there is always a next time for hackers, and they learn each time they get in. moral: disconnect from the web. VT102 terminals would make a dandy airgap, but they won't run the manglement crap.
seems like a no-brainer. punish weasels.
it's called gouging....
The "corruption" angle of this is far more pervasive than just games or game reviews.
As far as I can tell, GamerGate claims to be about gaming journalism ethics and not any media that matters in any significant way.
It was an interesting coincidence that a Jewish reporter in Israel was complaining about media corruption from a different angle when this story was being broken.
No, it really isn't.
Her perspective was that inconvenient facts and stories are not published. Things that don't support the dogma that your editors want to push are suppressed.
You must be either be clueless or a teenager, if you didn't already know that. It's the most prevalent side effect of the commercialization of the news media. I think Slashdot even covered at least one such scandal in the mainstream media and that was many years ago. In that case, a Fox channel in Florida fired two reporters who refused to edit out parts of their news story that were critical of an advertiser (Monsanto). They sued Fox for wrongful dismissal, but lost the case because the courts ruled that Fox had no duty to tell it's audience the truth.
I'm not sure if it's shared ideology driven by the state of journalism academia or if it's mainly more crass corporate considerations but there's a definite group think at work.
I don't think it journalism academia, they despair for the state of the news media. I think it's simply the corruption of mixing profit-seeking in with the activities that are supposed to create the informed electorate. When the news is bought and paid for by the very same people the news is supposed to investigate, is it any wonder that there is corruption? In America, the government can manipulate the media by simply threatening to take actions that will reduce the profits of the news organization unless they carry the news the government wants them to carry. Because the news is a profit center, it's rasy for the government to manipulate these corporations by such simple means as denying access to media scrums or government officials. Things that won't get the average citizen riled up, but could cost the news organization ratings and thus money. Additionally, it's easy for the news corporation to be manipulated by their sponsors because all the sponsor has to do is threaten to move their advertising to a competitor to lobby for certain stories to be softballed. Even worse as time goes by and these tactics are more common, the news organizations learn to take these actions without even be prompted.
Professional journalism at this point can be at best described as a form of political propaganda.
In many ways the words "at this point" make that sentence less true. The term yellow journalism was coined in the 1890s, after all. The corruption of the news media waxes and wanes with the regulation imposed on it. That regulation is pretty loose right now in the name of free speech, which necessarily leaves a lot of room for corruption. There are worse things, for instance, most of the Russian media is pretty much owned by the Russian government so they repeat uncritically everything they are told to repeat which leads to worse media and worse governance.
Unfortunately, I really have no idea how you would go about making the news media less corrupt, other than maybe banning anything that claims to be news from accepting any sponsorship. If they aren't beholden to make a certain amount of profit for the sponsoring organization it becomes much more difficult to manipulate the editors, and through them the reporters.
it's a self-destructing company!
I tripped over the ruts from the SS7 bandwagon over a decade ago. back then, you had to be in the CO and on the terminal of the Stratum server to spy on SS7 traffic. ability to scoop up the slop in a bucket came later.
nobody cares about the hackers. it's the terrorist threats of "9/11-style" violence that have people freaked out.
It will be 911 times 2356?
In any case, Google hasn't formally announced a decision yet, it has merely made a proposal public and started a discussion on the subject requesting feedback. The fact that everyone is condemning Google for this proposal vindicates all the companies that keep their discussions private and out of the public eye until they work them out -- all secretly first.
Google has already fucked with the icon in the address bar.
They have started to reject certain encryption protocols and now state "no public audit records available" for quite a number of domains and certificates. These changes went out a couple weeks ago.
So the "but they didn't start fucking with it yet!" comment is not valid. They'll request feedback and then do what they are already planning to do anyway.
https will not stop mass metadata collection.
It definitely will make the spying harder though...which is a good thing.
Harder for whom?
I am going to bet, that the big players in the data collection game already have a way to sniff traffic in SSL mode because they stole the root keys, certificates, intermediates, and even your certificate a long time ago.
Do you really think Network Solutions or GoDaddy are going to fight off the NSA or Mosad? (if they even _wanted_to?)
Yep, same here.
