Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Not really (Score 2) 256

Everything is not rosy with Walmart's penchant to do away with workers. One thing is an exploding crime problem at their stores because there is not enough personnel around. Who wants to go shopping in a crime zone? That and a popular local Walmart has an extremely hard time keeping the store shelves stocked. It's wonderful to have low prices, but I usually am wasting my time going there only to see empty shelves.

So disposing of workers only goes so far. I simply do not believe that our android workers will arrive in the near future to mitigate these problems created by lack of workers.

Amen! I stopped at a Walmart on the way home from a family reunion a few years ago in an area I assumed should be safe. A friend of mine had warned me about that location since it was near his home, but I thought he was joking. I was afraid I wouldn't make it back to my car. I had my kids lock themselves in the car while I put away the groceries. I never returned there again.

The Bloomberg article is eye-opening. The Walmart closest to me is a shithole. The shelves are frequently empty and the customers do not look like "natives." I live in a fairly affluent area and I always wondered why the Walmart three miles down the road is so run down, especially after the huge expansion a couple years ago. It is in a very congested retail area with a large mall and NONE of the other stores in the area look anything like it. It looks like the Walmart crime/demographics database is the secret reason why there are so few employees running the place. You hardly ever see more than a handful of employees. I usually drive much farther and go to a better stocked, cleaner and safer Walmart in a blue collar area when I need staple groceries.

I remember when Walmart first opened in our region back in 1991 and ran Kmart and a couple grocery chains out. Their stores were clean and you could never find an empty shelf. When they ran out of an item, the tags were removed and something else was put in its place until the stock truck arrived. Now it's a disaster area. If it weren't for canned and dry goods groceries, water softener salt and soaps, I'd abandon them completely.

Comment Re:Is this so hard (Score 2) 113

It could also get legitimate numbers (collection agencies following the law) blacklisted wrongly because people don't like them...

Follow the law? These parasites do NOT follow the law. I had one debt collector robocall my house every day for six months before I even knew who it was calling me. Then I spent another six months trying to convince them that the person they were looking for was not at my number. They had a SIMILAR name as my 13-year-old son. I finally had to threaten them with reporting them to the phone company for harassment and turning them into the state Attorney General's office for illegal debt collection practices to get them to quit. That finally got their attention.

Year's later, I started getting debt collectors looking for my ex-wife that I had divorced seven years prior. I had a hard time getting them to stop too. And when I bought my son his first cell phone, for six months he was badgered by debt collectors looking for the previous owner of his number. That cost me real money as I was paying for his service by the minute at the time.

I would be happy as a clam to see those unscrupulous cock smokers lose their ability to harass innocent people even if it meant they could no longer do their job. Debt collectors are waaaaayyy over the line separating legitimate collection and outright harassment and abuse. If they can't police themselves, I have no problem shutting them down with technology.

/End Rant

Comment Re:Privacy is a Right? (Score 1) 120

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The ninth amendment was included in the Bill or Rights precisely to prevent governements and other authorities from claiming that the list of rights enumerated in the constitution was an comprehensive list

Every time I hear someone say where does it say X in the Constitution, I know they never made it to the 9th in their reading.

Comment Re:Truly protecting privacy is NOT profitable (Score 1) 120

There was a warrant involved, the owners of the phone were dead, so have no right to privacy, so there was no constitutional or privacy issue.

And Apple was an uninvolved third party conscripted against its will to perform duties against its conscience. Would you be so eager to be conscripted to work on a project for an arbitrary government agency just because you knew how to do the job? Particularly if you thought the project might affect the reputation or long term profitability of your business?

This was Apple making a stand to raise their sales numbers, that is all it was.

And sometimes people do the right things for the wrong reasons.

Also, them taking this stand did not stop the tool from being created and used, and guess what? It didn't get abused and leaked to the internet!

As far as you know.

Comment Re:Windows 10 experience (Score 1) 376

That is precisely why I give MS the ole middle finger on every machine I set up when it wants me to create a Microsoft account. I NEVER use a Microsoft account as part of the login of the main user. I always also add a second user for emergencies. I have seen too many people get locked out of their AD machines at work to ever use cloud authentication. It's just plain stupid on a home laptop.

Comment Re:The tough economic times (Score 1) 360

I haven't encountered a greeter at Walmart in I don't know how long.

There used to be this old white dude who said "hi!" and handed off to you a shopping cart. Don't see that anymore.

I read in the news that WalMart was bringing back the greeter job. The stores around here never really did away with them. They are supposed to be some sort of loss prevention or deterrent line of defense. I cannot remember the last time I saw one actually offer to get a cart. I'd say it's a 50% chance that they even open their mouth to greet anyone. Mostly, they sit on a chair and look bored.

Comment Re:Microsoft denies any wrongdoing (Score 2) 443

Of course it makes sense. They think it's going to cost them less. Where would the sense be in spending millions if the case can be put away for thousands?

Just because someone has billions, doesn't mean it "makes no sense" for them to avoid spending millions.

Unless by leaving a precedent set of a customer successfully suing and winning, you invite LOTS of others to follow on. This is especially the case when there is such a large pool of potential candidates and a general dislike for the practices that precipitated the suit. You might want to look at how IBM and Newegg handle similar situations. No quarter is given in order to discourage followers.

Bailing out early on the first suit might cause you to have to spend a lot more on others later. Unless you are certain you are going to lose anyway.

Comment Re: Guns (Score 1) 1718

You are an incredibly massive idiot. That only applies to the government. You have zero right to not be murdered.

You are the idiot. Of course I have the right not to be murdered. Anyone who violates that right will be punished by the government. And in my state, that means they run the risk of forfeiting their own life.

