2952 posts • joined 5 Aug 2013
Houlihan is right - this incident is really indicative of a general trend across all businesses that deal with personal data.
The only way I can see this situation changing is if there is a financial incentive: avoiding crippling fines.
No publicly-accessible platform is completely secure and nearly anything can be breached by a dedicated, technically-advanced and well funded adversary. That being the case, however, the vast majority of breaches that occur need nowhere near that level of backing and, far too often, are laughably easy.
In such cases, the negligence is nearly willful and needs to be punished as such.
Rock, meet hard place.
"Unless, of course, yours is one of the systems that also happens to be suffering from a different bug in the patch that is causing networking problems on some servers that run VMware hypervisors (and possibly some Broadcom NICs- we're trying to confirm that,) in which case you now get to choose between security and network access."
Quite the choice: do or don't. Seems that the choice to be damned or not is out of your hands.
Did the FBI engineer its iPhone encryption court showdown with Apple to force a precedent? Yes and no, say DoJ auditors
We might not live in police states yet but we live in countries where our governments don't see anything inherently wrong with the concept.
Kaspersky and US spyware
Who cares if it was used to target IS and other terrorist groups?
When you have the FBI allowing the police to use their Stingray tech to nab someone who stole some fried chicken and vast troves of NSA-collected data now available to pretty much any law enforcement for whatever reason, the government doesn't have the moral high ground here. (Did it ever?)
You just can't claim that some mechanism should be protected because it is used to fight terrorism and then use it to fight fast-food theft and expect that people will in anyway respect that.
If these types of tools are SO important to catching the worst of the worst then treat them that way - as exceptional measures for exceptional circumstances. As soon as you start using them outside these edge cases, you show us all that they aren't that important to you. If they were, you'd ensure they are kept aside for the most dire cases.
Even if this particular tech nasty hadn't been used to catch litterers yet, the track record is so poor that there's simply no point believe anything they say. They have been lying to the public for years - not at a pinch, not in extreme cases; as a matter of ongoing policy.
I very much approve of the message being given here and it highlights why companies are struggling with GDPR: they (the companies) have collected data based purely on whether it has been legal to do so - not whether it was necessary or appropriate.
The problem was that previous legislation did not actually respect the privacy of the individual so neither did most companies. The message from Gartner here is: look to adopt the mindset of privacy, not the specific legal requirements.
The reasoning, from a purely practical point of view can be easily explained: if you use some legal loophole to start hoovering up data and tossing it about at will, you'll face the same problem next time when (if) they close those loopholes.
Well, that's my wishful-thinking for the day. Back to reality.
Re: "media were fawning over"
'Even the SEC recognizes the saga as a lesson for the hype-driven tech industry. "The Theranos story is an important lesson for Silicon Valley . . ."'
It should be.
Re: the only penalty is 'you can't do that again for 10 years'
"Honestly, they might as well have put her on the electric chair. Her days as a high-flyer are over."
Somehow, I suspect that her financial resources are still far larger than those enjoyed by the VAST majority of people in the rest of the US. In other words, while her house of cards has crumbled and she may well (and should) face additional penalties, it is likely that she has more money and assets than most of us could hope for.
Re: Sounds familiar
"How would you define 'fake'?"
For me, I think a key indicator is going from zero foundational material to full-blown, registered and recruiting religion in the space of one person's lifetime.
The closest 'mainstream' comparison is Mormonism but even that differs sharply because, first, it built upon Christian foundations and, second, it grew far more organically.
The dicta and dogmata of Scientology were fabricated out of whole cloth largely by one person. They were not the accretion and evolution of tribal wisdoms and beliefs or appropriated religions; they were not the results of gradual morphing via a series of 'Chinese whispers' or local practices and mythologies that took on authoritative tones when collected and codified.
It has been commented that the only difference between accepted religions and 'cults' is time. While perhaps accurate, it is overly simplistic as the addition of time changes a great deal and a religion that has survived for centuries must undergo stresses and changes that a 'religion' that sprang up last week has not been subjected to. Just as important, those practicing and passing-on the religion now are removed from the source and beginnings and so there is, in a way, less culpability on their part. They may have neglected to fully analyse and dissect the religion with a ruthlessly critical and rational methodology but that is less of a failing than those who jump on board something that only came into existence within living memory.
The whole 'mad, bad or god' option breakdown is fitting when dealing with someone like L. Ron. He was either genuinely inspired and tapped into something real or he didn't. If he didn't, he was either out of his tree or deliberately scammed people. Of course, it's possible he was both of the latter, at different stages: first cynically scamming and then addled and believing his own stories.
The point is that the process through the centuries actually changes the thing that makes the trip so, while one might contend (and I, personally, do) that all religions - small and large - have no metaphysical truth behind them, that doesn't make them all 'fake', per se.
Re: Sounds familiar
"Also worth pointing out, why do SO many celebs fall for this obvious bullcrap?"
I think that one factor is that the experience 'celebs' have in Scientology is vastly different to the experience the common folk have.
