a color and a monogram:
Green/F - FTTH/FTTB (fibre only)
Yellow/RF - FTTC fibre + copper (the latter in Italian "Rame", hence the R), or fibre + radio (including broadband ones like FWA, 4/5G, etc.)
Red/R - ADSL and other copper only technologies, or radio ones.
That was to avoid stupid marketing designations like "super fibre", "iper fibre", "ultra fibre", etc, often masking mixed copper/fibre technologies. In ads, only FTTH/FTTB technologies can be advertised as "fibre ones". Mixed ones must explicitly state that.
Unluckily it's still experimental - hope telco won't be able to rollback the rule It's welcome the issue has been submitted to Brussels too, a EU-wide classification would be nice.
Just, with UK exiting EU, why UK telcos are submitting the issue to EU??
And do you believe it's an acceptable way? What happens to him or his fans if he's no longer "number one"? Does the world end? Does war start? Do you die? Do you lose your job and your money (maybe he will lose some...)? Is you dog or cat kidnapped or killed?
Is that a good reason to ruin other people's work? Really?
Maybe you've watched one too many of his videos... and lost contact with reality.
I'm just sorry he got undeserved publicity even here - and no, I'm not going to follow a moron....
Why build it? You can do it with CGI nowadays...
The Magellanic Clouds, and many other "nebulas" ("nebula" means "cloud") object...
Sure - someone could be an expert in different areas - but before listening to an advice, you would check he or she has the required expertise. Still an amateur boxer (or whatever sport) advice is far different from a pro one, and the advice of an amateur financial player is different from a true professional one.
Would you get boxing advice from your financial consultant?
Really? You can tell the difference among different type of antibiotics? Sure, you should know that taking an antibiotic for a flu (unless there are complications needing them) is useless, still, how many do that? Do you really know which drugs shouldn't be used together, for example? Which is the recommended dose?
You can read the leaflet, sure....
People should know they need to keep their routers up to date. Should be aware of basic network safety. Could be guided to perform simple operations. But asking them to understand networking, is a big stretch...
When I took my driving license 30 years ago what they taught (and you needed to know) about car systems were already hopelessly outdated. No way you can do anything on an actual car, but changing a flat tire (and in my car, not even it as it doesn't have a spare but relies on run-flat ones). Open the bonnet, and you won't find almost anything you can operate on, you can refill some oil/water, and check tires pressure, but not much more. You look at the car display, and it tells you what you need to know - go to a repair centre.
And given the amount of people who drive with a mobe in their hands, often in expensive cars which surely must have a Bluetooth hands-free system, they can't even pair their expensive phones...
Sure, once upon a time the risk of being stranded with a broken car far away from a phone was very high. You needed to be able to try to repair simple issues. But today?
Usually, when a user screw up port forwarding, it adds an any rule because it's the fastest way to make things "working" - so the ports in question are usually 1-65535, on any IP....
Because most users barely know what an IP is, and ports, forwarding, etc., are beyond their knowledge. They look on Google, and find someone who solved it with the rule above, and hey, it worked. So they do the same...
PEC (electronic certified mail) system is used to send and receive a lot of sensitive emails - and in many situations is now mandatory to use it for document exchanges with government and its agencies.
It looks 500,000 accounts have been attacked on November 10, of which tens of thousand used by government and its agencies, courts included. Actually, when the provider (not disclosed, but many sources says it's TIM) shut down the system to avoid bigger damages, courts were badly hit, as their operations were blocked.
Sources say the activity on 10th were a recon, while the full-blown attack was started on 12th. The provider notified the police the following day, but on 14th the systems were shutdown to contain the attack.
Italy's government and its law enforcement agencies, including the "cyber" ones, kept a very low profile - even when the news became public, although they hinted about a foreign source.
Affected users should have been notified, but the real extent of the breach is not known.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018