Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
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:As opposed to Amazon Prime? (Score 1) 81

A rose by any other name is still a rose. Last year Amazon changed the job title of Andy Jassy and Jeff Wilke to CEO along with Jeff Bezos.

As far as I can tell, in reality Andy Jassy is still VP of AWS and Jeff Wilke is VP of everything else ("Worldwide Consumer") and Jeff Bezos is still CEO. Calling a VP a CEO is stupid IMO.

Google basically did the same thing when it re-organized under Alphabet where Larry Page still oversees all the "CEOs" that are actually VPs of Calico, CapitalG, DeepMind, Google, Google Fiber, GV, Jigsaw, Nest, Sidewalk Labs, Verily, Waymo, and X.

There are companies with more than one CEO who actually share the job. Whole Foods and Chipotle tried it, but it didn't work out for them and they switched back to a single CEO. Oracle has two CEOs in name atm, but from what I've heard Larry Ellison is still running the show and its another case of bad titles. I don't think there are any major American businesses that still have multiple CEOs, but it apparently is more common in other countries like Germany. I don't really know anything about German business though.

Comment Re: Nobody (Score 4, Informative) 236

Climate change is supported by hundreds of independent studies. There are also some studies funding by the oil companies that cherry pick the data to claim that climate change does not exist or is purely following the natural course of the planet. There are articles that show how the oil companies studies cherry picked data points and why the results are invalid.

This article is based on tests done by Microsoft on their own browser. That is much more like the oil company "studies" than the independent ones. The Microsoft test isn't based on any industry standard benchmark or anything; they designed new tests to show off their browser. If you don't think Microsoft designed the tests to show Edge in the best possible light and the other browsers in the worst; then you are naive. Microsoft has a long history of producing PR that doesn't stand up to independent testing and many articles cover this topic.

The facts here are that Microsoft designed 2 tests that makes their browser look good. I don't think anyone is denying that. The facts we don't know is whether independent testing will show the same results.

Comment Re: over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Tr (Score 2) 312

Trump did publicly ask Russia to hack Clinton's e-mails. His supporters didn't seem to care about him asking a foreign government to interfere with the election or the threat to national security having a foreign government hack a presidential candidate presents.

“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican nominee said at a news conference in Florida. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

He also said: "By the way, they hacked -- they probably have her 33,000 e-mails. I hope they do. They probably have her 33,000 e-mails that she lost and deleted because you'd see some beauties there. So let's see."

Comment Re:Can someone explain what the Russians hacked? (Score 1) 312

I stand by my statement that it was the Russians.

Julian Assange has no credibility with their claim that the DNC hack wasn't the Russians. Assange's latest claim is that the source was Seth Rich, which feeds into the right wing conspiracy theories on the murder Seth Rich. That claim doesn't even pass a quick sanity test as Seth Rich was only hired by Clinton a few days before he was killed and even Seth's father said it would not make sense for his death to have anything to do with Clinton as he hadn't started working for her yet. Seth Rich's death was most likely linked to the robberies that had been plaguing his neighborhood as his watch was torn and it looked like he had fought with a robber. Paul Tyrone Dorn, Demetrius Brandon, or Stanley Marquis Williams were arrested for armed robbery in that neighborhood shortly after his murder so would be good suspects.

I have no idea what evidence the CIA/NSA has that Russia is behind the attacks. There is plenty of public information to support the CIA/NSA claim that it was the Russians.

Guccifer 2.0 accepted responsibility for hacks and released previously unreleased documents in an interview to prove that he was responsible. Matt Tait, a former GCHQ operator found that the leaked files had been modified on a computer using Russian-language settings and there was metadata saying the user was "Feliks Dzerhinsky." Feliks Dzerzhinksy is a known member of the Soviet secret police. As you said, this evidence could be a misdirection.

Guccifer 2.0 in a live online interview claimed he was Romanian but couldn't answer questions fluently in Romanian or English, but he could in Russian.

Guiccer 2.0 left malware on one of the DNC computers that traced back to the same machine that had been used in the German
Bundestag breach. Germany traced that attack to Russia's Fancy Bear.

The Russian smile emoji was used in the e-mails to reporters.

The hack used Bitly for the e-mail phishing. Fancy Bear forgot to set 2 of their Bitly accounts private which allowed investigators to also tie the hack to Fancy Bear and to also see who else was targeted in the attacks.

The last one is very strong evidence that Fancy Bear was behind the attack even if you don't trust US or German intelligence. There is lots of public information that Fancy Bear is a Russian government sponsored hacking group.

Comment Re: Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination (Score 4, Informative) 312

There are retracted news articles all the time, you should be able to do better.

