* Posts by israel_hands

121 posts • joined 19 Jan 2016

Page:

Who wants dynamic dancing animations and code in their emails? Everyone! says Google

israel_hands

I'm with the rest of you. I use Amazon workmail for my personal (and my family's) accounts, through my own domain and the web-interface disables anything but plain-text by default. Makes it easier to weed out shit I'm not interested in, if the message looks garbled with loads of tags visible it generally gets junked.

I've also set up my Outlook client for work to send/receive in plain-text only, despite occasionally getting stick from the boss for not slapping the massive "branding" images and various bullshit social media links in my signature. I just point out that HTML e-mails are a security risk and I count disabling that shit under the category of "being a good neighbour".

1
0

Talk down to Siri like she's a mere servant – your safety demands it

israel_hands

Unconvinced

Without any citations for the supposed case at the start of the story this is very hard to believe. Seems more like a FUD scare-story that tend to do the rounds in offices, usually something about getting carjacked at a petrol station using some convoluted scheme that people must be alert for.

For a start, how did the supposed "master" scammers get enough recordings of the grandson's voice? That takes more than a Facebook trawl to gather. Also, I doubt that Adobe software is able to render speech on the fly which would mean the scammers would need to script the entire call beforehand and hope they aren't rumbled when the target deviates even slightly and receives a nonsensical reply. Finally, while the software may be able to impersonate someone's speaking voice, does it come with a built-in tearful-and-distressed filter you can apply to it?

I'm a bit disappointed at the Reg for letting something as dubious as this appear, especially without a single citation to an original source for the story. This sort of material is more suited to The One Show or the Daily Mail, surely.

13
2

Elon Musk's Tesla burns $675.3m in largest ever quarterly loss

israel_hands

Re: So which car manufacturer do you shill for?

All the other manufacturers are still in the process of destroying Tesla. Including Tesla itself, via it's burn rate. Other manufacturers are ramping up production of their own EVs, and it's suppliers are helping.

You don't seem to realise, that means Musk is winning. His stated goal wasn't to make as much money as he can, or even destroy the other manufacturers. He wanted to make electric cars mainstream because he wants to kick-start a sci-fi future and get us away from depending on fossil fuels. That's also why he makes solar panels and massive batteries, so we don't need to rely on coal-fired powerplants to fuel EVs. It's also why he open-sourced loads of Tesla patents, so that other companies can produce their own EVs and improve on the designs.

Ford and the rest of them trying to crush Tesla by making EVs is like threatening to throw Brer Rabbit into a briar patch.

9
2
israel_hands

Re: Unwarranted Trumpanzee

You haven't called out a criminal though, have you? Your only example is frankly laughable and does nothing to challenge my earlier comment.

21
1
israel_hands

Re: Unwarranted Trumpanzee

You keep throwing those claims around. What crimes, exactly, are you accusing Musk/Tesla of?

Or is it just more of your bullshit right-wing frothing?

40
10

Morrisons launches bizarre Yorkshire Pudding pizza thing

israel_hands

What to use it for:

World domination, obviously.

1
0

Shopper f-bombed PC shop staff, so they mocked her with too-polite tech tutorial

israel_hands

Re: Do you know who I am?

I've always found the best response is "No, but I bet you're going to tell me."

Takes the wind right out of their sails.

53
0

RIP Ursula K Le Guin: The wizard of Earthsea

israel_hands

She was simply amazing. The Word For World Is Forest is one of the best books I've ever read. Achingly beautiful and terrifically moving.

And I loved the Earthsea books when I was approaching my teenage years. I think I may have to dig out my copy tonight and sit down to read it with my son.

A sad loss. The field is lessened without her.

5
0

What is.GDPR? Survey suggests smaller firms living under rocks as EU privacy regs loom

israel_hands

Re: Might be of interest if you're puzzled

You've answered your own question there. If there's a legal investigation ongoing and those e-mails form part of it then the reason for accessing the data isn't "business interest" it's "legal compliance".

2
0
israel_hands

Re: Might be of interest if you're puzzled

I really need to stop posting on this thread.

@JohnFen: I highly recommend reading the ICO guidance on it. What you need to do is think about the outcome they're driving at (which largely comes down to only holding onto data for which you have explicit permission and a legitimate reason, regularly checking to ensure you still have permission, and not passing anything on without explicit permission). If you get the intent of the regs in your head, then you should be able to map out the data you hold and decide how to handle it. It's hard to be more specific without knowing your situation, but the comments I made above about why the regs seem so vague is true. You're supposed to do the work to fit in with the outcome they're legislating for. It may seem unreasonable to you, as a person, to get saddled with that, but from an outsider's point of view, it's not unreasonable to assume that a company will act within the new rules.

Doctor Syntax gave some good advice above also, don't discount what he's saying.

