Where's my exercise bike hooked up to streetview?
I feel like bicycling through virtual Paris in the spring, eh?
Posts by Shannon Jacobs
783 publicly visible posts • joined 9 Apr 2007
Samsung peddles tyred Smart Bike concept
British boffin tells Obama's science advisor: You're wrong on climate change
Tuesday 17th June 2014 01:52 GMT 
Lew... That's enough
No reason to read any farther.
Credibility and integrity = 0.
P.S. Credibility is obviously 0, but I'm being charitable on the integrity part. If he actually believes what he writes, then his ignorance might be even more unbelievable than his columns. In other words, I'm guessing he can't possibly be as stupid as he writes, but has been paid off.
CIA rendition jet was waiting in Europe to SNATCH SNOWDEN
Monday 16th June 2014 00:36 GMT
Shocked, shocked I say.
I'm just saying that because I'm sure I've already been on their watch lists ever since I accidentally typed the big dick Cheney. So much trouble for forgetting to capitalize a "d" and a certain lack of humor?
War crimes? Damn good thing Iraqi lives are worthless, even in the 10s or 100s of thousands. Dare I say a million? Or actually, shouldn't we just say the big dick's books are still open? You know, it's like a pitcher who left a couple of men on base and still gets their runs added to his ERA. Or maybe we should use the joke about the outfielder who messed up so badly that no one can play center field now.
Kind of makes me laugh at my naivete. When Dubya snuck into the White House in 2000, I had no capacity to imagine the mess he would leave behind. Then in 2008 I actually had a delusion that President Obama could clean it up. You know what they say: "Fool me once, shame on... You can't get fooled again." Hey, thank goodness you can't fool me any more. My vote has been cancelled to zero!
Snowden never blew a whistle, US spy boss claims
Saturday 31st May 2014 09:41 GMT
Trust American justice? ROFLMAO.
Whenever I see a suggestion like Kerry's, I'm reminded of a conversational exchange I had with a law student. This was right after Bush v. Gore, and he came right out and said that he was in law school because he believed America was becoming a judicial dictatorship, and he wanted to be one of the dictators. (I have to describe it as 'a conversational exchange' for certain reasons, perhaps even legal ones.) If he has become a judge since then, I hope he's losing sleep over his ancient honesty, but I certainly deny having any copy thereof.
It's hard not to think that America has passed a point of no return. I used to think the conspiracy theorists were nuts, and I still think that most of them are, but I'm increasingly inclined to think that some narrowly focused and small-scale conspiracies are plausible. Was Michael Hastings killed by hacking his car? It's possible that could have been done by a couple of people, and most of them wouldn't even have had to know what they were doing. Was Ron Suskinds effectively neutralized by poisoning his son? If the appropriate psychoactive chemical exists, a single actor would have sufficed. I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb to predict that Snowden is likely to come to a bad end, especially if he persists in bearding the giant.
John Kerry was once a man of high principle. Long time ago. At this point, I trust his words far less than Snowden's.
Still using e-mail? Marketers say you're part of DARK SOCIAL
Wednesday 28th May 2014 01:38 GMT
Push-driven advertising and extreme greed?
This push-driven model of advertising is increasingly reminding me of the cancer-style business rules of America.
American companies are basically legally obliged to grow as cancerously as possible. If they can't grow fast enough, then they get acquired or go bankrupt. At root, this is driven by the business model of a few extremely rich people who bribe the politicians to write the rules of the business game that way. It even makes a sick kind of sense when you consider their overwhelming problem. They "need" more money, and their problem is that there is NEVER enough money to satisfy their need.
As it applies in the push-driven advertising world, the "need" is for more of our time and attention, and they can NEVER get enough, no matter how many intrusions and privacy invasions they devise.
There are solutions, and some of them are obvious, but I think we need to start by rethinking economics. Money is not the only significant entity in the universe. Amazingly enough, time has a kind of fundamental equality for all of us. My 24-hour day is the same quantity as the day of Bill Gates or the Koch brothers or even a house plant. Disclaimer, I'm not equating those three (or five) entities. It's the TIME flow that is the same.
China ponders ban on IBM servers
Tuesday 27th May 2014 08:23 GMT
Not Snowden, but crazy oscillation
One of those weird coincidences that I'm just finishing the Cuckoo's Egg, about a time when America's cybersecurity efforts were quite ineffectual. American tends to oscillate in a crazy way, and since 9/11 the country has gone overboard in the other direction.
Then again, I don't recall whether or not anything Snowden revealed refuted the descriptions of the book. It is certain that some of the stuff he blew the whistle on took a lot of time and effort to create. Maybe Cliff Stoll was just an easy patsy? "Nobody here but us cyber-virgins!"
Help. Mailing blacklists...
Monday 26th May 2014 03:48 GMT
Why don't we put the spammers out of business?
Might sound like a rhetorical question, but we actually could do it--IF we only had better spammer-fighting tools. At least that applies to the rational spammers who are in it for the money. Basically it depends on one ratio: The number of people who feed the spammers (with money or information) is MUCH smaller than the number of people who hate spam. It is well known that the response rate of the suckers is on the order of 1 in a million. If only 1 in a thousand of the non-suckers helped out, then there would be 1,000 people blocking each sucker. I'm not saying we can eliminate ALL spam or turn the spammers into decent human beings. I'm just saying we can make spam much less profitable and that most of the sociopaths who send the spam (and who victimized the OP in this case) would crawl under less visible rocks.
How? I think the best approach would be an integrated anti-spammer tool built into the major email systems. There would be several rounds of analysis to classify the spam and focus on the best countermeasures, ultimately targeting ALL of the spammers' infrastructure and accomplices, and helping and protecting ALL of the spammers' victims, even the Joe-jobbed corporations. Some spam fighters may even earn enough reputation to pull the triggers, though I doubt I'd ever reach that level. I'd be too prone to blast away at any likely spammer, but I could still help with the targeting even if I couldn't be trusted with the nukes.
If the spammers can't target the biggies, then their entire so-called enterprise collapses. Insofar as the biggies would also profit from less spam in a more valuable Internet, I can't understand what is holding them back.
