It should read "from the 1.0% people using WIndows on Phones, 0.0% want this" is like: who freaking cares?
This is news about how to set the corpse's arms inside the coffin!

Very relevant video presented at last year's CCC

https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-73...

The whole model (in)security is thoroughly explained - better than on yesterday' article,
and way, way better than on this so called "rebuttal".

Come on!! How can that even count as a "response"? The TFA just reiterate the original article, but punctuating it by the author's unexplainable hate for anything open,and at the very bottom, it quotes an "Intel Spokesman" in a few lines just saying "it is very secure".

All right! I feel safer already!

Stuff that... who cares??

You get headlines on every little change on every high-profile app, just because.

Once upon a timewe used to find news around here.

"In Corporate America, NSA leaks documents on Snowden"

It is not like the evidence IS his FB profile - he has been recognized, at least by the woman who reported him in. So, even if one takes the pains of "FB is ivading privacy" (to the point people can't be criminals), this instance is not a matter of the evidence being illegal. The most any lawyer could clain would be "the way my client was found was illegal under privacy laws", but once he is found, there is no undoing it. What could possibly be done in a case like this? Subject the guy to some "witness protection program", get him a new secret ID and life, so that he would have to be searched again for theft?

" this 'ask slashdot' is just that stupid. ". That.

Millions of Waze users can have their movements tracked by other Waze users #noissuethere

(The protocol reverse engineer and the ability to spoof extra cars are news worthy, I'd guess - but the headline is completely pointless)

It is just like moderation value around here is over-hipped. Just take a look at stackoverlflow - almost anyone can downvote and upvote everything, unlimited times, and it is not like it sunk down in a singularity.

I for one, do not care for having /. "moderation points" I have to carefully spent over 5 days for a while.

I have a LG Smart-TV - non android. Just browsing the web trying to see videos in sites, you are covered by a rain of pop-up adds that make it impossible to navigate. One can't even remove a cookie from the built-in TV browser. It is just a matter of time before smart TVs stuck bloated by adware, unless the TV vendors offer more control to the TV owners - android platform or not.

In a connected world, customers can pick the cars straight with the makers - the whole article is written as if the unnecessary middle-men where a show stopper. They are the ones being stopped, and what makes one wonder is that are not gone already.

Is it just me that was completely "shoot this guy off the internet", when TFS multiplied "4k by four yet once again" to get to 8K??

TFS lost me right there. There is No Such Thing(tm)

I've followed /.for the most part of the last 20 years. And I guess once every 2-3 years they do come with a headline of "transparent aluminium" breakthrough - which each and every time turns out to be some kind of ceramics that takes aluminium in each composition (a.k.a. "glass"). Let's see what they do have this time around.

It looks like it is not /. editors who can't read things here, but you. This is the sitautionm - I own Wifi access point "A"; Friend "B" comes by, I physically pass A's password to B. Now "B" is the one with the option to share or not the passwords (and all of them) with all HIS contacts - not mine. And moreover, it will happen by default - if B has 2000 Outlook.com contacts, all those 2000 people will be automatically allowed to connect on my WiFi "A". And the ony means this not to happen is if `B` opt out __all__ his sharing (not just for WiFi "A") or if WiFi "A` SSID is formatted as dictated by Microsoft (i.e., ending in `_optout`).

This is so insanely ridiculous that there are no word to describe how ridiculous that is.