It will be a cold day in hell when I use a cloud based authentication scheme to access my own shit. I'm not going to use a system where I have to ask someone else permission to use my shit. Anyone that does is eventually going to get what they deserve.
I'm not anti-science, but I do believe that too many times scientists draw conclusions based on biases. This is one of those. The bias seems to be that isolation is bad and that people should be around other people. He mentions that it changes brain function but names no specific trending to bad behavior because of those brain changes. Many people like to be alone, I am one of those. There is no better image of hell to me than living in a big city or doing the club thing. I would be perfectly content snowed into a swiss mountain cabin alone for 8 months as long as I had internet.
Thats the point.. Don't give a shit if they can. I'm sorry but I am a bit of a computer elitest. I don't think ISP's should be reponsible for blocking ports or making security decisions on the behalf of their users either, but if they start spewing malware all over the place, then they need to be banned. Proper usage and consequences, there is a secure way to do transactions, people just don't like security. In that case don't bitch about the consequences (not you, just people in general aren't willing to do what is necessary to secure themselves).
When people insist that things are done for them, restrictions get tighter on those of who DO know what we are doing. Companies start catering the lowest common denominator... case in point... Android and Apple walled gardens where you are no longer the admin of your own device. You aren't deemed smart enough to control your own security destiny so they take the functionality away.
Yes, I am a computing elitest. If people don't know what they are doing, then deal with the consequences.
I don't buy the whole... "because people can't use it properly" as an excuse for self signed certs. 3rd parties involved in the process give the illusion of security but in fact guarantee its insecurity. If used PROPERLY self signed certs are the best solution. "Because it is hard" isn't an excuse and is the same issue that makes every company make bad security decisions. They want 100% transparent security, if it can't be transparent they don't want it all. True security will never be transparent.
The whole idea of a 3rd party in a secure communication is ludicrous anyway. Stop the stupid ass warning for self signed certs and let secure communications between the two parties it concerns. Yes it requires that each of the 2 sides know a little bit about what is going on to verify the cert, but there simply is no such thing as a security when a 3rd party is involved whether its the Chinese, the NSA, or the CA themselves.
If only they wouldn't breath our cause would be aided. Get over it gov'ment. Do your work the way your supposed to without invading our privacy and whining over every thing we do that keeps you honest and working for US.. the people. Encryptions protects us from you. We use social media because we like it... etc. etc. etc.
The security for THEM can be more or less secure than current. I don't want their apps shuffling through my shit on my phone. The only way I would use something like this is if I was using Cyanogenmod and over-rode their apps security settings and kept it locked out of everything. I'm not even sure that is trustworthy enough for most crap though. There really needs to be a virtual phone within a phone that can keep each app sandboxed to what it thinks is an entire real phone.
I *** LOVE *** connected devices. Connected to MY network and under MY control. I love to tinker and connect in and do things just to be doing things. But stuff like the NEST thermostat that cannot be controlled directly, but require me to ask PERMISSION from a central authority at Nest to control my device can stuff it. I'd love the technology but if it is in my house, no one else will have access to it.
Better hope the right open source company takes this and runs with it before the Apples and Microsofts and AutoDesk's of the world take it and run with it. Otherwise the walled garden approach will infiltrate real objects and we'll be regulated to death. LED screen says Error: Your custom widget looks too much like ACME widget Model #32456, you must pay for right to print this object. Enter unlock code to enable printing this and similar objects.
Then learn who the hell owns a device once it has been purchased and act accordingly. The OWNER should not be locked out of their device or policed by their device in any fashion.
Its everyone now. Its every device, every OS except SOME versions of linux. I hate not just Microsoft, but Apple, Samsung, Sony and many many others. In todays software and hardware OVER 50% OF THE BUDGETS FOR EVERYTHING ELECTRONIC, is spent researching and implementing systems and technologies that keep me from being able to use my devices in any way other than a way that generates revenue., They are not even satisfied with one time revenue stream, but now even cripple THINGS so they can sell them back as a service to generate a continuous revenue stream. The days of geeks owning their devices/computers is over and I resent that beyond belief. There really isn't any single place that anyone can go and get rid of this completely, so I can't even truly vote with my pocketbook. I just simply have to buy the electronics that are LEAST riddled with any technology that exists for the sole purpose to limit my capability/creativity in some way. When Microsoft become less concerned about Metro walled gardens or killing the video stream if something looks fishy to THEM on MY computer then I'll go back to using Microsoft or other vendors.
I tend to agree. Even the small houses will leach public code and write code that restricts the user in some way shape or form. The end user is where freedom is determined. Software that cripples features or hampers user freedom in any way regardless of developer size does tend to be evil. Imagine how much better software the world would have if all of the time, money and effort that went into writing code that limits freedom in some way (DRM, crippling features, artificial limitations) had actually been spent on actual development up until now.
I have to disagree with that. I agree with Stallmans take that end users are where freedom is defined. Someone shouldn't be able to leach off the free community and not give back... such as Tivo and others. Software that limits what the END USER can do with it is simply not in the spirit of free software.
Yes.. Fuck that. This is a perfect example of why software and hardware separation should be enshrined by law. If you give me hardware/devices/equipment/cars that is capable of something but crippled by software then I'm going to work incessantly to hack past your stupid shit and get the features that are in my hardware/devices/equipment/cars.
I actually only heard about Nest about a month ago and was VERY interested until I found out it was cloud based. I immediately typed a complaint to them about it. I'm very happy Google is heading this way with it. Even if Googles open solution is still cloud based, it should open API's and communication documentation so that people like me who are NOT interested in giving control of my house to a cloud app under someone elses control that can sometimes override by proxy. I'm a security concious guy and I simply do not want my homes firewall open to anyone but me. My phone or tablet should connect DIRECTLY to my in home equipment or server without anyone else having to be involved.