At the simplest level, the expenses just isn't ruinous for the high-paid celebs as it can and does become for 'normal' people. Their public lives mean they don't work for the Church the same way some of the more abused members do and they aren't as reliant on the church for their sense of identity or self worth.
In other words, the power structure is very different.
In an interview, Leah Remini explained that celebrities in Scientology are lionised (my word, paraphrasing) and have servants drawn from the rank and file. So, while 'ordinary' Scientology members have little to no power over even their own lives, celebrities of sufficient stature are given power over those of others.
Whatever the specifics, the very existence of a Scientology 'Celebrity Centres' is sufficient indication of the differing experiences that can be had.
"Microsoft can quickly update its services to protect against threats, where many government agencies with on-premises environments may take weeks if not months to deploy patches in the event of an attack . . . Our ability to dramatically speed up the timeline can result in real ROI savings—and better protected citizen data—for our government cloud customers."
It'll also help introduce bugs nice and quickly, too.
Re: Nanny State
I am against the 'Nanny State'. Where I live (NSW, Australia) they have gone so far as to restrict bottle shop ('off license') open hours. That's ridiculous.
BUT, we have to ask what the reason for even having a state - and a government - is.
I would argue that, in at its heart, the core benefit of a 'state' is to accomplish works for the good of the collective citizenry that would be difficult or impossible for individuals or even groups to accomplish otherwise.
If you were to counter that they have clearly gone astray then I would be the first to agree with you but that core principal still does exist, even if it has been warped.
Socialised health care - despite its problems and bureaucratic inefficiencies - is an excellent expression of this as it is, in general, good for society for people to be healthy. Healthy people can work, pay taxes (to fund other public goals) and look after their children. Healthy people are also, all other things being equal, happier.
While some, including staunch libertarians, may argue that public healthcare is an intrusion upon the liberty of the individual, most people who have the benefit of such a system agree that it is a good thing for society.
My point is that promoting good health in society is of benefit to the society as a whole. And, that being the case, campaigns to raise awareness about health issues in the public are not necessarily outside of that goal.
There has to be balance, of course, as having a HAPPY population is also good for everyone and not all measures that might be undertaken to promote good health will have a positive effect on mood and overall satisfaction.
The goal, then, has to be to provide sensible, sound advice based on solid evidence that, when followed, will yield an increased measure of both health and happiness in the population.
On that count, it seems they failed.
"There's no intention that we have to undermine legitimate encryption . . . "
This statement implies that there is an intention to "undermine" whatever they consider non-legitimate encryption.
The only way this makes sense is if we assume that access to strong encryption - encryption not undermined by the government - is being restricted in some way, such that those situations deemed as 'legitimate' uses of encryption are able to run proper, strong encryption, whereas those situations deemed non-legitimate must run encryption that has been 'undermined'.
So who gets to decide this and how?
Re: The path to hell
I wasn't saying that they don't have a right to protect their profits; I was pointing out that their 'good intentions' were not altruistic; they just wanted to make sure people weren't using their products without paying and that goal is nowhere near sufficient justification for what they did.
As I have said at every opportunity in previous comments, I am not a supporter of those who violate copyright and I have little sympathy for them.
BUT, I do not believe that violating copyright is so serious and grave a threat to society that deploying malware and spyware is justified in order to stop it.
Compare this to cases where the FBI have performed similar actions (i.e. installed malware/spyware) to catch people involved in a child-porn ring. THAT situation is serious and a genuine threat to the most vulnerable among us but even then these powers are a step to far in many people's minds.
My point, again, is simply that, if there is some line beyond which the ends justify these means, this situation does not even come close to reaching that mark.
Installing malware/spyware on someone else's computer is a far greater offence than running some software without paying.
@mosw has summed it up perfectly.
Re: They're not first and won't be the last.
"Even Blizzard . . ."
You mean Blizzard, the company that insisted that their two flagship non-MMO properties - Diablo and Starcraft - would require constant online connectivity to even play single player?
The problem - as you have identified - is really the elevation of DRM and "intellectual property protection"* above the privacy of the customer and their control over their own computer.
Software companies will continue doing this unless either their ability to do so is restricted by legislation or the community - en masse - stops buying their products. I don't which is less likely. Certainly there is no will by governments for the former and the massive acceptance of platforms like Steam shows there is apparently no will by consumers to do the latter.
* - The term 'intellectual property protection' is not really accurate, however; what they are attempting to protect is their PROFIT. Protecting you intellectual property is covered by patents and trademarks and so forth - someone running a copy of your software does harm your 'intellectual property' - just your (potential) profits.
Re: The path to hell
The developer's end goal might seem worthy when you phrase it a certain way - e.g.: to stop people distributing cracking tools for their software - but, more simply, the goal is to protect their profit.
That's what all DRM is, after all.
Looking at this specific case, it seems apparent that, while the behaviour of the cracker(s) is clearly illegal, the closed, 'in group' nature of the distribution (of the cracking tools) implies that the damage could not have been overly large.