1
0
israel_hands

Re: GDPAhhh

Honest truth is that if you have been acting reasonably under the DPA (or European equivalents) you will probably manage just fine under GDPR.

That's not even remotely close to being accurate. Under DPA you can get away with all sorts of stuff that are now explicitly outlawed. Automatic opt-in for one is extremely popular under DPA (and compliant) but an absolute no-no under GDPR. That's a single example and there are loads more changes that will make all sorts of stuff that is commonplace now extremely difficult. Selling data to advertisers is another good example. They have to get your permission for every entity they sell your data to. And explain who's getting it, what they're getting and why they're getting it. They also have to delete it upon request. And you can simply refuse.

I do agree that it will generate lots of scummy companies taking advantage of the FUD regarding the legislation and selling people overpriced shit advice. But that's true of pretty much any situation like this, and I'd rather have to put up with them (and educate people to avoid them, idealistic, I know) than do without the protections GDPR is bringing in.

3
0
israel_hands

Re: Personal information

Check out the ICO Guidance (sorry, can't be arsed to find the link right now but it's not hard to find).

The main area it comes down to for B2B is, as far as I'm aware, if you're trading personal data you absolutely must get explicit consent to do so, explaining what data you're passing on, to whom, and for what purpose. If you're receiving the data then you need to put in some checks to ensure they've done the above (or make them sign something stating they have and accepting all responsibility if they haven't).

The other side is that companies have to regularly (although the timeframe isn't explicitly defined it leans heavily towards what individual data subjects consider reasonable) check back and ensure they still have permission to store/use such data.

So if you're receiving the data you'll at the very least need to have a way to remove specific elements of it upon request (which will be relayed by whichever company you're getting the data from). If you're passing it on yourself then you're on the other end of the transaction so should look at automating a way to send requests out to companies you pass the data to. And probably some sort of signed agreement from them to say they'll abide by deletion requests.

I'm not an expert though, so for fuck's sake don't take the above as a policy statement. It's just an idea of what you'll need to be thinking about. The ICO site is a good place to start reading though.

2
0
israel_hands

Re: Reminds me of PCI Compliance

Totally unfit for purpose, totally unenforceable, total bollocks.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there, chap. In fact I'd go so far as to say you're talking out of your arse.

The rules are easily enforceable and have hefty penalties attached, especially for wilful breaches. The reason the rules may seem vague (and from your comments I'm assuming you haven't read any of the ICO recommendations for instance) is that they're legislating for an outcome and not against a specific business model, which is the most sensible way of framing legislation, especially in an area as broad as data protection.

The reason you wont' find anything in the recommendations or legislation that specifically matches your use-case is because you're expected to do that work yourself. If you feel you need to hold data about a person the onus is on you to work out how to do so within what's legally permissible. I see that as a benefit and it avoids the whole stupidity of the EU cookie legislation which failed miserably because it didn't think far enough ahead to how people would implement it. GDPR is a lot more robust than that.

And it's not about "double opt-in mailing lists" it's about giving people control over how and where their data is stored, for what purposes and who can gain access to it. And also, (and this is the part I particularly like) a company can't refuse service to someone if they won't share their data. That part is what's going to make it harder for Facebook et al to keep the data hoover turned on. They can create whatever "privacy tools" they like but the simple fact that they can't opt people in to data sharing should cause them a massive headache. Think of it like this: Day 1 of GDPR, Facebook has to untick all the privacy and data-sharing boxes for all users in the EU. Most people (even if due to inertia alone) won't be bothered to go in and opt themselves in to all that shite, so the boxes will remain unticked. And Facebook can't refuse them access to their account if they don't opt-in. They can only refuse a service without data-sharing if that data-sharing is essential to the service functioning.

Now plenty of companies may think they can just get away with carrying on as before, but that just leaves them open to being hit with fines that should be a worry to any organisation, no matter how large or small.

To use the cookie situation as an example, currently the rules are utter bollocks. You just get told they're using cookies and have to accept it or not use the site (or block them with varying degrees of success and lost functionality). Under GDPR they'll have to ask, you'll have to opt-in (pre-ticked boxes and opt-out boxes are outlawed) and if you don't you'll still get to use the site anyway.

I see it as a massive step in the right direction. It won't be perfect but will be so much better than the current rules. And it should also help to reduce all the bullshit ad-targeting that goes on, and those shitty Facebook buttons that track everyone across every site they visit.

So you asked for some counter-examples, and I hope the above gives you something to think about.

12
0

You want wires with that? Burger King backs, er, net neutrality

israel_hands

Re: Well, Thank The Heavens

You and the other Trumpanzees are a stark example of the truth behind those words.

12
5

Electric cars to create new peak hour when they all need a charge

israel_hands

Re: I've been pointing this out for years.

Does their supply drop out at night when there's no wind?