What's that crunching noise? Lenovo running over rivals' bones
Thursday 22nd May 2014 01:31 GMT
Re: A great success
Is the G a smartphone? That's how little I know, though my recollections of Motorola were not positive and I'm hard pressed to regard that acquisition as an actual asset...
However, what I was actually looking for in this article is new evidence about the profitability of their smartphones. In the last report I read on that topic, only Apple, Samsung, and Huawei were actually claiming profits on their smartphone sales. Is Lenovo in the black, too? Based on this story, it seems possible, though I still regard it as unlikely... More likely they'd be trading off profits for market share, at least for now.
Senate slams ad servers for security failings
Thursday 15th May 2014 02:14 GMT
Re: Better yet
Make companies responsible for negligence and their incompetence. Then they would act in much more defensive ways rather than simply shucking the blame.
All of the other suggestions (at least so far) are kind of stupid for a lot of reasons, but I'm just going to focus on what I regard as the most obvious one. Children are naive and innocent and need to be protected from vicious criminals while they are growing up and learning how to defend themselves. If that isn't enough, then how many times do you want to recover your children's computers from being pwned by attack ads from websites with drive-by malware installers?
P.S. I mostly blame Microsoft for so firmly establishing the no-liability EULA. I offer two observations: (1) If Microsoft were held accountable for all of the economic damage inflicted by their mistakes, then they would be bankrupt. (2) If they faced the threat of liability for their mistakes, they would design MUCH better software. Perhaps the initial progress would have been slower, but what we have now is clearly a rotten house built on a rotten foundation. After 10 years of so-called security initiatives, yesterday's "routine" patches were more than 100 MB.
Net neutrality protesters set up camp outside FCC headquarters
Thursday 8th May 2014 02:55 GMT
Technical solutions, anyone?
Another fake crisis being exploited to increase profits. The REAL problem is that the profits will NEVER be sufficiently maximized.
Too much data for the servers and backbones? Then use peer-to-peer streaming with local caching of the popular data, especially the topical and viral videos. Most of the data could be transmitted via WiFi networks, though that software would be trickier. However, right now my computer can see more than 10 WiFi networks from my typical urban location.
Why don't we have such applications already? I certainly have plenty of spare disk space and could donate 20 GB to a network cache. Two reasons:
(1) The phone companies and cable companies still lust after monopoly profits based on control of the pipes.
(2) The governments want controllable networks, not decentralized ones.
Not sure which motive is stronger, though they are tightly linked in America by legal bribes to politicians.
Microsoft: You know we said NO MORE XP PATCHES? Well ...
Friday 2nd May 2014 01:12 GMT
The gun is pointing at your head
Kind of a shame that Microsoft can't sell products on their actual merits, eh? At this point, I have accumulated several years of post-XP experience, and I cannot give a single positive reason to upgrade beyond XP. Ditto Word, Excel, and recent versions of other Microsoft Office components.
I think there are two aspects of Microsoft's business model that explain this: (1) It isn't their fault and no matter what happens to you because of Microsoft's incompetence or negligence, you can't sue them. Check your EULA if you think otherwise, but I bet you can't even read it with understanding. (2) They don't sell to you anyway. Their products are 'sold' to the manufacturers and rammed down your throat. This is NOT a case of a good idea that isn't worth stealing. It's mostly a natural result of that assuming all their potential end-user customers are thieves.
Me? I prefer personal responsibility (NOT (1)) and I resent being called a thief (NOT (2)) and I even want good software (NOT Microsoft).
Personal disclaimer time? I think the aspect that most pisses me off about this is that I fixed an old machine that still runs XP. The repair was expensive, and upgrading on a Windows path isn't even possible, but a big FY is the norm of my dealings with the big MS.
AOL Mail locks down email servers to deal with spam tsunami
Thursday 24th April 2014 06:19 GMT
Re: Stangely enough, Shannon (was: Human intelligence still has some value)
That is called adaptive Bayesian filtering, and it is pretty much the standard technology used by all of the large email systems.
The main technical problem is the tradeoff between false positives and false negatives. Essentially there is a limit where you have to trade one kind of mistake for the other. The large-volume email services are able to drive the total error rate below 1%, but the exact value depends on the volume of email and the creativity of the spammers, which is the main human problem (assuming you are willing to grant human status to the spammers, which I sometimes wonder about). In brief, the spammers are constantly studying the how to make their spam look like ham.
However, my focus is on the economic problem, and from that perspective, the bottom line is that the spammers can clearly live with the filtering. Their profits are still high enough to motivate a whole lot of spam going on, as the song goes. I don't really monitor Microsoft's email these days, but based on Yahoo in two countries and Gmail, the spammers must be making most of their money on false negatives, so the spammers' current weakness is not the filtering, but the delay time before the human victims can respond, either to websites (often via link shorteners) or email dropboxes.
Filtering has pretty much reached its limits, and we're not going to abandon SMTP, either. It's not that there is a magic solution that will permanently cure the problem, but we need a more adaptive and evolving mechanism.
Thursday 24th April 2014 02:33 GMT
Re: Human intelligence still has some value
So are you [Stevie] a spammer or spammer's sock puppet? Or just another loser? The reason I offered the 'kindly' suggestion that the first spammer defender might be a religious fanatic is because that is actually the category of non-economic spam that I think would be relatively difficult to deal with.
As regards your [Stevie's] reading comprehension problems, I am NOT saying that it would be easy or a trivial thing. I am saying that focusing more efforts on the money side of the spammers' motivations would significantly deter the spammers, reduce the amounts of spam below the current "Live and let spam" levels, and thereby increase the value of email in particular and the value of the Internet in general.
One aspect of human intelligence is adaptability. ANY effective spam-fighting system has to have room for "Other" or "None of the above" options because the spammers are always going to look for new tricks and scams. I understand that you [Stevie] are probably a loser or quitter (since the spammers are probably too busy spamming to read the Register) and that you accept the spammer's economic argument, which is basically that the marginal cost of another million spams is approximately zero. I prefer the search for a constructive solution focusing on the imbalance between the small number of suckers and the large numbers of people who could stop the suckers--if they had better tools to do so.
