<< AT&T were attacked, by criminals. The criminals are the ones who did something wrong, but here you are immediately blaming the victim. You're assuming negligence on the part of AT&T,
I am sure LEOs will do what they are paid to do and catch criminals. In the meantime, I would like to focus on service provider not being able to provide a reasonable level of privacy.
I am blaming a corporation, because for most of us here it is an ongoing, recurring pattern that we have recognized and corporations effectively codified into simple deflection strategy.
Do I assume the corporation messed up? Yes. But even if I didn't, there is a fair amount of historical evidence suggesting that security was not a priority.
<< Put another way - you trust a classical bank, with a money, to secure your money from criminals.
Honestly, if average person saw how some of those decisions are made, I don't think a sane person would.
<< But the truth is, given the size and international nature of the internet, there are effectively armies of criminals, sometimes actually linked to governments, that have incredible incentives to breach organizations. It doesn't require negligence for a data breach to occur - with enough resources, almost any organization can be breached.
Ahh, yes. Poor corporation has become too big of a target. Can you guess my solution to that? Yes, smaller corporation with MUCH smaller customer base and footprint so that even if the criminal element manages to squeeze through those defenses that the corporation made such a high priority ( so high ), the impact will be sufficiently minimal.
I have argued for this before. We need to make hoarding data a liability. This is the only way to make this insanity stop.
Dunno, you have to be able to deliver on some of those promises of desires fulfilled. And as you get older, your ability to see through it should only increase. At that point, the only real question becomes: is it to my benefit?
FWIW, while I follow this saga, I am kinda waiting to see the full retrospective. I think we don't know everything relevant yet.
Having been called upon to serve on a jury before, I will admit that I tend to err on the side of the accused, but here the guy did everything, often in his own words, to tank any reasonable defense and doubt one could have. I followed the case and shook with disbelief at some of the things that were said. I was amazed at the initially lenient treatment he got. My jaw landed on the floor when I saw python code that did not even try to hide randomized balance. And those are just the highlights off the top of my head.
It is not often that I get to say this lately, but the jury restored some of my tired faith in the system in US.
I am going to play devil's advocate here. What can an average person do. I eventually dropped windows for a linux distribution and while it was a learning experience, I can kinda see why it is not a default approach for most people. It is hard for most to overcome inertia. Personal example, before I felt compelled to jump I installed dual boot I almost never used. Things simply have to get bad enough for people not to accept things. As long as they in the 'annoying' realm, most will put up with it.
It is a sad commentary about human nature, because it suggests a slow enough decline will be accepted.
I will admit I was curious. I am not an Apple fanboy; quite the opposite. But if it will jailbroken the same way phones were, there is a potential there. Naturally, I would assume developers will be able do whatever they want anyway.
This is the first device from Apple that.. I might consider buying if it looks like something I could use. And that is despite the crazy price.
Do you check every setting on your phone/tv/pc after you boot it up? It seems very impractical to me.
As a user, I assume that unless I explicitly changed something, my setup remains the same. I used to be able to trust that manufacturers won't try anything too stupid, but at that time the cost in performance, gear and PR was sufficient and incentive to sell information on you was not as prevalent.
Yep. Extra bonus for LG since it uses webOS ( and that thing is great ). If you are concerned about TV connecting to something it shouldn't, you can setup a honeypot ( I think Unify still supports that ) and see what it tries to do. I never connected mine and didn't notice any attempts ( but it is an older OLED model ).
Agreed. Frankly, the chamber is itself a problem. The community is just a nicer name for a tribe you currently subscribe to. It is downright folksy. I don't automatically mind, but there is no reason to pretend otherwise.
Maybe that is not the issue. Maybe it is merely a symptom of how ephemeral and temporary existing systems are and 'Discord4Documents' is just a lazy way to port all the unsexy documentation to one place so that the ones that need to gorge on it, can.
But is TOS enforceable. That is the question. We have yet to properly test it in US court. I would like to finally get a binding court opinion whether a company can just put 'and we own your soul and youngest pet in perpetuity' and make cops come to your home to enforce that. I would like some clarity. Not this weird purgatory that benefits companies only.
I am glad you brought it up, but it is the reliance on API provided by any company can be changed, restricted or rescinded at will. The mere fact that APIs have become so commonplace has always struck me as problematic ( and became more apparent during some of FB depositions ). You are effectively relying on a goodwill of another entity. You can have zero to no expectation that it will serve you today or tomorrow just because.
Can we return to dumb protocol designs? No?
Oh well, I guess we did not suffer enough yet then.
edit: All this twitter drama may actually result in useful changes to to the net.
I feel a similar sentiment, but since that sentiment sells ( see Bill Hicks on advertising dollar[1] ), company might dial down the usual propaganda in lieu of actual customer satisfaction. If you are looking for more recent example, check Amazon's "Expanse". It is very anti-corporate space opera and came from a company that is likely to eventually put ads in orbit.
edit: I will add one more thought. Assuming it is a decent adaptation, it may introduce a younger generation to what risks some people predicted in our developing society. At the very least, it may get them interested.
<<If you're considering donating to Wikipedia, I suggest you look into doing it for Internet Archive.
I kinda wanted to focus on this portion, because Wikipedia does not seem to face fresh round of lawsuits, while Internet Archive appears to be very much a target in sights of various copyright holders, who are unhappy over its activities[1].
I first heard of kiwifarms in relation to swatting one of the US congressmembers ( which frankly is likely the reason we are seeing this domino falling into place ). I have no sympathy for swatters, but there are laws in place to handle those.
To me it is sad, because the trend is unmistakable. The 90s internet has been dying for a while, but it will just not be there ( or likely partially move to tor-land ) for my kids.
For all those, who are cheering this on. You are effectively stamping your approval on the concept 'forbidden knowledge' and that 'some people need to be silenced for the greater good'. I am not being hyperbolic.
I am sure LEOs will do what they are paid to do and catch criminals. In the meantime, I would like to focus on service provider not being able to provide a reasonable level of privacy.
I am blaming a corporation, because for most of us here it is an ongoing, recurring pattern that we have recognized and corporations effectively codified into simple deflection strategy.
Do I assume the corporation messed up? Yes. But even if I didn't, there is a fair amount of historical evidence suggesting that security was not a priority.
<< Put another way - you trust a classical bank, with a money, to secure your money from criminals.
Honestly, if average person saw how some of those decisions are made, I don't think a sane person would.
<< But the truth is, given the size and international nature of the internet, there are effectively armies of criminals, sometimes actually linked to governments, that have incredible incentives to breach organizations. It doesn't require negligence for a data breach to occur - with enough resources, almost any organization can be breached.
Ahh, yes. Poor corporation has become too big of a target. Can you guess my solution to that? Yes, smaller corporation with MUCH smaller customer base and footprint so that even if the criminal element manages to squeeze through those defenses that the corporation made such a high priority ( so high ), the impact will be sufficiently minimal.
I have argued for this before. We need to make hoarding data a liability. This is the only way to make this insanity stop.