Re: Huh?? (Off Topic)
> Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you
Tell me more about points #2 and #3.
How would that work exactly?
540 posts • joined 2 Apr 2018
I think you're taking yourself just a little too seriously.
The fact that you had such a knee-jerk reaction to being "told what to do" (without even being told what to do by anyone) is telling. That's not simply putting words in my mouth, but thoughts in my head! Is there any Schizophrenia in your family - is it you?
If you think I'm attempting to set out any rules then you really need to look more closely at your own mentality, not mine. I proffered my opinion on the matter, no more and that should be self-evident - anyone who needs 'IM(H)O' after everything has reading comprehension issues that really aren't anyone else's to cater for or pander to (not even me).
You're right, your opinions don't matter one jot. So why are you here telling me that? I don't GAF whether you like my opinions or not, you don't think they matter, why are you wasting your time in that case? Could it be that, despite your protestations to the contrary, actually, your opinion matters a great deal to you? I think it could. Otherwise, you wouldn't be voicing it. Or rather, you might, but not the way you are doing here and now.
You clearly have something to prove, you're just too cowardly to do so as anything other than an anonymous voice. A propos of which, thanks for the lesson in sucking eggs - I don't know how I've got by all these years not knowing what the purpose of anonymity was!
And do you really think it easier to steal someone's ID in the digital era?
My goodness! Forty years in I.T. and I hadn't once given that any thought myself! Thanks for the heads-up!
No, I don't regard it as a popularity contest; I don't care about popularity, just respect and submit that you'd do well to contemplate the difference - the fact that you have such high self-esteem does not mean that you have any reason to have the same degree of self-respect. The fact that you regard it as, in your own words, a popularity contest, sheds a great deal of light on your own thinking and what kind of person you are; the fact that you hide behind anonymity doesn't mean you don't crave popularity, just that you have some half-arsed idea that you are somehow superior for not having the courage to stand up and be measured for who you are - like I said, even if your screen name is fake, stand up and be counted (otherwise nothing you say is worth anything because, for all anyone knows, in the next post you'll contradict yourself).
Oh, dear, I seem to be caught up in a mentality, do I? Oh, please tell me more, oh, guru ... I'm sorry but I've just pissed myself at that one - would I be right in assuming you are still rather young and on a mission to enlighten us poor, lumpen souls who have yet to attain the peaks of wisdom you have yourself scaled?
My relatives are more than capable of taking me to task for calling them retards, if that's what they so wish to do; they don't need any help from you. But, as it happens, I think you would probably benefit from their help, were they so inclined to offer it to you - you see, unlike you, they don't have reading comprehension issues, can spot a hypothetical a mile off and don't mistake it for a propositional.
Should l I choose to enter into banter with my friends and family by suggesting they'd be retards then they are more than capable of responding in kind and putting me in my place if they feel like it; neither I nor they need your permission to speak to one another in any manner we care to and you can feel as free to mind your own business as you like, provided you keep your mouth shut about anything that is not directed at you personally - and, trust me, neither they nor I are ever going to want to speak to anyone like you unless it's to tell you to go away and stop bothering the adults.
You're entitled to your opinion but first you need to have one. And that requires you to have the least idea what you're talking about. And as everything you have said here is simply a reflection of your reading comprehension deficit, your developmentally arrested need to tell others where they are going wrong and police their language for them, nothing more than the petulant screech of the narcissistically disordered personality, it would be very difficult to find anything based on sufficient fact in amongst all your verbal diarrhoea to actually constitute an opinion.
Your 'opinion', such as it is, isn't wrong, no. It's so far from wrong as to be not even wrong.
You're a gutless, wannabe SJW without even the nerve, never mind the courage, to stand up and be counted - not even behind a fake, but at least consistent, persona. You're self-satisfied, self-congratulatory and don't even possess the saving grace of being witty with it.
You stepped in and insulted me, using my loved ones as your excuse for doing so. How dare you take my family and friends in vain! You are a sanctimonious prig, not worthy of their mention. Nothing else you have said here is of any note; not one iota of it has troubled me, because you have no honour and are, therefore, of no significance. But don;t you dare attempt to pass your dishonourable deeds off in their name or pretend that anything you have said was for anyone's benefit but your own or served any purpose than to pamper your own overinflated ego!
