While NN provides protection against overt violations such as outright blocking or throttling of competing interests this hasn't been the vehicle used. There isn't some machine at the ISP explicitly designed to slow down or block all traffic to somewhere the ISPs dislike...it is all much more subtle than that. Hey look x victim interconnects with y,w and k so we will pref z,o and p to keep links g,h,i,j saturated. Then we will claim it isn't "our fault" your *** is slow.

I still believe the only solution that at all stands any chance of working are focused efforts to restore a competitive market. Break up monopolies, FRAND access to last mile, erasing anti-competitive legislation, etc.

I will assume you have carefully read all 317 pages which is great. I'm embarrassed to say I can't even find the text.

The failure is business models requiring secrets to be burnt into hardware by manufacturer.

When customer takes delivery they should be responsible for installing keys.

Otherwise events like RSA FOB compromise or the proverbial safe company with stolen customer and combination lists will continue.

The only defense against mass exploit is decentralization. Not only does it make prospect of "0wn1ng th3 w0rld" less likely it keeps you from presenting a massive target to extremely well funded adversaries.

In venues I have read or listened to NSA brass speak they come prepared with exotic definitions of plain language and seek to confuse and manipulate perception by invoking nonsense that would give most lawyers a run for their money.

Completely Ignoring underlying topic when you act like a weasel hard to understand how it is you expect to earn any respect or consideration for your cause.

Moore's law is really all about "cost" per transistor. While process shrinks are certainly an important enabler they don't have to be the only driver that keeps things going.

Anyone smart enough to write an HTTPS proxy able to dynamically create and sign certs surely must have known enough about underlying technology to recognize and comprehend importance of validating trust chain. How does someone innocently "overlook" this in either design or test? Simply MUST have occurred to someone.

Even in public stalking is still illegal.

Just paint the earth white - works during ice ages.

Paxilon Hydrochlorate?

Assuming story on its face is true the blame for failure to recover goes to IT hierarchy responsible for managing the database. No data programming error should have the capability of causing unrecoverable data loss. It isn't so much you guard against someone or something typing DELETE FROM ... as much as retaining ability to restore database to a transitionally consistent state immediately prior to execution. There is no excuse for failure to retain a chain of log backups.

What is worse all database systems worth using offer the ability to view the database as it was at any point in history. It is like a rolling historical backup guaranteeing data cannot be lost forever due to mistakes manipulating data.

Even then you would have to be a hack to not be able to recover a snapshot of database prior to the incident from redo log.

Properly managed capability to see database as it existed at any point in time is maintained throughout the useful life of the database with no exceptions.

I think time would be better spent improving systems especially communication systems to deny all adversaries capability to "hack the planet".

Aggregating sources of trust like this is akin to piling gold bars on the street corner, holding a press conference announcing to the world their presence and being surprised when gold turns up missing next morning.

I don't buy it. These sentiments jumble a number of separable components.

Have a 10 year old device was able to do local speech recognition including arbitrary voice shortcuts and search without training. I would tell it to play song x or anything from artist y and it would most of the time get it right and just do it all offline and all on hardware at least an order of magnitude less capable than what is available today.

There are PC software packages such as Dragon and Sphinx able to do free-form speech to text locally.

You don't need "the cloud" to control a TV. Recognizing a short list of commands to control a device is relatively trivial. There is nothing wrong with searching online databases if that is explicitly necessary... What is wrong are generation of bullshit excuses to collect usage data by virtue of voice enablement. People have never really gave a shit about voice recognition enough to justify any serious R&D expenditure. Vendors push it because they want revenue stream that goes with data collection.

Preloading advertising spyware with a new computer while knowingly disabling all https and code signing security.

There is selfish, there is stupid, there is dumb and there is criminal batshit insanity.

Having been a fan of Lenovo for years I sincerely hope they are sued into oblivion and face criminal prosecution. No need wasting your time wondering if I will ever buy anything from them again.

I suppose this makes sense. If you select port 80 it is more likely to be noticed or more likely to be intercepted and or mangled by proxies and AG's making it difficult to transport non- HTTP data streams.

Port 443 would best allow for unmolested arbitrary stream while remaining most unlikely to be filtered.

The rest I can't explain... is there really such a big ass market for ads and data justifying such behavior or is some of this at least partially being "subsidized" by state actors? The mindset and thinking not just of Samsung but of growing numbers of vendors strikes me as both disgusting and unsustainable.