Near as I can tell, there are two reasons why spam continues to be a problem. I've already mentioned the sociopathy of the spammers. The other is defeatist and passive attitudes of people who can't actually imagine doing anything to make the world better.
(So why don't I do more? Not much of an excuse, but I judge my situation is that I'm sort of locked into a good job that is already helping to make the world better in a different area. If I only had additional time and resources, then I'd gladly tackle this project, too, but...)
Wednesday 23rd April 2014 05:57 GMT
Re: AOL is better than Google
I sometimes have dinner with an old acquaintance and coworker who 'defected' to google. In one of our discussions he (accidentally) caused me to realize that their current motto is "All of your attentions are belonging to the google."
Having said that, I have to disagree with the post because AOL sincerely wishes that they could do what the google is doing. The underlying business models are pretty much equivalently evil, but the google wins and profits on the execution. Economic success requires both an effective business model and effective implementation. Good quality software from the user's perspective is much less important... The technologies are morally neutral, as the poor joke goes.
Wednesday 23rd April 2014 04:18 GMT
Human intelligence still has some value
It's really hard to take seriously anyone who defends the spammers. The best possible interpretation is that you're some kind of religious fanatic with "Live and let spam" as one of your commandments. I could answer each of your objections in some detail, except that it's obvious that if you actually read what I wrote (and I have to doubt that), then you certainly didn't think about it.
Just for the sake of illustrating why it is better to say nothing when you have nothing to say, let me spend a few seconds to consider your first "thoughtful" objection (all sarcasm intended). Do you understand the word "integrated"? Evidently not, so let me explain that word in the original suggestion. Because the system I proposed would be integrated into the email system, the authentication is exactly the same as that which applies to each user of the email system. I will go even farther and say that a good (as distinct from a minimally competent) implementation would consider the history of the reporter. An additional hedge in the particular paragraph you mentioned was "few", but I've already wasted far more keystrokes than your minimalist comment deserved.
Instead, I'll throw out another example for consideration. This one is slightly more complicated, so please don't strain yourself. Just a caution judging by your previous reply...
Recently I received a notification from American Express warning me about a new security problem. There was only one minor problem there. I am not now and have never been a customer of American Express.
This was a quite beautifully done phishing scam. I spent several minutes studying the masking, but I acknowledge that it was done at a level I could not unravel. The cover letter was doing some highly clever JavaScript manipulation, probably playing with the DOM tree, and the main body was actually an embedded and encoded HTML webpage that was intended to run locally. As paranoid as I am, there is some chance I could have clicked on the trigger, especially if it turned out that I was an actual customer of American Express.
With the anti-spammer mechanism that I am suggesting, the first round of analysis would flag it as a phishing scam, but a later round of analysis should escalate that report to a fairly high level of seriousness. I'd even want to believe that American Express might want to initiate countermeasures to protect their actual customers.
However, it could go even farther than that. What if the spam included valid personal information? In that case, there might be an actual breech of the company's servers and the actual customers may be part of the mechanism to alert the authorities.
I'm not saying we can create a perfect world free of spam. I'm saying that spammers (and to a lesser degree, the spam-loving defeatists) deserve a full load of trouble, and I'm eager to help pile it on top of them.
Wednesday 23rd April 2014 02:13 GMT
NONE of them are serious about fighting spammers
If they were, then they would give us effective tools to help disrupt the spammers' business models. If the spammers weren't making money, then they would stop spamming. More concretely, if they knew that a particular email service or provider was going to disrupt their scams, then they would stop using and abusing that email system.
Imagine that ANY of the big email services offered an integrated anti-spammer system. The obvious design would involve several iterations of analysis and confirmation. Basically, it would allow you to donate a bit of your time and human intelligence to target ALL of the spammers' infrastructure, pursue ALL of the spammers' accomplices, and even help and protect ALL of the spammers' victims. The victims even include the email system itself, and the various corporations whose reputations are abused by the spammers. Less spam = more value for the entire Internet.
I'm NOT saying that we can convert the spammers into decent human beings. These vicious sociopaths can only be moved under less visible rocks. I'm NOT saying that everyone has to help in fighting the spammers. I'm just saying that there are a LOT of people who dislike spam and only a few suckers who are feeding the spammers. If ANY of the major email providers made it somewhat easier, then the spammers would be more effectively cut away from their money and they would look for 'better' scams.
One concrete example that especially annoys me: Link shorteners. Easy cure: After a few people have confirmed that the link is a spammer, then the link would be locked down and repointed. Rather than pointing at the website where the spammer is waiting for victims, it would point at some website that would warn or scare the potential victims. The spammers' bait would become poison to the spammers' own scams--but you need some humans in the loop to help out. I don't mind if you want to be a free rider. I'm one of the folks who wants to ride the spammers--all the way into the dirt.
Whoever you vote for, Google gets in
Friday 18th April 2014 06:23 GMT
All your attentions are is belonging to the google
The real motto of today's google is "All your attentions are is belonging to the google", but I didn't realize it until dinner and drinks with a former coworker who defected to the google a while back. I already knew that the "Don't be evil" slogan had become a sick joke, but that was just by watching the biggest growth industry on the Internet, the cybercriminals.
It's hard to point at proof of the google's support of the criminals, but there are just TOO many places where it is obvious that the google could make things better. However, what bothers me most is the victims such as naive children visiting YouTube. I just don't feel as sorry for bank and credit card customers who get phished, but maybe I should be more interested. After all, it is the money that drives it, and the children don't have much of their own to be robbed of.
As regards the lobbying efforts discussed in this article: Old news. Most businesspeople are fine and upstanding folks and they just want to play by the rules. The problem is the rules of the game are crooked, especially in America. The laws are written by the most easily bribed politicians who are working for the greediest, least ethical, and most short-sighted businessmen. Of course you can maximize your profits by focusing on rigging the game rather than playing it on the square.
El Reg drills into IBM: The storage biz's got that sinking feeling
OpenSSL Heartbleed: Bloody nose for open-source bleeding hearts
Saturday 12th April 2014 09:56 GMT
It's the funding model, stupid!
