Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Surprised? (Score 1) 440

So what?

He said he turned off all options that appeared. e.g. he did what a human being without specialized knowledge of Windows group policy would have done.

Precisely. And the article summary that got posted to slashdot, what does THAT say? That even with all telemetry turned off that windows 10 was phoning home left and right. That's not even slightly accurate, is it? And that's not acceptable either.

He left windows update running on a fresh install, and a shit pile of network activity happened as he monitored the next 8 hours after a fresh install.

Holy crap... call the papers! Lets collectively lose our shit!

Why is this acceptable?

Its not acceptable. Windows should give users more control. But that's not the point.

The point is that this isn't a list of 90+ ip addresses that were "surreptitiously contacted" after all telemetry was turned off. Telemetry wasn't turned off. Windows updates wasn't turned off. The internet connectivity check was running, the internet time sync was running, etc...

This is as ridiculous as cataloging all the bacteria on your body after taking a shower, and then losing your shit that the shower utterly failed to get you clean. The shower did what it was supposed to do; it's not defective. And half the bacteria that you cataloged was gut bacteria that should be there. And you didn't separate any of that out.

Comment Re:Surprised? (Score 2) 440

Read the article, temetry wasn't disabled.

If I read the actual article correctly, it was just a Vanilla install of Windows 10 enterprise. There was no active attempt to disable or block any of the actual telemetry features at all. He did go through the customized install and turned off the 'cloud/personalization/sync options there', but that's it.

The actual telemetry features would still have been on.

Not to mention all the usual windows features that phone home:

Everything from windows update, to time sync, to the regular ping it does to see if you have internet connectivity would have still been on.

I'm guessing all the live tiles in his start menu were still on too, so they'd have been pulling ads and updates, etc.

Seriously... it's an interesting exercise and an interesting article about what one's computer is doing. But it doesn't show what anybody here is really concluding.

Comment Re:Add-ons? (Score 1) 387

But this goes in circles...

They make the version with the bricked up windows and remote locks. They make a version without. You can use either version.

But that doesn't satisfy; you want to use the version with the bricked up windows and remote locks, but now you demand to have them build a back door for you to use.

And then they say... that back door reduces the security for anyone who uses the product. It increases the attack surface of the product.

And then you say, but any one who opens the backdoor needs a level of access that would also allow them to drive a bulldozer through the brick windows. So give me a back door.

And then they say... sure, your right, if they have that much access they can drive a bulldozer through the windows... but that still doesn't mean it makes sense to increase the attack surface.

Comment Re:Fundamentals (Score 1) 342

Declaring they won't so much as fart in our direction seems pretty close to saying NONE of them would rejoin the fight. Almost certainly not 30% of them.

I read it, and meant is as a 50/50 shot. Half never lift a finger against us, and we lose track of half them as they disappear into the Pakistan mountains and rejoin the Taliban, or al Quaida, or whatever group they originated with.

With the implication that even those we lose track of that do rejoin the Taliban or alQuaida or whatever will not pose a threat to the US. Because if they ever did anything even slightly high profile we'd see them, because we're on the watch for them. So they can go train militia or carry supplies around in the mountains somewhere in Pakistan, and that's fine. It may be 'against us' but its not and never will be a real threat to the USA.

You make the argument that if they aren't an existential threat then they aren't any threat at all what so ever and should be released unconditionally. That is ridiculous.

Let me try to explain.

The unconditional release stems from US taking prisoners and then categorizing them ON PURPOSE to put them into a legal limbo, and then torturing them using further loopholes and legal murkiness, and denying them any protection under the Geneva convention. And that's the reason they should be simply released. Because WE fucked up. We could have done better.

The reality is they are prisoners of war [...] which kind sucks for you if you were fighting a holy war to the end of eternity.

Then they should have been treated at the very least as POWs.

The reason I call for unconditional release and deportation, is that we really fucked up as a country here. They should have been afforded the legal status and protections of POWs. Morally, we should undo this by simply sending them back home. In the same way that we release a known criminal that we captured with tainted illegal evidence. We know they are bad, but we are a nation of morals and laws. They may well pose some minor ongoing threat to the US and its persons... but so be it. Maybe we'll get them next time. Maybe someone will die first. But that is the price of the moral high ground. That is the price of freedom. That is the price for being a nation of law. We don't get to be completely safe all the time.