What makes you think there's no wind at night? Where do you think it goes after sunset?

And as to that meaning a supply is not 100% renewable, you might look into these things called "batteries". This may blow your mind but they allow you to store generated energy and use it later.

3
6

Someone is touting a mobile, PC spyware platform called Dark Caracal to governments

israel_hands

Re: israel_hands

Yeah, I've been caught out by something similar myself. Now I tend to colour-code windows to make it easy to tell them apart.

@Diodesign: That sounds fair enough, we've all done similar I don't doubt. I did think it was pretty shocking compared to the normal standards around here. Maybe this tale should get cross-referenced to On-Call?

1
0
israel_hands

This article is in serious need of being properly edited. Paragraphs that don't follow on from the previous one, words and even entire sentences repeated. I'm surprised this was put live in it's current state.

EDIT: And it's been completely rewritten. Perhaps the hacks here need the same 10 minute cooldown between submitting something and it being visible to everyone else.

3
1

Beer hall putz: Regulator slaps northern pub over Nazi-themed ad

israel_hands

Re: Mel Brooks

How the fuck is anything other than the original ad banned by this? Are you deliberately trying to blow this out of proportion just to have something to whine about?

The original ad has been banned, for the reasons stated in the article. No other depictions of nazis are affected and, in case you didn't understand it from the name, the Advertising Standards Agency can only ban adverts.

Stop getting your knickers in a twist and trying to make this into something it isn't. The original ad was cretinous and judging by the other ad run by the same individual mentioned in the article, the bloke running them is some sort of cunt anyway.

28
5

Taiwanese cops give malware-laden USB sticks as prizes for security quiz

israel_hands

2nd Prize...

...was 2 malware-laden USB sticks.

12
0

Smartphones' security enhancements just make them more dangerous

israel_hands

How the hell does not buying a smartphone leave someone under under the Sword of Damocles? If you don't rely on a single device to hold almost your entire life then by definition all your private data is spread between disparate systems and so not vulnerable to being compromised by a single strategic security mistake, regardless of whether you're advocating passwords, biometrics or anything else.

It's the very fact that smartphones hold so much in a single package that makes them so dangerously vulnerable and also so valuable if compromised.

Also, try to avoid randomly capitalising so many words. It's like you're channelling the keyboard mashing of the Bombastic Knob.

3
0
israel_hands

There are some people who suffer such problems, although I suspect the author would have mentioned it if he fell into that category. They're by far in the minority though. Biometrics are the sort of thing that should be used as a method of last resort for edge cases, if at all, rather than the new default simply because it makes for a flashy sales gimmick and seems to be more secure to the average bloke in the pub who isn't particularly interested in this whole conversation.

The point I'm trying to make is that companies that tout the security of their products should endeavour to good security practice.

As ever it comes down to more input from engineers, less input from the clueless fuckwits in marketing.

1
0
israel_hands

If the author is unconvinced with using his face to unlock his phone why doesn't he just use a PIN? My new phone's got a fingerprint scanner built in but there's no way I'd ever enable it. That sort of idiocy is for people who can't tell the difference between a username and a password and don't know how easy it can be to spoof the biometrics.

0
0

Supremes asked to mull legality of Silicon Valley privacy 'slush funds'

israel_hands

Good article. Nice to see that the author can occasionally produce something that shines a light on truly dubious practices without resorting to badly-targeted snark and nonsensical arguments. I also noted the lack of axe-grinding and reporting something that does very well at highlighting something most people are probably unaware of (myself included).

As to the actual report, while I've always known that participants in a class-action get approximately fuck all of the eventual payout, I wasn't aware that it was literally fuck all. I shouldn't really be surprised that the American legal system has invented even more ways of fucking over plaintiffs in order to enrich lawyers but this really does take the piss all the way to the bank.

The only way something like this would be even vaguely justifiable is if a) the amount of the settlement actually hurt the company involved and made it cost more than it earns (otherwise it just becomes another cost of doing business)*, b) any money received by groups like the EFF is immediately reinvested in monitoring them for further infractions and funding further action against privacy infringing companies and c) there is a legal ruling which involves the abusive companies admitting wrongdoing and explicitly banning anyone from such actions in future (after all, things like this should be seen as a test case and therefore set a precedent).

Without all 3 of those stipulations in place it's a complete joke that achieves nothing for those that have been wronged and also allows large companies to exert more undue influence over the very groups that are supposedly working to hold them accountable. If they were going to be providing some funding to those groups anyway (as I gather they often do) it's like a Buy One Get One Free deal, they get to brush a legal action under the carpet and economically undermine groups that could prove to be a thorn in their side.

