Re: Time to hit ransomware criminals
We've seen where that kind of thinking leads. Google "Andrew Finch" if you've forgotten the name.
3146 posts • joined 25 Mar 2010
Trump is going to get a Nobel peace prize right after "Mike the FlyingRat" gets nominated for one.
I'll give Trump credit, he's done something good in the Middle East. Assassinating Gen Soleimani was a bold move, and more importantly a smart one. But it doesn't really offset the mayhem he's caused by the rest of his hamfisted policy toward Iran, to say nothing of his see-sawing on Syria, his interference in the internal politics of Israel, his support of murderous and corrupt despots in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, his idiotic and needless intervention in Lebanon, and probably more things that have slipped my mind for the moment.
Speaking with my database engineering hat on...
... yes. Yes, this can easily be "that complicated" and a good deal more. If you build it in some kind of SQL, I'd be surprised if the finished product has fewer than 500 distinct tables.
Of course, "building" the database is only the tip of the iceberg of costs. As ane fule kno, the real money is in maintaining it. That's the dirty little secret that the "software development life cycle" tries to cover up: at least 80% of the cost of software happens after it's installed, assuming of course it's actually used.
There is a sliding scale of skulduggery, and Nominet is still only on a fairly low setting. They haven't (yet), for instance, tried to hawk ".bbc.uk" to News International for purposes of discrediting the other party.
Although that is an obvious next step. I wonder if it will happen?
Whenever such systems have been tried, they are roundly and routinely abused by basically everyone. There's the poser who claims to be mission-critically busy for weeks on end, and the chancer who sets that status when they want some, ahem, uninterrupted Internet time.
And, of course, the huge majority of people who completely forget/ignore the whole thing - who neither set their own status, nor pay a smidgen of attention to anyone else's.
Who has "instigated the killings of more than 30 people" on Facebook? Citation needed.
You may say that the right to protest does not entail the right to endanger and destroy other people's property. And if you left it at that, you'd have a point. But when you extend that to "and so it's OK to kill people if you think they might be doing these things", you are not even pretending to apply any sort of coherent morality. Even less so when it's someone else's property, and you haven't even asked the owner's views.
Yeah, cos that worked so well for Sweden...
There is no way of fixing the economy without getting the pandemic under control first. The US is an abject lesson in what happens if you insist on seeing it as a tradeoff - you get a huge economic crash *and* a huge pile of dead people, both at the same time.
New Zealand, on the other hand - has (until ten days ago) no covid-19 and unemployment that actually went *down* in the first half of the year. Now it's got a new outbreak, but it's far better placed to take care of it than most anyone in Europe.
Mostly, it's owed to rich people.
Government debt, in most first world countries at least, is considered about the safest commodity you can buy. So when the economy is in the crapper, rich people rush to lend their money to governments that, they think, will most likely not rat on it.
This is the real reason to want to reduce debt: it's money from tomorrow's taxpayers that will go to the people who need it least. It's also, of course, why there's an unholy alliance between left and right wing politicians to keep growing the debt, whatever happens.
Note, I am not the above AC.
The EU did not "let the UK leave", it did everything it could to prevent that outcome - short of making actual concessions, of course. But once the British public had reaffirmed its referendum vote with a decisive election outcome, what more could it do?
We saw the true face of the EU in its punitive treatment of Greece and Spain, and to a lesser extent Italy, after the financial crash. That was way more gratuitous than the Tories' idiotic "austerity" programme in UK, and did harm far beyond the victim countries (remember the gilets jaunes?) Spain, for instance, last year only just managed to drag its youth unemployment down to around 30% - after hovering around 40% or more for most of a decade.
I still think that if the pandemic hadn't rewritten the entire book of rules this year, we'd by now be watching the EU tear itself apart over its diminished budget - but every government has gratefully seized on covid-19 as an excuse to blow the budget into the stratosphere, thus allowing them to put off that fight. (Mind, I'm not saying they're wrong to do that - only that it was an amazing stroke of luck.)
As for "post under your real name", that's rich coming from "Poncey McPonceface".
Writing laws is hard. In order to get enough people to vote for it, legislators often find it... expedient to leave some ambiguity about the terms.
That way, everyone can kid themselves that the courts will apply "common sense", they can all vote for the law and pretend to their supporters that it says what they want it to, and move on to the next headline.
The alternative is not only hard work, but would also drastically reduce the number of laws passed. That would undoubtedly be a blessing in many ways, but might be very awkward in others.