I've said this before, so I guess I'm wasting time to say it again, but bad software with a good financial model wins. Look at Microsoft, Google, and Apple, just to limit it to three especially egregious examples.
My suggestion is to fund OSS with 'charity shares' where the project will have a PLAN, a BUDGET, and sufficient TESTING. Dare I say it? There should be success criteria so the donors will know if their money went to a good cause.
Why should small donors (like me) be treated with perfect contempt? Because the financial model stinks, that's why.
In a twisted way, you can mostly blame Microsoft again. The key to their EVIL financial model is that no matter what happens from their most awful software, there isn't any financial liability on Microsoft. That's the only part of the financial model that applies to OSS, and look how it worked out this time.
Google kills fake anti-virus app that hit No. 1 on Play charts
Tuesday 8th April 2014 04:36 GMT
Obvious solution: Funding Model Tab
If the google wasn't so EVIL these days, they would solve some of these problems. Broken funding models have a rather simple and obvious approach. Just disclose some additional information that would help us in "following the money" to assess whether or not an app is legit. This is not the only way it could be done, but just one form to make the suggestion more concrete.
There could be a "Funding" tab that would describe the funding model used by the developer of the app. Most of the common options would be boilerplates that a developer could select. The most obvious options (for free apps) would probably be "Ad supported" and "Limited-function version to promote paid version". That part would be under each developer's control, and should even include free text options if the developer wants to say more.
At the bottom of the Funding tab would be Google's part, which would not be accessible to the developer. Maybe the google can't say anything, in which case it would say "We have no evidence to support the claims made in the developer's financial model above." It might say "This developer is earning advertising revenue in the top quartile of app developers" or "This developer also produces <full product name>, so please see that page to learn more about the funding."
Having offered that suggestion, I have to admit that it may not have done much good in this specific case because the financial model was pretty clear, and it was just the big lie. However, I think the reality was that the other anti-virus companies should have shot this one down quite quickly. Obviously, they should have downloaded the new competitor, and as soon as they tested it, they would have discovered it did nothing. Hmm... Now that I think about it, that's probably how this scam collapsed.
Another way it might have collapsed is if the google is checking for sock puppets, as suggested by another commenter (who I can't see now). Again, obvious, but I think the google is too EVIL to be bothered.
How Microsoft can keep Win XP alive – and WHY: A real-world example
Wednesday 2nd April 2014 07:23 GMT
I hate shopping with a gun pointed at my head. Hello, it's you, Microsoft?
You didn't make your case for killing XP very persuasively. What I will say based on several years of post-XP experience on 4 or 5 machines and over 30 years in the industry is that I see no compelling reason to switch EXCEPT for the gun that Microsoft is pointing at me. Pay up, or take your chances, and you certainly know how small they are based on Microsoft's security track record.
I think the economics are highly debatable. It is not like Microsoft is desperate for cash and couldn't afford the minor charity. It's simply that Microsoft wants to force us to newer OSes, and I feel no real sense of security with ANY of Microsoft's OSes. The basis of the problem is actually the reverse of following the money. No matter what damage Microsoft's errors inflict upon you, it's just too bad and by opening the shrink-wrap and accepting the EULA you have agreed to it. If Microsoft agreed to continue support for XP, at least I would think they had some confidence they can secure it, but the added complexity of post-XP OSes merely makes it that much easier for the real experts to pwn me without my ever detecting it. At least that's how it feels to me.
Unfortunately, Microsoft's business model is excellent, no matter how flawed their software is, and they have established that standard for the entire industry. Can you imagine how software would be designed if the company selling the software was actually liable for the abuse? Hint: DEFENSIVELY and CAREFULLY.
Sorry, but Linux is not the solution. Linux is more like a possible answer in desperate need of an effective business model.
Boffins working on debris float models to track MH370 wreckage
Monday 24th March 2014 02:28 GMT
Looking for what isn't there?
I'm still doubtful there is any debris to find... I'm increasingly convinced one of the pilot's murdered the other one, then asphyxiated the passengers and ditched the plane intact. Maybe the sunken plane will finally break up under the pressure, though I also think he would have cracked some doors to make sure it flooded and sank properly...
If my theory is even approximately correct, I gladly admit that I cannot understand the insanity that motivated the pilot who did it. However, what I absolutely cannot understand is the crazy lack of continuous and uninterruptable remote telemetry from such planes. Even if the only bits of data they were transmitting was the current location of the black box, that would be a vast improvement. Can anyone count how many times they have had these desperate (and expensive) searches for the black boxes?
Google settles copyright suit with Viacom over YouTube vids
Wednesday 19th March 2014 05:07 GMT
Google? Protect copyright?
That's a screaming laugh. YouTube? Protect copyright?
Why don't you go to YouTube right now and try a search for the name of any popular TV program name. You will see vast numbers of hits.
Now focus on the ones that have shortcut links in the descriptions, The vast majority of those are recruiting suckers' computers for zombie networks. I'm not brave enough or lack sufficient hubris regarding my technical skills, so I haven't done the tests, but I'd bet you are between one and three clicks away from being completed pwned. Thanks, google.
Remember the corporate motto. "All your attentions are belong to the google." Why the google shares any of the attention with the criminals is beyond my ken.
MH370 airliner MYSTERY: The El Reg Pub/Dinner-party Guide
Wednesday 19th March 2014 00:43 GMT
Mass murder and elaborate suicide...
I'm inclined to this theory, which is probably on the southern arc. I think one of the pilots killed the other one, and then took the plane high enough to suffocate the passengers and flight crew. I'm guessing he was able to cut off their oxygen, too. After that, he flew to some distant location and carefully ditched the plane. If the plane didn't leak enough after the ditching, then he helped it along, perhaps by cracking the doors open, until the plane sank. No wreckage, no life rafts, no survivors.
If it was just an elaborate suicide, then he presumably went down with the plane. If 'only' a mass murder, then he might have ditched near land and tried to make it to shore.
Horrifying and insane. I remain unable to comprehend the lack of continuous and uninterruptable telemetry on all large planes.