And I won't lose any sleep over you either - you are, after all, nobody.
> People get their identities stolen when they're alive.
Yes, it's been happening for (probably) longer than either of us has been alive, but it's certainly one of the scourges of the post everything's-connected world.
> It's probably a lot easier to steal them if the owner is not still around to challenge the theft.
It certainly is - I'm a little hazy on the details (it's not something I've ever been involved in myself) but, apparently, the most successful such thefts involve babies that died very soon after birth but not so soon that a birth certificate wasn't produced.
> In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a whole new criminal awareness of how to take advantage of some stranger's death.
No, it's not new: it has, as I said, been going on since long before the advent of computers and (probably) for longer than either of us has been alive.
> Granted, it won't affect you (you're alright, pull up the drawbridge),
Well, if you want to term being dead 'alright' then yes, I suppose so.
> but it may adversely affect your loved ones.
Which is why you should prepare as much as you can before you die - which has been my point all along.
> Assuming you have any, which considering your attitude, is debatable ;)
Oh, come now, surely you can do better than that.
If you're going to cast aspersions upon how attractive a proposition I am as a mate/life-partner, family member or even friend then
1. make it at least witty - a winking smiley does mitigate a little, I suppose, but it's hardly a substitute for an insult that made me laugh myself because it was clever.
2. have the courage to do so with your name attached to it. I haven't once posted anything anonymously here, nor do I anticipate ever doing so either - right, misguided or embarrassingly wrong, I stand up am counted.
Never, ever say or write anything (honest, dishonest or anything in between) that you wouldn’t want the person whose opinion you value the most in all the World to hear read out (or, worse yet, played back) in court/on international television, or see quoted in the international press, turned into an Internet ‘meme’ (you get the idea).
No matter how drunk (or otherwise fucked up) you get, if it doesn’t pass that muster, it’s a bad idea: don’t do it.
So, there's no need for anonymity, is there?
Have some self-respect: even if your screen name is fake, use it; have an identifiable presence when you're here - otherwise you're nobody and you might as well not be here because no-one else can ever form a positive opinion of you and have any respect for you.
Having, in the not so distant Past, been through some bereavement situations myself, it's not that I don't appreciate what you're saying and I am truly not trying to be disrespectful, but, unless it was a timing thing and, all else being equal, under normal circumstances you'd have spoken after Christmas as part of being in frequent contact with them, if the only contact you had with them worth speaking of was a Christmas card then really...
@ John Brown (no body)
In the early 1990s there was an RPG by the name of Macho Women With Guns - a tasteful affair, as I'm sure you can imagine.
Recently, I stumbled upon an adventure supplement for it that left me utterly speechless.
The title of this awe inspiring oeuvre?
Nothing less than Adolf Hitler - Porn Star
I can't even.
Words fail me - I am struck by a conflict of emotion so powerful that not even the Bard himself could have given word to it and all I can do is sink to my knees and sob inconsolably as though my heart will break forever.
In fact, I'd be hard pushed not to sell my soul to Satan in return for the opportunity to make that movie and become famous for it.
Eternal damnation vs being universally reviled in my own lifetime doesn't seem like much of a deal really, but, in return for said reviling (revilation?), I would be infamous for having made that movie.
You can see my dilemma.
In fact, sod it, I'd sell my soul in return for having been the person who came up with the RPG adventure supplement - the idea is so tasteless that I'd want to be a part of it any cost.
To return to my having fallen to my knees for a moment (a whilst you're down there kinda thing), for some reason, even though it was my very own title that set it off, it was your reply that set me thinking along these lines and for that I must thank you.
Because, I read it and instantly had a visual flash on someone 'eating' Hitler and, by extension, one of his future grandchildren (obviously said sexual penitent is a 'swallower') - I think it was the suggestion that said person was there with Hitler at the time, working on the Enigma Machine (it's a Nazi porn washing machine repair man moment, isn't it?)
I shouldn't be allowed out really, should I?
It's alright, I'm going (just let me get my coat first).
There's at least one person on this site who does that.
I can only imagine that (if they're not a rogue bot) they are thirteen years old and/or have some deep-seated psychoemotional issues that remain unresolved due to arrested development (at around the age of thirteen, I suspect).
> What about the many people who die suddenly and unexpectedly?