1) This appears to be referring to this article:

Here is the Fox (Faux) News article you are probably basing your statement on:

Politico seems to have gotten the basic facts correct in this case and Competitive Enterprise Institute seems to have gotten it wrong. The mistake Politico had made in the original article was stating that OneWest had done the foreclosure when it had been CIT who had merged with OneWest. The mistake was using the old company name instead of the new company name. Mnuchin was on the board of CIT when the second foreclosure took place.

"CORRECTION: This story has been corrected to reflect that CIT Bank, successor to OneWest after a 2015 merger, was the entity that filed foreclosure proceedings against Ossie Lofton over a 27-cent payment error. The story has also been revised to clarify that there were two separate foreclosure proceedings against Lofton. At the time the second foreclosure was filed in 2016, Mnuchin had sold his stake in OneWest and was on the board of CIT."

Other fact checkers have confirmed that Fox is wrong and the foreclosure did take place. You can even see the court case yourself:
Search for: "CIT BANK, N.A. vs. LOFTON OSSIE".

Score: Politico: 1, Faux News: 0.

That said, I'm not really a fan of Politico atm. They just posted a totally garbage anti-Semitic article claiming that Trump is linked to Putin because Putin met with a Chabad Rabbi who had once met a rabbi who did a bris that Ivanka Trump went to and thus there is some Jewish conspiracy linking the two men... The way the article is written is a total conspiracy theory. That would be a much better example of fake news. I'm not a fan of Trump, but you don't need to come up with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories to link Trump and Putin.

2) As others pointed out in this thread, it was actually Nancy Sinatra who seemed to change her tune and claim the negative Trump comment she had tweeted earlier was a "joke." Although to be fair, it might have been meant as a joke but there was no way for CNN to know that. I wouldn't call that fake news.

3) If you read the article, there doesn't seem to be anything fake about it. They even mention that it was probably part of the plan to shift to a different site.

What you are leaving out is that it has been several months and Trump still doesn't have anything up on about these issues from what I can tell. How is the New York times article "fake news"?

4) As someone else pointed out, they reported on people who objected to the content of the speech not that he gave one there. Here is the article you are claiming is fake news. What exactly is fake? Did the people who Washington Post said objected to the speech not really object?

5) It sounds like Spicer is lying (nothing new), not CBS. Although CBS seems to be a little misleading as there were some CIA staff who seemed to support Trump, but the facts about Trump bringing people to cheer him on seem to be correct.

Newsweek decided to also fact check the CBS story:

"A pool reporter selected to witness the closed event indicated 'the cheering and clapping was not from the CIA staffers but people who accompanied Trump,' according to The Post’s fact-checker Glenn Kessler."

Comment Re:Can someone explain what the Russians hacked? (Score 1) 312

What we know the Russians hacked:

1) DNC e-mails. Publishing these e-mails hurt Hillary in the election. It is believed this alone caused her to drop at least 5 points which was more than the difference in the election. This might be called more of hacking the voters than hacking the vote.

2) The US Election Assistance Commission. The EAC is responsible for national voter registration, establishing voluntary guidelines for voting, and certifying and auditing voting machines. Some news outlets reported that this hack occurred after the election, but the only evidence to support that is that after the election one of the hackers involved was selling the administrator accounts and other data. It also isn't clear if the Russian hacker was state sponsored or not as the hack was not advanced (started with an SQL injection). It doesn't make sense for Russia to hack it after the election, but it might make sense for one of the hackers to sell the data after he didn't need it anymore to try to make extra cash if he wasn't kept in line to keep this secret.

To me the EAC hack is even bigger than the other one, but it has received very little attention and as far as I know hasn't been part of the investigation. After the election Republicans voted to get rid of the EAC in committee, but as far as I can tell it hasn't gone before a full congressional vote. We know Russian hackers achieved full administrator access to the EAC and stole the reports on the audits of the voting machines. This means we know Russia stole the plans on how to hack the voting machines and for some reason this hasn't been investigated. We also know that Trump did better in districts that had the vulnerable voting machines than he did in districts where other systems were used. Most exit polls showed that Clinton won (they show different results for North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Florida). Republicans blocked the recounts and it wasn't clear that the recounts could have determined if there was hacking in districts with no paper trail, although it could have in districts with a paper trail.

Election Systems & Software alone controls 60% of voting machines in the US, and can control the election results. The majority of the rest of the machines are Dominion Voting System (formerly Premier Election Solutions, formerly Diebold) and they also control enough machines to change the results of the election.

How do we know the election itself wasn't hacked?

Comment Re:There's more than the DNC hack ya know (Score 1) 312

During the campaign Trump at various points said that he would end sanctions on Russia that are costing your economy billions of dollars (rubles) and recognize Crimea. The ruble has lost 45% of its value from the sanctions. These Russian scandals that have plagued Trump and that even most Republicans in congress do not seem to share Trump's opinions on Russia have likely prevented Trump's stances on Russia from going forward. If Trump succeeds in his pro-Russia objectives, you can't say that it wouldn't be good for you.