Wanna make 15 bucks? Assimilate someone into the Google Apps BORG
Tuesday 11th March 2014 05:11 GMT
My latest google Android experience
Over the weekend I tried to report a Android bug to the google. The bug must involve privilege escalation. The google was not interested. (Actually, it's an old bug and I'd probably tried to report it before.)
Can you think of any reason why any legitimate app should ever destroy or reconfigure other apps resources? Me neither.
For the sake of research, I encourage you to post your similar experiences here. I don't want to give it away, so to speak, but let me hint that the bug I spotted involved widgets.
The google's response was useless and apparently witless, but I want to include the part that most offended me from a programmer's perspective. The only reason I have any specific suspicions about the candidate apps is because I do not allow automatic upgrades. Therefore I think I know that this OS-level bug must be related to one of a small number of apps. The google rep suggested that I enable automatic updates.
Now let's assume the google doesn't care about security. If not, they are certainly fooling me right proper. Now let's assume some criminal hacker finds a bug in the Android OS, heaven forbid. The criminal creates a plausible and harmless app and uploads it to the Google Play website. Many people download and install this app.
Now let's add in the automatic update feature. The criminal creates a dangerous version of the app that exploits the bug. This is posted on the Play website and is automatically distributed to all of the victims who are foolish enough to permit automatic update. The app attacks all of the victims. Now the criminal prepares another version without the attack and uploads that one. Poof, all of the evidence disappears as quickly as the automatic update can propagate.
I'm not sure exactly what damage can be done, but it is certainly possible that a privileged bug could attack all of the other apps on the phone, eh?
This actually reminds me of some related but ancient news. Probably at least a year ago by now. The local police arrested a gang of criminals. Part of their scam involved poisoned Android apps that harvested personal data from the smartphones. I wasn't particularly surprised that the local police wouldn't know anything about the details, but I was surprised that the google denied any knowledge. I really would have liked to know whether or not I had downloaded any of the affected apps. Even if that entire gang of criminals is still in jail, it's possible or even likely that they had sold copies of some of their ill-gotten data.
Wikimedia wants forced disclosures of paid edits
Wednesday 5th March 2014 04:04 GMT
Enforcement matters?
I voted in favor of that proposal, but also for strengthening it. Two easy suggestions:
(1) Any article that includes paid contributions should have a tag at the top. I think this is likely to be quite prevalent for articles with any commercial impact, and in that sense it's just a reminder to be sensible about things.
(2) Any article that is involved in an infraction should get a permanent and indelible tag to that effect. In other words, your company can permanently taint your corporate reputation by trying to cheat. In contrast to Suggestion (1), for which you could remove that tag by just deleting all of the contributions from the paid contributor, this should be a permanent letter of the scarlet type. After all, if you've tried to cheat in the past, you're liable to cheat in the future. Maybe you think there should be a statute of limitations here, but I disagree. Even the permanent mark of shame isn't strong enough for my taste. It's not that I think Wikipedia's reputation is that magnificent, but I'd like them to aim high, and they do have a pretty good reputation so far.
(3) Is a messy suggestion that is probably beyond the scope of current technology, but... I think they should try to analyze contributions for patterns that suggest bias, especially bias of the motivated commercial sort. I think that commercial bias may actually be easier to detect. Unfortunately, this goes back to the notion of identity, which is NOT one of Wikipedia's strengths. Just to provide the obvious example, it might be easy to detect that a particular user is consistently criticizing (tilting articles against) several companies except for one that he is always praising (tilting in favor of), but not so easy if he uses separate accounts. Have you ever seen both of them logged into the same room at the same time, as the joke goes?
Microsoft to get in XP users' faces with one last warning
Tuesday 4th March 2014 04:34 GMT
When you threaten Meetup, it's blackmail...
Some DDoS scammer has been attacking Meetup, and we properly call that blackmail, but when Microsoft threatens you, it's just good business practices. Does anyone else think there's something wrong in this picture?
Slightly substantive comments:
(1) Since Windows XP is quite adequate for my computing needs, I would not have upgraded any machine except for the threats from Microsoft.
(2) If Microsoft were actually held liable for the damage done by their mistakes (including bad design decisions), then you can be certain they would design their software in an extremely different way.
(3) I still expect Microsoft to offer some form of XP support. Not because they think it's a good thing or the moral thing or anything along those lines, but just because there's too much money still left on the table.
RSA booked TV's Stephen Colbert to give the final speech. This is what happened next
Well done on the privacy lawsuit. Now NSA will keep your phone records INDEFINITELY
Fukushima radioactivity a complete non-issue on West Coast: Also for Fukushima locals, in fact
Thursday 27th February 2014 01:26 GMT
Brave words from a chickenshit coward who doesn't have to wonder which way the wind is blowing. Yeah, I live within a few hours of the mess should the #4 building collapse (which is still possible and which is still packed with nuclear fuel rods). Yeah, it does depend on the wind direction, but unlike this moron Paige or Page or whatever, I'd actually have to live with it. Or maybe die.
I have a feature request for the Register. There are certain authors who write nothing but tripe. There should be a filter to render their blather invisible.
P.S. Actually, I'm not sure his blather had any pretense of bravery to it. I only saw about 7 of his words. That was all it took to confirm it was the usual tripe.
Another climate change myth debunked by proper climate scientists
Thursday 27th February 2014 01:20 GMT
Tripe
Is there anyone left who reads a word past that byline? I think I saw two or three, but I'm obviously commenting for the sake of NOT having to read farther. Hmm... Maybe I should peek at some of the other comments to see if any of them did read farther, and even more amusingly, if any of them found anything interesting or amusing in the rest of the tripe.
Facebook ditches TOP SECRET email service. Did YOU know it had one?
Wednesday 26th February 2014 07:40 GMT
Much as I dislike Facebook, I wish...
I actually wish that Facebook hadn't dropped the ball on this one. All they needed to do was offer a superior email alternative.
Hint: Less SPAM.
What if Facebook had offered an integrated anti-spam fighting system? Not a lynch mob tool per se, much as the spammers deserve it, but just a way to help with the best targeting of the anti-spam countermeasures. Don't you wish you could help break ALL of the spammers' infrastructure? Help pursue ALL of the spammers' accomplices? Help protect ALL of the spammers' victims (from their own stupidity in giving money or personal info to spammers)? No, we can't eliminate spam, but with better tools we could reduce the spammers' profits. The spammers still wouldn't become decent human beings, but they would move under less visible rocks.
