Re: Who decides
I doubt that it's any corporate pulling these strings as there is profit for them somewhere in this mess... so yes... who decides on who decides what's bad?
12880 publicly visible posts • joined 22 Nov 2012
I was hauled into a meeting the board around 5 years ago as a "spear-carrier" for my boss. The board was taking a "hard look" as they called it, at all of IT and were holding meetings with small groups of managers.
Anyway, the IT Security head was asked "how many hackers were stopped? If we're not being compromised, why do we even need you?" He looked back that board member, and made a statement that they should get the head of Physical Security up here because he should be asked "How many people who had guns were prevented from getting to the exec suites and the board room." and that "If the answer is none, his department should be disbanded also.". The look on the board members' faces was priceless.
As a footnote, that head of security is now CIO.
Security is effectively insurance which is always a hard sell. You're asking a business to pay for things and carry out functions which cost money and time yet if they are effective nothing happens.
This should remind us of the Y2K "problem". After it was over, how many CEO's bemoaned that fact that "nothing happened so why did we spend all that money?".
There's a mindset here that can't believe that "nothing is happening" is a good thing and worth spending some cash.
The article states that the Loons are in Sri Lankan airspace (which to me, means they're up and at some altitude). It then states the team is on it's way to Sri Lanka. Huh? Launch them without the team present? I guess it's also possible that the government spokesperson hasn't clue what they are talking about and that the balloons aren't airborne but "in-country".
<sarc>It's just plain scary that they'd use this to stream TED talks. I'd think there's more important stuff to communicate.</sarc>
Fingerprint won't work in this case. Apparently they tried it according to some spot reports on other sites. It needs the PIN.
According CNN, they destroyed their personal phones and the hard drive from their computer hasn't been found. This phone was his work phone issued by the county.
I'm a tad surprised that the county didn't put in a back door code into it since we put in a way to get into the company's encrypted PC's, phones, tablets, etc. if someone dies or terminates (voluntary or involuntary).
Microsoft has toned down its anti-Google rhetoric since Satya Nadella took the CEO’s reins, parking its aggressive 'Scroogled' attack ads from a couple of years ago. The ads served to draw a line between Google’s consumer behaviour processing and Microsoft’s alternatives.
I suspect that this is because MS is adapting the Google model of slurp the data and serve ads to the OS. Or will be soon. There's been much speculation on this and it seems logical. Can't be calling Google slime-buckets when MS is about to do the same, right?
After years of genetic analysis, it is now a well established fact that politicians (Hirudinea Sapiens) have evolved from leeches, developing a specialised snout-like organ for efficient feeding from any available trough.
I thought that was the evolution of lawyers and patent trolls... oh wait...
Hospitals are like almost everywhere else... everything is connected to the LAN and because email, web research, etc.. the LAN is connected to the internet. For example, the MRI machine needs to store the images on a server. Those images need to be accessible to physicians within and outside of the hospital. Physicians, don't seem to care about security and having files moved from an air-gapped system to the LAN/WAN/Internet so they can view the files from their office or home.
Yeah... they should have separate systems which would require separate PC's/terminals to get into, but there's a large hassle there with extra equipment on the desk, extra cost, etc. So most don't do it. The few that still run separate systems are considered "backwards".
And let's not even think about IoT in hospitals at this point. Security on that stuff is a fiction.
"Also amazing to think you can legally purchase on eBay a device which is prohibited "
Most engraver/cutting lasers on eBay are of the non-visible spectrum type. They're invisible. Also, a sheet of Perspex will block the beam. There are engraver/cutting lasers that are visible and will cut right through acrylics or glass but those are rather pricey and non-portable.
From the reports, these attacks are using visible spectrum lasers which will penetrate acrylics/glass. The key is visible spectrum.
Well I have noticed, that in the UK anyway, the scum (of all colours) seem to rise to the top.
Indeed, scum floats. I've often heard reference to someone "being lower than whale shit".. but apparently some does float to the top apparently... ambergris.