Of course, the software itself is relatively niche but still, this cracking operation seems to be available only to a select few and not anyone who just searches online for "give me tha free warez!!!"
What we have here is a classic case of a digital company believing that they have some intrinsic right to do whatever it takes to make sure everyone is paying them.
In this case, they massively over-reached given the likely scope of the problem but the point is that this kind of behaviour is inherently poor form (ignoring the legality) and crosses a line (distributing spyware) that shouldn't be crossed no matter the motivation.
Re: Please also ask T May
It's not that perplexing. I'm not saying I know, specifically, what their game is, but there are several plausible options that are fully in keeping with the way these people operate.
The important part is that they are insisting that they need access - on demand - to any and all communication from anyone, to anyone, at anytime, through any service. That is what is consistent and they don't actually care about encryption per se; they are only concerned so far as it prevents them getting what they want.
The underlying issue is that our governments and law-enforcement agencies have steadily adopted the view that they have a right to collect and look at anything and everything that the population does - in this case it's online but the insane coverage of CCTV proves it's a general principal.
It's this view of entitlement to all data that is the basis for their frustration; there's no thought that any information should be sacrosanct and little concern that there should even be regulations - there's data and they must have it.
They say, of course, that people are using technology to hide their activities and that, therefore, technology has hampered their ability to do their jobs. But that's disingenuous; it's technology that has allowed them access to an unprecedented breadth and depth of information about the entire population and provided that access far more easily than ever before.
Just think of the effort previously required to intercept communication between two people pre-Internet. You can tap a phone, sure, but that's a specific effort and it's not something you can do en masse so you must identify specific lines to monitor, which takes effort and resources. What if one person uses a public telephone? Even if you later identify the specific phone booth used, all you can retrieve is the dialed numbers and, if you knew the time the call was made, you could match it up but you still wouldn't be able to retroactively listen to what was said.
That's not the case at all with e-mail as communications can not only be monitored and analysed in huge numbers, there is usually a historical record obtainable after the fact - even if someone has deleted an e-mail from their mailbox, it may be recoverable by the provider and if not, most logs provide more information than phone records ever did.
Our governments have gorged themselves on these easy, rich new streams of data and the thought of going back to limited data that they have to actually work for and be judicious about applying resources to horrifies them.
The point, (to belabour it) is not so much that clever actors can suddenly avoid their data being collected because that has always been the case and it's not about terrorism or 'serious crime'* because no data collection policies restrict usage of the data to only those specific scenarios; instead, it's that our governments have come to view ubiquitous access to all data as the default position and as inherently part of their powers and rights and they view that 'right' as detached from any requirement to justify its exercise.
* - Which the government of the day may construe to mean nearly anything they want.
Re: Please also ask T May
There is no compelling evidence that Theresa May (or Christopher Wray) truly believes that 'secure' back-doors are possible.
For my money, there is far too many people willing to chalk this up to ignorance/stupidity/magical-thinking on the part of politicians and intelligence/law-enforcement personnel when the truth is far more likely to be that they do understand the contradiction and they do accept the impossibility of what they are insisting but yet they are pushing ahead anyway.
In other words, my strong suspicion is not that they don't understand the problem, but that they don't care.
@FozzyBear (and others)
There are many politicians - all around the world - who are reasonable, intelligent, public-minded, and genuinely dedicated to governing for the people.
The problem is that the way politics as a whole works ensures that these worthy few rarely reach positions where they have much real power and never in concentrations high enough to make any tangible difference.
What is "intelligence" in the first place and is it actually reliant on consciousness?
In other words: can something have "intelligence" which does not also have a concept and awareness of itself?
What does that even mean?
Does one spring from the other and, if so, which way around; does consciousness only emerge once a certain threshhold of "intelligence" has been crossed or is consciousness, by definition, a pre-requisite for intelligence.
And so on.
". . . simply requiring a physical key in the circuit . . . would allow humans to remain in control there, eliminating that as a threat."
But that's exactly the type of forethought that is required!
My point, given above, at some length, is that we really should consider these ideas before they are needed so that regulations can be constructed accordingly. Private corporations will do what is best for them and if regulations aren't there to govern their actions, there is no reason to believe that any given 'common sense' move will be implemented.
If we think there is a risk in allowing self-driving cars to operate without requiring a human in the loop then we have to lay that down so companies are forced to comply. It might seem like a simple, common-sense step but that one step actually makes the idea of self-driving car-share much less useful. Requiring physical human interaction (in the form of a 'key' in actual proximity to the car) precludes any service where you book a car and it comes to your door, ready for you. You would have to go pick it up from a dedicated location.
Those locations must therefore be scattered around so there are enough vehicles available near where people need them. This limits the number of vehicles available in any area and takes up already limited parking space in densely-populated areas. Allowing no-interaction self-driving opens up a much greater user base as large numbers of cars can be stored in depots and these can be packed tighter, saving space.