Too bad. Facebook actually had a chance to make the world better, in stark contrast to whatever it is they think they are doing now.
Facebook pays $19bn for WhatsApp. Yep. $45 for YOUR phone book
Friday 21st February 2014 01:49 GMT
Who said spamming doesn't create corporate value?
Me, that's who, but maybe I was wrong. Am I the only one who recognizes this company name solely from the spam? Even if it's a Joe job, and even if their software works, and even if they actually have lots of real users (rather than just a lot of email addresses from spammer CDs), even if ALL of these favorable conditions are true, then you still can't convince me this company is worth $19 billion, now or in the foreseeable future.
Hey, but as the Zuck says, if you got it, flaunt it, and right now Facebook can flaunt $19 billion.
Me? If I was a betting man, then I would be betting that the due diligence is about to explode in Facebook's face.
Facebook gobbles WhatsApp for SIXTEEN BILLION DOLLARS
Thursday 20th February 2014 08:24 GMT
Re: What now for the Spammers ?
Mostly just a "Me, too" message about spam from this company.
I would not be at all surprised to discover that most of the claimed users are just email addresses from spammer CDs. If so and Facebook doesn't know it, then the due diligence is about to explode in their face. On the other hand, if so and Facebook does know it, then they are suffering from delusions of convertibility, even if the company does have functional software. Much of my obvious spam already has "Facebook" written on it, and I hate all of it already. They are NOT going to convert me or get me to accept another intrusion into my privacy and limited attention.
The motto of Facebook should be "Wholesale "friendship", but FAKE", to be compared with the motto of "All your attentions are is belongs to the google." (The link is BeenVerified, another spam operation that is probably being driven by addresses leaked from the Google Play. Their scam is some kind of LinkedIn scam.)
I'd kill my Facebook account, but I'm trying to be polite to some actual friends of the old kind. However, their lack of concern about their privacy is something of a strain on our relationship. Or perhaps I should just call it naivety of the non-charming sort?
As previously noted, I still think that most businesspeople are fine and upstanding folks. Unfortunately they have no effect on the actual rules of the game, which are written by the most cheaply bribed professional politicians working for the greediest and least ethical businessmen.
Syrian Electronic Army slurps a MILLION reader passwords from Forbes
Wednesday 19th February 2014 02:17 GMT
Are they REALLY so utterly clueless?
Just got an email claiming to be from Forbes, but two of the three domains mentioned are not forbes.com. I'd like to think that all new domains including "forbes" are being watched carefully, but there are lots of nice-to-think things that aren't the way things actually are.
I think the real blame is mostly with Forbes itself. The spammers are just helpless sociopathic criminals doing what comes naturally. In contrast, Forbes has helped defined the rules of the game under which the criminals flourish. To facilitate their own cancerous money-uber-alles business models (extended to all the big corrupt companies that bribe the cheapest politicians), they have created economic models that fundamentally support spammers and their cancerous business models.
If the biggest companies were actually liable for the negative ramifications of their software and systems, you can be assured that they would design and implement their products differently. Of course Microsoft is the superstar here. They certainly create lousy and buggy software, but no matter what happens to you because of Microsoft's products, there is nothing you can do about it. Just check your "friendly" EULA if you don't believe me. (However, I actually realized ow bad it was in conjunction with Adobe stuff, though they are the much smaller sinner. Microsoft might claim to have some substantive defense in that their software does a lot of important stuff, whereas almost everything Adobe's software does is just for the sake of flashier presentations.)
Rand Paul launches class-action lawsuit to end NSA phone spying
Thursday 13th February 2014 04:21 GMT
All your attentions is belongs to the google
That's google's excuse for abuse. What was that old slogan about EVIL again? ROFLMAO.
Anyway, on this article, if it wasn't a cheap political game then he would have included some neo-GOP defendants such as the big dick Cheney and the big don Rumsfeld. I can see forgetting about the little Dubya, since he was only liable in the peculiar technical sense, while not actually knowing or caring about anything. I agree that Obama should be sued, but NOT without the actual instigators. This has become a bipartisan crime, but suddenly the Bible has been updated so the world was created in 2009.
Remember, Rand Paul is supposed to be one of the most principled neo-GOP politicians. So much for principles, eh? Just more proof that today's neo-GOP is NO relation to the original liberal and progressive Republican Party of Abe Lincoln or even the GOP of Ike and Teddy. Talk about your dead brand.
IBM job cuts: Big Blue starts 'slaughter' of Indian and European workforce
Thursday 13th February 2014 01:31 GMT
Is he a slumming producer from FAUX "news"?
Whenever I see such a moronic comment, I wonder who's paying him to be so stupid.
The actual way the system works in today's America is that most businesspeople are fine and upstanding folks who just want to play by the rules. Unfortunately, they don't write the rules.
The rules of the business game in America are encoded as laws. The laws are written by the most cheaply bribed professional politicians. The pols are working for the least ethical and greediest businessman. These are basically sociopathic human scum who could NEVER have enough money and whose only interest in peasants, bums, and assorted poor people is whether any more blood can be squeezed from the turnips. Their only interest in middle class people is in turning them into poor people.
What they pay the politicians for are laws that support a cancerous model of growth. Unfortunately, cancer is NOT a sustainable business model, but they don't care, since their only objective is to have more toys next quarter.
IBM used to stay above this sort of thing, and the company nearly collapsed, at least as Wall Street saw things. Wall Street now thinks that IBM has gotten better, but I have my doubts. However, I think the best model of death by "doing the right thing" was actually Sun. Oracle is still choking on the corpse, but Ellison is too greedy to write off $9 billion the way the google recently did. I insist that cancerous greed is NOT a long-term survival strategy. It always ends with the death of the host--and the death of the cancer, too.
John McAfee declares war on Android
Wednesday 12th February 2014 07:47 GMT
You want security? Follow the MONEY!