Similarly, you have the right to free speech. Unfortunately, you choose to exercise it only to prove how ignorant you truly are.

Comment Re: Guns (Score 2) 1718

So what? There is no constitutional right to not be killed. That's why the death penalty and abortion are constitutionally legal. There is a constitutional right to own weapons making all laws that ban them unconstitutional.

This is the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sounds like a right to me.

Comment Re:Here's the problem. (Score 1) 171

And are you that thick that you do not understand that Apple had to refuse that openly put demand (or suffer a sharp drop in sales because their customers would not trust them anymore) ? Their refusal tells you absolutily [sic] nothing about their ability to enter their phones or not.

Last I checked, Apple was not "the phone company." They are a manufacturer. Maybe you are ignorant of what a "phone company" is. Let me help you: Do you see Apple on that page?

You original assertion was that the phone company could use their sooper dooper hacking ability to defeat encryption. Are you moving the goal posts again? I have no doubt Apple has the ability to defeat their own encryption methods on some phones running some version of ios. I have never said otherwise. When you can point out that the FBI goes to Verizon or AT&T to get plaintext on an iPhone, I will be impressed.

You wrote --> The phone company can, and does have all kinds of (often called "debugging") access to your phone you have little to no clue about, and which, even if you knew, you can't do anything about. [...] Absolutily nothing that is stored on your phone or anything your phone can do that is outside the reach of a phone company, and thus the "law enforcement" agencies.

Well, I call bullshit. I am asking you to give me proof. I asked earlier and you wanted me to do your homework for you. You want me to prove a negative.

Yes, rather voluminous ... What was it, way less than 50 IIRC.

Your memory is either faulty or you are willfully ignorant. On Slashdot, articles have reported between 100 and 400 at the Federal level and many more if you add in local cases awaiting resolution of the New York case resolution before litigating. A New York Manhattan Prosecutor is on record for 175 himself.


Comey himself mentioned the following: He (Director Comey) also said that since October 2015, the FBI has examined "about 4,000 digital devices" and was unable to unlock "approximately 500."

How many of those devices were actually encrypted?

Citation from Ars Technica: and Reuters:

Pardon me ? If the FBI has the Law on their side, why should they start with threats ? What you are saying there is that those feds legally have nothing to go on, but try to bully others into doing their bidding anyway.

You do realize that is what TFA is about, right? The FBI threatening more litigation against tech companies using encryption by default.

And yours speeks [sic] loudly of plain-old gullibility. Don't blindly believe everything you read, especially if the ones claiming something have much to win by you believeng [sic] it.

I do not believe everything I read, including you. I am still waiting for you to cite one single case where a "phone company," which is an entity distinctly different from a phone manufacturer, hacked a cell phone for any law enforcement agency and successfully defeated encryption permitting them to prosecute. I do believe that Apple does have the resources currently to defeat encryption on some of their phones. I also believe that Apple will work to remove that capability to prevent being caught in the position of being "bullied" (as you said) again, provided the Burr-Feinstein bill goes nowhere. And as I have already argued, technical ability is entirely pointless for law enforcement unless there is permission or a warrant granted. That is the whole point of this thread.

You failure of reading comprehension, spouting of things that you clearly have no foundational knowledge of, obliviousness of your own words, and numerous spelling mistakes lend me to believe I am arguing with a high schooler or some freshman college know-it-all. Unless you can show me some semblance of proof that your original assertion is real, do not expect any more effort from me to educate you.

Comment Re:Here's the problem. (Score 1) 171

the phone company has a lot more control over the phone you call your property than you do yourself. It makes it very easy to get anything-and-everything from your phone with you being none-the-wiser. Regardless of if it is legally your property or not.

Citation needed. In fact, the San Bernadino and New York City FBI lawsuits against Apple along with the voluminous other backlogged cases speak loudly against your position. The recent FBI threats against Apple and WhatsApp along with the Burr-Feinstein bill tends to undermine your credibility too. Telegram, SIgnal, WhatsApp, or any of the other fully encrypted apps leave the phone company out of the loop.

And who the heck claimed that a phone company can grant anything at all ? Not me, and not the parent I was responding to. Strawman argument much

You wrote > you definitily [sic] are not the owner (as in the one who makes all the decisions) of what it all can do. Not by a long shot.

Parent wrote > Your car, just like the above. The dealership or credit agency can not give the police permission to search your vehicle. Well, they can. It won't hold up in court.

Yes you are the owner and decision maker of your property. The phone company cannot "hack your phone" without your knowledge or permission unless backed by a warrant. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act specifically makes this illegal. Evidence only matters in court if it is collected legally. That was the whole point of this thread from the OP. You are the owner of the phone. LEO must get a warrant or permission to search. In San Bernadino, the owner (the county) gave permission. In the New York case, a warrant was issued. Your assertion that the phone company can hack the phone through some sort of OTA malware or baseband backdoor is irrelevant; parallel construction notwithstanding. Just last month a Federal court threw out evidence obtained by an invalid warrant that was overturned in a child porn case.

Also, if it is yours from day one than why is a phone company allowed to vendor-lock your property to their services up until after the contract ends (if at all -- but thats a whole other discussion) ? Quite a contradiction, don't you say ? :-)

Uh, no. It's allowed because it is not illegal. It is the same logic that locks the iPhone, iPad & iPod Touch to the work only with the Apple App Store "service" too. Or are you arguing that Apple should be required to "unlock" iPads to use the other software stores just because you own them?

And in case you missed the big shift, phone contracts are pretty much defunct these days. You would have to be insane to sign away multiple years in a contract at the current rate of change in the telecommunications industry these days. I haven't been "under contract" for almost five years now. My last three phones I purchased outright and were unlocked from the start.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is much easier to suggest solutions when you know nothing about the problem.