What about them?
This is all an exercise in trying to control the nature of our lives to the benefit of others.
Well, if that's what you want to do then do it: get your finances in order, make a will, assign an executor, keep records up to date, plan as though you were immortal, live as though today were your last day - you don't have to be seventy to do that!
If you don't want to do that then, fine, don't, but you're not in a position to whine about the technicalities of your 'carefully curated online presence' as a result - if you couldn't be bothered to deal with it when you were alive, why should anyone else care about when you're dead?
It's FUD, as though life were something that could (and, therefore, should) be quantifiable and deterministic and, oh, won't somebody think of the grandchildren?
No, you can't be sure you won't get run over by a bus tomorrow. So, what are you going to do about it?
The same as people did before computer technology: everything/something/nothing.
In other news: dog bites man.
> Online systems like PayPal should have such a deadman's handle. When it times out then any remaining funds should be automatically transferred back to the user's bank account.
Except that, in the intervening years, they closed the associated bank account and never bothered to update their PayPal account for the sake of £34.27.
The fuss being made about people's 'online presence'? I hate to use the term 'snowflake' (and generally don't) but seriously, in this instance, it's just first world problems for those with nothing better to worry about than what the neighbours will think of their hairdo.
The rest of your points, fine, although see my reply to Neil: this isn't a technology problem but simply the same problem that has always existed and the solution is the same as it has ever been: make sure that the necessary information will be made available to those who need it when the time comes - use a solicitor/lawyer and keep their records up to date.
But as for
> Your family might GAF if accounts are used to steal someone's ID or as part of a Russian retweet campaign in the next elections.
Talk about trying to shoehorn in some pointless prejudice. What next? Nobody had my R.S.P.C.A. account password and the E.U. destroyed some dogs as a result?
Russia has sweet FA to do with any of this but even if it did, if it really wants to steal my ID, it isn't going to wait until I'm dead.
> the issue of occasional contacts and social groupings whom you would like, perhaps, to be advised of your death.
There is that, yes, but you can always put up an online memorial to the person in question for interested parties to find when researching whatever happened to that person they (in a completely uncharacteristic manner) haven't bothered to call for six months despite having been in regular contact for the last thirty years - and if they weren't in contact with you frequently enough for them to notice that you haven't spoken in six months and make enquiries, just how significant is it that they don't hear of your death anyway?
Besides, what about the people in ye oldene dayes who didn't keep a written contact list either? How did people resolve the issue then?
Or those who hid the key to the chest?
Or didn't mention the combination to the family safe before getting run over by a bus?
Seriously, you'd think this were a whole new class of problem that had suddenly arisen thanks to the advent of technology when it isn't - Malibu Stacey has a new hat and that's all there is to it.
Yes it could, under the right circumstances, be a serious matter if someone can't log into your online account but, no, it's not new, it's just the same old issue of your heirs not having the combination to the safe containing the deeds to the house because you never gave it to them and (sensibly) didn't write it down in a little, black book with entries like "Mistress who will need to know why I'm not paying her rent any more", "Secret gay lovers who might want to attend my funeral", "Blackmailers I'm paying not to mention my paedophile activities to anyone" or "The combination to the safe behind the rather tacky Constable Haywain print in the ugly frame on the back wall of the study on the second floor of the house."
This is all a fuss by people who really have nothing better to do than pick lint out of their navels. The problem here isn't one of technology but of information distribution and the solution is the same as it has ever been: give someone the information required to deal with whatever issues they (not you) might be confronted with upon your demise and the job's a good'un.
If you're worried about them abusing the privilege then keep a list of all your accounts/passwords with a solicitor/lawyer and update it whenever you add/delete/change account details and they can give it to your appointed next of kin upon your death.
But worrying about your 'carefully curated' online presence? Get a job!
I'm dead - don't GAF about my 'carefully curated online presence.'
And so long as none of my surviving family are simple-minded enough to fall for scams by their deceased relative, I won't have to turn in my grave with embarrassment at how anyone in my family could be that retarded.
Sort your finances out and any associated property matters and nothing else matters.
If you want to pass your Netflix account to someone then do so before you die (duh). If you can't because you went senile in the meantime well, you know what, we never found where my grandmother buried the gold sovereigns in the park either - life's a bitch.
My carefully curated online presence?