* I've always been a proponent of the idea that fines for activity like this should equal something along the lines of: (total revenue during period of infringement) + (some amount determined by egregiousness of the activity). That may seem quite harsh but it would go some ways to restoring the balance of power between citizens and corporations and drastically reduce the number of times companies decide to do something dubious because the benefit will easily outweigh the eventual legal costs. An example of what this should target is when Google was stealing people's wi-fi data "accidentally" and got away with nothing more than a mealy-mouthed apology.

13
2

Linux Mint 18.3: A breath of fresh air? Well, it's a step into the unGNOME

israel_hands

RE: Dual-Booting Mint on Mac

It's certainly possible. I run Mint on an old laptop which can boot into the original Win7 install (haven't used that option for about 3 years now). The installer will even walk you through setting up the partitions and selecting which one you want it to boot into by default.

I'd highly recommend downloading the Mint image and writing it to a CD or USB so you can boot directly into it to have a play around with it and decide if you like it before installing it fully. It's also a good way of working out if there are glitches with hardware compatibility in a non-destructive manner.

The most common problems for new installs seem to be wi-fi and video card drivers. I had a brief problem with the touchpad not working properly but some helpful chap on the forums had already posted a fix that involved amending a single line in a text file and it was resolved.

0
0

You Wreck Me, Spotify: Tom Petty, Neil Young publisher launches $1.6bn copyright sueball

israel_hands

Re: Great

If licensing is such a nightmare then surely they should have made sure it was all set in place before they start selling music they don't own the rights to?

Instead they ploughed ahead, assuming they'd be able to get away with it long enough that when people noticed what they were up to they'd just blame it on a 3rd-party and pay less to settle than they would have had to if they'd done it correctly in the first place.

Fucking chancers.

21
20

Your palms are sweaty, knees weak, arms are heavy – you forgot about Europe's GDPR already

israel_hands

Re: Reminds me of PCI Compliance

I think you're missing the point. It's not designed to stop the spammers, but it will hopefully stop their lists growing in future, as the penalties for someone sharing your e-mail address/contact details are going to be quite steep, especially if it was a willful infraction.

A large point of GDPR is to stop companies hoovering up all your data with little ability for yourself to opt out of it. So, if an e-mail provider wants to offer you an account in return for, let's pick something unlikely and egregious, scanning all your correspondence in order to build a profile of your likes and interests to then sell on to advertisers, they can request your permission do so but that's about all they can do. They can't auto opt you in to it, they can't force you to accept it in return for accessing their service (with a few exceptions if it's an absolute requirement that the service cannot function without such permission), they can't be vague about who they're sharing your data with or why (so none of this "selected 3rd parties" nonsense, they have to be explicit about what they are sharing, with whom and for what purpose and you can refuse any or all of it).

As to the comment about it being unenforcable, actually it's pretty easily enforced because of the way in which it's been written. Unlike the EU Cookie legislation, which was written in a very flawed way, they've actually drafted GDPR to produce the outcome they want, rather than specifying how it will work with various business models. This means that looking at the whole thing it can seem a bit of a mess, but in practice any given business will only need to worry about their own use-case/business model and how the rules apply to them. They've definitely learned a few lessons from the cookie debacle so hopefully we'll avoid a rerun of that pointless legislation.

6
0

Military test centre for frikkin' laser cannon opens in Hampshire

israel_hands

Re: Dragonstrike

Hampshire is rarely considered part of the home counties, and certainly not the heart of them.

Aside form that, the point that got me was the mention of reduced effectiveness due to water vapour. While lasers sound cool, they really work better in the absence of atmosphere*. The idea that ramping up the power behind it to compensate for foggy conditions is probably not the best. The only way to penetrate water vapour is for the beam to be powerful enough that it superheats it instantly. Which would take a lot of power and create massive amounts of steam which would a) add to the problem of beam decoherence and b) draw a very obvious straight line between the target and the weapon platform along the path of your supposedly invisible death-ray.

At the end of the day, kinetics are simpler, more efficient and more effective. Yes, you could potentially build a laser powerful enough to punch a hole through battleship plate, but there are more than enough ways to do that already which are simpler, proven and already in production. If they want to spend money on researching better weapons I'd strongly suggest they look into coil guns. Using a strong magnetic pulse to accelerate a solid projectile is way more efficient than lasers and can, if you can get it efficient enough, provide benefits over chemical accelerants.

* I'm not suggesting that lasers are particularly useful in space, either. I've read enough of Project Rho to understand that they're essentially a good way of cooking your crew with waste heat while doing very little damage to your target compared to the total energy output of your "weapon". The only practical use for them is to damage fragile sensory equipment but even then, it's probably cheaper to keep hurling chunks of metal until you either knock out something important or just wreck the target completely.

20
2

Sci-Hub domains inactive following court order

israel_hands

Re: re: I think the advantage is supposed to be ...

