Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:design (Score 1) 85

by sociocapitalist (#47726865) Attached to: Heartbleed To Blame For Community Health Systems Breach

No answer from you, as expected based on your previous posts showing that you don't actually know much of anything and try and get by on an acerbic sense of humor that really just comes across as obnoxiousness.

So you go right ahead and ROTFLYAO because it's obviously all that you're truly capable of doing. Well, that and defecating from your mouth.

Comment: Re:design (Score 1) 85

by sociocapitalist (#47721207) Attached to: Heartbleed To Blame For Community Health Systems Breach

"You have to decide if you want security or not. If you connect something to the Internet, it is not secure."

I didn't read past that phenomenally ridiculous statement other than to read the second sentence, almost accidentally. Also, .mil. Make sure you explain to the military that the vast majority of the computers they use are insecure. ROTFLMAO

I'm sure they're quite aware that anything connected to the Internet isn't secure.

Do you think otherwise? Do you really think that anything that IS connected to the Internet can be completely secure?

I'm putting up with your obnoxiousness for now just to see where you take this, if anywhere.

Comment: Re:design (Score 1) 85

by sociocapitalist (#47719343) Attached to: Heartbleed To Blame For Community Health Systems Breach

I see no good reason for this separate infrastructure to connect to the Internet.

Let me know how your IT can remote in from home without having an Internet connection at some point. Remoting in is nearly a requirement of all information systems.

'Remoting' is not in and of itself a requirement. Getting the job done, whatever that job is, is the requirement. If you need 24x7 coverage for whatever job needs to get done, then hire enough people to have onsite 24x7 coverage.

Comment: Re:design (Score 1) 85

by sociocapitalist (#47719321) Attached to: Heartbleed To Blame For Community Health Systems Breach

I understood your point. At least I thought I did. I thought you were proposing that each hospital have a seperate physical LAN for patient data. Now I see your poroposal is even more absurd. You propose that a seperate WAN be created just for hostpitals. In order to make this secure, it would obviously mean running seperate physical connections, which couldn't be run to the same endpoints, meaning of course the investment of billions of dollars including the cost of new buildings, land, construction, security personnel, etc.

I suppose if by "not much of a cost difference" you mean embark on a multi-billion to trillion dollar project that will take decades to complete, then yes. The best part of your idea? It would mean people attack a diffent network, which also would have the same heartbleed style issue, since having a different network doesn't make things magically secure. Great idea though!

You have to decide if you want security or not. If you connect something to the Internet, it is not secure. This is why the military has networks that are not connected to the Internet.

To address your point about heartbleed still being an issue - it would be an 'internal' issue and as such, on a network not connected to the Internet, would not be an entrance point for anyone outside the network and it's much easier to police who does what on your own network than across the Internet.

You think only in terms of cost and not in terms of requirements. On top of that you are, of course, pulling the costs out of your ass but whatever - obviously you feel that whatever the cost would be it wouldn't be worth it to have the level of security provided, even comparing those out of your ass estimates versus the mufti-trillion dollar a year medical industry in the US.

Comment: Re:design (Score 1) 85

by sociocapitalist (#47712059) Attached to: Heartbleed To Blame For Community Health Systems Breach

"Should such data be on a network accessible from the Internet (even secured)?"

Should they even use computers? Maybe they shouldn't even use paper. The most secure system would be to just memorize it all, but then someone might come by with a wrench! Security is now, and always has been, a trade off. It is a delicate balancing act. They could keep all records in a vault, and only allow the President to access it. OTOH, people might die because they get a medication that would be fine for most, but is deadly to them because the information wasn't readily available to staff. Would you rather have someone find out you are allergic to a drug, or die because the hospital made damn sure nobody knew?

You've said a lot but you haven't actually addressed the point I'm making. Perhaps you've misunderstood.

Let me try and be more clear.

The medical establishment can have it's own internet - call it medinet or whatever, that does not need to be connected to the Internet.

I see no good reason for this separate infrastructure to connect to the Internet.

Comment: Re:bass akwards (Score 1) 167

by sociocapitalist (#47704011) Attached to: Why Chinese Hackers Would Want US Hospital Patient Data

Medical records are insecure... so it's time to migrate to a system like the UK where they contain comprehensive information about each person? Am I actually reading this?

Until patient confidentiality is enshrined into laws with real teeth and my insurance company, employer, or local black market guru can't get their hands on them I think I'll pass.

So instead your info is leaked one way or the other anyway and you have what, exactly, as a benefit that you would lose going to a single payer system?