And they aren't so supremely dangerous that it justifies perpetuating our mistake. IF they actually and legitimately posed an existential threat to the country then yes, releasing them would not be a viable solution. I would not destroy the nation to make a moral point. But there is simply nothing they can do that is so great a threat that it is worth perpetuating this farce to continue to hold them. And if they play some small part in some small bomb in some possible future scenario... so be it. I'm sure we'll do our best to prevent exactly that; we know who they are and we'll be watching them.

In the future upon capturing an enemy soldier maybe our troops should give the detainee some rations, a weapon, ammo and send them on their way.

In the future, we should categorize them as captured civilians or captured POWs and treat them accordingly; rather than invent shameful legal black holes and then drop them into an oubliette to be forgotten.

Comment Re:Caller ID Blocker (Score 3, Insightful) 240

. There are some very legitimate reasons for this such as: Changing your call back number to a toll-free number, and maintaining the original calling number on forwarded calls.

It should be pretty trivial to develop a system where the carrier can verify that the spoofed ID is in fact a legitimate number tied to the calling organization.

It should be even more trivial to develop a system where the callerid spoofed on my handset can be reported to the carrier, with the time of the call, and they can immediately determine where the call REALLY came from, and report that to me, to the police... to whomever.

Comment Re:Getting away with it? (Score 1) 385

Would that line of reasoning apply to a car?

Your door handle freezes up, you take it to a little shop who fixes it with an aftermarket part.

A few weeks later your car pushes an OTA update and bricks the entire car on you.

No problem, your fault or the fault of the shop. One should always be required to use OEM parts at the dealership when making any repairs or risk having your car remotely disabled at the whim of the manufacturer... on purpose or otherwise?

We USED to demand that this sort of shit be illegal. Now you seem to accept it as something we should expect.

Comment Re:Fundamentals (Score 1) 342

As many as 30 percent of the nearly 600 released Gitmo inmates started fighting again.

And you would use that to justify keeping the other 70% in prison forever? Really? How sick are you?

Meanwhile, I never said NONE of them would rejoin the fight against the US, i said they'd disappear into the caves (with the implication that they would rejoin their movements). Perhaps i was wrong that we'd lose track of them... if we actually know where most of them are: great... that's another win for us. All kinds of useful intel as we track their movements, contacts, and communications, right?

What I said was ridiculous was that they'd pose an existential threat to the united states. And that remains ridiculous. Has the United States fallen? Are we on the verge of collapse thanks to those released inmates?

Of course not, because that's RIDICULOUS.

Comment Re:Open Source (Score 1) 163

I wouldn't go so far as to say "re-flashing the phone with a different Android" is supported.

I qualified that as being supported by SOME manufacturers/devices, which it is.

. In fact, doing so voids any warranties with the manufacturer and as you mentioned I couldn't bring it into a T-Mobile store for a fix.

Actually those select manufacturers have committed that reflashing the OS does NOT void the warranty. But yes, naturally you can't take it to T-Mobile to troubleshoot a problem with syncing your email. If you swap out the OS you take ownership of that. But those manufacturers have committed to dealing with buttons that fail, batteries that fail, and other hardware warranty issues. Worst case you may have to flash it back to a stock OS to demonstrate that its not a software issue.

I'd also argue that when most people see the "Install from a non-trusted source?" dialog, they'll cancel out of whatever they were trying to do.

That's the right decision for Grandma and the VP of marketing. If they doesn't know f-droid from myHappyLuckyTotallyNotAScamStorePlusPlus then they shouldn't leave the google play store.

Have you seen the source for any of the Google Apps? No? then they aren't 'open' are they?

I haven't see the source for Portal either, which runs on linux. That doesn't make linux non open. Android is not google apps, and you can use android without them. I ONLY use the google app for maps myself.

You're comparing "freedom" with "openness", and there is a difference.

I don't deny that android as an ecosystem, especially from the perspective of the major corporations behind it is not ABOUT openness per se. Corporations are motivated by marketshare, profitability, revenue, etc... I get that. I get that they aren't ABOUT openness as a concept. Even RedHat isn't really ABOUT openness, its just a means to an end.