It also also allows the idea of a drop-off where the car drops you off at your destination - like a taxi - and then goes back to base or off to another customer. That, again, helps with parking. If the car requires a human with a 'key' to move then the car needs to be parked somewhere at the destination. Which leads to people booking cars for longer than they need so they can park it and then drive it back later. Cars that don't require interaction allow there-and-back to be two separate trips, with the car not needing to be parked and idle in the interim. That's more efficient.
The idea, then, that just requiring a key solves everything is missing the benefits that can be had from other setups. My though is that the benefits means that zero-interaction cars will happen unless there are regulations like your proposed one to prevent it. People will, after all, prefer the option that is easier for them and, given the choice, a service that comes to them will be chosen over one they have to walk to; it's cheaper and more convenient.
A different question is whether self-driving cars should be able to be controlled remotely. This impacts even more as, not only would it prevent the above, it would also prevent law enforcement locking down cars - something I am sure they would love to be able to do.
It's not black-and-white, of course, which is why the discussions need to be had. Perhaps cars are able to be controlled remotely unless there is a human in them, in which case, they are sacrosanct as the risk to the occupant(s) and other road users and pedestrians would be too great to even allow the police to shut down a moving car remotely.
One thing you can be sure of - if it's not sorted out ahead of time, the result will be that law enforcement agencies will have unfettered access to monitor and manipulate your car in whatever way they deem 'necessary'.
I have ended up going on at some length again and the subject of self-driving cars is somewhat tangential but my point remains the same - we really need to work these things out before they are ubiquitous and history tells us that the distance from a useful technology being available and it becoming ubiquitous is rather short and has caught regulators off-guard time and again.
Re: Looks at watch
I don't think so.
Oh, don't get me wrong - I believe there are more pressing problems and I believe that real AI, of the type that could pose a threat to humanity, is very far off in deed - but that doesn't make it too early to start thinking about where things may lead and how best to proceed.
Think of the problems that have occurred at the intersection of technology and privacy and law recently. All that has been caused because there wasn't enough thought and talk - and action, of course - about what the future may bring and how to handle it.
The massive migration of services and communications to the online realm coupled with the huge increase in processing power and data storage has seen private corporations, criminal elements and law enforcement agencies able to access previously unimaginable troves of our personal data and regulation has lagged woefully far behind.
The explosion of commodity drones and ridiculously cheap HD and 4K cameras has seen this growing market pose risks to safety and privacy that authorities are trying to get to grips with but, now that the market is there, it's that much more difficult.
Look at the problems caused by Uber - the 'disruption'. It's a huge issue because authorities just weren't prepared for it. Think of the issues in London that amounted to an argument over what constituted a 'taximeter'. The problem? That the wording was laid down some time ago without consideration that, in the future, a nearly ubiquitous hand-held device could perform the same function.
The point is that while we may not need to work everything out right now, it's not too early to start honestly and openly discussing it. As a society, what do we want from this technology? What are our definitions - what is "intelligence"? Are there different levels and do they need to be considered separately?
On your other point, of there being more pressing concerns - I agree. But it is not as though the human race, as a whole, can't grapple with multiple issues. People have expertise in different areas and it's wrong to suggest that those people can't apply their knowledge and time to considering those problems that relate to their specialist areas just because there are other issues, in other fields, that present a more urgent problem.
Some problems require vast quantities of money and resources to address and this is mostly because they are urgent problems. Trying to get ahead of that with discussions such as this helps avoid something becoming an urgent problem down the road.
Of course, you still have to get broad agreement and buy-in but that doesn't make the exercise a waste.
Re: Splash down target - Canberra
It would be so easy for Australia to also have a space industry - just do what the Kiwi's did: go to the industry and ask them what they need. Then do it.
That's pretty much what your mob did.
It seems that, with tech new always harping on the 'bro culture' angle, people are primed to believe these stories.
Re: Alien? Unlikely
". . . or a byproduct of some conflict (like nuclear explosions but raised to the nth power) but the fact that they repeat, apparently from a similar source, would argue against either of those being likely."
As I understand it (imperfectly - corrections always welcome), while each burst likely comes from a region of around 100 km - based on the very short duration - they each originate from a different 100 km region and the pinpointing is really just that those bursts all come from a 4,400 ly region of the galaxy.
There are 45 stars within 15 ly of us on Earth (sphere of 30 ly diameter) so, using the principle of mediocrity, we can estimate some 140m stars within a sphere of diameter 4400 ly.
Thus, it seems perfectly possible that these bursts could represent an alien civilisation at war over a large area. Or, perhaps, destroying worlds for a hyper-space bypass. Perhaps they are destroying stars using a method and technology that somehow funnels the blast in a particular direction - to avoid damaging themselves - which might explain the odd polarisation.
Well, it's unlikely because the particular area is a stellar nursery so there are better explanations but my point is that the apparently restricted area of the emissions is not, in itself, a counter argument to it being aliens destroying stuff.
No, I was the best applicant.
I never said that no other applicant might not have, if given a chance, been equally-good (or better) after some years; I said that I was the best applicant. Which means that I fulfilled the criteria completely, aced my interview and completed my practical tests more completely than any other applicant.