The data that I most want in terms of assessing apps is the financial model that the developer is using. If the google wasn't EVIL and greedy, and therefore most concerned about protecting their own privacy, then they would see the obvious need for such a tab in the Google Play Store. In other words, a developer doesn't have to say anything about the money, but if the developer is willing to trust us first by telling us at least something about how the money flows, then we would have the most important data we need to decide whether or not it's a legitimate app or some kind of scam.
In support of this approach, the google could provide some kind of supporting or assessing statement, still without revealing the exact details. For example if the app says it is getting revenue from Google ads, then the google doesn't have to say exactly how much money (unless the developer feels like sharing that level of detail). The google could just offer something like "This developer has received significant advertising revenue" or "Though this developer says the financial model will be advertising based, no significant revenue has yet been generated."
Friends don't do tech support for friends running Windows XP
Monday 10th February 2014 06:21 GMT
Re: I've been helping friends (and businesses) upgrade from XP to ...
Do you have any specific Slackware experience with a ThinkPad X61? Most of my recent Linux experience has been with Ubuntu, but they have developed serious delusions of grandeur and can't be bothered with little old machines these days.
P.S. My usual evaluation of Linux is "Superior software, inferior business model."
Getting documents all too easy for Snowden
Monday 10th February 2014 01:44 GMT
Register needs an alternative funding model and #MDFC
As #MDFC (More Democratic Funding Campaign) could apply to the Register, this article would have various related campaign options towards which I could 'pledge' part of my subscription payment (with no risk to the Register, insofar as they are already holding the money). The Reg's favorite options would obviously include 'virtual sponsorship' of this article (no real cost, since they've already published it, but effectively freeing up discretionary funds as a reward for publishing what I want to read) or further investigations (which they would only commit funds to after lots of readers agreed with me) or external campaigns (within limits, since the Reg does need to make it's own budget, after all).
My primary interest in external campaigns related to Snowden would actually be to investigate critical journalists who are piling on Snowden in apparent contradiction to their previously expressed journalistic principles. My own theory is that some of those so-called journalists are actually knuckling under to blackmail, but the possibility of independent outside investigations might be sufficient to break the threat. Some of them might be able to respond along the lines of "Yes, I understand that you represent certain parties who are highly concerned about my sympathetic coverage of Edward Snowden as a whistleblower, and I also understand that these parties are in possession of certain highly embarrassing information about me, flawed human that I am. The problem is that my reading your script attacking Snowden might trigger an investigation that would reveal my secrets anyway. Since you can't protect me from awkwardly human reality, perhaps you should just run along and let me do my journalistic thing for now?"
Windows 8.1 becomes world's fourth-most-popular desktop OS
Monday 3rd February 2014 01:19 GMT
Which is more secure? REALLY?
Am I the only person wondering if Windows post-XP any-version is actually more secure? I admit that's not the only criterion to look at, but it has clearly become the blackjack Microsoft is using to effectively blackmail people into 'upgrading' from XP. My perverse theory is that if Microsoft wasn't waving the death-and-destruction flag, Windows XP would still be dominating the market. Because it works.
What are the other criteria that might justify the upgrade? Faster booting? Slightly nice, but I bet XP would boot nearly as quickly on the faster machines, and even more to the point, Microsoft could fix that if they wanted to. Faster execution of software? Sorry, but the machines already run quite a bit faster than I need them to. Pretty rare that I'm waiting for any computation to complete in contrast to network or disk delays. More functionality? I actually know of one or two new features in Windows 7 that require non-Microsoft add-on software in Windows XP, but it turns out that I'm not actually using any of those features. Even worse, the fact that those features are now part of the OS means that they are bigger and more attractive targets for hackers, which to my way of thinking actually makes the OS less secure in exchange for no practical benefit. I may not use the new features, but the black hat hackers are quite eager to do so.
Risky prediction time? I predict Microsoft is going to back down and offer a paid continuation option for people who would rather pay for XP than switch. Shades of the ancient cigarette commercial? However, it's an economic model that will work for profit, and Microsoft has always put profit ahead of superior software, even if I were willing to concede that post-XP Windows was superior (for my real world user-level needs--and I am not making that concession).
Good news! Today is Data Privacy Day ... Stop sniggering at the back
Wednesday 29th January 2014 04:41 GMT
Re: "So we need to have strong, principles-based legislation"
Possession is nine points of the law combined with the 4th and 5th Amendments of the American Constitution ought to suffice. Let me clarify:
You should be able to possess your person, including your personal information. Any personal information about you should be stored in a place that YOU control, possibly even on your own personal hardware. You should be able to decide when anyone can use that information, and when that usage is completed, they should not be allowed to retain that personal data. Combined with the requirements of search warrants for ACTUAL crimes based on ACTUAL causes and the protection against self-incrimination, that would be sufficient.
Let me offer a concrete example of bank records. That personal data could be stored on your machine with suitable checksums to prevent your tampering with. The storage policy could even specify redundancy and backup policies without revealing the decryption keys. When your bank needs to check something about your account or record additional transactions, they would ask your computer (or other specified storage location) to provide the data. Your computer should confirm their identity and routinely grant the request--but it would be your decision. If you change your mind, for ANY reason, then the nine points of the law would be on YOUR side, since you would have possession of your data.
This is NOT as radical as it might seem. For example, in the days before all of this was computerized, you might get in a dispute with another person and have to present your evidence that you were telling the truth and your opponent was in the wrong. However, you didn't have to, and that could not be taken as proof of your guilt or liability.
Freedom is about meaningful and unconstrained choice. These days people seem incredibly naive about protecting their freedom. It isn't just the negative information that can be used to threaten and blackmail you, though it is true that all of us are humans and we've all made mistakes. It is also that your positive information, your strengths and interests, that can be turned against you to manipulate you and remove your freedom.
Have a nice day, eh?
NatWest 'spam' email cockup got me slapped with late payment fee, says angry Reg reader
Wednesday 29th January 2014 01:44 GMT
Reactive filtering: FAIL
This article is an excellent example of why reactive filtering is something the spammers can live with.
