Posts by doublelayer

Should we expect to keep communication private in the digital age?

Re: A fundamental issue with 'human rights'

You have rights mixed up with privileges and you also have some factual errors. Rights are things you get automatically and it usually has a high bar or is forbidden to remove them. Privileges are things you earn and can usually be taken more easily. Let's take each of your points in turn.

"The right to vote and the matching responsibility TO ACTUALLY VOTE"

In most countries, there is no such responsibility. Some countries make it compulsory, but such countries are in the minority. It is entirely possible that you have the right and no responsibility to exercise it. In my opinion, this is the correct approach.

"The rights associated with citizenship and the matching responsibility TO PAY REQUIRED TAXES"

These are disconnected. Citizenship rights and tax responsibilities are separate things. You can lack the rights and have the responsibilities if you live or earn in a country of which you're not a citizen. You can have the rights and lack the responsibilities if you live outside the country of citizenship and earn no income there. Each case depends on the laws of that country, but they are not matching as you state.

"The right to drive a vehicle and the matching responsibility TO OBEY THE RULES OF THE ROAD"

In most countries, you don't have a right to drive a vehicle. You earn the privilege to drive a vehicle by passing a safety test and getting a license to do so. Those who cannot drive safely don't get the privilege or have it taken off them.

Like all other rights, the right to privacy is restricted in a number of ways. However, in most countries, it is acknowledged as a right not a privilege and therefore is more protected. Government's frequently fail to follow their own laws requiring that protection, but such laws are often present.

Re: Still can't decide

The largest ambiguity I see is with the word "expect". Expect can mean one of two things in this context, and I voted based on my own decision as to which it should be as well as the annoyingly defeatist arguments put forth by those arguing for the motion.

One definition is basically "believe to be likely", as in "I expect the sun to emit light". On that basis, I expect some privacy but depending heavily on what data is stored where. I expect privacy on my local equipment with encryption applied. I don't expect privacy with Facebook. Given the actions I take to protect myself, it's fair to say that I don't expect privacy to be given to me so I must work to take it. However, the people arguing for the motion didn't just keep it there. They first claimed that privacy was basically impossible, which it is not. They then blamed the lack of privacy on me and others when we are not at fault. On that basis, I could not vote on their side.

The second definition, which is the one I used, is "believe that a convention, social or legal, exists". For example, "I expect not to be murdered on my walk to work". It is possible for me to be killed on my commute. I don't have an expectation in the first sense that it is impossible for that to happen, but I understand that, if it did, society would not support it. It would be seen as a morally wrong act and considered unusual. On that basis, I do expect privacy. It is a right that has been generally recognized to exist and is supported by legislation. The exactness of the legislation and the degree to which it is enforced varies dramatically between countries, but all democratic governments at least pay lip service to privacy being protected in law. Even many dictatorships lie about it. I have the right to privacy. I expect that right to be upheld. If someone tries to remove the stated protections, I will be angry with them, and when someone ignores those protections, I am angry and may seek to defend my right. That is the expectation I have in this matter, so I voted against the motion.

Re: Still can't decide

Yes, taxes do pay for things. Some governments do not have the ability to create money. For example, those countries that use someone else's currency because they probably failed when running their own. Many countries do have the ability to create money, but you can check whether they did to pay the bills. Usually, they didn't; when they didn't have enough tax revenue to pay for something, they borrowed money that already existed from someone else rather than creating new money for it. Governments that start printing money to pay their bills directly often find it hurts them, which is why many governments limit the use of monetary creation to a less political body.

Google expands Privacy Sandbox to Android

Re: "limit sharing of user data with third parties"

"Are they just doing the same as they're doing for Chrome, killing off competing advertisers' data streams and keeping it all to themselves?"

Absolutely not! Oh they're definitely doing that, but they're certainly not just doing that. They also get the benefits of a completely new blob of code that nobody knows about. That means that people who try to use Android with Google software on it won't be able to evade their tracking as well as they could and those that try to reimplement Google behavior will have to start over on some bits. That code also hasn't been reviewed by privacy organizations, meaning they can put a delay on privacy action by claiming that their new code respects the users and follows the law (we all know it doesn't). There are probably more evil plans with it as well.

India's Reserve Bank deputy governor calls for crypto ban

Re: I hate having to defend cryptocurrency, but this guy is going to make me do it

The difficulty implementing regulations does not justify his proposals. It's true that "[y]ou can't just develop a regulated market in financial services overnight", but just because it's hard doesn't mean you can do whatever you want in the meantime. We don't have a perfect regulatory framework for data security or privacy, but it wouldn't be acceptable to ban all computers until we get one. In addition, he didn't say to ban cryptocurrency until they get a regulatory framework. He's advocating a permanent ban, and he didn't say anything about even starting to work on a framework. That's the wrong way round at least.