Talk about first world problems.
> That sounds like a terrible idea to me.
So, standards are a bad idea, is that what you're saying?
You're opposed to the principle of Project Treble and think standardised security across devices is a bad thing?
You think that UX/UI design principles should be ignored and a standard interface eschewed in favour of whatever a given OEM felt was a good idea at the time?
You think OEMs should be free to install whatever bloatware they like (Facebook as a non-removable system application)?
Me, I think those are terrible ideas and they spring from precisely the 'Wild West' free-for-all you're advocating.
I don't often have much good to say about Microsoft, but one thing I won't fault them for is standardisation - I remember the days before them, when I couldn't exchange even a simple text file with you because your device didn't read files saved by my editor and wouldn't want to return there.
There's a world of difference between what I'm suggesting (a core, uniformly functional OS, to which OEMs are free to offer whatever additional features they like but which none of us is obliged to have on our devices) and the fantasy monocultural dystopia you seem to imagine it portending.
> Apart from the Google blobs embedded in the OS.
Yes, but that's like saying "apart from the shared culture of the West".
Sure, compared to somewhere like China, Japan or even Russia, at a pinch, we in the West have shared 'blobs' of culture (wars we've fought amongst ourselves,
U.S. Imperialism McDonalds in every town centre, etc.) but beyond that there are an awful lot of significant differences the firmware of English culture is pretty different to that of Spain, even if there is a shared framework of Roman Empire in the background of both.
Likewise, my Motorola is not the same as your Sony and neither of us has access to Bixby.
We have different cameras, different audio subsystems, different interfaces, different bloatware. Our devices may or may not have unlockable bootloaders and, even if they do, there may or may not be an alternative ROM available for them. We may get security updates on a regular basis or we may not. We may have devices by the same OEM but won't both get a piece of Pie when the time comes.
There may be some uniformity thanks to the blobs, but even that is far from uniform.
The Android market is completely fractured anyway: different OEMs delivering different hardware, different firmware, making all sorts of changes to the base OS, delivering updates (or not) as and when they see fit, there's no way to claim uniformity.
So, why not say "Screw Google" as well as having that attitude?
Ban Google's Android (if not Google altogether) in the EU, have a consortium standardise Android and all OEMs selling into the EU have to deliver that Android version (no exceptions).
That way their sales really will be down to how good their hardware is and not simply a reflection of consumers' compromising between that and their preparedness to put up with some half-arsed attempt to 'add value' with software features nobody wants from a hardware manufacturer in the first place.
And we will be in a position to decide what we really want to hand over and to whom because legislation will give us more rights and more power than we currently have.
Google are not guaranteed, but likely, to make the transition to Fuchsia in a few years anyway, so now would be a golden opportunity for the E.U. to give Android a chance of becoming a genuinely F(L)OSS OS rather than continuing to be just yet another tool of Surveillance Capitalism.
You own 5,8% of the shares?
Fine, you get to nominate 5.8% of the Board.
That's, what, one person in twenty.
So, unless your board consists of twenty people, they get precisely zero nominations.
Got twenty people on the Board? Then you're big enough not to need to worry about how much influence one person can wield.
If you're letting people with only a 5.8% share run your organisation then you've got bigger problems.
even in the UK staff are legally entitled to make use of private communications channels (can't remember when but that legal decision was reached many years ago).
If you do have staff using private devices for private purposes and they're not used for work as well (so a purely private matter), as an employer you have a choice:
1. be a complete 4r$ehole and ban them from the network (they'll have to use their own data plan)
2. set up a second network that is isolated from the rest of the organisation, doesn't allow anything through that is illegal or likely to bring the company into disrepute and let the staff do what they like within reason.If you have any concerns about staff slacking off then all you need to do is check the logs to see when they accessed the network; how frequently for how long will let you know who was likely slacking during working hours and who was likely just communicating with their spouse/friend to make some logistic/practical arrangements, all without your needing to to know any gory details. No tracking, no spying and you know who needs a kick up the arse about how much time they're not doing what they're paid to do.Simples.
Well, to be fair, Bezos probably had no idea what kind of wine you were drinking, but, on the other hand, the various deepcover criminals working in the right parts of Amazon, or working for various of Amazon's 'Trusted Partners' (who have less security and are easier to extract data from), probably know a lot more than that about you - and what can be done with the seemingly innocuous data from your online searches (never mind the knowledge of what time you go to work and get home) is pretty damn scary ( know because I've done that kind of data analysis myself).