Edit:
Ambergris maybe isn't true whale shit according to references.
The carrier and cable groups, on the other side of the debate, want the commission to take a more hands-off approach, with the belief that ISPs will police themselves when handling customer data.
Hahahahahahaha...... yeah... and bears will stay out of the woods also.
I think that here in the States there's bigger problem. Our CongressCritters follow whatever hysteria is generated by the media and to some extent, the TLA's. Take a look at Feinstein, for example. There is also a perception from their bleatings that encryption is one product or that all the products have a common basic to allow what they want.
Yes, it's theatre, but it's coming to a TLA or LEA near you.
Since you raised the point, supposedly, the Stingray system drops and ignores the phones of those the cops aren't interested in. I say "supposedly" because that's what the FBI claimed in court. Funny thing is, they've dropped charges against alleged crims rather than reveal how the system works or where the data (all the data) goes.
I wasn't discussing "right" and "wrong" originally but only what I'd do if I were a crim.
Historically, narcs were the narcotics division of the police force. Then it became the name used on those who snitched, turned-in, or "narced" on the users/dealers. I'm not sure what it means in this context. My impression that these are just a different level of scum who have no intent on tattling on anyone.
The bit about cheating and loss of trust is just a jab for old time's sake.
I'm not so sure about the "old time's sake" part. It might be, or it might be that they've picked up on the feelings of the IT people world-wide. I can't remember the last time I read an article on MS where the comments haven't been laden with "lost my trust", etc.
Go a bit more personal...
1) Remind them that because Hillary didn't encrypt, there's factions that believe she belongs behind bars because they read her emails. So it's a case for and against encryption depending on your party.
2) Point out to them, that without encryption, their activities can be monitored. If they have nothing to hide, then they too have nothing to fear.
The Feinstein Bill (along with the author) should just be tossed in wastebin of history.
The Encrypt Act seems good on the surface, otherwise we'd have some states banning and others allowing and a massive headache for users and ISP's. There should be some uniformity otherwise a person living in an "encrypted" state would have issues communicating with someone in an "unencrypted" state. Plus companies would flee states based on the encryption issue.
The McCaul Bill might be the best. Tie this stuff up in a committee for eternity with no decision ever being reached. The marketplace will find it's center. Meantime, the TLA's will be beside themselves and beyond pissed off. Win-Win since many times, the best action is "no action".
There's some real shenanigans going on behind the scenes just like the Pacific trade agreement. I'm in the US and these agreements are giving me the worries. If I were in the EU, I'd be even more worried.
This whole realm of secrecy is not a good thing. We know that the multinationals are pulling strings but what extent? How can a legislature vote to approve something they're not allowed to see and study until it's time to vote on it? This whole thing smells as bad as the last agreement.
Ah yeah.. which means if they index your company data they have access to it. Which presents some interesting issues (for some value of interesting) such as a health insurance company which is using the search appliance for documentation. All that personal info is Google's. Same for any other company. Customer info, business info...
This is scarier than letting the NSA index it for you.
I think the point is that they are trying to recruit better programers and, in this context, they are anything but disabled.
I think you've hit it on the head with "context". While I agree it is a good thing, I'm on the fence here. Anyone remember "affirmative action"? Where perfectly good candidates were ignored because they didn't fit the "affirmative part"? There was no context in finding the "best" only to fill the quota. The ADA law was enacted to counter that on the basis of disability not race... but it doesn't consider the opposite. What if a company needs a specific characteristic? Or that a certain disability can perform the job better? Is this reverse discrimination? I'd like to think not but then, there's a lot of narrowly focused groups who only focus on what the law says and nothing else.
I don't blame the scammer for the loss - I directly blame TalkTalk. Someone needs to take them to court over this mess.
Actually, if you think about it, they both are to blame. One for being a miscreant and scamming innocent people who are probably the one's who can least afford it, and the second for having lousy security and abusing their customer relationship by engaging in less than honest dealings. The BS coming out of the TT front office is appalling.