"It's also about having consumers who have some idea of what they're doing and know to look to see if the companies they're using a registered with the regulators. [...] [E]ven with all this freely available information I know people who've signed financial contracts with companies that weren't even registered with a regulating body (but fortunately they were solvent so the threat of court action got that money back)."

You cannot put the economy on hold until everyone knows how to avoid scams with perfection. People fall for them all the time, and most often, it's not using cryptocurrency either in fact or as a buzzword. Regulate it to prevent it, certainly, but you appear to expect that you can make consumers know what they're doing automatically, and you can't as proven by your own anecdote. As I said in my original post, there are scams surrounding lots of other activities, for example the stock market. He's not calling for that to shut down.

"It really does take consistent and quite egregious bad policy to lose total faith in a currency,"

You are quite correct. Unfortunately, it takes much less to lose some faith in a currency. I'm not only including those cases where the currency becomes entirely worthless, but also those cases where people routinely buy things as soon as they have currency, are routinely converting it into gold or foreign currency, or are protesting the economic chaos caused by the problems with the currency. I've seen a definition of hyperinflation as 50% inflation per month for a year. That will cause complete chaos, but you can be a lot short of that and still have massive problems. Governments have been overturned for less than that. Wars have been started for less than that.

Re: I hate having to defend cryptocurrency, but this guy is going to make me do it

If you ban something and put penalties on it, of course most people will stop doing it. That doesn't make it a logical thing to do. If you make staplers illegal tomorrow, I'll stop using one and there will be many on their way to the paper clip store. That doesn't automatically mean it was a good idea to ban staplers.

The part that shows he is dismissing critics is the last sentence: "Such exceptions should reinforce the need for a ban, rather than invalidate it." He isn't saying that the people who engage in the trading anyway are taking on a known risk and so they don't need protection. He's saying that they would be committing a crime, and since they're willing to commit a crime (that's not a crime yet), their activities are deserving of being banned. It's circular logic and doesn't make any sense, but it can produce some negative results.

It's not quite as hard as you think to destroy a currency. If a country prints a bunch of it, it won't matter how many guns the army has. If they borrow so much that they have to sell their reserves, they won't be able to borrow so much anymore. If they allow it to degrade slowly, they will find that their economies are less large and their citizens are less eager to have it. This occurs all over the world, from complete disasters like Venezuela to slow pain like Russia. Both examples, I note, are quite large countries with lots of natural resources as well as all the things you mentioned.

Cryptocurrencies are not better, just different. They are affected by many different things, and they too can lose value in unexpected ways.

I hate having to defend cryptocurrency, but this guy is going to make me do it

First thing's first: I don't really like cryptocurrency. I don't have any, I don't want to have any, I don't think you should buy any unless you're into gambling. Some of the goals of cryptocurrency have appeal to me, and all popular cryptocurrencies have failed to obtain these or even to work meaningfully in that direction. They cause harm and environmental damage. And this guy has made a bunch of really terrible arguments against them, nearly all fallacious. Now that I've stated my views, I must address his arguments.

"While advanced economies may be able to endure cryptocurrency-driven disruptions to their economies, the deputy governor said India lacks the consumer protection and regulatory frameworks to do so."

Some cryptocurrency claims are complete scams, and countries should probably have a mechanism to protect people from that. If they don't, they should create it. This guy is arguing that, instead of adding those frameworks, they should just ban cryptocurrency and scams go away. They don't. You can also scam people with fake stock instruments, but he's not calling for India to close down the stock market, is he? If there isn't enough consumer protection, add more.

I turn now to his main point: "They threaten the financial sovereignty of a country". This is more an opinion, but countries earn their financial sovereignty and don't need to have it. If I think my country is not managing its currency correctly and choose to import pounds and use them, and the shops agree to accept them, that too would weaken my country's financial sovereignty. However, it is my right to do it. I still pay taxes to my country, I still follow the laws there, but I don't agree that whatever they do with the currency should affect me. The control he wants is not control he should have.

"If cryptocurrencies are banned, the vast majority of investors who are law abiding would desist from investing. Those few elements who would continue to invest will essentially be carrying out an illegal activity. Such exceptions should reinforce the need for a ban, rather than invalidate it."

This is very bad. Here's what it means in normal words. "If we make it illegal, then everyone who doesn't agree is a criminal, so they're bad and don't count". Things should be banned for a reason, and that people disagree should be reason to consider removing a ban because it means some of the public doesn't support what the government is doing. That doesn't mean it automatically works that way. If only 5% of the public thinks something should be made legal, then it probably won't be. However, the reasons those 5% provide should be considered in making that decision, not to brand them as reinforcing the need for the law.

Alarm raised after Microsoft wins data-encoding patent

Re: Why the hell isn't the existing code prior art?

It depends what the patent does differently. Since it's an extension, it probably has most of the original algorithm in it, just as you can patent an invention that contains within it someone else's invention as a component. The definitional question will be whether whatever Microsoft added to it is a new invention. The original author doesn't see much that's new in it, and I'm inclined to think they would recognize a change, but they too might be biased. Of course, the decision about whether there is something new is not left up to the original creator or even the people at Microsoft who think they made something new, it's left up to a patent examiner who probably doesn't understand either, which is why we have so many crap patents out there. I have rarely seen a software patent that seemed at all plausible, but occasionally something will near that bar. I would favor a significantly more stringent process for obtaining a patent, but don't expect that to happen any time soon.

Three major browsers are about to hit version 100. Will websites cope?

Re: Meaninglessness

No, that's not the best approach. It works if you have one set of releases and everyone uses one of those and ideally the latest one. It works less well if you have different styles of releases. Here are a few examples.

You have a program that gets updated from time to time. Sometimes, you make a big change that breaks the workflow. Maybe you charge users for that big update. Maybe you just want to let them postpone making the shift until they're more comfortable that early adopters didn't find it broken. You might release updates for both versions. If the version numbers look like 2.2.391 and 3.0.5, it's clear which one they'll use. If they look like 2022.02.16.15.30.1 and 2022.02.16.17.38.1, how do you know which you want?

You can also run into string problems. How much precision do you need in the date version numbers? Leading zeros or not? Do you separate the date components or keep them together like in the ISO format? What do you do for beta versions? The major.minor.patch format is usually shorter and clearer, even if one of the numbers gets large.

AWS to build 32 more small clouds around the world

Re: Wot no London?

These are small centers for areas they don't already have big centers. They have already created big centers in London and one in Ireland which probably has low latency to the UK as well.

Re: Too big to fail

The solution to that is to remove their tax loopholes. That's unpopular with politicians, but it is the problem you've identified and it can be solved directly. However, it isn't related to where they choose to put servers. They also don't have a monopoly. They're big, but I can put servers in any of those cities and connect them to the internet without having AWS penalize me for doing it. There are many large players even if the big three are pervasive.

Google's Chrome OS Flex could revive old PCs, Macs

Re: Hot Garbage

Not all of your points are correct.

"This is by far the biggest and most widely-used Linux OS in the world;": No, that's Android. If we're letting something be declared Linux by having a Linux kernel under it. If we're requiring the ecosystem that the Linux label usually entails, neither count (virtualization that's only sort of supported and requires a technical user to take many steps doesn't count).

"Like macOS, up to now, it only officially ran on the maker's own hardware. Now that has changed and it is supported on multiple vendors' hardware. That is significant.": No, it ran on lots of vendors' hardware. Take any company that makes Windows laptops, and the chances are quite high they also make Chromebooks. When the OS started, Google didn't make any. They do now, but it's not only those that support it. In addition, it was possible to run it on general hardware before. A little trickier, since you would either run Chromium OS or a patched version, but I've done it when it was new to see how weird it was. It was far easier than hackintoshes.

As for home users, they're not going to use this if they wouldn't use Linux. Either way, they're going to have to remove one OS and install another, which most won't do by themselves. If they have a technical friend do it for them, then it doesn't matter how niche the replacement is as long as it works.

Again, I have no complaints about your coverage. I just don't think it's as significant as you say.

Re: Hot Garbage

The article isn't bad, but it is curious how many sites are reporting on this release when you consider how much meaning it really has. Effectively, this is the release of an OS that already exists that you could run already through an open source variant by a company that already had exactly this with a different name. It doesn't sound as newsworthy when I put it that way.

I don't think this was sponsored content or gave the software too kind a review, but I do wonder how it was decided that this product was newsworthy when so many others wouldn't be covered. That many sites are making the same decision implies that many people think this is important, but I'm not seeing it.

Re: quite useful

Would it have been very hard to install Linux and have it start a browser on boot? You wouldn't have to set up and more importantly maintain accounts for others, which is a nightmare given they can do anything under the account attached to your number.

Internet 'spy system' delayed because nation can't get the equipment

Re: Tricky

I was speaking in general. Cambodia has been in the dictatorship bucket for decades, but even if you gave similar powers to a democratic country, they could quickly corrupt it into another dictatorship. I assume the person who started this thread is aware of Cambodia's status, but they seemed a little too eager for the powers a system like Cambodia's could provide. I wanted to indicate that it could make other countries a lot worse.

Re: Tricky

Mounting a successful information campaign can succeed even in the face of a surveillance state. It marginally increases the costs to implement it. Those who wish to destabilize a country have enough money and time to deal with that. What it does do more successfully is dramatically decrease the freedoms of the individuals who disapprove of the leaders. That is the intent and that will be the result.

Unbridled freedom of speech carries with it many risks, as do all freedoms. Society has naturally placed some restrictions on those freedoms. However, placing increasingly restrictive ones will not remove those risks or even significantly reduce them, but it will create several new problems in the short term. In the long term, if you didn't already have one, you are likely to get a dictatorship which makes everything worse.

IT technician jailed for wiping school's and pupils' devices

"Are you saying that if someone were to add their work email to their computer, their employer (or someone using their credentials) could wipe up the user's computer at any time???"

It's an option, so probably. Not everyone will turn it on. It's a safety measure since it is assumed that someone who reads work emails on a machine might also store work files, even if just downloaded attachments, on the same device which also need to be cleaned up. I don't really have a problem with the paranoia, but my response to it is to only use the devices that they provide. I don't particularly need my work email on my phone at all, and if you want all that, then I just won't. Either live with me just accessing it from a laptop or give me a company phone.

Canalys: Foldable shipments could 'exceed 30 million by 2024'

Re: Ah Richard

Neither of those things are inventions, nor are they things to be proud of. When Apple removed the headphone socket, they didn't say this was done to make an impressive new innovation. They said they could produce a slightly thinner device and they thought users wouldn't mind (whether you mind isn't the point here). So whether they were the first to do it (obviously not), it doesn't matter.

The end of free Google storage for education

Re: It's a well-trodden path

I don't think that's the case. Free works just as well as unlimited. If you offer free 100GB storage, a lot of users will take it and use it completely within the bounds you set. That will end the same way.

Take a more obvious example. I had a free Dropbox account a while ago. It gave me 2 GB of free storage. Not a lot. Certainly not very expensive to provide. Yet still, Dropbox eventually decided that it wasn't worth providing that level of service to someone who wasn't going to upgrade for more storage. That's not technically true; I still could access that account, but they limited the number of devices that can sync it in order to encourage me to upgrade to a paid plan. Companies don't like providing people free stuff, but for some reason, they continually offer free things until they figure that out again. As a customer, I expect that they're going to think better of it eventually, and I'll use the free stuff only if I have a plan for what I'll do if I lose it.

Microsoft veteran demystifies Abort, Retry, Fail? DOS error

Re: On Error Resume Next

Which is why every language has some method of detecting a specific error and ignoring it. You can check the error code you want to ignore and do nothing with it. You can catch an exception and drop it. If there is a possible error condition for which you really do nothing, you have lots of ways to deal with that. The key word here is "specific". If you don't want an error to trip up your program because it's not relevant, then look for that one. Don't just assume that any error that comes along will be that one.

Error handling is boring, but critical. I can't count the number of poorly written programs or scripts that can't handle the most basic of unusual cases. Scripts that don't get as many command line arguments as they wanted, but instead of printing an error and exiting, they try to run hundreds of lines printing no such variable errors while trashing the environment they're in. Or libraries that throw exceptions because they frequently mess up and programs that catch and ignore all of them because they don't want to clean up but can't be bothered to find a library that works properly.

Cambodia cans critics of its snoopy Internet Gateway, says every nation has one

Re: Funny

They didn't say it would work tomorrow when they turn it on. However, would you know if there was infrastructure for it? Most likely, it will be a bunch of networking equipment provided by a company that has contracted the dictatorship as a service (DaS) business. That equipment would go into the ISPs' networking facilities and/or on the international communication lines inside Cambodia. Neither location keeps a public log of everything done inside and why. They could take many required steps without it becoming obvious that they have.

Apple tweaks AirTags to be less useful for stalkers, thieves

Re: I'm still trying to understand how Apple failed even to consider this use case

"I fought quite a major battle to stop their app from running without my permission - as I stated elsewhere, they really use every trick in the book to restart their app if you quit it such as notifications and permanent location access)."

Which, although unpleasant, makes a lot of sense for their users. They want the app running so you can use the features of the product, like the send a signal to find your phone feature. You have said this before, and it doesn't make sense any of the times, as if you don't want the app to have the access necessary to use the product, you should probably uninstall the app. AirTags are exactly the same except the tricks to keep it running are baked into IOS. That doesn't make Apple worse, just also doing it. At least Tile can argue that their customers opted into the app as it only does any of that after you install the app, log in, and accept the permission requests. Apple's system has all of the permissions and requires you to opt out in the settings.

Re: One would almost call this planned…

"Kind of surprised Samsung hasn't copied the airtag stuff yet, maybe they will soon."

They have. It only works with Samsung phones, but it exists. It likely has similar issues; there's basically no way to implement reporting through other participant's devices without leaving the tracking option open. At best, you can get a warning about it if your device can recognize this.

Reality check: We should not expect our communications to remain private

Cynicism may be our default, but it's wrong here

This argument effectively boils down to a cynical surrender. Since it's very easy for privacy to be broken, both by deliberate attack and accidental mismanagement, and it's very hard to make those possibilities go away, we shouldn't expect it. I'm a cynical person too, and I frequently make pronouncements of this kind. However, when dealing with problems, even cynics have ideals toward which they work even if they consider success unlikely.

Lots of things are very hard. Some things we do seem impossible when first attempted or may actually be so. However, we don't let that force us into apathy, which is how we have solved lots of hard problems throughout history. We don't have to assume that the next advance will solve everything for it to still be worth making that advance. So the real question is whether privacy should, ideally, be present or not. On this, I and the article writer agree that it definitely should. Since that's the goal, we should expect it. Where we don't get it, we should work to advance that goal, whether that be by making stronger cryptography, making it easier for nontechnical users to properly employ it, putting penalties on those who infringe our privacy, or new methods yet to be considered. If we try but fail to do this in the next decade, we can hope that the one after will improve it. If we give up and do nothing this decade, then the next will be worse and it will be our fault.

Raspberry Pis gain power to flash their own OSes with new network install function

Re: Damned useful!

I don't think any typical OS did a 32-bit to 64-bit switch with an OTA update. Usually, that kind of thing was done with a new edition that you installed manually. The chances of messing something up with your config would be quite high otherwise. Since they are compatible, you can load in the package repositories for the 64-bit version, update the bootloader and kernel from the packages or by extracting them from the image, and perform a no-reimage upgrade. If you break something, that's why they didn't do it that way when it's already pretty easy to write a fresh OS image to a card and transfer your config over instead.

No, I've not read the screen. Your software must be rubbish

Re: Return code ignored

Or, perhaps, a programmer and developer are the same, and they do the quality they're used to providing. I'm too tired of the people who argue about "software engineer" to start a programmer vs developer fight as well.

Re: There is a solution ..... sort of :)

And they switch to enter, or space, or the mouse. If you time out all the ways to close a box, then people will be annoyed if this program ever has messages they do want to close quickly. Yes, you could apply your time out mechanism only to important boxes, but users may disagree which boxes are important. And of course, this is all in order to work around a user who won't read an error message.

Re: Return code ignored

"Or at least makes it do what the product specification says it should do under conditions X, Y or Z - it's up to whoever puts the spec together to consider the non-ideal conditions and include those as part of the spec"

I do not like this philosophy. It leads to programs that have a thousand pages of spec where the spec writer might as well just write the code; there's nothing left for the programmer to do and no room for them to make improvements. Who am I kidding? That's what it would lead to if anyone actually did that. Since nobody does, it leads to programmers saying "How should I have expected that I would have to handle errors?"

The spec theory effectively treats the programmers as translators from badly-expressed pseudocode to the language in use, rather than the problem solvers they often are. Specs are useful when describing protocols, formats, or interfaces where multiple programs use a standard which can be specified clearly so they can follow it. Each program implements that spec, but the programmers have to handle the errors appropriately for their situation. This includes following any spec-specified behavior for dealing with them, but also enabling other functionality, such as automatic recovery or informational messages to the user. This is why all the real world specs have lots of statements about what programs implementing it "may" or "should" do.

"A big message saying "There is no more room on this disc. Please select one of these options to continue". with a list, might have saved a bit of angst."

Ah, so a big box that said exactly what the real box said? If someone is stupid enough to press escape for every window that shows up, I think the content or size of the box isn't the problem.

Apart from making every message hideously annoying to get rid of, there's no programmatic way out of this. Getting people to read what boxes say before they take actions would be better.

12-year-old revives Unity desktop, develops software repo client, builds gaming environment for Ubuntu...

Re: What is there to say?

You assume that he knows all the things a university wants their applicants to know. Tremendous skill at computers doesn't necessarily also come with, for example, ability to write a document well. I'm sure he's good at that at his level, and he might already be good at doing it, but that's one of the skills that is taught in secondary education, expected by universities, and important in the rest of life. Many other subjects fall into that. Before you decide that the right approach is to yank away all the things a typical education is intended to provide, it might be worth considering why they're there and which ones are actually important.

Working in Arm's engineering team? You're probably happy with your pay rise

Re: "our people are core to our success"

"Why not get rid of HR, Sales, Maintenance, Purchasing, Testing, Security, Payroll and every other hanger on'er then ?"

You will find that people suggest getting rid of many of those frequently in these forums. Here's a short list of the stereotypical complaints that are used to justify their removal. These are sometimes simplistic, but not always incorrect.

HR: Fails to understand job requirements, thus consuming resources while weakening the quality of hires.

Sales: Adds unreasonable promises to the product resulting in disappointment for the customers when it doesn't do everything.

Purchasing: Restricts what can be purchased, either adding friction to obtaining what is needed or even forcing people to buy more expensive versions of things because it's the only thing that falls into the purchasing policy.

Nobody said that IT should just be chopped as unnecessary. However, as with the other areas, you have to balance the benefits it provides with the costs to replace it. IT is very important to a business, but it doesn't make the employees in the department perfect or irreplaceable. Every department in a business thinks of itself as irreplaceable, and most of the time, it's not true. Just look at what management thinks of itself.

Re: "our people are core to our success"

"the truth is : if engineers stop working, you can still make and sell what you've got. If IT stops working, you're not making or selling anything any more."

Oh come on. If IT stops working, you have problems and you need to find someone to fix them, but it doesn't suddenly prevent everything the company does from working. Only if all of IT leaves and decides to sabotage the systems on the way out would you get that. When your product is chip designs, you really need engineers. You need them to make new designs, but you also need them for any engineering problems found that those buying contracts expect help with. If engineering stops working, it could result in lots of lost sales, and that's just in the short term. As this goes on, that becomes a guarantee.

Have you tried restarting? Reinstalling? Upgrading? Moving house and changing your identity?

They can sell a subscription product. It's unethical, annoying, and worthless, but if they tell you that's what you're buying when you buy it, it is legal.

Their stats imply it's much better than geosynchronous which does have some latency issues. However, it will end up depending heavily on where they have downlink and whether they start doing satellite-to-satellite paths as well. The latency observed in the U.S. where they have a higher concentration of downlink facilities may be better than in other regions. Statistics reported by the providers in Portugal are likely to be more usable than those reported in other countries. You may also want to check the delay in getting signed up as they only started their beta service for Portugal in August.

Execs keep flinging money at us instead of understanding security, moan infosec pros

I agree about the typical pattern, and in that pattern, I do not object to the CEO being held accountable. In most cases, I encourage it. Where I'm less comfortable doing it is the situation described in the article. In your situation, they likely didn't give you an unrestricted massive budget for the expressed purpose of improving security. If they did, they've already taken the step most other companies have neglected. It still depends on the specific situation, but unless the security team has identified something necessary that management refused, they seem less responsible.

As much as I like blaming management for things they certainly would do wrong if they had the chance, this is something that requires more analysis. When is the CEO responsible directly for something going wrong? I think we all agree that, if it's something known by them or the managers that frequently meet, it's something the CEO should be working on. Similarly, if one guy leaves something unsafe in a lab and starts a fire, we don't consider them responsible. Every issue falls along this scale.

Where does security fall into this? Usually, I think it depends on the level of obstruction management has placed on the people concerned. For example, if the CEO refuses to budget for backups and the company has an event that backups would fix, that can be management's fault. If they do budget for backups but the tech department fails to set them up, they're not. In that situation, and assuming the article's conclusions are accurate, I have less sympathy for the techs in this survey. If you have lots of money, unless there's some restriction on how you can use it, it sounds like management is agreeing that the problem is important and providing resources to get it solved. If they're still responsible for a problem, there should be a clear answer to the question "what should management have done that they did not do", and it's less clear what that is.

Russia's naval exercise near Ireland unlikely to involve cable-tapping shenanigans

Re: re. the EU wouldn't be able to agree on how or even whether to use it

"well, what about it ? Why would I – or you – care ?"

I care because I don't like to see people forced to live under a dictator by military violence or to have a power that will probably use military violence on someone else after a successful go which might be someone closer to me. You clearly don't care.

"The Russians did already conquer part of Ukraine (Crimea) and the world didn't go under. Actually, nothing happened, and I'm pretty sure the Crimeans are quite happy that Russia did annex them."

Oh, yes. The people who didn't have any choice about it are all celebrating. Some of them are, and we can debate whether those who are have good reasons or simply bought lies told to them, but there are many who do not like it at all. Democracy has this aspect where we can at least find out whether people want something to happen, but that didn't happen there.

Re: VPN?

By "VPN endpoints", do you mean that the data is always encrypted by either end of a cable? In that case, no. However, a lot of users of the cable do encrypt their traffic from each point of their network, and therefore their data along the cable is encrypted.

India to adopt digital rupee and slap a 30 per cent tax on cryptocurrency income

Re: How do you ensure it stays viable

This assumes that we will all operate as we did before electronic payments become common, but we probably won't. Some of your reasoning no longer applies.

"If the power goes out & you can't use an ATM, you can still go manually visit the bank, walk up to a teller, and pull your money."

You can, but only if the bank knows how much money you have. Nowadays, they use computers for that, because if they kept it on paper, you could go to each branch you can get to, withdraw all your money, then leg it with a multiple of your savings before they exchange ledgers. You could change things so that you only have one bank with your money in it and you must go there to get it, but people like the convenience of not being restricted to one place. If there's a blackout, banks continue to use backup power for their communications and computing. If you manage to black them out for long enough that they can't, they'll likely delay teller service until they have something they can rely on.

"Your credit card is normally used in a purely electronic form (EG: swiping at a terminal to pay for stuff) but can also be run through a manual card imprinter, a physical receipt made, & copies kept by both customer & merchant to later prove of the transaction."

Not necessarily, as they have been changing the design of the cards to make it harder. It also lacks many of the security features that physical card use tends to have. I'll concede it's an option, but as I say below, it's an option with cryptocurrency as well.

"But how can you do any of that if your funds only exist in an electronic form that can't be used/generated/maintained without power to the infrastructure?"

You can't, as I said. I'm not a cryptocurrency supporter here. I'm just pointing out that the level of damage you would need to make it stop working is severe, and that similarly severe damage to other systems would have similarly destructive effects on most payment methods other than cash.

"But crypto currencies can't be used at all if both the customer & merchant don't have power to the various devices (SmartPhone, cash register, etc) & infrastructure (cell network, ISP, online digital wallet, etc) through which such a transaction requires to become official."

This is not the case, really. It would work like a credit card would. If you copy the card for use in the transaction, you keep the details until the power comes back and then transmit them to the card provider. The customer could similarly sign their payment and you could copy that. The only device that needs to be powered during the transaction is the customer's wallet device (possibly a phone). If you use a dedicated device, it's likely to last quite a long time on a battery as it won't have radios draining the battery. You can recharge it in a number of ways. In both cases, however, it's possible that what you copied at the time either was fake then or has become invalid by the time you send it off, which is why most places don't accept card payments when the machine is down.

Re: "cryptocurrency"

"currency does not, and never WILL have, an intrinsic value that increases just by existing."

Nothing does. It only increases in value due to the change in exchange value. And during a deflationary environment, people did hold currency for its increase in value. That's why we don't do the gold standard anymore, because deflation caused some problems.

I agree that cryptocurrency isn't currency, but not for the reasons you state. People invest in currency all the time to play with the various exchanges. Most cryptocurrencies fail at one or more of the purposes of currency, usually the ability to make exchanges feasibly (without massive delays or additional fees at the scale of an average personal transaction).

Also, both points are irrelevant about this attempt, which is fixed to the value of a rupee, which is a currency. I think this digital rupee is a bad idea for a bunch of reasons, but it certainly would be a currency.

Re: How do you ensure it stays viable

You could say the same thing of any electronic payment system. Credit cards don't work any better than cryptocurrency or non-cryptographic digital currency like this if the systems are all down. You could deal with this by only using physical currency, which would work, but most countries are not going that way in policy or in practice. The method most have decided to use is trying not to have any week-long blackouts and panicking if they get one.

America's EARN IT Act attacking Section 230 is back – and once again threatening the internet, critics say

Re: Why CSAM?

Some may sell to criminals, but that's not surprising. The question is how they react when they know the users are committing crimes. Usually, that's a very different situation. Selling a general-purpose cloud VM means you're going to get someone using it for malicious purposes, probably in the first hour of the product being out there. That's really not the same. There are some bulletproof hosting outfits who do make the products with criminals in mind, but it's a much smaller section of the market and they can also be prosecuted if they do it egregiously.

"They will peer with openly criminal networks too - no problem."

What is an openly criminal network, may I ask? Do they have something like the evil bit, maybe somewhere in the routing table, BGP announcements, or maintained by the ASN databases? A company who doesn't act fast enough to take down reported malicious users isn't openly criminal. Even things like North Korea's public IP block aren't openly criminal.

Apple Mac sales break records amid ex-86-odus to Arm-compatible M1 silicon

"I accidentally activated iCloud which has now filled up. But I have no idea how to pull data off iCloud onto the HDD so I can shut off the noise."

You could use the magic tech support system (XKCD), but this time, I'll tell you the answer.

1. Settings -> Photos -> iCloud Photo Library, switch to on (probably already on). This syncs your photos down to your phone.

2. Still in there, turn it off. Now it stops syncing.

3. Settings -> iCloud -> Photo library -> Delete. This clears the photos from the iCloud storage.

"the iOS is built on a Ransomware foundation."

Because you turned on a feature that you have to pay for? It wasn't on before you did that. You have your data, you have the choice not to pay, you have the choice not to hear about the service. Hyperbole doesn't help arguments.

Why is the little guy getting rinsed for hardware? Because top OEMs had to spend 25% more on chips in 2021

Re: At least Sony didn't

You could try it, but most likely, the people doing the arbitrage would move to a country where it remains legal, as it's pervasive in most markets. If you made it illegal in the EU, arbitragers could still sell from China. If you somehow managed to have China make it illegal, they could all decamp to India and start buying from there. You could theoretically ban buying from one of these people, but it would be a tricky law to write, let alone pass.

Re: At least Sony didn't

Those are unusual questions, but here are answers.

"If my company tells another company to buy up all of a product I need and not to sell it to me immediately,"

Definitional thing first. Are they doing this because they're building the stuff they just bought to make a product, in which case you can't have it because they're not done making it (option A), or are they arbitraging the component by planning to sell it unmodified to someone else (option B)?

"is my company suffering 'shortages'"

Option A: probably, or they're preparing for when they will. Option B: no, they're building the arbitrage on them.

"and is it legal?"

Yes. You are allowed to buy stuff and be slow about using it or not use it at all.

Happy birthday, Windows Vista: Troubled teen hits 15

Re: 512MB ram minimum memory requirement

I'm guessing you have more than 4 GB in your machine. Run on a device that only has 4 GB and it won't cache so much. Run memory-heavy stuff on a machine with 4 and it will quickly evict down to make room. It really can run in 4 GB. It can even run in 2 GB without becoming unusable, though it will get slower.

Idea of downloading memories far-fetched say experts after Musk claim resurfaces in latest Neuralink development

Re: Let's start with the obvious

As we don't read in binary data, no we don't. But if we're encoding the brain's state to binary data on storage mediums, then the storage medium is going to have to. If we accept the neuroscientist's numbers, the data read from the brain will consist of 10^15 bits at least for each moment, which can probably be compressed later. Even if it can, the system that compresses it will need to load that data for compression, which requires memory that can load a petabyte per instant and store it until it's been compressed. We don't have that yet and it requires more advancement than simply getting storage efficiency up.

Chromebook sales in recession: Market saturation blamed as shipments collapse more than 63% in Q4

I can't say from experience, however, I can make two points. First, if they were so good, there wouldn't be so much demand for 11th-series I5 and sometimes I7 processors, usually with 8/16GB of RAM in Chromebooks, and yet every manufacturer has several of those. I would understand the more expensive ones with a better screen, but when they share all the same details with other laptops from the same manufacturers, it makes less sense.

Second, I have used Atom/4GB laptops before, running Linux and Windows, and they're fine. They're fine as long as you are aware of the limitations and don't try to run too many things simultaneously. I wouldn't recommend people buy them, but they can run browsers, mail clients, office programs, and plenty of other stuff on them without having problems provided they don't do what a lot of people like to do and have many of them open simultaneously. I'm expecting therefore that your similarly-spec Chromebook is also fine as long as you don't open too many tabs. Or in other words, it's just as fine as the other systems that could run on the hardware while doing less. The initial claim was that Chrome OS would, in return for not doing anything when offline, enable a world of more efficient machines. They would cost less and run for a lot longer on battery. Because they lied, we just have a different operating system with efficiency similar to the ones we already had, but some new limitations.