I don't see a problem here?
If the company has a policy of not permitting social media sites like facebook to be used on-site (because they have geniune security concerns that mean they want strong control on communication from withing the company, or they are just grumpy old fuddy duddies that don't want anyone else to have a good time) then this appearing will be a red flag - it may be decided that the update can not go in until the change has been reviewed by a security team to make sure it does not circumvent their blocks in any way (intentionally or otherwise), that review could be delayed behind a pile of higher priorities, and older versions of firefox pulled from desktops due to not being the latest and therefore possibly not contained all the latest security updates.
Do you know how hard it is, to this very day, to get some companies to take of the blinkers long enough to take half a look at considering anything other than Internet Explorer onto their machines? This could change their minds back.
(yes, I know IE10 is actually said to be pretty decent, many people have already told me, but I'm so bitter about the years of stagnation caused by "classic" IE that I'll not be using it by choice any time soon)
I grok this to mean that a backdoor exists for customer service
If the backdoor existed for customer service reasons, the customer would be told about it rather than HP having to admit it exists only after someone spotted it and went public.
This could mean we can't consider purchasing HP equipment and have to get rid of any we already have - our contracts with some of our clients (banks, a police force or two, and so forth) demand that every one working for our company and any third party that has access to our equipment in any way is fully background checked. If there are accounts on there for which we don't control the credentials then we can not give them assurances that such due diligence clauses are satisfied. While needing network access is a mitigating factor limiting opportunities to abuse this hole, may not satisfy such contract clauses as we need to account for breaks in security elsewhere in our provisions (theft of equipment, unexpectedly clueless or gruntle-less individuals in the DC,
... which can be activated by a customer
TFS doesn't say the user has to activate it, just they they intend to gain permission before using it. This might be by means of it being disabled until the user takes action to allow access, but the wording does not explicitly say that and if it is open aside from proper firewalling and other provisions it might be exploitable by a bad actor with your DC.
Indeed, whatever the case: Please post a not-purposefully-scary summary of the actual problem below, because right now it sounds a whole lot like the not-backdoor that Remote Assistance is under Windows.
The key concern from my PoV is more that it exists but was "hidden", rather than what it actually does. It causes the appropriately paranoid to ask "what else is in there that we do not know about?". While there is an assurance that it does not allow access to data they confirm it allows enough access to be used for DoS purposes and as the feature was not previously documented at all (hidden, to take a more negative spin on "not documented") I would prefer some 3rd party confirmation before taking that statement as any sort of assurance.
* Perhaps this release changes nothing that is relevant to XP. Perhaps all the changes are in codepaths only touched under DX10 or later which is irrelevant to XP.
* Perhaps the early testing was done on limited systems. OK so it is odd for a platform to be ignored in beta tests, but I perhaps if the expected impact on XP is low or zero (see above) they didn't publically release the alpha for XP and someone forgot to update the release details for the beta.
While XP's market share is dropping rapidly now, there are still plenty of home installs out there - plenty enough that ATI/AMD aren't going to risk creating uproar by not supporting them until the official death date from MS (April next year).
Though I'm with you on the 'king memes.
Second thoughts: I wonder how many minutes it would take before I killed myself with it, and how many innocent lives I'd take with me?
systems that don't care what links a user clicks on
Definitely. As far as is possible we should stop users accidentally doing something stupid by making sure that they can only do the right things. This is not always practical though as for a start there are factors outside our control (for the password example we can't control how the user might store and potentially distribute their credentials in other services (password managers) or in the real works (bits of paper)).
systems that won't let users choose lousy passwords
I can't see a way that could be implemented which is not essentially an attempt to enumerate the bad, which is never a good idea. Even if it was for the most part, some of the things that make lousy passwords are again well out of our control: there is no way in software "don't use the same credentials for everything" can be enforced.
Security awareness is a lot more than just properly managing passwords and such - there are real world interactions that users need to be aware of so some training is definitely needed no matter how close to perfect the security in your applications is.
Attempting to stop technology by legislative means are futile.
Definitely though this isn't legislation (i.e. governement dictated and legally enforced), it is a much more localised preference about what goes on in a particulat home/business/whatever. It is more akin to banning someone playing loud music in the corner of the pub or not letting someone back in your garden unless they promise not to urinate on the rabbit like they did last time.
It's funny how people criticize MAFIAA for legislating its business model and trying to stop the technological progress, but at the same time cry foul when new technology invades their privacy.
Perfectly normal human hypocrasy I think. For what it is worth I have no problem with them protecting their business model by legal and moral means, my problem is that when those means fail they pervert the legal system in a morally questionable way - they are hypocrits too in that they are quite happy to stoop very very low in order to defend their relatively unchangfing view of the world that is changing (changes that some low people, mentioning no myselfs in particular, might sometimes use to borrow some bits).
