No matter that companies with wire already on the poles do this all the time for repair or upgrade. Including AT&T. (Yes, go ahead and laugh at "upgrade", i know.) It's just someone new and competitive that violates their "rights". How clever.
Yes, and ten thousand other applications which will download from Youtube either incidentally or as a purpose-built feature. Or one can trawl their browser cache. One may discover for oneself the file URL and GET it if they want.
Oh dear. Well i suppose they will just have to make the internet illegal, which is apparently what they want anyway.
Re: Re: This is why self-driving cars must be banned
Theoretically, and on principal, there is no reason to ban them. (Or the non-self-driving equivalent trash that has been around for a while and getting only worse.) Realistically, practically, historically, no one is securing anything. They add vulnerabilities. Unnecessary ones at that. They add bugs.
Unless they are forced to treat IoT, cars and similar things especially, as military-grade in terms of hardening, not allowing unnecessary bundling of systems and limiting connectivity, with with a well coded and tested RTOS, well we are just waiting for worse things to happen. They always do. Rights and ideals or not, no innovation or market is going to cause these things to be fixed as they should be. It has not happened so far. Regulation is a crapshoot and then we have people discussing how much it hurts innovation with unnecessary burden. And it could make things worse. Or it could be entirely clueless.
I don't have any suggestions other than what you have already pointed out. Only no one is going to do it.
Well. Companies should be held accountable, and in some way better than attempted civil litigation. Not that the DHS should be within 20AU of any such thing. And who knows why he is addressing security experts with this. Maybe fair warning the DHS might do something else idiotic in their space. He should be addressing the companies with the slapdash product "innovation". Just like the security experts have been doing since... forever.
People also seem to think shipping and all are negligible costs, ignoring also the externalities and knock-on effects.
I have no idea what all is included in "integrity" for these particular sellers, and they may have worked up themselves way too much, and maybe i don't agree fully with them on reasons or reactions, but bad behavior is bad. Some people will factor in restocking fees as a cost of business... when business is good, like for these people. Some people will just see it as idiotic and wasteful and they aren't interested in supporting bad actors. (But then again they use Amazon so whatever.)
Except that flies in court, or is enough to threaten someone with in the first place, regardless what the law actually says. Judges do all sorts of weird things. But i hardly think this is Bahnof's point to begin with.
I think part of it is people get outrageously upset about it like they get upset over using a portrait of someone other then well-know asshole Andrew Jackson on a $20 bill. Consequently the only thing they have to argue with is by Making Shit Up.
I was, and always am, instantly suspicious of the use of the word "hero(es)". So it was off to a bad start for me right there.
As for moderation... maybe they are playing fast and loose conceptually with anything you can file under reporting, since they are probably trying to appease the gatekeeping crowd with the video reporting aspects, and felt like fleshing out the whole program with these other "activities".
It does seem rather thin and suspicious. It's a good point, and another person was also wise enough to mention it earlier as well. However, it is a perfectly good concept to discuss whether or not the story is real, particularly since the comments mostly address the abstracts of it.
They also make "news" by picking some idiotic thing and pretending that there are two valid sides to it and gather opinions. That's when they play the hands-off approach and won't bother mentioning any facts involved.
The thing about this is... if one wanted and remotely needed to hack at IMSI catchers, they would make exploits and tools for all of them. Then they could go warstrolling to their little supercriminal terrorist hearts' content.
Next up: Gov demands nerding harder from vendors so phones respond to an "IMSI bit" when in airplane mode, off, and the battery out. Sort of a super-RFID.
This makes no sense considering the technology used is decades old and the methodology has been common knowledge for nearly the same length of time.
What they don't want exposed is that whole alarming frequency thing, along with the alarmingly flimsy orders.
But this only seems to pertain to cases involving such orders in the first place, which hardly seems to cover uses exposed after the fact, or unexposed uses, uses of things they claim they need no paper for, and anything not falling under one of those types of orders.