Why don't ANY of the major email providers get serious about breaking the spammers' business models? Imagine an iterative tool that would let you help cut the spammers away from their money. On the automatic side, the system would break the spam into categories that you would confirm on the human side, and after two or three rounds the system would know EXACTLY what the spam was and how to most effectively target the responses. Remember the spammers can't obfuscate beyond the decoding capacity of their human victims, and those victims are certainly not the brightest light bulbs in the barrel of monkeys, so to speak.
If we disrupt ALL of the spammers' infrastructure, pursue ALL of the spammers' accomplices, and protect ALL of the spammer's victims (mostly from themselves), it will not turn the spammers into decent human beings or stop all of the spam. However, it will reduce their profits and cause many or most of them to crawl under less visible rocks.
Cops cuff alleged email hackers in GLOBAL bust
Wednesday 29th January 2014 01:35 GMT
Yeah, but the spammers were there first
Not sure if these particular sociopathic scumbags started their careers as spammers, but I think that most of them start there. I even lost an old friend that way. It isn't exactly the moral equivalent of a gateway drug, but similar. Some people actually are conned into becoming spammers or accomplices of spammers...
Ergo, I'll repeat that I think we should go more aggressively after the business models of the spammers. Reactive filtering is obviously something the spammers can live with, but if we cut off their money, most of them would crawl under less visible rocks.
I think the large email providers should provide some interactive crowd-based tools so that wannabe spam fighters could at least help with the targeting against the spammers' infrastructure. In addition, we should pursue ALL of the spammers' accomplices and try to protect ALL of the spammers' victims, mostly from their own gullibility and stupidity. Yeah, the suckers lose the money to the spammers, but the rest of us lose even more. The spammers are destroying the value of email for everyone and utterly wasting vast amounts of OTHER people's valuable time and attention. Worth mentioning that many of the victims are also innocent corporations whose valuable reputations are exploited by spammers in their desperate search for credibility.
Botnet PC armies gulp down 16 MILLION logins from around the web: Find out if you're a victim
Wednesday 22nd January 2014 07:52 GMT
Scope of the damage? Statistics?
The website is pretty tricky to use, but I wish there was some way to assess the risk. From a statistical perspective, what percentage of email addresses might be included? That should also depend on the domain. For example, if Yahoo Japan has been heavily compromised, it may tell me how hard to sweat...
As it stands now, this website doesn't seem that helpful. I have quite a number of email addresses... I don't even want to try and count how many websites I've logged into over the years...
Facebook lets Russian search czar Yandex suck on its public 'firehose'
Wednesday 15th January 2014 00:51 GMT
This is an OUTRAGE!
Everyone knows "All your attention is belongs to the google!"
My take on Facebook is that they have one redeeming feature. At least I can't recall they ever pretended to such a motto as "Don't be evil." Still, I wish Facebook was a little more honest about the real deal: Facebook will let you pretend to be friends with lots of people on a wholesale basis, and in exchange Facebook gets to rape your personal information.
So why do I exist in any way on Facebook? Because I didn't want to be rude to some old friends who asked me to use it.
There's also a funny minor reason: I don't mind if old friends want to look me up and Facebook has become a major mechanism for that sort of thing. However, I mean REAL friends of my younger days, not Facebook so-called Friends.
Most particularly, my time is already too limited and pressed and I have no urge to "recruit" new friends on Facebook. The main feature I want on Facebook is a customizable contact warning. As customized, mine would say something like: "If you are an old friend, please feel free to contact me. If you have a GOOD and SUBSTANTIVE reason for contacting me, then you may do so, but you better explain why. If you are ANY kind of SPAMMER, then you contact me at your own risk, because I would dearly love to nuke every spammer account on Facebook."
I guess it's my #2 feature request, but it would be like notches on my gun so that I could know how many spammers I had helped nuke.
P.S. Apparently I'm a controversial poster. The register just said my posts had around 1,500 votes, but almost balanced. It appears I offend about as often as I please, but I certainly hope the spammers are most offended by my fixation against them...
Google stabs Wikipedia in the front
Monday 13th January 2014 21:55 GMT
New motto: All your attention is belong to the google
Just so, child. Since your effective search query should hint what kind of information you want, then it obviously optimizes the experience from the google's perspective if you get the answer immediately--as long as you still see some paid-for ads. In fact, I'd wager that they strongly optimize the ads around their guess of what information you want, and this would greatly increase the likelihood of your clicking through on an ad as soon as you know the answer to your actionable question.
Is this EVIL? Actually, I think so. Serendipitously, I just finished writing a blog on the topic. It probably won't come up on the google search engine, and given that the blog website is probably owned by the google, I better make a local copy, too, just in case of an accidental data loss.
http://anti-dubya.blogspot.jp/2014/01/all-your-attention-is-belong-to-google.html
Is your IT department too tough on users?
Sunday 12th January 2014 04:43 GMT
Too much time protecting too little
There is no such thing as perfect security, but we are spending more and more energy and time in pursuit of that perfection. At least that's how it seems to me as part of the food chain of one of the biggies. We need to rethink the problem in more flexible terms of limiting the exposure of truly important information while still making it possible to do our jobs, and insofar as our jobs differ, they also call for differing tools and for corporate flexibility in allowing for the use of those tools. The alternative is to gradually sink to the smallest set of tools that can be adequately "secured". Unfortunately, that weak set of tools seems to be where we are headed--and we STILL can't get that perfect security.
By the way, I looked at the survey, and it was way too long. I suggest you break it into pieces. For example, you could put the most interesting piece first, ending with an option to receive the later small pieces on some reasonable schedule, perhaps weekly or twice a week over the next month.
Connecting Gmail to Google+ is SENSELESS, says Digg founder
Sunday 12th January 2014 02:39 GMT
Re: EVIL is as google does
Whops, I forgot to note the obvious EVIL in this particular imposition from the google. It goes back to the new motto:
"All your attention is belong to the google."
We do not need more email (even apart from the increased spam), or tools to handle larger volumes of email, even though the google wants to use that email to demand larger amounts of our attention for more ads. What we most need now are better tools to take control of our own time, and dare I saw it, LIMIT the amount of email we have to deal with.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
