Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:First.... (Score 2) 163

LOL ... are you expecting a rational reconciliation between the fact that you can't undermine security and enhance security at the same time?

For you and I, that would be cognitive dissonance. For people who think they can pass laws around technical problems, the wishful thinking just keeps going.

Not understanding the technology makes it far easier to pass terrible laws about the technology and then fail to understand why those laws don't work.

But, part of the problem is they fall short on some basic security things ... and that stuff probably does need some fixing.

Comment Re:$1 / week (Score 1) 513

And the people who subscribe to a news paper will read it every day, probably read all of it, and do so religiously. Those people are looking to have the newspaper as a fairly significant chunk of their day.

Now, who goes to Wired every day and reads every article? And how many other websites do you think people will be willing to pay for? The subscription fatigue will kick in really quickly.

I wouldn't pay for wired, and I'm not turning off my security and privacy for them ... so if next time someone posts a story on Slashdot, and it points to Wired ... I will simply not read the story.

There's simply a very finite amount of money people will allocate for this kind of thing ... and if Wired discovers nobody cares, that will be their own damned problem.

Comment Re:Asinine (Score 1) 119

"it's well beyond the point where we should care about them."

That's entirely beside the point.

No, that's exactly the point.

The law does not allow you (or any other hacktivist) to go break into the FBI just because you're angry.

The law doesn't allow thw FBI to do blanket surveillance without a warrant or commit perjury either, and yet ...

Let's reframe the argument... People in prison are murderers, rapists, thieves, and drug dealers. They're well past the point where we should care about them, so it's fine when facilities aren't maintained and inmates are abused, right?

Random bullshit strawman, no thanks.

You're advocating a brutal world of vigilantism and rule of force, rather than rule of law.

If the FBI et al don't follow the law, don't pretend like they should be shielded by it. Rule of law being something we have to adhere to but they can ignore? Hell no.

I don't think anybody has claimed that the government agencies are perfectly innocent, but today they are the victim

Again, an expectation of sympathy, why again? Collectively, the FBI doesn't give a shit about the law or your privacy, but we're supposed to respect theirs?

Look, I'm in no way associated with this stuff. I think the guys who do it are poking the bear, and will likely find that can sting a little. I'm not suggesting anybody run out and do this shit.

But I am saying the collective anger at the entire agency is not happening in a vacuum. If they're going to ignore the law and trample on our rights, going all boo hoo about theirs is hypocrisy.

I think the people doing this should reasonably expect a lot of law enforcement resources to be expended. But I simply can't muster up sympathy for the collective tragedy of FBI agents, who collectively don't give a fuck about the laws or our rights.

This "it's OK, we're law enforcement, we're the good guys" is just not something I can believe any more.

So, no, I don't care. I'm beyond caring. Because they stopped holding up their end years ago.

Comment Re:Oops (Score 1) 513

Why the hell would we let all the damned tracking shit run in the first place?

OK, so your little monkey brain doesn't see it (not "your" little monkey brain, per se) ... they still get the tracking and analytics data.

What the hell is the point of that? They still know that "little monkey brain x visited this site" ... I'm not giving them that information, that's why I run the ad blocker in the first place.

Letting the scripts run defeats the entire purpose.

Comment Re:Oh god no ... (Score 1) 530

t sounds like you are really making the point that "stupid people gonna be stupid" no matter what paint (or not paint) is on the road.

Pretty much, yes.

I'm saying the level of dangerous stupidity I see with the lines in place tells me removing the lines is going to have FAR more unintended consequences.

The people who are too damned stupid to know what side of the road to drive on or what lane they're in are far too numerous ... giving them no indication of where they are is only going to make it worse.

Swerving into on-coming traffic is something which a lot of people already do.

So, yes, the idiots I already see in the world aren't going to be any less idiots with this. Which makes me think while this will slow a few people, it will cause a whole host of other problems. They'll likely cause more new problems than they fix.

Comment Re:$1 / week (Score 1) 513

Of course it isn't. The average person probably hits dozens of web sites in a week, probably one article at a time. Even for a site you use daily, $1/week is well outside what people are going to pay -- which, let's face it is pretty much zero.