That's not to say no one else could do my job better - there are scores who could - just that I was the best applicant at that time, within the window they set (an admittedly short one).
Your statement may be broadly correct but - and this is my whole point - it is a disservice to assume that a broadly accurate statement applies in every instance.
For the record, I was not interviewed by 'HR'; I was interviewed and tested by the lead engineer so one of your key assumptions is utterly incorrect.
Re: The smug, dismissive way this article is written kinda proves their point
"Equality of opportunity should be the aim, not equality of outcome."
Unfortunately, this is impossible to measure while a raw percent, measured at the end, is easy. The problem comes when the latter is used to draw conclusions about the former.
Things like quotas - however softly applied* - are an attempt to fix a stated problem at the very end of the chain, without addressing any of the contributing factors up to that point.
It might be seen as a pragmatic, necessary response to what is seen to be an urgent problem but fixing something at the end rarely leads to the best outcomes.
Think of something like racial inequalities.
Yes, you can enforce a quota on hiring or implement special programs for advancement in a company but that doesn't address some of the bigger issues or problems. For that, you have to look at the whole structure of society - the services (like schools) available in certain neighborhoods; the financial assistance and safety nets - like health care - provided; even things like the judicial system, which is structured in such a way that poorer people are disproportionately impacted, which flows on to families, including the ability to support children who are in their formative years of schooling which will impact their performance and opportunities later in life.
You also have to acknowledge that, quite frankly, things take time.
If you say you want to address the issue of lack of women - or a particular racial group - in upper management, you have to accept that to be qualified for a promotion to that level, you should have good experience at middle levels of management which in turn requires experience at lower levels of management - the corporate ladder and all that.
Well, climbing that ladder takes time and so fixing any inequalities only starts the process and time - and continued monitoring - is then required to allow the full effects. You have to address the number of the targeted group at the beginning of the pipeline before you start dictating the output.
* - And coverage like this is a soft form of quota: verbally punishing companies for not achieving whatever arbitrary measure has been decided from afar.
Re: Why stop there?
"Indeed, the Wikipedia article on El Reg seems awfully light on any female names . . ."
But that's Wikipedia - you know you can't trust a single thing that comes from anywhere near there. Just ask Andrew O.
Re: Welcome to the 21st
Bob Dole (tm)
You were kidding but many people actually think that things will eventually 'work out'. They may, but that's not the issue - the issue is the disruption while it happens.
And there will be disruption so we shouldn't just ignore that the cost of that disruption has a face.
It's like the changes away from manufacturing jobs where you have politicians proudly boasting of the new 'high tech' jobs in the 'information economy' they are creating. Great, and the world will, in the end, likely be better for it. BUT, those wonderful, new, modern, 'high value' jobs are not going to the thousands of people now struggling day-to-day because the can't find work in the industry they've devoted decades to.
I'm not suggesting there is - or is about to be - masses of unemployed young males displaced by women in the workplace, just pointing out that employment changes always disadvantage some people and those people who suffer are usually not to blame for whatever situation led to the change - they are just ordinary people trying to get on with their ordinary lives.
Most people who complain about unfair treatment aren't as good as they thing they are.
In the current climate, when there is a story about a female tech applicant claiming unfair treatment, it is presented as irrefutable evidence of discrimination - the claim is assumed to be true because everyone knows that tech as a whole is strongly populated by males so it's just 'common sense' that women are discriminated against at every level and every position in every tech company. All tech companies are the same, don't you know - we're all 'bros'.
When there is a report of a male (especially a while male) claiming unfair treatment, it is presented as evidence of 'whinging' - he is told to 'check his privilege'.
Thus the wave moves and so men who can't get a job in tech are told it's their own fault and women are told it's the fault of some chest bumping cabal of bros.
Look no further than the entire tone of this article, where a man's complaint is ridiculed and it is ASSUMED that a broad trend means he, specifically, couldn't have been discriminated against (and he is thus a 'whinge[r]') while a female's assertion is not only presented unchallenged, the author takes it upon himself to reinforce it.
These broad-brush assumptions have to stop.
If someone claims they, specifically, were treated unfairly in a specific workplace in a specific instance when applying for a specific position then that specific claim shouldn't be either assumed to be self-evidently accurate or inaccurate based solely on the gender of the complainant.
That males in general may be less likely to be discriminated against in the tech sector doesn't mean that a specific male being discriminated against isn't every bit as large an offence as any specific woman being discriminated against. The assertion that so many other men are on the receiving end of unearned benefits does matters not one bit because none of those benefits conferred to other males helps with the rent money or puts food on the table for someone discriminated against.
Instead, that man is told that it's his own fault - it must be - he is lumped with the responsibility to take the blame and pay penance for his entire gender. Even if you believe there was discrimination, it's less important because turn-around is fair play, right and - poor man - he's just getting a taste of what women have had to deal with for decades.
