With how weird AI gets things, there will be all sorts of unbelievable stuff that no-one could imagine… oh wait, Rule 34. Does this mean that it’s already happened or that even AI cannot possibly keep (it) up?
236 publicly visible posts • joined 31 Aug 2008
Might be worth “poisoning the well” putting a bunch of junk into the system before deleting as much as you can (it’s not like it actually gets removed from f*c*book’s data hive, so messing it up a bit is about the best that can be done).
Good luck with dropping the f-word!
If you think that political speech should not be censored, then there needs to be a law along the lines of “truth in advertising” - anything that is not backed by evidence or facts would not be published. (And dayum, I really wish the UK had something like that in place.)
“... throughout the entire remainder of the encounter, they seemed calm, patient and pretty professional...” kneeling on his neck for 8 fucking minutes. Seriously? Is that the standard you are holding police to? Personally, I hope for better. (And yes, most are better, which is why it’s important to remove the bad ones.)
There *was* a government agency for nudge. It was privatised at a cheap rate with the dept. bosses transferring with a nice block of shares... (allegedly, can’t be arsed to check back Private Eye for details) Still making most of their money from government contracts of course.
The only way to find out how much to trust the app is to read and understand the code. As a population, not many have that skill (though the readers here are skewed higher). Then, of course, you need access to the code, and verification that what you see is what was used to build the app distributed. Trust in this government is very low - it has been caught lying far too often already.
Guess that means you trust your ISP as all your traffic would be seen by them. There are tales of less scrupulous providers (I recall from the USA where they were selling advertising options based on customer traffic at one point) where use of a VPN is to try to protect yourself from your own ISP.
Why is the “bad apples” homily so rarely completed? “One bad apple can spoil the entire lot.” And that is a big problem with the police force - the protection of their colleagues means that the bad apples are not removed. I know it’s human nature to want to protect “your own”, but given the powers the police wield, bad apples *really* need to be removed.
They are using AI systems to alter images? AI is barely capable of recognising images (actually isn’t...), and some idiots are proposing using AI to “touch up” images that peoples’ lives depend on? Adding or removing details at the whim of an algorithm that is not transparent in its operation. Those bastards really only care about the money...
Recommend you grab Horizon Zero Dawn. It can be set to a very forgiving difficulty, and has a very interesting storyline (though as an open-world game, the story is slow to play out). It’s often on sale and is a pretty good introduction to console gaming.
Sadly, the results are not predictable. As the old saying goes, they* only need to win once - and they will keep hammering away until they get what they want. So, eternal vigilance and endless patience needed. Good luck with that in these attention deficit... oooh look - squirrels!
*they - feel free to define as you will.
Unfortunately, “think of the children” as (ab)used by politicians is almost always about the current darling tykes - “you don’t want *anything* slightly bad happening to your preciousssss do you?”. If people considered your interpretation then this planet wouldn’t be as messed up as it is.
Wish we had Lewis Page to provide some details of what type of charge is required for bomb disposal - I would have thought quite small, and not something capable of killing a man through armoured vest. Which begs the question - how is it that a police force has ready access to an anti-personnel explosive device? Or am I wrong and the bomb-disposal charge is actually very powerful?
@ Christian Berger
I should really not comment until after I've had my coffee and come round a bit, but... you are still a fucking idiot. Yeah, shows I'm an uncouth bitch, but I don't really care. The stupidity in your posts just goes beyond what I can put up with.
The point of all this is not defence against just black-hats, but against government abuse. Servers are always-on. Get a warrant (assuming they can even bother with that anymore), wander into datacenter and grab the relevant server image and copy of the memory. Full access (relatively) trivially. Even if you host your own, an always-on server is relatively simple to get full access to.
Your uses of mobile also seem very limited - the only usage shown in your examples is to browse web-pages. Mobile phones are capable of a lot more than that, including media, games, books etc., with access to the majority independant of internet access. Your scenarios go back to a dumb device that can do nothing without a connection. There are still people who get drop-outs and end up in places with no signal, or no cheap way of connecting to the internet.
Server operating system, plus terminal host - unfortunately, any way you wish to spin that, that is another operating system - plus comms channel ALWAYS required, and to get the full security of custom keys, both server and device need to be fully in your control to get the keys shared. No, the attack surface is pretty high, even if you trust the individual components more yourself, you are talking about all three to be fully secured with no vulnerabilities. The next aspect is who maintains the patches for the two devices and how do you trust them (I assume that you are not claming that the code for both needs to be maintained by the user)? Especially for what is supposed to be a mass-market, "consumer" device.
And your last point? Sounds like you agree with what I said about trust in the vendor.
Damn it - think the coffee is starting to kick in. I don't think we are so far apart about wanting there to be better security for everyone, just that I feel your vision is much too far a step backwards and rules out too many useful scenarios for a smartphone - which is after all a very portable computer - and you overestimate servers and underestimate smartphones. So to finish, I apologize for calling you a fucking idiot.
@ Christian Berger
you are a fucking idiot. Here's some simple maths for you - how many operating systems do you have to get right for a secure smartphone as opposed to a semi-smartphone + a server that has to do everything?
Further practical considerations involve a communication channel between them (also nice MITM opportunities there)? With infinite free bandwidth? That is always available?
From an attacker's perspective, a server that is always on will always have password active in memory - much easier to access than a smartphone that has been switched off.
Also others may have different usage scenarios from yours - having a fully portable fully functioning computer (after all, that is what a smartphone is) allows them to do things directly on the device without needing connectivity.
Go back to playing "snakes" - or have you never moved on from that?
After saying all that, your paragraph 2 is very accurate. We are in the position where we have to absolutely trust the smartphone software provider, and we are completely at their mercy regarding updates. There may be some niche players trying to provide secure smartphones using open systems, but are expensive and may still be hit with a writ they have to comply with.
So I think ultimately it ends up with "who do you trust"? Or maybe distrust least? Or do we simply have to learn to live in a panopticon and the consequences of what that will do to the sanity of the inhabitants?
I guess I'll just leave quoting the words of wisdom of a wise old man. "We're doomed I tell ye - doooooomed."
From article: Smart Energy GB responded to the IoD report, claiming the IoD "does not understand what’s needed to secure Britain’s energy infrastructure for the future."
From the point made by John 48 - this is because successive governments have failed to plan for the future, and so we are likely to not have enough power to go around shortly. So the plan is simply to force-switch-off ordinary punters power when supplies get a bit limited. I'm certain that there will be certain addresses that will be exempt from this, but I'll leave it to others to guess which ones that the powers-that-be decide to grace.
"...what lingers is the image of the American consumer who doesn't even realize his or her Netflix stream has been blocked, and simply (presumably) stares at the screen".
The way it would really be done would just be via degradation. Dropped packets, occasional freezes, stuttering. Stuff that would be hard to track down and prove responsibility for. I'm reasonable technical, but I certainly don't have the networking knowledge or tools to be able to track and prove that type of degradation. So instead of a completely failed service, there would be a perception that (say) Netflx doesn't give as good a service as (ISP company X)'s own competing service. Or at least wouldn't unless Netflix ponies up some readies ("nice streaming service you have there. Would be a pity if some packets got... dropped").
However, in spite of that, I enjoyed the article. Nice to make it clear that the judges were basing their decision on how the law was framed (such that the FCC were overreaching their remit) and that it is the responsibility of the law-makers to resolve this if they wish FCC or some agency to have those powers.