@LeeD

If anyone can be accused of theft here, it's the publishers who hide behind paywalls. They didn't pay to commission any of the articles they host, most were paid for by research grants which are ultimately (almost always) taxpayer funded.

Also, as the entire point of publishing scientific papers is so that others can scrutinise/review/refute/reinforce the work, and that a large part of the scientific method requires this in order to build on the work of others and extend our collective knowledge, it appears to me that the publishers are nothing but parasites who are actively getting in the way of collaborative scientific advancement.

So fuck them, and the horse they rode in on.

46
0

Uber: Hackers stole 57m passengers, drivers' info. We also bribed the thieves $100k to STFU

israel_hands

Re: Rotten to the core

The problem runs deeper than just he amoral dipshits running it though. The entire business model is fucked from the start, something rotten and diseased that can only exist by feeding billions into the cash furnace at its heart while trying to hide itself in the cracks between laws and regulations.

They lose something like 40% on every fare, they don't employ people properly and have been found guilty of dicking them over on even the amounts they do pay them. They avoid almost all taxes, don't put anything back into the system in terms of providing standard benefits for the drivers they claim not to employ. Changing the names of the bellends in charge won't fix any of that, and if they do start operating as an actual company, paying taxes and abiding by regulations they'll lose even more money than they are now.

36
2

Help desk declared code PEBCAK and therefore refused to help!

israel_hands

My favourites:

FUCKED: Field Unit Checked - Known Error Detected

and

CUNT - Computer User - Non Technical (alternatively Can't Use New Technology)

8
4

Competition law could help solve data-slurping monopolies, peers told

israel_hands
Paris Hilton

Work Those Ethics

Am I the only one hoping Meredes Bunz delivered her speech while gyrating round a pole as Viscount Ridley showered her with money?

1
0

Manafort, Stone, Trump, Papadopoulos, Kushner, Mueller, Russia: All the tech angles in one place

israel_hands

Re: So if Trump is impeached...

And every single option is still 100% better than "President Clinton" and the installation of the first genuinely totally corrupt POTUS in US history. And they have some doozy's.

I'd use the phrase "never go full retard" here, but you've not only crossed that line but star-jumped over it and done a touch-down dance on the other side.

The window-licker currently in charge is a morally bereft piece of shit who's defence against literally everything is to say "I know you are but what am I?" and then dance around with his fingers in his fucking ears.

The same guy who championed the working class to get elected while fucking over every employee he's ever had, stuffing his cabinet full of billionaires (remember all his decrying of Clinton's "Wall Street friends"?) and set about taking away what scant benefits the poor are given in that benighted land.

The only way I could think of describing Trump as "not corrupt" is if we invented a new word for being such a lying, corrupt, morally vacuous, piece of shit that "corrupt" itself was as devalued as the terms "genius" or "awesome".

6
0

Dear America, you can't steal a personality: GDPR godfather talks privacy with El Reg

israel_hands

Re: Actual result

@Yet Another Anonymous Coward

It's easy enough to make it so that the data has to be collected to make it work.

If I choose to make my home assistant collect all your audio and process it in the cloud and have small print telling you that I do this - then I'm compliant.

The law doesn't say that I HAVE TO re-engineer the device to only transmit after a keyword, or to process the audio locally.

No it's not at all compliant. Check the ICO guidelines. You have to make it clear what you're doing, ask me to opt-in (not opt me in automatically and bury the opt-out choice in fine print), explain exactly who you plan to share the data with and for what specific purpose (not simply say "trusted partners" or "3rd-party companies") and regularly check with me that I'm still OK with what you're storing and using at regular intervals.

Facing reality, GDPR will probably be compromised in all sorts of ways, but my reading is that it's very much been put together with a view to ruling for an outcome (ownership of personal data) rather than against a single limited business model which was fucked from the start because they didn't think through the law of unintended consequences and how various corporate entities would squirm around the rules-as-written.

If this sort of thinking had been applied to, for instance, taxi operator regulations, something as fundamentally fucked in the head as Uber would never have got started.

6
0
israel_hands

Re: Actual result

Not so fast, Monsieur.

GDPR specifically forbids pre-ticked boxes and assumed opt-in of any kind. They can't even refuse a service if you refuse to opt in to data sharing*. This means that if you want to sign up for a Google account you don't need to provide them with any data you don't want to. They could probably use the "required-for-service" clause (see footnote) to force you to provide a phone number by making 2FA a requirement for the account but they can't force you to be tracked or allow them to sift your e-mails for data if you don't want them to.

Also, the whole "you've accepted the EULA by opening the box" has never applied in the UK/Europe and that will be blocked even harder after GDPR lands.

The comment about cookies is entirely valid. But having read the ICO's notes on GDPR implementation it looks as though they've got a lot more canny since they wrote the well-intended but shamefully broken rules on cookies.

