That's a very valid point, but let's not pretend that you couldn't have the benefits of OnStar without most of the nasty privacy issues. A limit on data retention, clear indication when the device is listening in, and not selling subscriber data to the government would resolve a lot of the criticism.

Blade Runner is a Frankensteinian tale about creation revolting against its creator, questioning the meaning of death, whereas Do Androids ... is about empathy as an essential human quality in a world where everything is artificial. Much of the novel is about Deckard's desire to buy a pet, required for spiritual fulfilment according to the religion of Mercerism. Death is as unimportant to the book as Mercerism is to the film.

I wonder if it was "only" metadata due to actual intended restraint or mainly technology limitations at the time.

Hang on while we all switch to encryption you can have a back door to. Once again you've proven yourself trustworthy!

Is big gov most eager to turn into our worst enemy or their own? It's hard to tell.

That's only true if you're surrounded by arseholes.

Eh, it's not like Blade Runner was a faithful adaptation either. For one, its theme is completely different from the book. Still, it's one of the best SF movies and one of the best adaptations ever.

Wrong, and wrong.

Yes, thanks for stating how security fixes are supposed to work, in case we all thought Microsoft was going to slap a bandaid on it and call it good.

No. Why are you referencing a completely different vulnerability not even managed by the company? Because they're both vulnerabilities? Because there's a risk someone didn't fully fix an issue once therefore no-one can in future? Newsflash for you: Microsoft has fixed vulnerabilities with the same root cause multiple times oflver the years.

Do you know of any others?

It was not a design bug Do you even know what you're talking about?

*shrug* I guess I wouldn't roll straight to production...

Their *3 month* timeline.

Google is between a rock and a hard place. Either they disclose and stuff gets fixed, or they don't and *we don't know if it would be fixed when MS said it would or not*.

I am glad Google is sticking to their policies. 3 months is easily enough time to deploy a fix.

As one of Microsoft's end users, I'd much rather be faced with the quantifiable risk of deploying a patch than the unquantifiable risk that every system I own has been compromised, any data on them exfiltrated or encrypted and used to hold me to ransom, and the possibility that my systems have been used to attack others.

For all we know, Microsoft could be playing a PR game by developing patches and then holding them just past Google's 90 day window. Two in a row now? Seems fishy to me.

That's because it's intentionally exposed.

Do you like to stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la!". Top result:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/19/...

and why do you think they have this?
https://www.facebook.com/white...

"Hint" maybe you should read this:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/... .. and after you read that you can research and consider all the ways that Facebook has changed it's privacy settings over the years that constantly expose a wider assortment of information and allow greater data gathering by default, requiring users to maintain constant vigilance and opt-out, rather than opt-in. ... and then when you're done with that you can research how they have set up their "governance" system such that on the face of it they claim to take input from their user base about their major policy changes, but have set it up in such a way that there is virtually no chance that end users can override anything they want to do, despite the programs existence.

You have to be really nuts to be defending Facebook of all companies when it comes to user privacy.

We have a Facebook group. We use it to share pictures of events sometimes, and light humor, and the occasional bit of interesting tech news, and that's all. Nothing sensitive goes there, ever.

I bet Facebook wants business to use them as a primary channel for work because it will force employees to have Facebook accounts and get into the habit of checking them just to do their job well - even if the company just trials it and later abandons it.

There are many, many people who have not joined our Facebook group, and probably never will.

Then you might have a badly managed workplace?

For me it wouldn't even be about "with another company", it would be more along the lines of "look how Facebook has repeatedly fucked over the general end user on privacy issues, are we really going to trust our internal communications to these guys?".

Uhh, yeah. Where's the quote from the director of engineering without the clearly vested interested? I'm suspect thatyou'd be hard-pressed to find a credible DoE who is ready to champion Facebook as a collaboration tool for their business.

So you're saying because you're a regular user, who is used to their crappy website that they haven't bothered to fix in ages, everyone else who doesn't know all the pitfalls should just suck it up?

Wouldn't it be nice if someone pointed out all the pitfalls for people who aren't regular users of USPS.com but might have an occasional need to ship something and might try it in future? I wonder where we could find such information...