Except that these specific people haven't done anything wrong in the first place - they weren't the ones on the other side of the table knocking back women for jobs because of their looks; they weren't the ones making advances and innuendo; they weren't the ones denigrating and making crude jokes. They just studied hard, worked hard and wanted a job or a promotion. They weren't 'bros' and they didn't strut around high-fiving and suggesting people 'check out the tits on that one' and their claims shouldn't be ridiculed because they share genitalia with the ones who were in those positions, acting that way. They don't 'run' the 'tech world'.
It makes me depressed - literally, medication-taking, psychiatrist-seeing, body-harming, sleep-losing depressed - to have this non-stop weight of guilt shoveled upon me just because I was born a certain way and have decided to try and make my career in the tech world. I don't need it and I haven't done anything to warrant it.
I am in my position because I was the best applicant at the time. Don't imply that I got my job because I was born with a penis. Don't imply that when I interview candidates I am biased towards those also born with penises and against those who weren't. You don't know me and no trend or average or set of numbers gives you any right to make assumptions about me just because I am a member of some group I had no choice in joining.
I work hard and I am dedicated. I treat everyone well and try, as best I can, to get on with my life without interfering with anyone else. I am kind, I am thoughtful, I am helpful, I am considerate and I genuinely believe that, while the world at large is unaffected by my existence, I make the lives of those around me better - a little bit easier, a little bit happier, a little bit more pleasant, a little bit weirder, perhaps but hopefully more interesting for that. I am not perfect and at times I make those lives more full of worry, more stressed, more annoyed, more sad and more difficult but I am a good person and I know that the people around me know that and appreciate that.
But I am not a big person and I have no desire to be. I am not a CEO or a leader or a pioneer or a great thinker or a role model or a crusader or an entrepreneur. I won't break new ground or do great deeds and, with no children, 60 years from now, few will remember me and none will miss me. I am a small fish who keeps to myself and I am happy not to make large waves.
I am not responsible for what other people do just because we share a gender and the trials of my life are not less significant because others of that gender are wealthy or favoured.
Sorry, that was a rant, but I am deadly (word used with consideration) serious when I say that this burden of guilt lumped on me depresses me immensely.
Re: But how do they spread fires?
Picking up burning/smoldering twigs, I imagine.
While they aren't right up there with the size and leg strength of some birds, they are medium-sized raptors so grabbing and carrying things with their talons is kind of their bag. (Though I understand the Black Kite is more a scavenger.)
I simple don't understand why the rules should allow tacking one (or more) distinct, unrelated items onto a bill.
I can see why, from the standpoint from expedience, it could help move things along in the limited time available but that benefit cannot out-weigh the IMMENSE potential for abuse.
This ability is used, time and again, everywhere it is allowed, to push through legislation that otherwise could not pass on its own. And, if a piece of legislation can't pass on its own, tacking it onto another bill like this is a deliberate attempt to circumvent democracy.
Re: @Bob Dole ... WTF? Well put
"Some of us are old enough to know of the time before the internet. That understood that the 'net was a cluster of privately owned networks who connected to one another through peering agreements.
Maybe so but then then things evolved; grew.
The simple fact of the matter is that, like telephone poles, Internet coax and fibre is placed on public land and the right to do this is given based on the central place that Internet services inhabit in modern life.
Train lines were once 'clusters of privately-owned' networks and then, once they became more than that, the Interstate Commerce Commission was specifically created to regulate the new networks that had become essential for, well, interstate commerce.
This exactly parallels the creation of the the FCC, which is unsurprising because the latter was modeled on the success of the former and so carries a near identical purpose: to regulate the (then) new communications networks.
Re: "What goes through someone's head when they do that?"
He's a lawyer.
To clarify, I didn't mean to imply that lawyers are inherently untrustworthy, money-obsessed folk. At least no more than anyone else.
What I really meant to imply was that, perhaps, the necessity of putting your personal feelings, scruples and (in some cases) dignity and shame aside in order to do what your client wants enables you to become so desensitised to that compromise that you can reach a point where you stand up - not just before a jury of your peers but an entire country of them - and repeat a party-line that you know to be a false and that has publicly been shown to be false by everyone qualified to know.
That background must also, presumably, admirably condition you to be able to hear a direct, unambiguous question and respond with carefully-worded irrelevancies or to impugn those who question you as misinformed while still, deliberately, refusing to answer.
To be able to do that day in and day out with such ease must take a level of practice that I am glad I have not had the occasion to acquire.
Think that's far fetched? Remember the Gilded Age when railroads owned mines and timber plots.
Regulation of that industry was the template from which the FCC was created when it came time to deal with the phone companies.
Just to expand on this, there ARE privately owned toll roads in Southern CA in the L.A. area. The price varies based on time of day and usage. This way, travelling on the toll road is "buying time" to avoid traffic, which is why you'd want to pay extra to use it. Charging MORE when traffic on the 'free' road is heavy is just good business, because it forms a basis upon which the traffic will be truly limited to a sane level on the toll road [making it ALWAYS a good alternative, not a traffic jam that you PAY EXTRA for].
What the analogy fails to cover is that, when it comes to the Internet, there are no alternatives: it's all toll roads. At best, you may have a choice between two competing roads, but there is no equivalent alternative of the 'free' road for Internet access.
