Lots of people view common laws restricting freedoms/imposing on your privacy, law enforcement technology and it's operation/flaws to be "news for nerds". A while back, someone finally managed to get the source code for a breathalyzer, for example, and when dissected numerous flaws were found which would call into question many arrests.
A couple of days ago, someone posted on a reddit thread about the horrible pitfalls of having one of these and dealing with all the problems they bring. I understand DUI is a very serious issue, but if the claims this guy makes are true then the way interlock service companies are run are also outrageous:
For almost any use you might have the biggest threat to the security is going to be all the ways that your communications can be compromised while you are actually using it. Baseband exploits, protocol exploits, software vulnerabilities, poor or crippled RNGs, compromised platform or application updates, cloud storage of sensitive information, etc. etc. the list goes on.
Oh what? It can self destruct? It's probably way too late by then, and assuming it's been compromised the attackers would probably rather you keep the thing. Less work for them!
Or Google Wallet.
Let's not credit Apple alone with a solution when there are at least two major players in that market both encompassing a large install base and indeed Apple bringing their solution to the table much later.
A security feature does not have to be perfect to provide value. The user is still significantly more protected with HTTPS than with HTTP.
That is not in dispute. But even with HTTPS there are many risk factors that can be evaluated, including characteristics of the HTTPS connection itself and other factors beyond that, that could be used to present a more accurate assessment of "risk level" to an end user that is much better than teaching the falsehood that "if it's https, it's secure and I don't have to worry". Because when everything is https, the web will definitely be neither secure nor "safe".
The major downside to this is promoting the idea that an https connection is "secure", because especially when it comes to https, there are so many different attacks to level against both an end user and a host that we'd be better using a risk grading system.
I thought the three-letter agencies were spying on all of us to prevent things like this - you know, stop the terr'ists, protect our freedoms, etc. etc.
Seems like a vote of no confidence from various businesses here...
One of the reasons why the world-wide web is buried in a sea of advertising is that the costs associated with hosting a web-site increase as the site becomes more popular.
Costs per visitor are usually extremely small.
The main reason the www has so much advertising is that almost nobody wants to pay for content, yet content is not free to produce, and even if you come up with a schema for which some people will pay, your competitors will steal all your volume by offering something closer to free (or supported by advertising), and volume is essential for almost all internet-based businesses.
None of this will change because of the distribution method. Content is still not free to produce.
I have a scanner and periodically listen to HAM and GRMS channels, and my opinion is that licensed operators have killed the platform. In my area conversation is about *absolutely f'ing nothing of interest to almost anyone*, some douche periodically transmits junk to annoy everyone else, and any time someone with an interesting use comes along someone who knows all about the rules scares them away - doubtlessly feeling like they've just done everyone a great service. And perhaps keeping the airwaves clear for emergencies is one idea, but having those airwaves there and nobody using them for anything useful most of the time is such a waste.
I realize Slashdot is full of HAMs waiting for the next disaster so they can save us all with their radios as our last bastions of hope, but there is my anecdotal personal opinion for you. Maybe traditional HAM would be more popular vs e.g. encryption/packet radio if traditional licensees weren't so anal.
What makes Sony relevant as a company are it's people, their skills, their connections, the power they have to move the industry, the content rights they own, the technologies and products they develop, their brand, etc. etc.
100tb can leak today and be irrelevant within 12 months because life continues and projects move on. I'd say in the wake of massive disclosure employee morale may be the biggest factor in the recovery.
And you feel that this is equivalent, do you? What % of Sony employees do you believe actually had a hand in the decision to use the DRM, knew how it worked, and knew that it had a backdoor?
If I had to guess, it would probably be fewer than 50.
I would also guess that most people involved in shipping off the Jews knew they were doing something pretty bad.
I've just been reading some of the articles, and it seems that in fact Sony has unfortunately been storing a lot of communication that contains discussion of medical issues amongst other things.
This is an example of where a company could have done a better job of assessing the risk of retained data becoming a liability and applied suitable retention policies and other risk mitigation strategies like encryped storage (some articles suggest most files were not meaningfully protected).
IT folks and legal departments in today's climate should be asking themselves what is being stored, what are thr benefits, what is a liability, what is the actual business need, what are the mitigation options.
That's what I thought. I guess "insurance information" doesn't have enough scare factor for a story.
Bearing a grudge against a company for the decisions of it's higher-ups is one thing, wishing horrors upon the majority of employees who are probably everyday folk earning a living - many probably sharing your view on the matter of the rootkit saga - might be going a little too far...
What is Sony doing with medical records?