An interesting article with some salient points. And kudos to the MEP for actually doing a proper job and not just collecting money and guffawing like whiskey-soaked ballbag with a grinning face drawn on it**.

Somewhat annoying I had to cut through the author's constant axe-grinding against Google (it's not just them, it's every fucker out there), pointless sideswipes against Wikipedia and current obsession with Dave Eggers' book. If he could have at least worked in a dig against Stephen Fry I'd have completed my Orlowski Bingo card for today.

I think GDPR is going to be a massive step forwards for privacy in the EU and hopefully, if the idiot Tories try to sidestep it after Brexit (because it will come in prior to that) the EU will be able to force them to keep it if they want to use any sort of data services involving EU citizens.

And it's something that is sorely needed. At the moment it's just insane the amount of data is collected, collated and passed around to a terrifying number of people. It's slipped completely under the radar of most people and has grown out of all reasonable scale and this is exactly the sort of situation that governments are meant for: Stepping in and providing safeguards for the vast group of citizens that are literally their only actual reason for existing.

*The exemptions that exist to this cover something that is required in order to perform a service. So a courier company can refuse you service if you won't provide them with your address, as this is something they legitimately require in order to provide you with their service of delivering to your address.

**Any resemblance to that cunt Farage is entirely intentional.

10
0

Judge says US govt has 'no right to rummage' through anti-Trump protest website logs

israel_hands

@OP: Agreed. This was intended to have a chilling effect on protests with a few people (of the millions of visitors trawled ) highlighted for show-trials. Enough to make some people think twice in future about engaging with something like this. Or just force it completely underground and let the hardcore idiots run the show. Which would also play into the hands of those who seek absolute control and obeisance.

The order itself though seems incredibly well-thought and formulated to allow the law to be served whilst actively avoiding undermining the lawful privacy of others. Something like this should (in a world considerably saner and nicer than this one) be used as a template for all such requests from the filth for internet records.

Not that it will be of course. Sane results like this directly undermine their attempts to wage economic espionage on a cowed and fearful populace.

40
0

US yanks staff from Cuban embassy over sonic death ray fears

israel_hands

Re: I'd bet my monies on...

In the book the "secret weapon" is Fremen warriors trained in the "weirding combat" of the Bene Geserit. Think galaxy's greatest warriors + galaxy's most lethal secret martial art = a lot of suddenly very dead Sardaukar and a very nervous Emperor.

Anyway, as to this nonsensical "red scare" sonic attack bullshit I'm expecting it to turn out the hotel and embassy share a water source which has probably been contaminated with something. There are plenty of bugs that can cause the reported symptoms and a sonic attack is trivial to detect with even a fairly shitty recorder and some software.

It does seem very retro though. Like a throwback to the 60's and 70's. Maybe it's all being orchestrated by the CIA, sick of everyone talking about the autistic number-crunchers at the NSA and desperate to get back to a time when they were everyone's favourite spooks.

5
1

Cloudflare: We dumped Daily Stormer not because they're Nazis but because they said we love Nazis

israel_hands

Re: Cloudflare acted the only way they could

I'm fucking sick of seeing this bullshit argument getting trotted out again and again.

Many minority groups have been wrongfully discriminated against for years. Denying someone a service or product because of the colour of their skin or their sexuality means they get a worse quality of life for something that harms nobody. The only reason you don't have a problem with it is because you're not part of a group that has been systematically discriminated against, or you'd see how utterly unfair such discrimination is. For this reason many societies have implemented laws with the aim of eliminating such discrimination.

The fact that people who seek to discriminate will then try and claim protection to discriminate by invoking the very laws they seek to avoid is some sort of sick joke and show just what sort of moral cowards they truly are.

And for fuck's sake, stop trying to establish a moral equivalence between homosexuals and paedophiles or nazis. Being homosexual harms no one. Try and make the same claim about paedos or nazis. And neither paedos nor nazis have been subjected to unfair discrimination. They're utter scum who seek to harm others and should be stopped from doing so.

The fact that you'd try and claim a hotel turning away a paedo is the same as turning away a gay couple, that you'd immediately throw those two groups together, reveals more about your own thought processes and certainly doesn't help advance your inane argument.

5
2

Re-identifying folks from anonymised data will be a crime in the UK

israel_hands

You're entirely correct, but you're also agreeing with me. Note that I specifically stated they could not deliver to your home address without knowing it.

GDPR states that if it isn't neccesary (and your locker example is a good illustration of that) then they can't refuse to take your order without that information.

There may be an issue where billing address is required for card validation but if you were paying with a voucher then that wouldn't be relevant.

2
0
israel_hands

RE "permission ping-pong"

It shouldn't work out like that. Under GDPR if you don't choose to grant permission then they can't use that as a reason to refuse you access to the service, except where such permission is absolutely required to provide the service.