The publishing model of the web doesn't include revenue, and the security mode of ads doesn't mean it makes any sense to keep trusting that shit.

I don't know what the solution is, but it's not my job to find it. We can't trust the ad companies -- neither to have any security, nor to respect our privacy -- and we won't pay for the content, we'll just move on.

For a tech website to not understand that tech savvy users use ad blocking stuff because we can't trust the ad companies says they don't understand the issue ... or they only see it as "we need revenue, we don't give a fuck about your security".

If you can't find a solution which allows for our privacy and security, we don't give a fuck about your revenue. And Wired will join the list of sites like Forbes and the NYT which I'll just ignore, or click the back button and move on.

Go ahead, block us. And fall even further into irrelevancy.

Comment Re:Oops (Score 4, Insightful) 513

There's a very important fourth option that they neglected to mention, yet is entirely in their control: stop delivering ads they don't host and haven't vetted.

Pretty much this.

Serve an ad from your own server, which doesn't require scripts, and doesn't rely on 15 external tracking sites to monitor my visit (OK, on that particular page it was 5), and I don't have a problem.

What's that? You can't serve those ads, or having it be non-targeted isn't as effective? Too fucking bad.

This bullshit about letting a bunch of external sites set cookies, run scripts, run plugins, and track everything I do ... that's your problem. Because I'm not trusting some 3rd party just because you're getting a few shekels from them -- I have no reason to trust those 3rd parties. That's an idiotic security model, and wired should know it.

Serve a script-less ad from your own servers without external tracking, and I won't even bother blocking them.

Comment Re:Don't blame every individual (Score 5, Insightful) 119

these people ... show so little regard for us.... when these agencies use Sting Rays, or commit perjury...not only can we not trust you bastards... So, are they entitled

Wow, that's a nice hack job of a quote you did.

Most of the people on that list aren't doing any of the the hings you complained about. You just lumped every individual law enforcement officer, undercover agent, secretary, and janitor who work for the FBI under one umbrella.

I'm not advocating it, I'm not condoning it, but I sure as fuck understand it.

The problem is, the agency as a whole has raised the ire of a lot of people. It's not like you can only target the people who do this stuff, and it's not like they give a shit.

The problem is, when they use things like Sting Rays or other blanket surveillance crap, suddenly other innocent people can end up on their radar without any legal basis other than "while we were listening to everybody else we saw this and then suddenly investigated you for fun". They do this shit to us already.

So, are we supposed to extend a courtesy to law enforcement they won't extend to us? Because that's some pretty wishful thinking.

because then me and 30,000 other innocent people who work for this company suddenly get on your shit list, and you think it is okay to release our personal data.

You're not on MY shitlist, I'm not the one doing this stuff.

But I'm afraid I can understand why someone who is angry at the FBI isn't willing to extend a courtesy to the rest of the members of the FBI that, as an agency, they don't extend to us -- because they don't concern themselves with our rights while they do this. These people work for an agency which is doing some things which are fairly widely known to violate your rights, bypass the Constitution, and ignore the letter and spirit of the law.

Which means the people lashing out at that agency aren't discriminating between the janitors, and the guys running the programs -- any more than the FBI are worrying about the rest of us.

Illegal blanket surveillance doesn't prune out the innocent people either. Parallel construction to lie in court about how they came to be looking at you violates your right to due process and the right to see your accuser, instead of someone who has fabricated a story after the fact to make it look like they didn't break the law -- you know perjury.

I have a hard time seeing this as some egregious offense against their rights while they do the same to us.

Comment Re:Asinine (Score 4, Insightful) 119

This is asinine. There are good reasons why some of the employees of the DHS and DOJ aren't made public. For people working in an intelligence analyst role, an undercover agent, or something along those lines, leaking that information could make those people or their families vulnerable to kidnapping and violence.

But you know what, it really boils down to "if these agencies are going to spy on us, often in violation of the law and our rights ... and then use parallel construction to commit perjury, why should we care?"

I don't disagree with your sentiment, but the reality is the reasons these people don't want their information made public are their own problem. Especially when they show so little regard for us.

Just because you have unauthorized access to do something and you have the skills to do so, that doesn't make it right.