On topic, Google, I appreciate the focus on security, but stop deciding to simply implement however YOU THINK the web should be working. Ok, technically, it's just a change in the browser, but the semantics are obviously meant to "encourage" everyone to switch to HTTPS. However a good idea some of us think that is, it's not up to you.
This is why people are getting freaked out about the power you hold. You're starting to demonstrate that you're not afraid to *use* that influence to simply push things to work however you want them to. You've already done that once already by pushing forward an SSL-related change far ahead of when it really needed to be, and now it looks like you're floating a trial balloon to go one step further.
Am I overreacting here? Or is Google going too far, too fast with this?
They are most certainly going to far.
Last week, with the latest update of Chrome, they started putting a yellow warning triangle on any cert with SHA1 encryption. While SHA1 should be avoided, they are issuing what is basically a big "FUCK YOU" type warning. There were a number of CAs that didn't provide an option for anything else up until last year, so basically Google is forcing site owners to pony up for a new cert ahead of cycle, or do the paperwork to re-issue a cert and then re deploy it.
Likewise, Chrome is now bitching about lack of "public audit records" that have barely begun to be deployed with CAs, Let alone something that every certificate and domain have yet.
The changes mentioned in the article are not the first attempt at screwing with the function of the symbols in the address bar.
That little lock is one of the FEW things that end users have properly picked up on as part of security, now Google is undermining that. Instead of getting certs to "their standards" (who the fuck voted them boss on this?) they are going to end up teaching users what happens up there doesn't matter.
For a long time, people feared the Internet turned into something only the sanctioned big players could play in, assuming it would be media producers, TV networks, large telcos and internet providers.
Instead, we have Google doing it. If they succeed, the "little guy web site" is going to disappear from the internet.
My response is going to be "Chrome doesn't work right anymore, switch to Internet Explorer" Not going to bother complying to a standard that is unreasonable and unwanted at this time. Sure, in the FUTURE, however rushing shit through in a few months is pant-on-head retarded and extremely arrogant at the same time.
The entire point of having a battery in a watch is so that you don't have to worry about winding it every day,,, it's good for 3 years and then you replace the battery when it goes.
If I'm going to replace my watch, something that I've been using for years, and have only had to replace the battery twice since I got it, with something newer, then that newer thing should not create additional inconveniences that far outweigh anything it can do that a watch might not, particularly when there is nothing that it will do which a smart phone does not already do anyways.
There are a fair number of people out there who happily traded the 2-week battery life of their perfectly functional cell phones for dead-in-a-day smartphones. As it turns out, the inconvenience of having to constantly recharge a smartphone was worth putting up with in exchange for being able to do all the things you can do with a smartphone. Clearly, not everyone shared this sentiment, as you can still see any number of people using non-smartphones today--but significant numbers of people chose functionality over battery life.
It's hardly a stretch of the imagination to see the same thing happening with smart watches.
attack the DNS, eh? The Community objects. now we get to boycott EVERYTHING Sony, including your stupid Adam Sandler movies.
that thing sounds like a tripwire for airliners. hit that tether line, drop 250 passengers in beautiful downtown Baltimore. better have strobe lights all the way down at 20 foot intervals.
He's not talking about that kind of disparity. The disparity he's talking about is the gap between the fortunes of the "rich" and the "poor". Wealth is accumulating rapidly on the "rich" side of the scale and we're not even sure if the "poor" side is accumulating anything. Now the rich will always have it better than the poor, so the real question is does it matter if the rich are one thousand, one million, on billion, or one trillion times better off than the poor? It seems to me the evidence, so far, indicates that the larger that gap, the worse off our society as a whole is. At furthest extreme it becomes easy for individuals to buy the votes to get the legislation which protects their interests passed. If you think that's already a problem, that might be an indication that the current inequality is already exceeding a reasonable threshold.
As far as I know, it isn't illegal to ride a horse (or drive a horse and buggy) on most roads (the exception being high-speed closed access roads like highways and interstates) in most countries. I suspect in 50 years time driving your own car will be considered a lot like horse riding or driving a buggy is today. It probably won't be illegal, just very expensive and thus out of reach for the majority of people.