Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: the only thing net neutrality will ruin is profit (Score 1) 85

by NynexNinja (#47265499) Attached to: Wireless Industry Lobbying Hard to Keep Net Neutrality Out
AT&T and others stand to profit billions of dollars by creating slow lanes and fast lanes on the internet. The real issue here is that customer already paid for an internet connection at a certain speed, so its some level of fraud or deception (false advertising, bait-and-switch) to be selling a service at a certain speed and then not delivering the service that the customer is paying for.

Comment: Preventing Stingray from working (Score 5, Interesting) 272

So, I've been thinking of how could we prevent such a rogue device from operating on the cellular network? The way it is done is pretty easy actually:
* First you have to create a database of longitude / latitude coordinates of where we find cell tower sites at 100% signal strength.
* Next we allow Android's baseband processor to issue handoffs to cell towers that are within range of the GeoIP coordinate database
* So when a Stingray device pretends to be a cell tower, and it is not within range of the geoIP coordinates database, it will be rejected

This could be easily implemented in Android... and you could also add notifications when a cell tower was rejected due to being too far away from the known cell tower real location.
GNU is Not Unix

Interview: Ask Richard Stallman What You Will 480

Posted by samzenpus
from the go-ahead-and-ask dept.
Richard Stallman (RMS) founded the GNU Project in 1984, the Free Software Foundation in 1985, and remains one of the most important and outspoken advocates for software freedom. He now spends much of his time fighting excessive extension of copyright laws, digital restrictions management, and software patents. RMS has agreed to answer your questions about GNU/Linux, how GNU relates to Linux the kernel, free software, why he disagrees with the idea of open source, and other issues of public concern. As usual, ask as many as you'd like, but please, one question per post.
Government

Online, You're Being Watched At All Times; Act Accordingly. 299

Posted by timothy
from the so-act-suspicious dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Kaspersky Lab's Internet security expert Costin Raiu discusses internet surveillance claims that you should assume that you're being watched at all times. The article reports that Raiu conducts his online activities under the assumption that his movements are being monitored by government hackers. Raiu: 'I operate under the principle that my computer is owned by at least three governments' ... 'this is not meant as a scare tactic, but a rather as a statement of fact that should now be the default setting for everyone.'"

Comment: sounds like they have a case (Score 4, Insightful) 149

by NynexNinja (#46198655) Attached to: Florida Arrests High-Dollar Bitcoin Exchangers For Money Laundering
If someone comes up to your business and says "hey i'm going to use this for illegal purposes", and then you agree to accept the money, you're in violation of several laws. RICO is one, and so is money laundering in some cases. His biggest mistake was at the point when they said what they were going to use the money for, in this case to buy stolen credit cards online, he accepted the deal and continued working with them. He should have said that he doesn't do anything illegal and not dealt with the potential customer at that point. That would have shielded him from liability.

Comment: If JQuery is a hack, everything is a hack (Score 1) 573

by NynexNinja (#46169935) Attached to: HTML5 App For Panasonic TVs Rejected - JQuery Is a "Hack"
If you're talking about web technology, and you're claiming that JQuery is a hack, you might as well admit that using Ajax is also a hack, so is javascript. The only thing really is *not* a hack would be native object code running on the chip. You'd be left with the web browser and no interpretation of any of of the web pages.

Comment: Google has problems (Score 1) 692

by NynexNinja (#46042831) Attached to: Protesters Show Up At the Doorstep of Google Self-driving Car Engineer
If Google didn't build their own private air terminal at San Jose Airport to get around flying with the riff raff, or build their own private bus system to get around employees riding BART with the riff raff, they probably wouldnt have so much back lash. They are not doing things that is for the community. They are trying to shield themselves from the community. To outsiders, I'm sure it appears they are building their own utopian society that is somehow greater than the one they live in. If they want to be seen as helpful, they should be doing helpful things. The whole creepy factor about everything they do is also more than most people can handle as well. Whether it be using Google Glass to try to lookup criminal histories of random strangers on the street, or using the Google Bus to avoid interacting with regular humans, or using the Google Airport to avoid interacting with regular humans. Apple is in similar circumstances, but they are less creepy and so people are not up in arms about them, yet.

Comment: PCI compliance? (Score 5, Interesting) 137

by NynexNinja (#45986045) Attached to: Target Credit Card Data Was Sent To a Server In Russia
Target suffered similar data theft in 2005, and now again in 2013. By storing cardholder information, CVV's and (worst) PIN's in the clear, they obviously are not PCI DSS compliant. If this happened to any other retailer, Visa would revoke their PCI compliance status. If nothing happens regarding their PCI compliance status, what does it say about PCI compliance in general? PCI compliance is nothing but a joke, not to be taken seriously. Why even go through the work and trouble to get PCI DSS certified if companies like Target can flout the rules and get away without any penalties.

Comment: The problem with Google Glass (Score 4, Insightful) 211

by NynexNinja (#45387015) Attached to: LeVar Burton On Google Glass
The problem with Google Glass is not the hardware itself, it is the privacy implications of using the device, which sends everything to an untrusted third party. It would be different if they offered the option of never communicating with their network, but they don't offer that as an option. So, essentially anyone who has an agreement with google (NSA, FBI, other governments, other companies, etc) will get copies of your location, pictures coming off the camera, video, microphone data, etc. Those issues alone are the reasons why I would never actually use one. Until Google is serious about separating the umbilical cord from devices like this from talking to their servers, it remains a serious problem about ever using it for anything long term. It's bad enough you might be already using an Android or iPhone device which does almost the same thing, minus the video and audio stream.

"Just think of a computer as hardware you can program." -- Nigel de la Tierre

Working...