But anyone upset by the idea that more than Amazon could gain access to their data hasn't been paying attention and really has no complaint to make: it was always a Trojan
horse gate for the horses that we'll put in the wall here - don't worry about anyone else getting in through it, we only hand copies of the keys to these other people and they're totally trustworthy (they crossed their hearts and swore they wouldn't lose them or give them to anyone else)..
You don't accept cash? Then I have several problems with that - I only pay with cash, therefore I won't use you until you do.
I don't care what your feeble-arsed reasoning for it is; either you're a commercial concern and want my money or you deserve to go out of business.
Won't take cash?
Want to waste my time waiting for your machine to complete a connection, waiting for the transaction to complete, waiting for it to print a receipt - all for the sake of a packet of fags?
This is London, keep up: people don't have time to waste, they want to get in, grab their stuff, pay and go about their business not piss their lives away waiting for your sorry arse.
Forget it, I'll go somewhere where they want my money - it'll be quicker to walk there than to waste my time waiting for your l337 haxxor systems to catch up with the bus/tube timetable.
Jesus wept - I've got a life to lead, you know, no time to waste on scriptkiddie wetdreams that were already outdated when 'Mirrorshades' was first published.
> On the current Westminster trend - only a matter of weeks.
I wish I still had faith in the human race the way you do.
Unfortunately, in my (embittered) experience, even a born retarded goldfish that has since acquired both dementia and Alzheimer's has a longer attention span than most people, never mind most of the people we elect to manage things on our behalf.
Myself, I don't reckon you need longer than it takes to ask them to leave the room, knock on the door and re-enter the room - long before they get back into the room they've not only forgotten that they were just in there but can't even remember why they're knocking on the door (if they even understood that much the first time!)
Ha ha ha ha ha!
Know many deaf people, do you?
I've known a few myself.
Lip-reading ain't what you think it is and the 'Bad Lip-reading' videos are pretty much on the button.
Add to that the fact that people turn their heads from time to time and you lose whole sections of what they're saying because (inconveniently) they didn't face another camera directly.
Done much work with surveillance cameras, have you?
I've done a bit myself and while there's some impressive tech available, it's expensive and not terribly widespread.
People with their collars up don't help matters.
People with scarves over their mouths because it's cold (which happens quite frequently in countries that aren't the U.K., Australia or California) don't help help either.
People sitting at an awkward angle.
People sitting too far from the outdated, low cost, low quality publicly installed camera that was the only thing that had an angle on your target because you didn't have the budget for more than one observation team and could only capture one of them... you guessed it, they don't help much either.
Yeah, it's all very impressive and intimidating when you watch 'Mission Impossible' or 'Minority Report' or whatever but they're not terribly representative of what actually happens in the real world.
In the real world almost nobody has the budget for that kind of operation and, when they do, it's targeted and the technology required not at all ubiquitous.
"In other words, while trying to create impossible and useless backdoor policies, you've proven that there are actually no magic technology bullets and that you should have concentrated on proper police work in the first place."
Colour me cynical if you like, but so what?
Are other agencies doing it?
Are they getting a bigger budget than mine as a result?
Right, well, we've got to do it too - can't have those other bastards lording it over everyone with how they've got a bigger budget .
Will the people paying the budget understand why we aren't solving any more crime than before or can we
baffle them with bullshit blind them with science (toss some 'hi-tech' sounding buzzwords around, throw in a few 'procedural's, 'transaction's, 'target's and 'acquisition's), scare them with a few bogeymen ('anonymous actors', 'invisible intentions', 'public failure') and get the ignorant, simple-minded stuffed shirts to fund another two-to-five years before we have to talk to anyone again and, if the latter, what's the minimum time-frame to ensure the next people we speak to will be new to the role and just as gullible as the last lot were at the start?
So this is what a psychotic break must feel like then - except that it's reality that's bent not my mind.
You know that the entire universe has jumped the shark into unknown territory and disappeared down the rabbit hole in the middle when sentences like "David Ike was right" actually make sense.