The next battle is for total openness - if state and corporations can watch over us, then we should have power to watch over them.
I for one have no problem with monitoring with CCTV and such, especially in places where problems are known to happen (pubs full of people some of which have had a bit too much, alley ways, carparks,
And about that 'but imagine that your employer sees your drunken pictures' argument, it's high time for everyone to recognize that nobody is perfect and learn to ignore such things.
Definitely. I'm lucky that my employer is happy with me being a human with a few flaws one of which being a rather strong liking for social gatherings involving alcohol (heck, my manager is often there, as we are a company that tries to get along socially as well as professionally where possible and he is entertaining company). As long as what you do in your personal life does not affect your performance at your job or result in you otherwise somehow damaging your company or its reputation it should be no concern of your employer or potential employer (there are some professions where your private behaviour can legitimately be considered though, such as thoughs were you are a part of the company's public image or jobs like being a police officer (who, in the UK at least, are never officially off duty as they are warrented to take action on behalf of the law at any time rather than their arrest rights being contracted to specific hours)). Unfortunately we live in an imperfect world full of imperfect people who will make judgements based on infomation recorded in this manner and distributed accidentally or with the intention of doing harm - it isn't practical to expect legislation (or common sense) to fix that any more than it can fix the privacy issues in the first place. I'm not sure how we can, as a society, fix that.
Cellphones don't record & upload constantly
No, your's can if you actively chose to make it do so in the same way that this chair can smack you squarely over the back of the head if someone actively choses to make it do so.
You seem to be arguing for the right to do something simply because it is possible. Do you really want to live in a world that works that way? Think about it for just a minute (actually, to an extent the world does work that way for some people, but that doesn't make it right...).
I have absolutely no obligation to stop capturing photons because it makes you squeamish.
And I have absolutely no obligation to allow you, someone who is deliberately chosing to do something that makes my other patrons squeamish, to enter my establishment.
The bar owner isn't banning you from recording everywhere. He simply setting rules of conduct that may preclude you (should you break, or give indication that you intend to break, those rules) from entering his bar.
What people areguing against the bar owner here are aguing for a society where you can do what you want because the technology allows you to do what you want. Do they really want to live in a society that works that way?
I have the absolute natural right to videotape anything my eye can behold
Can we assume that you'll take the same attetude when someone happens to walk by when your wife/dughter/girl-friend/mother/sister/what-ever accidentally leave a curtain part open while changing?
You don't have that "absolute right" any more than I have an aboslute right to privacy, but you can bet your arse I'll struggle to maintain my chosen right-that-isn't-quite rather strongly, as will many others, so if you want to take that attetude you go ahead and we'll see which side wins out in our lifetimes.
The bar owner also has rights you know, and chosing to eject people who choose to make his other customers feel unconfortable is one of them. He can't ban you for something that is not a choice (colour, gender, sexual preference,
The prosthetic eyeball isn't a valid argument with regard to descrimination, which I think is where you were going with that. We couldn't ban them any more than we could ban pacemakers, but they don't have to be made with recording features - if you chose to have a device with recording features instead of one that doesn't you need to accept that you won't be able to take it everywhere just like there are places I have to use an old non-smart phone (or non at all) instead of the fancier device I generally chose to rely on. Maybe others can't detect that you can record, but they'll know if you publish (intentionally, accidentally, or indirectly through having yoiur data store hacked) and you can expect your face on many a "don't let this prick enter" notices at that point.
If the connector became the limitation then Apple's engineers have failed. There's several phones that are thinner than the iPhone 5 on the market not only currently but also dating back to 2011 (Motorola RAZOR Droid which was a shit phone for other reasons), all of them had microUSB connectors.
Micro USB was not the problem though - it was their existing proprietory dock connector that was too big. They didn't replace mUSB with lightning, they chose lightining over mUSB as the replacement for the old connection method.
They give size as one of the reasons for the change but it is not the only difference, there are apperently both electrical and physical advnatages over mUSB (note: I've not looked into this so it could be astro-turfed marketting tripe for all I know) so I wouldn't jump to criticising the engineers purely on the size thing.
Of course the key reason to my cynical mind is simply because, any real advantages aside, it is different. They want to keep a certain degree of market serperation, however artificial. There are iPods and other music players, there are iPhones and other smart-phones, there are iPads and other tablets. The fact that many peripherals are marketted explicitly as iSomethingOrOther compatible is free advertising for their product range and helps cement the view in their target market's mind that their products are different (and right now that works in their favour: many people see the incompatability as Apple trying to do something better, rather than as a deliberate inconvenience intended to lock them in to an extent other manufacturers would not try right now).