So, Amazon can refuse to deliver a parcel to you if you refuse to share your address, because without knowing your address there's no way for them to deliver to your house, but Google can't refuse to let you use their search if you refuse to allow them to harvest your data.

Interesting times ahead, depending on how this all shakes out, but it has the potential to properly bugger up entities which make their money solely out of harvesting user data. In my opinion, that's no bad thing, and the new regulations appear to have been well-written enough that they don't leave any obvious loopholes like the whole "implied consent accept our cookies" bullshit that plagued the last iteration.

11
0

London Mayor slams YouTube over failure to remove 'shocking' violent gang vids

israel_hands

I think a lot of you are missing the point here. I'm no fan of the filth so don't think I'm defending them.

When you've got a video of something that society has decided is unacceptable say, 5 or 6 guys kicking the absolute shit out of another guy, or making serious threats against someone (which are very likely to be acted upon), that's a problem. Also, to be fair to the idiot plod, many of the guys in these videos wear things called "masks" which can make it fucking difficult to identify them.

Google making fucking billions out of YouTube, it's not OK for them to simply toss out the "we're just a platform"* excuse and wash their hands of it. They need to be able to moderate the content they host properly, and if doing so makes it unprofitable then I guess they need to reconsider their business model, the same as any other company would.

You can froth and whine about it being "censorship" all you want, but they already censor plenty of content which is far less of a problem than what's being discussed here. They're fucking hot on removing any images of nipples, despite nipples being legal in pretty much every jurisdiction on the planet**. On the flipside, making threats or attacking someone are illegal in most, if not all, jurisdictions.

Personally, I think they should work much harder to remove things which are actually illegal and if that impacts their bottom line then maybe they'll rethink their "just a platform" attitude.

By the way, everyone banging on about this being outrageous censorship, where are your voices when Google get told to take down beheading videos from IS?

*Remember, this is the same defence used by the likes of Uber to try and sidestep pretty much every law they're asked to operate under, so don't be so quick to allow Google to use that defence if you don't also accept Uber can get away with same.

**Yes, there are public nudity laws in many places, but if the subject of a nip-slip is in private and of age then public decency won't be offended.

5
3

Creepy tech tycoons Zuck and Musk clash over AI doomsday

israel_hands

Zuckerberg isn't exactly impartial in this discussion. The more gets people used to "AI" and algorithms making decisions the easier it gets for his empire to swallow more data while paying less people to work for him.

The point Musk is making is that already algorithms are at work making actual decisions that have real-world effects on people. Like refusing loan applications or deciding if the get parole. The fact that these algorithms are opaque, subject to hidden bias and not understood well enough to be challenged by those affected by them is a distrubing dystopian "computer says no" scenario. And it's already slouching towards Bethlehem.

Musk makes a good point. Zuck's just scared it's going to hurt his bottom line and creepy data-fetish.

8
0

Funnily enough, charging ££££s for trashy bling-phones wasn't a great idea

israel_hands

Slippery slope...

You almost sound as if you're defending the price of the new iTat.

45
8

All hail AT&T! Champion of the open internet and users' privacy!

israel_hands

Yeah, focus on that, John. Just ignore the entire rest of my argument.

If your reaction isn't knee-jerk bullshit then try refuting the rest of my post. Until then, keep bleating.

19
1
israel_hands

No, John. The article is correct. Throwing rules out without analysing why they don't work and moving to fix it is dangerous.

And your suggestion of throwing out the rules being the "minimum acceptable response" is, frankly, fucking retarded and yet more evidence of your idiotic bias against anything done by someone being-president-while-black.

The minimum acceptable response is to consider if the rules make sense, and if not then tweak them so they do.

You, and everyone else, screeching that "Title II isn't appropriate, let congress act" knows full well that repealing Title II with nothing to replace it will effectively mean no regulation and no will in congress to change that while the telcos retain their lobbying power. Which means throwing out some rules that achieve the right result even if they have to take a backdoor solution to do so for no rules at all.

That's not a better situation. And throwing out rules just because you don't like the people that introduced them demonstrates a complete lack of actual coherent mental processes. It's a knee-jerk reaction and serves no purpose. If you dislike the rules simply because they were written by "the other guy" then, to my mind, you've automatically ruled yourself out of any sensible debate on the subject.

Logic dictates that you keep the current, imperfect, rules and work to build a replacement that is fit for purpose* and then use that to supersede the current rules. And if the current rules are imperfect but workable, you use that fact and the evidence of a better replacement to force the changes through.

The exact equivalent of what you're suggesting is saying the murder laws aren't working so fuck it, repeal murder until congress can be bothered to introduce a better law.

*By which I mean is modelled around achieving an outcome as opposed to regulating a specific business model, which as we've all seen, results in rules becoming rapidly outdated as technology shifts the paradigm.

