Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Law mandated technology (Score 1) 251

So, what in AmiMojo's post mentions the Federal Government?

FWIW, yes, since the mid-nineteenth century, after the creation of railroads and the adoption of a national currency, the Federal government has had power over virtually all commerce due to the fact it's allowed to regulate interstate commerce, and the things I just mentioned makes all commerce effectly interstate. I know it's not a popular thing to say, but things change. This changed 150-200 years ago and yet there's always someone who thinks that the government doesn't have the right to regulate something the constitution now gives it the power to do.

Want to change that? Either amend the constitution, or put up real barriers between the states.

Comment Re:Block on the phone. (Score 2) 76

I like the idea of moving as much decision making as possible to the phone, but I don't want a whitelist. That would require me to make the effort to whitelist people, plus having the prescient power of anticipating which strangers I want to hear from (e.g. whoever found my dog and called the number on her collar). I'm ok with getting a call from a stranger, as long as their "return address" isn't forged. If the return address is correct, and they are annoying, I can blacklist 'em. Allowing strangers to call me is the best default. Not perfect (it's easy to imagine some failure scenarios), but best.

Comment Re:So what? (Score 1) 396

This just removes the fig leaf. .. Anyone who's serious about security wouldn't rely on the ISP being on their side-- one would already be using strong encryption etc. for all communication if one were actually concerned about security.

This really is the best way to look at things.

If people want "privacy laws" then those laws shouldn't be about what's not allowed to happen; the laws need to be about what is required to happen (the goal being to encourage common sense practices, because nobody can protect your privacy for you.). Make it so that businesses and people can't access government's network services without going through a darknet, for example. Do not allow any plaintext email communication with the government. Put into "REAL ID" that the issuing authority also has to sign the identified person's key and include the fingerprint on the ID card. Don't allow government money to be spent on computers containing any software which can't be audited and maintained. And so on.

Don't make anyone protect their privacy overall, but do make it so that they have to pay lip service to common sense in any interaction with government (and then let convenience and economy of scale take it from there; lazy people will then do the right thing). Or, just don't have privacy laws since, obviously, we don't really care. Pick one or the other.

Comment Re:You mean like my 6 year old Atrix (Score 1) 68

The Atrix was exactly where I hoped phones were going and I was so disappointed to see Motorola drop it, and nobody else pick up (I couldn't buy the Atrix because it was Verizon only.) At one point Canonical had an alpha of a Ubuntu/Android hybrid which was intended to be similar, but that seems to have disappeared completely too.

It'd be piddlingly easy to do in hardware to the point I doubt it'd change the cost of the device by more than a few cents - make sure the USB port is bidirectional (it probably is already) and put in an HDMI out (maybe using MHL.) The software... well, as I said, Canonical already had something, Microsoft has Windows 10, there's a few prototype Android desktops out there which, if a community rallied around them, could be made usable.

This is not hard, it's just nobody seems to want to do it.

Comment Re:I don't have any you insensitive clod! (Score 1) 191

There is a list.

If you apply for a visa waiver, you will be asked for your social media accounts right now but it is listed as OPTIONAL. There is a list on the visa waiver sites they want you to give details on accounts on, the list has about 30 sites on it as well as an "Other" where you can disclose information about anything else.

It is currently optional, but the question is already there even for visa-waiver countries.

Comment Re:"vacation" (Score 1) 191

All foreign journalists need a visa to go to the US.

Journalists do not qualify for visa free travel, even if they are from a visa waiver country, if they are going to the US for the purpose of journalism. (All other professions can go on business trips to the US visa-free - but journalists have always been excluded from this since the visa waiver program began).

Comment Re:People don't care because ipv4 works for them (Score 4, Interesting) 52

Almost all mobile phone providers in the US are switching over. They never really offered full IPv4 in the first place, with their networks fully NATed. But they're introducing real, routable, IPv6.

From personal experience, on T-Mobile if your device supports it, you can even use IPv6 only (that is, your device only gets an IPv6 address, not even a NAT'd IPv4.) If you try to access an IPv4 only site, T-Mobile's DNS provides a virtual IPv6 address that can be used to route outgoing TCP connections to that address via a proxy.

Now, some people would be unhappy with that situation if, say, Comcast were to do the same thing. But I must admit, I suspect 99% of the population would never notice, and over time, the few that do would find, say, their employers scrambling to have IPv6 gateways etc so they can use normal VPNs (the gateways to office networks, not the proxies for bypassing Netflix nation blocks I mean), and other applications that require full two way communication.

IPv6 is very nice. It really is a shame there's so much inertia.

Comment Re:Plutocracy (Score 1) 396

I was under the impression it is under the FCC's remit, as they regulate telecommunications businesses. But either way, if it's just a "We think it should be under this agency's jurisdiction, not that one" thing, then that's at least not terrible.

Like the sibling post however, I'd like to see evidence the FTC will actually step up to the plate on this.

Comment Re:Plutocracy (Score 1) 396

Because, in my experience, libertarians - both self described, and described by the dictionary - would generally rejoice about any reduction in regulation, arguing instead that somehow consumers and ISPs can just sign contracts that agree to the levels of privacy they want.

In the real world, that's bullshit, because you have to hope that an ISP with a service and price level that's acceptable would consider it worth offering.

Comment Re:So, it's not only the Russians that hack, huh! (Score 1) 110

Just to be clear: you think the CIA doesn't spy on anyone with modern technologies, and you think this because the media didn't report it?

First: Are you aware what the CIA is? Or the NSA?
Second: Do you really read newspapers? I mean, there's this Manning person, and another guy called Snowden, who passed quite a bit of information to the newspapers during the last part of the last decade, and first part of this one, about how groups like the NSA work. Did you not read those articles?

Look, I'd point you at some links, but why not just hop over to guardian.co.uk, and do a quick search. You'll find quite a bit of news you apparently missed.

Comment Re:Plutocracy (Score 3) 396

Seriously, is there an actual reason for this that isn't corruption or some kind of libertarian ideological nutcasery?

I try not to take these things at face value, but everything looks like blatant corruption from here. It might give me some faith in humanity to know there's a good reason beyond "Ayn Rand would approve, and so does my wallet."

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 470

Well, then you managed to avoid the context given by the preamble to the summary. They're saying Fivvvvvrr.com 2.0 (or whatever the f--- they're called) sucks. It doesn't really matter what they make, because that's not what the article is about, it's about how they're an example of a company that dresses up the fact they shit all over the people they work for them by dressing up Victorian labor conditions as dynamism.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The pathology is to want control, not that you ever get it, because of course you never do." -- Gregory Bateson

Working...