Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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

Comment Encryption (Score 1) 98

I simply never trust encryption when it is from the same vendor that controls the device, software, cloud, etc. Unfortunately everyone mentions malware or hackers as their fears. The corporations and government are way worse. If I use a cloud storage app, I encrypt my data on my linux box first, then push into the cloud. Same with this. If Pidgin or some other open, 3rd party makes a client function within the Allo protocols, I'll use my own end to end encryption with an app not controlled by Google.

Comment The good and the bad (Score 1) 54

This is just as good as it is bad. App and device makers are just as much if not more malicious than what we normally consider malware. Our devices and software are flat out being used against us. I agree that encryption should be as near perfect as possible to man in the middle attacks, but there simply MUST be a future way for the owners of endpoints to be able to tell what traffic their apps and devices are TRULY sending out. The biggest spies on the planet are the creators of so called TRUSTED software and devices. I want to know what is leaving my systems and I should have total control over that as owner of my devices.

Comment Devices? (Score 0) 70

But there is evidence everywhere that you can make them use devices they don't want if the marketplace is lacking any real alternatives. The public has been asking for devices that THEY are the owner of since the beginning. When are they going to realize that smartphones are just computers. I'll use the operating system of my choice and I shouldn't have to hack my own device to be able to do so.

Comment Security industry quiet (Score 0) 133

Why has the security industry never came out and unequivocally stated that locking owners out of their devices, regardless of what that device is, is a security risk? Malware is broadly defined as any software that makes a device act outside of what is allowed by the owner of the device. Whether that is locking an owner out of their own device or limiting where they can use it or making it surreptitiously communicate with people/companies not explicitly allowed by the owner of the device. By all definitions most modern software is now malware. It needs to stop and consumers need backing and education on this.

Comment IT professional here (Score 1) 1144

It really does come down to.... Why??? I don't want technology anywhere near my firearms. I want a gun to be as simple and failsafe as absolutely possible. The people that do this are the problem, not the firearms. Even so, the technology you speak of is meant to prevent someone who knocks a gun out of your hand from being able to pick up the gun and use it. Given a few hours and an instruction manual a gun with this technology can be re-trained to another owner. There is not a single case of these mass shootings where the shooter just took a gun from someone and then committed the crime.

Comment Only time I'll ever root for patent trolls (Score 0) 108

Is when they are giving walled gardens and artificially limited app sources a hard time. I hope anyone that lets Google or Apple limit their device to only where they say it can get apps from gets bit by it too. Buying a device and letting a company limit who you can get software from just so they can enforce that they get a piece of the pie is just ludicrous. Apple or Google don't have the slightest fuck of a say what I do with my own device once I have bought it. Go get 'em troll!

Comment Hell No (Score 1) 257

And my reason is different than most. The hardware builder should not even be in control of the OS at all. So why should I pay them for updates to it? I should be able to run the OS or OS variant of my choice on my hardware. There should be consumer protections that keep hardware builders from tieing you to their pre-installed OS. If the hardware inherently supports changing and updating the OS, then it should be flatly illegal for companies to cripple that feature set to create lock in. That would create competition in the marketplace. It would give you options if a OS bundles crapware or spyware or tracks you in ways you don't like.

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 65

Many things are awesome in concept and suck in implementation. Many "update" systems for electronics, which now even includes cars, used to honor the concept of ownership, where the manufacturer listed changelogs and information about the updates and then the owner made the decision to update. Sometimes updates break things by accident, sometimes updates cripple things that used to work on purpose. Sometimes updates bring along unwanted "features". The owner should get to choose and also to control what the thing being updated says and does including when and if the "thing" to be updated communicates anything back to the mothership.

Comment Re:For certain values of "basic needs" (Score 1, Troll) 1116

Myself included. Typical bleeding heart liberal crap. I take a MUCH stronger stance on that. Whether the math works or not is irrelevant. It is purely the principle of it. If an able bodied/able minded person continually makes bad decisions that put their livlihood in jeopardy or worse yet, plain out refuse to work, then they NEED a little hunger incentive. Hunger to better yourself YOURSELF or go hungry.

Comment Re:Another outbreak (Score 2) 127

Yes... it looks like just another implementation (outbreak) of an app store. An app store where "security" means secured against us (the owners of the devices and computers) more than against any bad actors. I hope to be proven wrong, but that is usually where these sandboxed environments end up.

Comment Re:two for T (Score 1) 766

Absolutely not this. I live in NC. I know my own wishes intimately and I've spoken to lots of other people about this. I'm talking about ordinary people, not the policy makers. Most of us in NC honestly had no idea that bathroom privacy issues weren't ALREADY protected with common sense law. Now keep in mind... in this particular strict usage of "common sense", I mean common sense from the point of view of the traditional/historical context. Charlotte forced peoples hands with an over broad ordinance, if Charlotte would have left well enough alone everyone would have been happy and moved on with their life and used the bathroom of their choice with nothing being said. But as written, the Charlotte ordinance gave anyone the ability to choose a sex as they see fit and use the bathroom of their choice with no legal protections if someone abused it. No one targeted legitimate LGBT people. Only the dipshits who would claim "attack helicopter" status on a whim to get thrills. The liberal media has spun this into the shit storm it has become. Basically we didn't know that you weren't ALREADY required to use the bathroom of your birth sex. Everyone used the bathroom of their choice and no one abused it. But by Charlotte trying to remove ANY protection requiring people to use a certain bathroom, they made people stand up and demand some sort of common sense protection against perverts. In THIS use of common sense, I define common sense as what I believe the majority of normal people in NC have reasoned out and that is this: Males in male bathrooms and females in female bathrooms and we really hate that transgender is a grey area, but since someone decided to make a law out of it, and since it is impossible to look into someones brain and tell if they are legitimate transgender or a "woman for the day" just to get thrills, then the law must err on the side of safety and protection.

Comment Re:Yeah, do they remember the past? (Score 1) 83

Ridiculous. I'm talking even whitelist the sites that people should be going to as part of their work day and nothing else. Not opening 80 and 443 wide open to everything. That is part and parcel of the problem. I am saying whitelist EVERYTHING. Apps, ports, sites, everything. It works. It works for work, but it is not politically sensitive to the executive level because they are too good for that.

Comment Re:Yeah, do they remember the past? (Score 1) 83

I see the single biggest threat to security is that decision makers in companies feel they should be able to do whatever the fuck they want and should never have to ask for anything. I work in security. Security is only made difficult by the fact that security people are forced to make security utterly transparent to the "entitled ones". Whitelist based security in layers is exceedingly easy to keep secure. When you configure layered systems so that only truly needed things work and everything else fails by default you protect yourself from almost all known vulnerabilities and even purposeful backdoors in any one layer. But Fuck no, executive level thinks its an attack on their manhood if they have to request something to be whitelisted because it isn't a documented and approved use of a system.

Slashdot Top Deals

"A mind is a terrible thing to have leaking out your ears." -- The League of Sadistic Telepaths