|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 06:51 PM EDT |
Newspick
Bit of a
worry that both Watson and RK have such confidence that Wikipedia is a reliable
source of text data. Never mind the accuracy of the
information, it's the
accuracy of the language construction edited by non-native speakers in the
various language versions causes me to worry
about our future AI overlords
...
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: maco on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 08:38 PM EDT |
Who did the Ireland Bank Bailout help? Only the most
deserving, like Bill Gates. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 02:05 PM EDT |
Article link. It is Patently O for those who prefer to know where
they're going before they decide to click.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 03:31 PM EDT |
Finfisher has been around for a while now. About the time that Brian Krebs was
lamenting
Apple took three years to fix a hole that allowed it to be
installed in a fake iTunes updater,
f-secure were
asking
for a sample. With all the rumors and speculation they hadn't yet
got something clean they could
identify, and they promised they would detect
and reject it on clients' machines, regardless of whose
government was
installing it.
The Register also had an interesting summary last month.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 02 2013 @ 07:59 PM EDT |
No mention of what the free 15 days will cost you... in terms of
privacy/security. Even free requires an account somewhere. Knowing Microsoft's
history on tracking and data retention, I would suspect that free to you nets
them something they can sell for a profit.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Linux? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 03 2013 @ 08:19 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, May 02 2013 @ 09:40 PM EDT |
That's all we need is a collaboration between these two
countries. In the UK
I've heard, you are monitored by CCTV
cameras from the moment you step out of
your house to the
moment you return home at the end of the day.
In the
USA, every email you write, every banile comment
you make on FaceBook, and
every telephone call is
surreptitiously monitored.
Now they want to
collaborate to develop a chip they can
plant in your brain to monitor your
thoughts. George
Orwell's vision was a walk in the park compared to what they
are conspiring to do.
You'll go to your doctor's office for a routine
vaccination and they'll inject this microchip in your
bloodstream that'll go
straight to your brain and lodge
itself there. Then every time you pass a
reader, and they'll
have these well disguised stations everywhere, it will
upload all the thoughts you've had since the last upload.
All this data will
be analyzed by this big computer
the NSA is building in Utah.
We'll finally be safe from the terrorists, but
who will save
us from our own governments? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 02 2013 @ 10:56 PM EDT |
This editorial is also being published in papers around the
globe.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 03 2013 @ 03:09 PM EDT |
It's easy for me to see Grimmelman's point. Sure, putting a
page online makes it public in theory, but a web page is not
a physical object. Assuming for the sake of argument that
nobody links to it, the only way anyone can find that page
is by trying lots of different URLs and getting lucky.
Whereas physical objects reflect light, so you can see them
just by wandering nearby, web pages do not radiate any
indicators of their presence. A web page with an obscure
URL is not quite like an object abandoned on a public
street, it's more like a small object (say a book) tossed
into a very large field of tall weeds, or hidden under
leaves inside a large wood, on land that is open to the
public. Nobody will find it unless they look in exactly the
right spot, and there is very little reason to expect anyone
will do that unless they are actually looking for something.
Now note that the mechanism for "looking for" a URL is the
same as the naive method for guessing a password: try every
possible legal combination of letters. So, Grimmelman
argues, isn't a secret URL just as effective as a secret
password?
Sure, if anybody shares or guesses the URL, your secrecy is
blown, but the same is true for passwords.
Grimmelman goes on to give an example URL containing
"passwd=..." This is an interesting example because it
blurs the line between a "secret URL" and a "secret
password." Let's take it further: do we care whether the
password is embedded in a POST request or embedded in the
URL itself?
The resolution of this problem has nothing to do with the
technical details. Educating people about computers is
beside the point. The solution has to do with the
definitions of "authorization" and "security device".
Authorization means permission.
If I find a cabin in the middle of the woods and I go
inside, I am guilty of trespassing (excluding defenses like
necessity). I have entered without authorization. If the
door is locked and I pick the lock or break a window, I am
guilty of breaking & entering, a far more serious crime.
Not only have I entered without authorization, I have
intentionally circumvented a security device to do so.
To secure a conviction, however, I have to have recognized
the security device as such. If the back door was unlocked
and I entered that way, I did not commit breaking &
entering, regardless of whether the front door was locked.
A security device is really just a fancy "no trespassing"
sign. (Trespass after warning is a more serious crime than
trespass, though less serious than B&E.) Unlike a sign,
though, it not only has to be noticed, but it has to do a
reasonable job of presenting an obstacle to normal methods
of access. You have to lock both doors. (Once that's done,
it doesn't matter whether the windows are open.)
Returning to the analogy of the book hidden in the weeds.
There is no trespass involved in wandering among the weeds.
There cannot be any trespass involved in reading the book.
Grimmelman would seem to be arguing that the mental state of
*searching* for possible books is a trespass. This cannot
be right, if the weedfield is indeed open to the public.
I wonder what Grimmelman would do in the case where someone
finds the "secret" page, and posts the URL somewhere, and an
unrelated third party follows the link? The third party
seems to me totally innocent.
The difference with a password is simply that a password is
a recognizable security device. If you follow a link and
are asked for a password, proceed at your peril.
Note that in the case of someone clicking a link that
includes "passwd=", I would call that person innocent too.
Accepting passwords via CGI is like leaving your front door
unlocked. Somebody walking in may be trespassing, but that
doesn't make them a felon. In fact, they would have a
perfectly good defense to a trespassing charge, if they were
innocently following somebody's directions (say, to the
bank). Once you realize that the door leads to the inside
of the bank vault, you will have opportunities to become a
felon, but any of those will require a separate act.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|