That is why the analogy of different lanes on the road is by far the better one.
That said, the even more apt comparison is the one that the whole sticky issue arises from: the telephone service. In short, the FCC was created for the express purpose of regulating the then esssential telephone service so as to facilitate its role in fair interstate commerce. This was done along the same lines as the previous regulation of the rail lines, which were being abused to favour the owning states. (By charging out-of-state groups more to use the lines when passing through than their local groups were being charged to use the same lines.)
The point is that, like telephone services and train services before them, the Internet infrastructure is an essential utility upon which a great deal of trade is predicated upon and without which the economy would suffer greatly. The FCC's function, as it relates to Internet providers, is no different than it was when it dealt with phones: to ensure that the privately-owned, critical communications infrastructure of commerce is regulated in such a way as to provide fair and equal access.
Their express remit is to regulate the profit-seeking, 'capitalist' goals of these providers to ensure that those commercial interests are not allowed to run unchecked and thereby create advantages and disadvantages amongst the users of this essential infrastructure.
Yes, it does - 1980.
First up, my question/comment is the same whether 'net neutrality' - or this decision to end it - is ultimately a good thing or a bad thing. What I am chiefly referring to is the outright, provable lies about broadband speeds and investments told by Pai and repeated even after this was shown to be incorrect.
As I said in a previous post: whatever the ultimate benefits or downsides of reversing the net neutrality ruling, it is clear that Pai's professed reasons for doing so are not the actual reasons.
But second, you analogy just doesn't work.
On a road, the main reason to charge more for, e.g. a truck is that a truck, by it's physical nature, degrades the road more and thus requires more maintenance. That's why many toll roads charge less for a motorbike than a car - less wear on the road. A truck also takes up more space than a bike.
What you should understand is that NOTHING in net neutrality prevents ISPs from charging based on the volume of data downloaded/uploaded by a subscriber, which is the equivalent, in your analogy, of the number of axles. Or, perhaps, more simply, the weight of the vehicle.
The point of net neutrality is not to say that you can't charge more for a truck than you can for a car (i.e charge by the number of wheels/packets) but that you can't charge more per wheel or per unit of weight when the truck belongs to company X or is carrying company Y's widgets in the trailer. You don't get to set a lower speed limit, either.
THAT is what net neutrality is about.
It says that, if your network is transporting 100Mb of data, you can't treat that 100Mb any differently than any other 100Mb of data - it doesn't matter whose truck it is, what depot it came out of, what it is hauling or who the end recipient is - 100Mb is 100Mb and you don't get to prioritise company A's cargo of frozen corn over Company B's cargo of toasters.
You can charge by weight (total data transmitted) but you can't charge two amounts for the same weight. You can, I believe, have peak and off peak rates but, again, you can't go charging more or less (or allowing higher or lower speeds) based on the specific cargo.
Slowing the whole road down (rate limiting) is also okay but, again, you can't just slow down all the traffic from one supplier while allowing the another supplier to go at full speed, nor can you apply a 'peak' charge to one but not another.
You can't, in other words, slow down (rate-limit) all the lanes except one but then charge a premium surcharge for traffic on this new, miraculous, 'fast lane'.
(Sorry for any typos - have to dash.)
I really wonder about people like Pai.
What upbringing - what values instilled as a child - leads someone to be able to stand up in front of the entire nation and make provably false claims - to lie - to them in order to sell out their interests to corporate money and political masters.
What goes through someone's head when they do that?
What preparations must one make in order to keep that smarmy face and cock-sure tone when you not only know you are selling out the people you are supposed to be protecting, but you also know that they know you are doing at and know you are lying about it?
Is it too much to hope that he looses sleep over this?
I suppose that's why so many politicians and people like Pai come from legal backgrounds.
Re: I've, umm... done most of that stuff
Well, wasn't that the whole thrust of his argument: that he actually had authority to perform each discrete action he did?
It's actually an interesting (to me) defence because it shines a light on the difference between the implied authority required for the tasks you need to perform and the implied responsibilities demanded by the outcomes you are hired to achieve.
Common sense dictates that of course what this person did was utterly wrong and that he should be punished but common sense and the law are not always in step so I was very interested to see how this turned out.
One concern I have, however, is the flip side of this - what if a sysadmin is fired and accused of destroying company property when they delete old backups that they believe are unnecessary in order to make space for new backups?
Again, common sense dictates that is not the same but how is that argued if such a case went to court.
Still, I just can't get in the mind of someone who would do something like this. Completely innocent people were likely severely impacted. This chap was annoyed that a reduction in IT staff would mean more work for him - did he feel sorry about all the extra stress and work and difficulties he was causing everyone else in the company?
Whatever anyone feels about net neutrality, it is clear that this particular push is based on dogma and not any kind of analysis of the benefits to subscribers and the general public.
If your main, public arguments are demonstrably false and you keep repeating them despite being shown to be in error then it is clear that, whatever your reasons for the policy, they are rather different from what you are willing to admit.