So, when these agencies use Sting Rays, or commit perjury via parallel construction so they can lie about how they got information and deny you legal process, or otherwise ignore the law ... is that right? Because a lot of people disagree that "because we said so" is a valid reason.

Yes, it's reckless and dangerous .. but it seems the kind of thing which is intended to say "not only can we not trust you bastards, you can't even secure your own shit." I can see the point: when law enforcement stops caring about our rights, it's well beyond the point where we should care about them.

There's an awful lot of anger over the fact that law enforcement has taken the attitude of we'll do whatever we can get away with. So, are they entitled to expect anything different?

But let's not pretend that there aren't on-going abuses by these agencies which happen all the time, and which undermine the very rights and freedoms they pretend to be protecting.

Comment Re:Anything that slows down the Assholes... (Score 1) 530

Of course the problem with your statement is it isn't the 'assholes' who will slow down.

The ones who are convinced they're the awesomest driver on the road will be the least likely to slow down for this.

I've also been on roads where every single car was driving well above the limit -- that one guy driving along at exactly the speed limit was more of a danger than anything. That person probably should have decided to stay off the highway if they were afraid of it -- because on some roads it's not much different from being the guy who is driving well under the limit.

If every other driver, including the police, is ripping along at well over the limit ... the guy who is being the rolling roadblock is a hazard.

Comment Ummmm ... (Score 3, Insightful) 77

On the other side are security researchers screaming that we're installing remote access with little thought about securing it properly.

Well, that and the weekly stories we see which demonstrates just how terrible the security of this crap really is. It's not like it's a hypothetical case researchers are warning us about.

Those of us who have been around long enough know damned well not to take a day-one update, because companies have become lazy and sloppy and don't find out what they've missed until some poor schmuck has it go wrong.

And now we're supposed to trust a vendor to push out an update to the things which run our homes and have them not screw it up?

You can keep your interweb of crap, and I'll keep assuming the people making it don't give a damn about security or testing their products.

The IoT is a model in which all of the consumers are the beta testers, and which security is a farce, if it exists at all. It's all gimmicks and toys, lacking either substance or quality.

Comment Oh god no ... (Score 1) 530

That sounds like a terrible idea.

I already encounter plenty of people who, upon encountering an obstacle on their side of the road, will happily veer over into my side of the road, even if it means crossing a yellow(*) line. They don't seem to grasp that if they have an obstacle on their side, they should slow or stop instead of just veering into oncoming traffic like a moron.

If with a big strip down the center of the road which indicates "your side/my side" people will still cross into oncoming traffic, there is no way in hell I would trust them without the damned line. Hell, I routinely see places with two left turning lanes where half the drivers just stray into their neighbors lane like +- 15 feet is just fine.

Trusting the average driver I see to know where the middle of the road is without some form of guidance seems idiotic, because they can't do it now. I can't tell you how many people I see who seem to think they need 15 feet of space on their right to clear a parked car, which puts them firmly onto the side of oncoming traffic and are apparently too stupid to realize they can't do that.

As TFA says, "Absurd, barmy, crazy".

It's not a shared space, I get a lane, you get a lane, you stay the hell out of mine. You don't get to make use of my lane just because it's there and you don't know where your car is.

This sounds really really stupid.

(*) we use solid yellow lines to separate from on-coming traffic for you Brits, instead of dashed white ones -- white ones are to separate you from people going in the same direction.

Comment Re:Energy in? (Score 1) 135

Trust me, it makes no sense... I can guarantee you that it takes a lot more energy input than you can get out of the methanol.

And which is then going to just ... release all of that carbon dioxide.

It isn't magic.

But, in case you really needed to know:

but they admit that such a system may be five to 10 years away and will probably be still more expensive than ordinary fuel production.

Which over the years I have taken to mean "it kind works in the lab, we need to publish now, but there will never be any applications of this technology on a meaningful scale".

An awful lot of things which are 5-10 years away are really never going to happen. In fact, most such things are pretty much doomed to never be useful.

Not saying basic research isn't cool, but I don't think we'll expect to see this any time soon.

Now, if you can make ethanol, we're listening. Why no, officer, that's not a still ... ;-)

Slashdot Top Deals

Old programmers never die, they just hit account block limit.