Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Re:You mentioned police, so... (Score 1) 608

Not just sarcasm, thinking and saying are two different things and saying and doing are also two very different things. I guarantee you've said something today you won't do and thought many things today you won't even say let alone do.

That is part of why speech is protected. I very much dislike both Trump and Hillary and I've said more than a few times that someone should just shoot them and the world would be a better place. That isn't sarcasm it is just exasperation, I would never REALLY condone violence and wouldn't support someone who did. Every day friends and colleagues say "I hate that x" and "I could kill x" and none of them actually mean it. It isn't that sometimes you don't mean extreme and inappropriate statements it's that 99.999% of the time an extreme statement is made the person doesn't mean it.

He doesn't need a defense. We are all two faced when it comes to work and home. He can be a racist bigoted prick in his head, if it doesn't translate into inappropriate comments and actions at work it is nobody's business. If he has complaints against him at work, his facebook could be brought out to corroborate and show consistency between the two for what that is worth but no, you don't initiate real action because of something someone said on facebook.

Comment I'd love for my daughters to go into IT... (Score 1) 292

...but it's difficult when the rest of the world (including the people who are ostensibly trying to solve the problem) is busy conspiring to convince them that IT isn't for them.

Girls tend to as much of an interest in math and science as boys until fairly early on in grade school (I feel like it was 3rd grade or so). It seems to me that there's a lot of cultural pressure -- much of it from women -- pushing young girls away from STEM fields and into other areas of study. The aforementioned people who are ostensibly trying to solve the problem are blaming the IT industry, when in fact this happens much too early for the supposed culture of IT to have much of anything to do with it. Get girls and young women interested in IT and get people used to seeing them interested in IT, and the cultural issues will age out of the population as young IT professionals grow up used to being surrounded by both men and women.

The trouble is that the primary group of people looking into this issue is that they start out with the conclusion that men are uniquely at fault for the gender gap in IT and then go looking for evidence to support that,

Comment Re:Seems like violating the 4th amendment, not the (Score 1) 388

Former Lancaster CA resident here.

I don't know anything more about this story either. But it sounds highly atypical. Lancaster doesn't have its own police force, and contracts with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Dept. for coverage. As a general rule they're lighter-handed than the average metro cop shop, possibly because they're spread thinner and don't have time to pursue bullshit.

But a few years ago, when the Feds told L.A. County that they'd have to reduce their jail population -- they picked out the problem prisoners and dumped 'em wholesale in the Antelope Valley. What had been isolated perps sneaking around in the dark suddenly became swarms of perps boldly going in broad daylight. Theft abruptly grew from the usual petty urban stuff to a cottage industry (particularly for metal), and same for gangs and drugs.

So I'm thinking this might have been a sting against a large drug or metal-fencing operation, using the cellphone thing as cover for what they were really after, not to mention as a quick way to ID both those present and those who needed pursuing.

Not justifying their action (which was, IMO, blatantly unconstitutional), just thinking of rationale based on the local situation.

Comment Re:Secure the gateways (Score 1) 251

The easiest security is to not give access. People with baby monitors want to view the video stream. They really don't want to use the debugging back door to run a shell command to allow the devs to troubleshoot a problem.

The servers should limit themselves to "How should I connect to this? It's device ABC, with password hunter7" ("I see you're on IP, hey, so's the device, you can connect directly on!") vs ("I see you're on IP, the device isn't (and I'm not going to tell you where it is), so you'll have to use me. Want a video stream?") and proxying the absolute minimum only.

That would be a meaningful improvement in security that would reduce the ability of their devices to be hacked.

Comment Re:Snowden also did something illegal (Score 2) 334

And how do you think the media would have reacted if the Trump campaign did something like this to elicit a violent response?

They covered it, which is why you're being obtuse and this entire "scandal" is an exercise in BS designed to muddy the waters and give cover to Trump by creating a false "both sides" narrative.

There is precisely one side, one side, in this discussion where the CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT has SUPPORTED VIOLENCE ON HIS BEHALF. You know that. O'Keefe knows that. It's precisely why most of us are so fearful he might become President. It's unheard of in modern political history for a Presidential candidate to incite violence on his behalf.

And while he's constrained - a little - by the law right now, the fact he's willing to support violence by his supporters means we have good reason to believe that - if Trump wins - there will be no fair elections in 2020. Because as President he can and probably will prevent any legal consequences for those who threaten and deal out violence against his enemies.

Hillary Clinton has not in any way endorsed violence. And frankly, the best Trump's supporters can do to muddy the water is find some low level operative who says he might hypothetically support an operation designed to expose the fact that Trump's supporters are violent.

So with respect, stop pretending you're arguing any legitimate point here. You're not. You're trying to normalize violence in an election. You need to ask yourself if you're going to continue to do so, or whether you have the guys to re-evaluate what you've been calling for.