At last, a chance of some well-deserved work for that most sad and neglected class of Americans - lawyers.
Let's hope Congress is in no hurry to make a new law. We wouldn't want things to be clear, would we? As it is, this "guidance" basically means "if you're rich enough to afford the lawyers you can do whatever you like, if you're poor then you daren't do anything" - which is exactly the way Trump and co. like it to be.
You're thinking of the old Republican party, as built by Reagan. That party is gone. There's no place in Trumpism for fiscal conservatism, because Trump realised - ahead of the rest of his party - that only a vanishingly tiny number of people ever cared about it.
I hate to break it to you, but I only recently realised this myself:
Nobody reads those emails anyway.
Now I assume that any manager will not read any paragraph of more than four lines or two sentences, whichever is less; nor will they read more than one such paragraph, unless the first paragraph mentions a specific sum of money.
Email has become a write-only medium. If you actually want them to act on something, you need to find another way to tell them. Of course, if you're just covering your arse, it doesn't matter.
Copyright doesn't work like that. Would you try to claim that you could copy the content of, say, a mag you read in a waiting room, or a video you watched while standing in a queue, because you hadn't agreed to be bound by copyright?
You can't republish someone else's work without their explicit consent, no matter how it came into your possession.
Compromise one lowly drone, then use their credentials (information, identity) to compromise a higher level drone. Keep going until you get to the level you need.
Defence must be in depth. You can't maintain a strong firewall around everyone, because too much of the Internet would have to be inside it. But escalating through each level should become progressively harder (usually, in practice, it gets easier), and people with access to sensitive information need really solid security training.
If you don't like what your representative is doing, vote them out. That's the simple correct remedy regardless of party or sex.
As for the report, perhaps you can point out specific instances of questions or participants that you think have been misrepresented?
The financial question is, what is the return? Sure you can give basic training to everyone for £x thousand, but "basic training" will only do so much. And for the same money, you can probably hire one or more full time infosec specialists - which may be a better use of your budget.
This, right here, is the thing. The kind of training that can feasibly be delivered en masse to those sorts of numbers of people - is going to be of questionable value. Heck, the very fact that it's being given to everyone is probably enough to devalue it for some people, who will assume - not unreasonably - that if the bosses really cared, something more targeted would be happening.
I read the story thinking, that's one expensive database. But eventually it becomes clear, that's not what the money refers to: it's more like the total value of work being directed through the platform.
In your case, it sounds like you don't have a very clear understanding of the costs. Who pays for the list of approved suppliers?
The same goes for Word. If you really understand how to use Word the way it's theoretically meant to be used, with correctly prepared styles and templates and outlines, LO Writer is a horribly substandard substitute. But if you use Word like 95% of users do, making up your styles as you go along, it's fine.
What makes you think that Libre's "support" would be better than Microsoft's?
Office 365 gains from network effects: everyone uses it, if there's a serious problem then it's big news, you hear about it quickly and it generally gets resolved pretty quickly. LO offers no such confidence, let alone a formal guarantee.
Yeah, file corruptions happen, and the canny MS Office user has a danger list of functions that should just never be touched, like 'fast save' and don't even get me started on list templates. But again, with so many people using it, the war stories are all out there - you can learn from them and learn what not to do, without having to do it yourself.
"Making an example" of him is exactly the worst possible thing to do. It won't improve anyone’s attitude, it will simply feed into the paranoid, us-v-them siege mentality that got Trump elected.
We need to show bigots that we're *better* than them. Not just "opposite". Opposition fuels opposition.
Trump is currently trying, with some success, to frame the election as a choice between him and his cronies on one side, versus a crowd of violent antifa and angry black people on the other. If he succeeds in making people believe that's the choice, he will win. Do NOT play into that framework, however satisfying it might feel. It's a trap.
So 24 in 25 flagged matches are wrong. So what? Without knowing the false negative rate, we still don't know enough to tell whether it's useful.
Hypothetically, if there are *zero* false negatives, this would still be a very useful system. If you have one suspect to identify in a crowd of 1000 faces, it's entirely worthwhile to have a computer just show you 25 faces to take a closer look at, rather than the full 1000.
Of course I know it won't be that accurate, but without knowing *how* accurate it is this "96%" figure *still* isn't enough to pronounce it useless.
And yes, I realise it will also victimise people based on skin colour - but let's be clear, that's an entirely separate issue, the cops don't need any automated help doing that anyway.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020