Comment: Re:I'm not so sure.... (Score 1) 167

by sociocapitalist (#47704005) Attached to: Why Chinese Hackers Would Want US Hospital Patient Data

Some hospitals are taking photos of patients with higher cost proceedures as early as 6 years ago. My photo is in my medical records. A stolen ID would be spotted by any staff reviewing my medical history.

Presumably not if the imposter went somewhere in the country where you've never been.

Comment: Re:Better Idea (Score 1) 82

by sociocapitalist (#47702315) Attached to: EFF's Cell Phone Guide For US Protesters

Even better, buy it on the way to the protest. Using cash of course.

I didnt bother reading the EFF advice but if you take your own stuff to a demonstration, you are a fool. You never know what may happen, you go with a minimal amount of items with you. ID ( required to avoid many vagrant arrest laws ), a few bucks in cash for a burger if you are stuck waiting on a ride from jail ( or the hospital ).. Hide your car keys ON your car.. No jewelry or a watch. A few contact numbers in your pocket, in case you are unconscious when found.

Don't you have to give ID even if you buy a prepaid (cash) ?

Comment: Re:College and school police involved (Score 1) 264

Here's what I don't get: why are so many college and school police officers applying for militarized gear? I could understand the police wanting a SWAT team in case of a school shooting, but giving college campus police military-grade firearms sounds like a very good way to have a second Kent State Massacre occur. Why can't they just leave the military stuff in the hands of the SWAT teams?

The Kent State Massacre was done by the army national guard, not school police.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...

I guess now the school police don't have to call in the army to 'get the job done'.

Comment: Re:I can't change my fingerprint (Score 1) 383

by sociocapitalist (#47661973) Attached to: DARPA Wants To Kill the Password

I don't see your point. They publicize the collection before they start, and those areas can be avoided. I'm not trying to avoid the collection of my information tinfoil-hat style, I've already given it to the government willingly twice. I'm just pointing out that you are wrong. Nobody is currently, or proposing to do what you say, and those with a US passport are exempt from the lines of collection in the US.

You are FUDing things which haven't happened. That makes it seem like you are OK with everything else, as if you weren't, you'd have something "real" to complain about.

I see - I must have confused your post with another. I thought you were trying to avoid having your metrics taken by anyone, including the Government, as they could subsequently be (mis)used / lost / whatever and could not be changed / reset.

If you've given them willingly then yes, we're on a different thread altogether.

First off, I'm not complaining about anything. I'm saying things as I see them. What I see is that governments collect biometric information at their borders and that, separately, countries tend to share private information with other countries including the countries of the citizens involved. Combining the two it does not seem unlikely that a country that takes someone's biometric information might share it with that person's own country.

Whatever -

Comment: Re:Makes both look bad (Score 1) 125

by sociocapitalist (#47661945) Attached to: The Fiercest Rivalry In Tech: Uber vs. Lyft

Between this nonsense and the fact that the ride sharing services don't have the proper licensing and proof of insurance, I wouldn't feel comfortable using any of them.

You'd feel more comfortable in a (licensed, etc) taxi with a driver that has obviously just fallen off the boat, doesn't speak the language doesn't know the roads (relying on GPS) and may or may not actually have earned their driver's license (easy to buy such in some countries, then exchanging them legally for a local license depending on the agreements in place between states/countries)?

All of which, of course, could apply to Uber/Lyft drivers...

Could and do - but since trying Uber I've had more locals than imports as compared to taxis.

Comment: Re:Dirty tactics (Score 2) 125

by sociocapitalist (#47654781) Attached to: The Fiercest Rivalry In Tech: Uber vs. Lyft

To be able to correctly understand this piece of news, I'd need a definition on the criteria to identify a corporation's action as "dirty tactic".

Then maybe you should take 30 seconds and RTFA.

"...over the past few weeks, Uber employees have been posing as pedestrians, creating Gett accounts for the sole purpose of scheduling and then canceling Gett rides. The result is clear: wasted time for Gett drivers, fewer available rides for Gett users, and general disarray for the whole service."

For example.

Comment: Re:Makes both look bad (Score 2) 125

by sociocapitalist (#47654763) Attached to: The Fiercest Rivalry In Tech: Uber vs. Lyft

Between this nonsense and the fact that the ride sharing services don't have the proper licensing and proof of insurance, I wouldn't feel comfortable using any of them.

You'd feel more comfortable in a (licensed, etc) taxi with a driver that has obviously just fallen off the boat, doesn't speak the language doesn't know the roads (relying on GPS) and may or may not actually have earned their driver's license (easy to buy such in some countries, then exchanging them legally for a local license depeing on the agreements in place between states/countries)?

I've used Uber a few times and so far the experience has been just fine.

Man must shape his tools lest they shape him. -- Arthur R. Miller

Working...