Carry on down this path, and you, and America, are in serious danger.

Comment Re:Snowden also did something illegal (Score 1) 334

Sure, here's a top official in the Trump campaign offering to pay the legal fees of anyone who beats up protestors at a Trump rally:


Notice, incidentally, that this isn't some low level idiot in the campaign brainstorming about ways to make their rival look bad by taking advantage of a group already known to be violent, but a high up official promising that those who instigate violence on Trump's behalf will be shielded legally from the consequences of their actions.

Comment Secure the gateways (Score 4, Informative) 251

Reading this is fairly eye opening as it explains the different methods attackers use to gain access to your NAT-"firewalled" IoT device. It was also a useful reminder that IoT items aren't just "IP cameras", but routers, printers, and other stuff that most people have had for years.

You can skip to page 34 for the most important problem with most of the headline devices though (which also explains why owned cameras is a big thing, but less so owned routers): insecure "cloud" servers that provide connectivity to your IoT devices when you're off network. For example, it provides the connectivity that allows an app on your phone to access your baby camera remotely.

The servers typically provide way too much information, and often provide access to the entire camera, not just the video stream. As a result, hackers can, by scanning a range of camera IDs using the server at minimum find out what the public and NAT IPs are. They may be able to send arbitrary packets, including those to backdoor debugging ports, depending on the server, without even needing passwords.

Outside of using that server, hackers become more dependent upon heavy, probably noticeable, scanning, making it increasingly difficult if you don't already have compromised hardware.

My takeaway? Go after the manufacturers. There's stuff they can do right now by patching just two things: the gateway servers they are running right now, and the apps that use them. Yes, in this case, it's worth doing - those here saying "Oh they're all fly by night, you can't reach them" forget that if that were truly the case, there wouldn't be a problem, because the gateways they're running wouldn't be up.

Someone is running the gateways. Those people can fix them right now, and need to.

Comment Re:Hold down power button and ... (Score 3, Insightful) 388

One thing that /. users don't get is that while that may seem obvious to you, it's not obvious to everyone. That's why the law and regulations are constantly in search of trying to balance citizens from having to be experts about everything they buy/own/need. And the time honoured thought of "oh, only idiots will not do this, and idiots are people who deserve what happens to them" plays nicely into the hands of a dysfunctional society. If you have a "just world" mentality, that things happen to people *because* they deserve it, you may not get out enough.

Comment Re:If the point was ... (Score 4, Insightful) 322

There's no proof that it has anything to do with Wikileaks, but in a world of IoT devices with no thought toward security, anyone who cares to do so can mount DDOS with the power of a national entity.

What's the point of doing what Assange and Wikileaks have been doing without any moral position? He isn't helping his own case.

Comment Re:Legal? (Score 2) 274

No, of course it is not legal to set a trap to intentionally hurt someone, even if you expect that the trap could only be activated by the person committing property theft or vandalism. Otherwise, you'd see shotguns built into burglar alarms.

Fire alarm stations sometimes shoot a blue dye which is difficult to remove or one which only shows under UV. Never stand in front of one when pulling the lever! But they are not supposed to hurt you.

And of course these booby traps generally are not as reliable as the so-called "inventor" thinks and tend to hurt the innocent.

Comment Re:This is a terrible thing (Score 1) 608

"Is it THAT hard to understand?"

No but you are being very dense. An engineer can't become unqualified to be an engineer when he walks out of the office, nor can a doctor, nor can a lawyer, nor a plumber, nor a burger flipper. In fact, the professional bodies you refer to can take away their license but can not stop them from being qualified.

The woman IS a nurse, her education and experience doesn't disappear when she walks out of the office nor when she forms her opinion. Her legal obligation and liability for the consequences of sharing her opinion however should disappear insofar as it is no greater than anyone who could easily also have knowledge on a subject but doesn't get paid to employ that knowledge in their day job.

If I ask a doctor or lawyer friend their thoughts on something related to their profession at a party there is a very good chance I'll get a different answer than I would if I'd paid them for a consulation. I'm aware of their education yes, but they are not giving a professional response with all that entails, I'm a friend asking for their real opinion without the constraints of covering their ass professionally attached and also with the understanding they haven't had the opportunity to review the situation in full depth. Similarly, if I ask a friend who is a mechanic his thoughts on what I've seen happening with my car and a rough ballpark of what it would take to fix it, I don't expect that to carry the same weight as an actual inspection and quote. In a personal setting he might tell me the chances of something breaking are ridiculously low with very high costs and he wouldn't bother on his own vehicle, in a professional setting he might need to cover his rear and recommend fixing that same thing so he wouldn't be liable on the off chance this was the one time in a thousand something went wrong.

The personal opinion of someone who happens to be a professional is a different thing than the professional opinion of that same person.

Slashdot Top Deals

When speculation has done its worst, two plus two still equals four. -- S. Johnson