I could be wrong about this but, given the mention of the Veterans' Association/Administration and being a 'prisoner', you can probably safely assume that it was a deliberate play on words based around being hospitalised/incapacitated in some way, rather than a grammatical error.
It does help to stop and apply some reading comprehension before firing V2 grammar-rockets at people.
"Unless you can make it turnkey easy AND bulletproof at the same time (which I bet you can't--security and ease of use tend to be on opposite ends of the scale: see front doors), there WILL be weaknesses that a state (where money isn't always an object) can exploit."
Football matches are pretty loud - you can probably communicate with your criminal compatriots by word of mouth at one of those without too much difficulty, provided you use a (not necessarily too complex) code.
I believe spies/secret agents used to talk to each other F2F in bathrooms with the shower/bath taps running in the days before email/IRC/Facebook.
It may not be bulletproof: I may be wrong but football scarves aren't generally so to the best of my knowledge and it might be a good idea to plan your crimes in countries where the police/locals aren't armed (just in case, you know).
But, unless one (or more) of you is deaf/mute, It's pretty easy - I'd go so far as to say 'turnkey easy' myself.
"the government wants to apprehend terrorists, paedophiles and organised crime"
Well they certainly don't seem to do anything about disorganised crime, that's for sure - muggings, burglaries, stolen cars, if you're not robbing Rotarians/Masons/local councillors, you can pretty much do what you like in the name of agile/flexible individual enterprise.
I should really have used a troll icon, shouldn't I? I'm just so used to the commentardiat consisting of intelligent folks that I don't always remember to cater for the developmentally arrested by including a laughter track. Next time I'll be sure to link out to one at appropriate moments - I'm sure everyone will just love that ; )
Too right, you do!
What'll you be telling us next, grandad, that you use passwords rather facial recognition on a Facebook login to access everything?
You probably even have a front door with a regular key instead of NFC, because of some nonsense about how you're worried you won't be able to open your door if your phone gets lost/stolen (just call the lock OEM's tech support and they'll open it for you remotely, duh!).
How about contraception? Use that do you? I bet you do - 'cause you haven't got on the GOOP avocado diet to reduce your sperm count the modern way.
What a dinosaur!
It's not the TLAs I'm concerned about but industrial/professional espionage or, more likely, the inevitable incompetence that leads to millions/billions of customers' data being exposed (think Yahoo/Equifax/whoever).
If I have data that is passing through DB on its way to/from a customer/client/patient/whoever, I want to know (not just hope) that it's secure - quite apart from "it's the principle of the thing, damnit", at the very least I don't want to open myself up to a lawsuit (or these days GDPR prosecution) - having that leak splashed all over the Press/Media will not be good for my potential earning capacity either (potential future clients won't be so interested in my services any more).
Of course it probably won't surprise you to learn that I'm pretty larey of mounting filesystems of data that are then wide open so long as they''re mounted.
FDE is great when the drive's unmounted but the drive might as well never have been encrypted in the first place once it's mounted. The same goes for EncFS type solutions (VeraCrypt/whatever).
Mostly I don't worry about it (assume my defences are largely sufficient to deter the casual port-scan and to mitigate a 0-day browser exploit might do by not browsing with elevated privileges) and convenience trumps security for most stuff (FDE will do) but if the data is seriously worth keeping private then I encrypt individual files - they might be compromised whilst I'm working on a copy of them but at least none of the others can be.
Just wanted to say something along those lines myself.
In fact, if you're sharing your data with DropBox in the first place, never mind EncFS, you should be encrypting your files individually - otherwise, every time you open the EncFS 'vault', as long as it's open, they've got access to the unencrypted datastream traversing their network anyway, so, it's academic what you do.
There's a new kind of social engineering hack: miscreants will threaten to upload an image of an arse with the the same date and time stamp as the last time you used the fax machine - if you don't want your employer to think you've been misusing company facilities (or that your arse is that huge/you wear grandma-knickers), give us backdoor access to your systems.
That's all you've got to say to the CEO/VEEP/whoever makes the golf-course decision that the entire organisation will be ripped apart and redesigned from the ground up in such a way that MS Office is now a decentralised, multi-cloud, blockchain killer-app microservice (our DevOps team are the best Distributed CryptoBlockCloud wranglers around and will have it configured and purring smoothly in no time).
"It's like Bitcoin."
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019