41
4

Everything you need to know about the Petya, er, NotPetya nasty trashing PCs worldwide

israel_hands

Re: Lots of fishiness here.

Not incomptetent at all. They were good enough to put the attack together and it apparently works frighteningly well against a large number of targets.

So, now we know they're not incompetent and also not interested in the cash, the only other explanation is that they wanted it to be a loud, flashy, obvious attack, and also wanted it to become readily apparent that it's not about the money.

This isn't a ransomware attack, it's an intelligence operation which happens to be taking place using computers. There's a link in the article to The Gruqc's medium blog. He really knows his stuff and is very good at analysis of this type of thing.

There are some odd things though. Assuming every line of code changed from the original Petya was done for a reason then why so obviously limit the file types it targets? Possibly they identified a target list and narrowed it down to those without thinking that leaving the original list in place would achieve the same goal and serve to obfuscate what they were specifically after.

Another possibility is that the list was deliberately left as a message to the actual target (which could be anyone caught up in it, maybe Maersk were the original target and the other hits were just to spread the panic and confusion around). That's the problem with this sort of thing, it's moved away from hacking/script kiddies/cybercrime and attacks like this are increasingly used as COINTELPRO or PSYOPS operations.

13
1

F-Secure's Mikko Hypponen on IoT: If it uses electricity, it will go online

israel_hands

Re: IoT vs Users

@Charles 9

You're living in a paranoid fantasy world, ya big mentallist.

What benefit is data on how often I use my toaster? None, and the cost of installing 5G components is > 0 as is the airtime for data comms and when it cuts into their margins they won't use it. Your illuminati-cartel isn't going to suborn every vendor into this vast conspiracy.

And even if his practice becomes commonplace, I don't know where you get the idea of this perfect system of devices bricking if the user interferes. From what I can see 99% of vendors can't even implement basic security, which does cost them effectively nothing except for a dev pulling some crypto libraries and wrapping their protocols in them. Anything as complex as 5G connections, SIM cards, etc is not going to fly in the churn-and-burn cheapness of the IoT world.

Oh, and as a final thing: GDPR. That's going to play havoc with the current data-slurping free for all going on so the idea of installing silent, invisible data slurpers in your home just won't fly across Europe.

Undoubtedly some vendors will go down this route, just as some are currently selling boxes of fruit juice with DRM baked in. But that's only some, and only idiots buy their products. As has been shown time and time again, any form of DRM can and will be circumvented, and plenty of vendors will be too cheap (or conscious of creating goodwill among customers) that they simply won't bother.

3
3
israel_hands

It'll never happen. I get fuck-all mobile reception at home because of the local geography, plenty of people are in areas of poor/no coverage and sometimes networks are unavailable.

One or two companies may make devices that auto-brick if they can't connect but the level of backlash they'd receive would mean everyone else steps away from that particular model.

Additionally, there will be loads of companies that don't want to add a 5G + SIM + allowance into whatever tat they're peddling.

I can't see this working in practice, although plenty of gullible twats will buy such devices, just not enough for it to mean everything with a plug gets all this crap bundled with it.

10
0
israel_hands

Mixed bag of bullshit by the sound of it.

Not sure how "future-IoT" devices are going to be net-connected without going through the owner's home network so that part makes no sense. Is a cheap toaster going to come with an embedded satellite phone and airtime contract so it can talk to base? The fact he's hawking a product that categorically can't work against these phantom connected toasters (according to his own logic) makes even less sense.

Also, the security of locked-down systems is far from perfect and I'm not holding my breath that MS will be able to do it properly. Most likely the'll succeed in crippling the ability for users to administrate their device properly while leaving enough security holes for priviledge escalation that an attacker can gain complete control.

14
5

Elon Musk reveals Mars colony rocket capable of bringing pizza joints to the red planet

israel_hands

Re: One Way Trip

There are various ways to provide spin which can drastically reduce the effects of micro-G (also, any time under thrust) and as for radiation damage, as you noted you can use water as a very effective shield (as a bonus it's got an acceptable mass and has other uses) and even if you need something more substantial, you only need to shield the crew compartment, not the entire frame + payload + fuel tanks.

I don't think an (optimal) 80 days under those conditions would be unbearable, especially if you selected colonists with appropriate psychological profiles (and given the nature of the mission waiting at the end of the trip you'd be fucking mental not to).

1
1

Facebook has a solution to all the toxic dross on its site – wait, it's not AI?

israel_hands
Facepalm

Hmmmm

[i]Cross-platform collaboration: Preventing the same terrorist accounts accessing other of Facebook’s apps, including WhatsApp and Instagram, by sharing user data among the different platforms.[/i]

So now they get to advance their data-slurp and claim it's for the greater good. With ideas like that it's no wonder Zuckerberg is thinking about getting into politics...

3
0

Page:

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018