Re: ...and is it a good idea?
Had an issue where a developer just stuck with the: "these are the settings that work for us" line and just wouldn't troubleshoot their application to figure out what perms were actually required.
Just code as though the applications have full access to absolutely everything and things will work themselves out. Permissions, after all, are far too 'OPsy' and just slow down application development.
Re: "To the 53 people who've watched.... Who hurt you?"
To all who are commenting that this figure is likely either made up or gathered from anonymised data or general logs, that's missing the point.
First, Netflix absolutely does log everything you watch, when you watch it and from which device. So that data is there whether it was used for this particular stunt or not.
Second, how they came by the data is less relevant than how they treat it. It is clear that, like Uber, they do not treat this data as private and sensitive and something they should be serious about protecting. It's the way it was used that is indicative of their (Netflix's) attitude - for an 'amusing' advertisement for themselves.
It's not just saying: these were the most watched movies this week or some other broad statistic, it's specifically talking about habits of particular subscribers.
Whether it was in jest or not or using personally-identifiable logging or not is not the issue - it's that they treat the personal viewing habits of individuals as just so much data to exploit.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not surprised in the slightest, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't concern people. The public is all too ready to normalise this type of attitude towards our data and I fear that we are already too far gone down that road to ever return to a place where our sensitive, personally-identifiable information is respected by default.
Re: 'because its 'amusing' or just because Netflix can!'
Sadly, your stance means nothing because you are in the minority. (As I am.)
Services that abuse our data are more popular than ever and show no sign of slowing. Services and products previous available for purchase and consumption anonymously are fast moving into 'connected' and 'cloud-based' systems and the options available to those few objectors are drying up.
Even where products are available 'offline', you can sometimes need to give up your privacy. Look at video games on PC. Yes, you can still go and buy a game off the shelf using a stack of crumpled notes but, when you go to install it, you need to go and sign up for Steam (or an equivalent service) anyway.
How long before movies bought from the local store need your player to connect to the Internet to register the movie to your account before you can watch it?
There's nothing inherently wrong with being connected but the all-you-can-slurp buffet that lobbying has created puts everyone at risk.
It's difficult to explain this to ordinary people who love Netflix and Facebook and their smart phones and Uber trips and, even if they understood, they wouldn't care because they like the convenience and features and don't feel they will ever actually be impacted by any of the negatives.
People need to consider what would happen if, 5 years from now, every bit of information collected on them by these services was broadcast. Every movie and TV show they ever watched and from where. Every trip they took. Every post and tweet and snap. Every game they played, when and for how long. Even vast portions of their browser and search history and, better still, their every move, tracked by the undefeatable GPS service reporting back to Apple or Google.
Everything time-stamped and geo-tagged.
It is all there - collected, stored, exchanged and collated. And it's just waiting to be abused, leaked and stolen.
Re: Poor excuse for a politician
"I suppose you think his sickening perversions should be tolerated. In my day we had ways of dealing with his kind."
For me, I think personal revulsion (whether right or wrong) shouldn't overwhelm skepticism and the presumption of innocence*. Your way of 'dealing with his kind' sounds a bit like a kangaroo court to me.
There is enough in this case that is just plain odd and suspect to warrant holding off judgement and I think a little healthy caution is a good thing before bounding (like . . . what's that animal?) to a conclusion.
"Not really a cloud problem - just the inevitable result of trying to hire the cheapest sysadmin money can buy."
Yes and no. I think the problem is two-fold but both related to the 'cloud'. First, you have the notion that the cloud is cheap, cheap, cheap and quick, quick, quick. The second is the feeling of outsourcing to 'the cloud'.
The two concepts work together with the result that people using the cloud may have a tendency to view it all as someone else's problem - the outsourcing and cheap prices means that you just don't have to be as rigorous as you might with in-house solutions.
Not in all cases, by any means but it's a pervasive theme - it's a trap that is apparently easy for people to fall into and the marketing and reporting of cloud-based services bolster that.
Re: Electricity vs Petrol/Diesel prices
The turn-around time will also factor in to calculations so an equally (if not more) important part is really the charging that Tesla is claiming - 400mi worth of charge in 30 mins.
It's exploitation by a huge, extremely lucrative corporation. Identified as such, there can be no surprise that this happens, is (generally) poorly regulated and that there is little real penalty or political will to change anything.
Re: Land of the free
"Curiously, there's no obvious link between low crime rates and the penal system being reformist or punitive, or even policing levels. Probably the three lowest crime countries in the world are Singapore, Switzerland. and Bharain, which have a spread from the nasty punitive police state of Bahrain, through to liberal, lightly policed Switzerland."
It could be that a liberal country like Switzerland, where quality of life and democratic freedoms are amongst the highest in the world, doesn't need heavy, punitive policing while Bahrain, an authoritarian regime and one of the less awesome places to be born, does need a strict and harsh penal system to keep the rate that low.
Re: Do not disturb
Or a simple f%$k up. So yeah, possibly a few dead engineers and workers there . . .