Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation

Uber Is Now Cheaper Than a New York City Taxi 139

Posted by samzenpus
from the penny-pinching dept.
redletterdave writes Uber announced in a blog post on Monday it would cut the prices of its UberX service in New York City by 20% — but it's only for a limited time. Uber says this makes it cheaper to use UberX than taking a taxi. Consumers like Uber's aggressive pricing strategy but competitors — and some of its own drivers — are not as happy. UberX, Uber’s cheaper service usually hosted by regular people driving basic sedans rather than fancy black cars, also cut its rates by 25% last week in the Bay Area, including San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland. As a result of that announcement, Uber said its service was effectively “45% cheaper than a taxi.”
Crime

Police Using Dogs To Sniff Out Computer Memory 415

Posted by samzenpus
from the smells-like-a-terabyte dept.
First time accepted submitter FriendlySolipsist points out a story about Rhode Island Police using a dog to find hidden hard drives. The recent arrival of golden Labrador Thoreau makes Rhode Island the second state in the nation to have a police dog trained to sniff out hard drives, thumb drives and other technological gadgets that could contain child pornography. Thoreau received 22 weeks of training in how to detect devices in exchange for food at the Connecticut State Police Training Academy. Given to the state police by the Connecticut State Police, the dog assisted in its first search warrant in June pinpointing a thumb drive containing child pornography hidden four layers deep in a tin box inside a metal cabinet. That discovery led the police to secure an arrest warrant, Yelle says. “If it has a memory card, he’ll sniff it out,” Detective Adam Houston, Thoreau’s handler, says.

Comment: If this happened in the US (Score 1) 378

If this were a couple of kids in the US... they would both be on their way to Gitmo, the anti-rejection drugs the kid probably needs to stay alive wouldn't be addressed... then the remaining kid would probably go on a hunger strike in Solitary.

Oh... and someone at the Bank would be put in charge of a new "cyber security" division, with a big bonus and a corner office.

I wish we could be more like Canada some times.

Comment: Re:"Coming IT Nightmare?!?" (Score 1) 240

by ka9dgx (#47152085) Attached to: The Coming IT Nightmare of Unpatchable Systems

That doesn't address the issue of unintended side effects from existing bugs. I agree that a separate LAN can help mitigate things, but it doesn't eliminate the odd things that can happen in a world where code is trusted by default.

Imagine if your garage light switch would 1 out of every 1000,000 times, cause your roof to fall off your house.... this is the world of software that can do anything.

Comment: Trusted by default - right phrase, wrong context (Score 1) 240

by ka9dgx (#47149465) Attached to: The Coming IT Nightmare of Unpatchable Systems

The problem IS that things are trusted by default... but not in the way the author thought. If you trust every program you run by default, you are doomed. An operating system should NEVER trust anything by default... Linux, Windows, OSX all violate this principle. So do embedded devices base on some variant of them.

Never trust by default, and you stop having to worry about side-effects, and start deciding what the limits are ahead of time.

Comment: Progress IS being made (Score 1) 187

by ka9dgx (#47002305) Attached to: Do Embedded Systems Need a Time To Die?

I sit here in the Cassandra suite, watching the tech community finally waking up to the reality of the world. You are starting to panic because you know none of the operating system choices you have are viable for truly secure systems. Soon you will learn about Multi-Level Secure systems, Capabilities, and other features of the secure computing..

About 10 years from now, you'll get the hints the universe has dropped on you, and start implementing these systems.

About 10 years after that, some real old timers (or young punks who've read history) will point out that this stuff was actually figured out in the late 1960s, and early 1970s.

Comment: Re:Multi-Level Security? (Score 3, Interesting) 22

by ka9dgx (#46916867) Attached to: Europe's Cybersecurity Policy Under Attack

Multi-Level Security was worked out in the late 1960s in order to allow computing both Secret and "Top Secret" information in the same computer at the same time. The use of the Bell-LaPadula model ensures that a lesser privileged user can never cause grief for a more privileged user. If we had Mutli-Level secure systems, we could safely run any program we want in a sandbox, and it could never, ever crawl back out of it.

The closest you're likely to approach is if you enable the MAC option in FreeBSD, which is experimental.

The Genode project aims to provide a capability based security system which can run Linux Apps... it is the best chance I see going forward for a truly secure system that isn't military grade. In such systems, you specify at run time exactly which files can be accessed by an application. This has the benefit of explicitly limiting the side effects of said application, and thus making for a far more secure system. You might be tempted to think this would make it unusable (as App-Armour tends to be)... but it doesn't have to be that way. In fact, it's possible to make apps behave almost identically, as far as the user is concerned, without compromising anything.

I think we're still 10 years out before people wake up and realize that our collective assumptions about computer security are wrong, and this needs a more rigorous, carefully engineered solution, instead of the layers of patch we currently employ. I'm hoping that my frequent postings on this subject are informative, and help shorten that timespan significantly.

Uncompensated overtime? Just Say No.

Working...