Nevertheless Android is still MUCH more open in actual practice. And even in spirit, it is far less hostile to openness than Apple is even if openness isn't the primary consideration driving all decisions.

Comment Re:Fundamentals (Score 4, Insightful) 342

They will be given the right to stand trial, PUBLIC trial, where the reasons why they are being detained and how we know that information will be subject to the standard rules of evidence used in criminal court. Likely the evidence will not meet the requirements of our legal system and get thrown out, which will set them free.

That is what SHOULD happen. They are not criminals, they are not POWs. They should be deported and set free.

I REALLY don't care how "bad" the government tells us they are, nor even how bad they really actually are.

We cannot simply take prisoners and hold them forever. And its not like they really pose a threat. Not a serious one anyway, certainly nothing existential, or even substantial. They'll be under surveillance and won't so much as fart in our direction, or they'll disappear into a cave somewhere and never be seen again... either way: fine.

If they personally orchestrate the fall of the United States, well, then: you were right, we should have held them. But we both know that's ridiculous.

There are far greater threats in the world then those guys.

Comment Re:Open Source (Score 5, Insightful) 163

Oh yeah, all you have to do is this and that.

"This and that" is tick one box, that is present in the settings.

That is why I say "in spirit"

And you are wrong. If they were the same "in spirit" they wouldn't GIVE you the option to load apps from anywhere else on a silver platter.

Android is about as open as iOS.

No, android is a LOT more open than iOS.

Can I opt to use an alternative app store like fdroid or the humblebundle store on android? Yes, I can. Its officially supported. Can I do that on ios? No way, not without literally breaking ios.

Can I buy a game for android directly from the developer, on his website, download it and install it? Yup, I can do that if i want to. Can I do that on ios? Nope.

Can I download the source for android modify it and flash it to my device with the full support for doing so provided by the manufacturer (although obviously they'll no longer support the operating system I install). On some devices from some manufacturers: yes, you can. With Apple, on any device -- no. The software cannot be downloaded and modified, and no they do not support allowing you load any customizations you might make at all, period, ever.

To say they are the same even "in spirit" is simply... lying.

Comment Re:Add-ons? (Score 1) 387

But it is still a problem for people who have internally developed extensions

They have release channels that don't require the signed code.

In my opinion, their default model is correct for the general masses.

They DO HAVE a release channel suitable for advanced users who require internally developed unsigned stuff. One is not forced to stay on an old version.

But letting you simply turn off the signing as an option in the main release channel would be pointless, because then any malware would simply *do that* as its first action.

Having the version that doesn't require signed extensions as something you actually have to opt into and proactively download separately ... is the right decision.

Comment Re:Oh good, a reason (Score 3, Insightful) 342

Sounds like different meanings for "unelectable".

For example, it sounds like your definition of unelectable is someone who *shouldn't* be elected, while the OPs I think is more along the lines on someone who *couldn't* win an election.

Hillary on the latter criteria is electable. Period.

Sanders... i wouldn't have thought electable, but given the turd-salad the Republicans are fielding... might very well be in this particular race against the right opposition.

I can't see Cruz winning an election against Hillary or Sanders.
I couldn't see Trump winning an election against Hillary or Sanders at one point, but now I think voters might just do it.

Rubio, I don't know, I think he too is electable.

As for desirable... none of them in the republican field. Sanders maybe for the democrats. But lets be honest here, the problem is really not the president and never has been. A Sanders win would be much like a Ron Paul win (back when he ran) even if they win they don't have broad support in congress or the senate to really do anything.

And THAT is where the real rot is, congress and the senate. And it doesn't matter who gets put in the whitehouse, that rot isn't going anywhere.

Comment Re:There's an add-on for that.. (Score 1) 387

Yeah Mozilla probably is making the right decision here.

The feature *would* have been irritating as hell to use, and removing it to streamline the code and letting those users who wanted that sort of cookie control use an extension is the *right* move.

The 3rd party example you gave would actually be a functionally better solution for most people to use then what Mozilla had built-in. (What addon is it by the way that you use?)

The only real criticism i really have of Mozilla on this issue was the lack of clear communication to those users who were using the setting.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" -Ronald Reagan

Working...