A more nuanced & thus truer position than that of the karma whores. Too bad you were unwilling to take the karma hit & posted AC...

See my reply to Tanshin. Justice, Freedom & Security are not absolutes as you two are claiming at present.

Ah, a believer in absolutes...

So, "Freedom is more important than Security" without any qualifications, is it? How just is it when my freedom to take or do anything I want trumps your security?

The USA was fortunate to have founding fathers that were more astute. Ben Franklin did not say "Those who would give up Liberty, to purchase Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.", he said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.". You need to learn that without qualifiers, your statements play well to the mods but are completely meaningless IRL.

You have no interest in "how much secure is an unjust and non free society" because you live in a society that unlike you, understands the importance of those qualifiers that you denigrate by ignoring them.

So you're willing to live in a world with organizations like ISIS that will kill you without any means of your government defending you, just so you can get your fix. Good to know.

I never said that the world was perfect, just that journalists & lawyers cannot become magical invisibility cloaks for people looking to hide from mi5/6.

Uproar? No. Criticism by a few, yes but without the weight of government and given that press criticism in both counter examples was magnitudes less.

Besides which, you're wrong. In the case of French monitoring, it was the government (the DGSE) monitoring it's own citizens. When the interior minister was queried on it in parliament, his answer was "yes we do the same data collection as the U.S., but given that France has no law against it, it's legal. The resulting 2 lines in the newspaper & lack of criticism by the press & lack of follow up prove my case.

Data collection by intelligence agencies Isn't pushing the boundaries, it is what they must do. It is the sharing of that information to Law enforcement agencies which may be pushing boundaries, but much depends on the country, who is doing the Data Collection & who is targeted:
US agencies collecting data on French Citizens: Unacceptable! Beyond the pale claimed the French Politicians & Press.
French agencies collecting data on French Citizens: French Politicians state "we have a law that authorized that". Press says nothing.
US agencies collecting data on German Politicians: Unacceptable! Beyond the pale claimed the German Politicians & Press.
German agencies collecting data on US Politicians: German Politicians: Shhhhhhh... Press says nothing.

See a pattern?

So, according to you, National Intelligence organizations (specifically MI5/6) should give magical invisibility cloaks to spies & terrorists as soon as they get a 2 year journalism degree or pass the Bar?!? That's clearly just as much demagoguery as Shakespeare's "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." and just as workable.

No. French ISP users generally have control over whether the hotspot is publicly shareable or not. My experience is with Free but the other French ISPs should be comparable. People that want to use the hotspots of other users have to explicitly activate sharing on their box as this is how they obtain the username & password needed to pass through the captive portal on the public SID. Users that do not share their bandwidth turn off the public hotspot, but lose the ability to use the hotspots others on their ISP have made available.

The bandwidth available to the public SID is throttled so that public users cannot swamp the home users. While there have been problems in the past with french ISP's deliberately letting the links with youtube fill up as a negotiating technique to get Google to cough up money this hasn't been a problem in a long time. My 31.98€ per month fiber optic Freebox is faster & cheaper than just about any other ISP.

No, i have first hand knowlege of cloud clients and am not afraid to take the karma hit by posting the truth using my account, unlike you, basement dweller.

The problem is that Timothy is a link baiting /. editor intent on turning it into reddit.

Apparently you think that the NSA can be blamed for increased competition in cloud services & nationalism pushing companies to use local solutions once alternatives were available.

Delivering the binary on a default OSX installation doesn't make shellshock exploitable on OSX systems, it needs to be running, which it isn't on the vast majority of OSX systems. I've bolded the part of your own post where you admit that this isn't the case. Yeah, I had a brain fart and forgot to type "running" in "there is no web server", it doesn't change my point: No running web server on the vast majority of OSX devices means that shellshock isn't as severe for Macs as some have been saying.

No. In recent versions of IOS, Macs do not run local web servers. People have to add in a web server by themselves & very few do so. In your little corner of the world (assuming you do web development or some such), people may add a web server (through macPorts or the Server Application) but there is no web server in a normal recent OSX installation. Yeah, there is the niche of MacMinis that people use as servers where this is not true, but they are the tiny minority. Most Macs sold today are either Airs or MacBooks & very few people want to have a local web server or "other advanced unix services"* on them.

As for your comment on their being "rarely updated", that's rich given the antiquated, nay archaic RHEL servers often I see in datacenters on things like Cisco VOIP gear.

The people geeky enough to be aware of the attack so far are also probably aware of how to update bash all by themselves. Everyone else will be able to get the update shortly when Apple publishes a fix.

* As labeled by an Apple spokesperson.

No, all you said was "These are the guys who think Bluetooth is just for syncing with your computer.".

Still wrong, still ignorant.

Yeah, but that's not a remote exploit.

However, Ars was a little more informative: CUPS is apparently vulnerable and gives a remote exploit on OSX too...