Billions of dollars is plenty of reason for Russia to have helped elect Trump.

Comment Re:How much detail? (Score 2) 325

No, unfortunately you are wrong and Nancy is correct. HIPAA only protects against covered entities selling your medical information. Covered entities are only health care providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses. A lot of people don't understand that Google and sites like WebMD collect everything you search for and sell that information even if it is medical information. WebMD in their privacy policy states that they "Send you relevant offers and informational materials on behalf of our sponsors pertaining to your health interests."

Your ISP has no issue selling your medical web searches or if you mention your medical condition in e-mails or other traffic they monitor. Mobile providers have in the past and may again in the future install spyware on cell phones that monitors any health data mentioned on your cell phone. The spyware may even watch you login to your health care provider and what you see. They aren't a covered entity so anything they can find out they can sell.

Selling social security numbers is legal in most states. There are a few states like Illinois that have passed laws requiring a company to get your consent before selling it. Even in those states there is nothing stopping the company from burying it in your mobile contract or a company having it in an EULA.

I am not a lawyer, but if a company sold your SSN and it was used to steal your identity, then they could likely be held liable. However, if your identity is stolen, determining the source of where the identity thief got the information could be quite difficult.

Comment Re:Cute idea, but they misunderstand the data (Score 4, Interesting) 325

If you want a real life example, SAP currently works with mobile providers to sell customer data points to businesses when you walk in the door with its "Consumer Insight 365" product.

Basically, when your cell phone goes through the door the business is provided with information like:

Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
Your E-mail Address
Your Age
Your Gender
Your Household Income
What products you have recently been searching for
Your marital status
Your sexual orientation
Your religion
Your interests
How long you spent in the store
Where you came from (previous 10 locations)

And a whole ton more information. I haven't actually been able to find a complete list of what they provide. The above list is based on marketing slides for the product. The SAP data obviously comes from multiple sources, not just mobile providers.

Mobile providers are currently making an estimated $24 billion a year selling their part of the information. That is what they stood to lose if the FCC regulation had gone into effect.

Comment Re:SSNs (Score 1) 325

A lot of ISPs and most mobile providers require you to provide your SSN to sign up so that they can run a credit check. Some provide the option of refusing if you leave a large deposit when signing up. Verizon for example, is a $400 deposit I believe if you refuse to provide SSN. Comcast I think is $250. YMMV.

Comment Re:How much detail? (Score 4, Informative) 325

That's exactly what they can sell.

During the debate Nancy Pelosi actually put up a sign with a few things this bill allows selling:

"Republicans want this information to be sold without your permission"

  • The websites you visit
  • The apps you use
  • Your search history
  • The content of your emails
  • Your health & financial data

Financial information includes your name, address, SSN, and phone number. This will also be attached to your browsing history and other data. A lot of ISPs and mobile providers require SSN when you sign up, they claim so that they can run a credit check. Now, it's also so that they can sell it.

It also sounds like they can also sell the contents of voice calls and SMS too if they want.

Using encryption doesn't really protect you either.
1) It doesn't prevent metadata.
2) Some carriers plan on using spyware on your cell phones so that they even have access to encrypted data. This would also prevent VPNs from being of any use.

A Democrat (I forget who) before this was passed even read about Verizon's patent for a cable box with thermographic camera, microphone, and motion sensor. It includes a "cuddle detector" so that it can show ads for condoms when it detects people "cuddling" in front of the TV.

Microsoft applied for a patent for cable box and console technology that will detect how many people are in the room and allow copyright owners to block content if too many people are in the room. For example, if you buy a PPV fight and invite too many people over it will refuse to play.

Comcast applied for a patent for a cable box which detects who is in a room and personalizes ads based on the person or people in the room.

Comment Re:And it might be illegal (Score 5, Informative) 325

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in AT&T v. FTC that the FTC has no authority over common carriers. This FCC rule that Republicans got rid of filled the gap from that court decision. After that court decision a bill was introduced to give the FTC that authority to reverse the court decision, but most Republicans voted against the bill and it failed.

So Republicans argument is:
FCC shouldn't regulate privacy because that is the FTC's job.
FTC shouldn't regulate common carriers because that is the FCC's job.

So who regulates common carrier's privacy? Now, it's no one.

In addition, congress only gave the FTC the authority to pass actual regulations if there "unfair or deceptive acts" and they can prove the regulation prevents harm. Some Republicans argue there is no harm from companies spying on you because you save money or get services for free. Some also argue that seeing ads tailored to you is in your benefit.

This bill wasn't about doing what was right though. It was all about money. ISPs and mobile providers stand to make a lot of money by invading our privacy. They had no problem paying off politicians to pass this bill:

Slashdot Top Deals

Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer