"The only truly secure system is one that is powered off, cast in a block of concrete and sealed in a lead-lined room with armed guards - and even then I have my doubts." - Gene Spafford, "Computer Recreations: Of Worms, Viruses and Core War" by A. K. Dewdney in Scientific American, March 1989, pp 110. (From Gene Spafford's personal quote list.)
The disconnect in the Sony case is not so much the network, but the network management team who appear to think its cheaper to insure against the loss than prevent the loss.
Only because their management fired the previous network management team because they were too expensive and went with the lowest bidders to replace them. The blame for this really is on the managers of the network management team.
The lax network structure and security is the product of uncritical doublethink in the boardroom.
Bingo. It is also a lack of planning and a dangerous lack of enforced security policy. People were putting vital information in unencrypted text files and running trojan horses sent to them via email, and nobody saw this as a problem despite years of best practices and public education into the dangers of the internet. I suspect there were a lot of people higher up in the organization who thought security policy is that thing that makes it difficult to get your job done, so Sony shouldn't have one, too.
Unlikely that they'll revisit that once they have put out all the fires...
At some point it will become too expensive for them to continue doing this. Sadly, instead of disappearing, I suspect they will just go to their friends in government and have them change the world to make it safer for Sony to live (because that has worked so wonderfully in the past.)
I had no idea I'd doubled the number of comments I made.
You do comment a lot, but I always love the discussions. I wonder where I placed, but sadly, we only see the best of the best on the list. No grade-sheet for the rest of us.
I am ashamed, though that only 7% of my comments got a light bulb. I'll have to work on that.
It isn't easy. I thought I'd made really insightful comments a lot more than I really did. We aren't all Dark Helmet when it comes to funny though... (Not even Dark Helmet is Dark Helmet any more...he's not even on the list.)
I occasionally see an FCC SURVEILLANCE VAN SSID appear in my war-driving logs...
I see a lot more FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN and NSA SURVEILLANCE VAN SSIDs lately, so I think they are more active.
Seriously though, I don't even bring my cantenna with me to the airport any more...the TSA guys get really excited when they see a Pringles can with wires and metal rods in it going through their checkpoints.
No company is perfect but from everything I have read about other providers it looks like Cox is better than most.
And their grades show that. They are pretty much middle of the pack.
I have Cox as well, and have had them for many years (despite moving.) They are slightly better than average. However, I disagree that they give you the speed they advertise. If you are on a local loop with nobody else on it, you get the best speed, but most local loops are saturated and there are times of the day where I am lucky if I can access Netflix or Youtube without buffering (and we're talking SD quality, 2mbps or less.) Part of the problem I've seen is that they have so much junk running on their network that most of the traffic my router sees is stuff that really shouldn't be seen on a network (it is amazing how many Windows machines are directly connected to the network without a firewall or router.)
And the simplest of support issues tends to flabbergast their support folks...I can't count the number of times I've contacted support to tell them that their router is offline, only to have them roll a truck to check my wiring and have the guy they send say, "hmmm, this wiring is working fine, it looks like our router is down." I can see that by going to my modem and accessing the troubleshooting capabilities of the modem. Signal to the head-end is working, but no networking... At one point I was given the phone number of their direct networking support folks so I could call them and have them reboot downed routers, but that number no longer works. And until recently, a call to support usually involved removing my router and plugging in a Windows machine so that the tech support person could determine that traffic to that machine wasn't getting through.
I have no TV from them, but getting them to remove TV from the account was an amazing journey, that you can read about in my previous comments. It took several trips to the customer support center (and multi-hour wait times once there) to get them to finally remove TV from my account. Be happy they aren't charging you for yours...even with basic cable, I was getting charged nearly the same price as the super HD TV costs and couldn't get anyone to successfully remove it until I threatened to drop them entirely.
I'd agree that they are better than average, but in this industry, the average is pretty easy to accomplish.
Microwave oven's running could just as easily "JAM" wifi, but GE isn't being sued for selling jamming devices. This is why ISM exists
WiFi, and other applications that use the ISM band (2.4 gHz) are specifically designed not to be jammed by broken Microwave oven's, and are specifically licensed by the FCC to operate in the ISM band (it is illegal to use a device that is not licensed by the FCC, which is why my cantenna doesn't come out when the FCC is around.)
GE gets away with it partly because they attempt to shield their devices so that they don't inject a lot of interference. All microwave ovens have to have an FCC-issued Equipment Authorization (as does any other device that emits radio noise.) If you took a microwave apart and built a device using the magnatron from the microwave to specifically jam wifi, I suspect the FCC van would be arriving at your house shortly to make life miserable for you.
Was it cellular they blocked, or wifi? The first paragraph says both. I find it hard to believe they would block 911 calls.
From what I've read, they only blocked wifi. There was nothing preventing folks from using USB to tether. The problem with this is that it requires someone to connect a hard-wired network device to a USB connected hotspot and then run the connections via ethernet to the computers they wanted. Wifi is just a hell-of-a-lot easier and more efficient for connecting systems to the internet.
DEFCON does not officially jam wifi during the conference. They jam wifi access points that use the name DefCon (or whatever SSID they are using) to prevent rogue access points. They don't prevent folks from setting up rogue access points, just rogue access points that are obviously rogue. DEFCON attendees may jam wifi, but they aren't doing so in any official capacity.
However, anyone using wifi at DEFCON, or for that matter, any electronic device, should be using a throw-away device that will never be used in any setting other than DEFCON. The old adage goes, turn off anything electronic when entering Las Vegas during DEFCON, and don't turn it back on until you leave.
Rather than an honest but misguided attempt to improve customer service, it seems more likely to me that it's a cynical attempt to look like they're improving customer service without having to spend the money that would be required to actually do it.
Hanlon's Razor and all, I'd be more likely to assume they are trying everything they possibly can to fix their problems so the FCC will allow them to buy TWC, but they are so lost and incapable of actually doing so.
If it's a different vendor, then it's a different program. The Comcast program isn't working very well. Your experience with some other ISP is irrelevant.
True. They are different programs. However, dismissing the fact that other vendors do the same thing with different results is not irrelevant.
What it points to is what Techdirt has called the Cargo Cult mentality on the part of Comcast. Other people are doing this with some success, so Comcast implements it, and then doesn't understand why it is failing because everyone else has implemented it with success.
Sadly, it does work very well, though apparently not for Comcast. My cable vendor (not Comcast) has the same process, though it isn't really a secret. When the technician arrives at your house, after they complete whatever it is that they were sent to do, they automatically give you their business card and tell you to call the number on the business card for up to six months for issues related to whatever they did.
I had a problem once with a device that wasn't working properly. The technician arrived and replaced the device, then a couple weeks later the new device failed. I called the number and he came out the next morning to replace the device and track down why the devices were failing (which turned out to be a ground loop issue in that their cable line was improperly grounded and the device was becoming the ground for everything else attached to the cable.
It was nice being able to call directly to someone who was already aware of the issues without having to re-tell the problem and go through the scripted troubleshooting for a problem that wasn't mine to begin with.
thanks to double-jeopardy, they can't try the accused again for their crimes
They can not be accused again for this crime, based on this evidence, but they can be charged again in the future for the possession of child porn based on new, legally obtained evidence. Double-jeopardy isn't a shield that protects you from all future crimes, just on prosecution of the current crime.
If they killed someone, and the evidence was ruled inadmissible and they were found innocent by a jury during trial, they could not be charged again for that particular murder (though, due to the loopholes, the federal government could come back and charge them for civil rights violations and the such,) but it wouldn't mean that they couldn't be charged again if they killed someone else.
If that's not grounds for immediate termination of their employment, I don't know what is.
What kills me in the Beckes case is that he already had a history, and getting a warrant would have been extremely easy. It stumped the judge, and it stumps me. I'd agree with you...they are way too stupid or too lazy to be given a badge and a gun. They are going to get someone killed.
The infringing party would be whomever provided the copy of the code to the government from their own systems.
Yeah, but that party probably wouldn't have as much money as the government. In tort lawsuits, you don't sue the person who did you wrong...you sue the one that has the deepest pockets, right?
Besides, it may be extremely difficult figuring out what party gave the government the malware, considering the anonymity and secrecy of the process. You'd have to deal with FOIA and/or suing the agency to get the name of the party that gave the government the malware. I believe an active/ongoing legal investigation and/or national security are valid reasons to reject a FOIA request.
A person claiming copyright on malware would have to submit their complaint within three years to the United States Court of Federal Claims. I suspect that would seriously cut back the number of claimants.
Not all torrenting involves piracy, you know. There are lots of totally legitimate torrents out there.
And there is "legitimate" reasons to pirate too.
If you purchase a DVD from a vendor that is damaged or doesn't play properly, you have a very limited number of legal options. You could return the DVD to the vendor and hope that they will allow you to exchange it for a working copy, or return it to the publisher, if they have a paid replacement policy (I've had some success with that, but it is extremely rare,) or you could go without even though you already paid. You might be able to sue the publisher for failure to fulfill their end of the bargain, but that gets expensive and the outcome isn't assured.
I get real tired of buying stuff and having it not work...which seems to happen an awful lot lately. And unlike other commercial products, which allow you to return them if they don't work for full refund, software and media tend to not be allowed to be returned even when there is a problem.
I don't torrent for piracy, but I can certainly see why people would want to in order to obtain what they paid for and what the publisher has failed to provide.
I have found though that seeing the latest episode of anything isn't a big deal anymore.
The only time I've had issue with it is when others are discussing what happened in the latest episode. Spoilers are still a big issue. However, that hasn't been much of a problem for me lately because I spoiled the hell out of them talking about the latest episode of Game of Thrones because I had already read the books (not that the show is remaining true to the books.) People stopped talking spoilers around me since.
Fortunately, the librarians in this case are steadfastly refusing to back down. That isn't always what happens. And, look, there's nothing wrong with being conservative, having a specific set of values, and all the rest. What you can't do, however, is insist that public institutions follow your personal views just because. That isn't how secular government works. [...] We have to be more grown up than that, something librarians have been pushing for a long, long time.
A very long time...
The Library of Alexandria was known to contain every work they could get their hands on...sometimes stealing the work off of ships parked in the harbor, transcribed onto papyrus scrolls, and then the copies were usually returned to the owner, instead of the originals, once the copy was made.
The Library of Alexandria was destroyed, likely by conservative religious zealots (Coptic Pope Theophilus or the Muslim army of Amr ibn al `Aas), who disliked or despised the knowledge contained within the library or its availability to commoners.
I wish conservatives (though, full disclosure, I consider myself one,) would worry more about themselves than what other people are doing.... There is also an awful lot in the Bible about not judging others and treating others as you would wish them to treat you (which usually are ignored by the conservative Christian population in favor of the fire and brimstone, everyone else is going to hell attitude.)
I personally see the presence of these types of terms as a huge red flag that the company has a history of pissing off its customers.
I do too, and would avoid these companies like the plague once I was aware of this, but I can understand what would bring someone to this level of dickishness.
He did say that he wished that Yelp would review the reviewers and not just allow anyone to post anything...to which I explained that this already exists, but it is a little more reactive than proactive.
I could see that someone, who doesn't even have a history of pissing off customers, could react in this way. Sheer ignorance and cutting their own throat, but like I said, he wasn't upset about the reviews that were negative about stuff he could fix.
So is it safe to assume that these companies provide poor services and they know it
In this case...you are probably right. However, I have a friend who runs a restaurant, and he has gotten angry at people posting reviews before (not enough to do something this stupid though.) I've seen some of the reviews, and they are really, really bad. One person wrote a ton of bad stuff about their experience, but never said anything good. I'd personally read something like that as sour grapes...the person was upset, their day wasn't going too well, they woke up on the wrong side of the bed, etc.. If nothing is going right for them, they aren't going to see anything good about anything.
Sour grapes is one thing, but reviewing a restaurant you've never been to (mistakenly,) or trolling, I've seen those to. He has a ton of great reviews, but 54 reviews so bad Yelp has pulled them. I laughed at a few of them because the person complained about something the restaurant has never served, or about service the restaurant (which is a "fast food" restaurant) has never provided ("the waiter was snobby and difficult to work with.")
But there were also a lot of good reviews that gave low/lower points on yelp because of valid criticisms, and even stuff I've seen going into his restaurant. I've had mixed up orders, and stuff missing from my meal...but he didn't seem too upset by those reviews either since he knew they were stuff he had to fix.
Here's a free tip to the companies: if you provided good services at a fair price, you wouldn't get reviews that were so bad that you had to sue people.
And another couple: You are going to get bad reviews; don't take them personally unless there is something you can do to fix the problem they are criticizing you about. People are more likely to complain than praise, and you just can't please some people. Also realize that bad reviews help consumers too...if you have a spotless record in reviews, we are going to think something is a little fishy. Having a 99.5% positive rating is more valuable than a 100%. And whatever you do, don't be a dick.
Re: Re: Lesson 1: Don't post who you are on the internet
And use a proxy when posting so they can't get anything useful if they find a judge who actually believes that IP addresses can identify a single person.
Hopefully a proxy that doesn't keep records...which is hard to find today. Otherwise the judge just asks the proxy for your information and you're toast (though, I suspect that if you find a competent lawyer, and push the issue, the law will eventually side with you that this is an unconstitutional abuse of the 1st amendment.)
I'd rather companies go back to the old "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" model. If you don't like my opinion of your service, disown me as a consumer (I most likely already have disowned you anyway, but at least you'll feel good about it.) Playing these legal games with people's lives and financial well-being is only going to backfire in the long run, and in some cases, the short run.