HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.
HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.

DerekCurrie’s Techdirt Profile

derekcurrie

About DerekCurrie

Creative Technologist and writer. Specialties: Computer security, Macs, Deceptive Truth, Music.



DerekCurrie’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 8th, 2018 @ 8:08am

    As Many Lies As It Takes!

    S.J.R. 34 was quite successful. (Senate Joint Resolution 34)

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/34/text

    'Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services”'

    03/28/2017, Marsha Blackburn (R, Tennessee) was liar-in-chief on the floor of the House of Representatives. The lies told were that the FCC had no ability to regulate ISPs (internet service providers) and that the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) did. Both lies were caught out during debate. Liar Marsh Blackburn admitted to both. That didn't stop the House from approving the resolution. It was signed by The Trump 04/03/2017, effectively providing for NO oversight of ISP collection of customer data, NO oversight of citizen privacy required by the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. ISPs can, as a result, collect surveillance data of all customer behavior on the Internet. They can then sell that data to any interested parties or provide it upon request to law enforcement without warrant.

    IOW: Unconstitutional.

    Author of the resolution:
    Sen. Flake, Jeff (R, Arizona).

    Sponsors of the resolution:
    Sen. Johnson, Ron [R-WI], Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY], Sen. Blunt, Roy [R-MO]*, Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR], Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV], Sen. Cochran, Thad [R-MS], Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX], Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR], Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX], Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE], Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT], Sen. Heller, Dean [R-NV], Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT], Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY], Sen. Roberts, Pat [R-KS], Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL], Sen. Shelby, Richard C. [R-AL], Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK], Sen. Thune, John [R-SD], Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS], Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS], Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY], Sen. Rounds, Mike [R-SD].

    Would that all for voted for it (including many Democrats) were jailed for subverting the US Constitution. That would effectively 'drain the swamp.'

  • Aug 8th, 2018 @ 6:48am

    Customer-As-Criminal

    It's more of the same old MPAA customer abuse. All hail our corporatocracy overlords who love us so well. :-P

    What these clowns accomplish is more resolve for retribution, creating and encouraging media piracy. Congratulations. Mission FAILed.

    What works better? Respect and other forms of positive reinforcement. Psych 101. Apparently, they flunked out.

  • Jul 30th, 2018 @ 7:50am

    Willful Computer Security Ignorance Is Not Acceptable Mr. Wray!

    Stop inspiring my hashtag #MyStupidGovernment. Learn what you're talking about. Stop sitting in a position of authority and speak outright nonsense that demonstrates your unwillingness to understand the subject.

    Computing 101: Start there. Then learn about the ongoing abominable state of computer coding security. There's something to rely upon.

    Privacy is our right. We have no evidence to believe it won't be abused by government and law enforcement as well as criminals and murderous authoritarians.

  • Jun 3rd, 2018 @ 4:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Hands Off WHOIS!

    Hmm. I think perhaps I should not have made my point about WHOIS here. I'm baffled by the lack of comprehension, despite my (from my point of view) clarity.

    For those interested: A 'reverse' firewall monitors outbound rather than inbound computer data traffic. Regular firewalls do NOT commonly stop outgoing queries to the Internet.

    Have a read about the 'reverse' firewall I use on macOS:

    Little Snitch
    https://www.obdev.at/products/littlesnitch/index.html

    It presents the IP address being queried by specific running processes. It also provides, if it can find it (using a reverse DNS look up), the domain name that matches the IP address. But if there is no such domain name, its listed in Little Snitch as unavailable. At that point, the user has to turn to a WHOIS query for information. This is where WHOIS is, IMHO, a crucial service on and of the Internet that must never be censored.

    A simple example is being presented with an IP address beginning with 17, as in 17.xxx.xxx.xxx. Little Snitch has no idea who owns that IP. If one didn't know better, one would worry it's the server address of a botnet wrangler, a place malware bots go to get their orders. Perform a WHOIS on that IP and you learn that 17.anything belongs to Apple. They own the lot! Therefore, if some new or obscure process you've never seen before is making that querie, you know it's looking to Apple servers for something or sending something to Apple servers.

    As for WHOIS querie results having to give away phone numbers or email addresses or physical addresses, that's not what's crucial in the simple case I'm describing. What one wants to know is whether the questionable call out to the Internet by the mysterious process is to a legitimate location or not! If there is no WHOIS data available from any of the WHOIS services, I DENY the querie! If the resulting WHOIS data names some company or person I've never heard of and I can't connect them to the process calling out to that IP address, I DENY the querie.

    Apparently, 'reverse' firewalls aren't used or understood by some people here. They are NOT part of common computer or router firewalls, which only filter queries coming INTO a computer or its LAN. The firewalls built into Windows and macOS, for instance, offer only crude blocking of queries out the Internet, typically based upon applications being run within the client's account. If I install and run an application that gathers and sends my client data to Google Analytics, for example, an OS level firewall is perfectly happy to allow that to happen! But I am not! Because I'm running a 'reverse' firewall, those queries to Google Analytics are caught and presented to me for approval or denial. I DENY them.

    There is a lot of documentation about 'reverse' firewalls out on the net. Here are a few:

    http://qa.answers.com/Q/What_is_reverse_firewall

    https://askubuntu.com/questions/274237/reverse-f irewall-or-application-firewalls

    https://patents.google.com/patent/US8453227B2/en

    Thank you to those who've posted thoughtful replies to my post.

  • Jun 1st, 2018 @ 2:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Hands Off WHOIS!

    No, I did not confuse anything. You simply don't understand what I'm doing, which is actually quite ordinary. You're also attempting to pretend I said things I never said, like wanting access to 100% of the database.

    Move along. This is too complicated for you. Propagandist exaggeration, confabulation and insults have no use here. Back under the bridge with you.

  • Jun 1st, 2018 @ 7:20am

    Re: Hands Off WHOIS!

    Rubbish and snarky replies to my clear and important response to the removal WHOIS data access?

    Sorry kiddies, but this is a serious conversation. Get along home now and do some relevant research of WHOIS and how it is used daily by those of us who understand the importance of computer security and privacy. Silly replies are not appreciated.

  • Jun 1st, 2018 @ 6:07am

    Re: Hands Off WHOIS!

    Repair: What we have NOW works for the benefit of all.

    I want caffeine, now! ;-)

  • Jun 1st, 2018 @ 5:55am

    Hands Off WHOIS!

    Here's an example of why WHOIS is required, why GDPR's obfuscation of WHOIS data is outright detrimental and dangerous:

    I use what's called a reverse firewall on my computers. It catches all calls out of my computers to IP addresses on the Internet and allows me to choose to allow them or not. Reverse firewalls are crucial for stopping malware bots and nefarious software from sending and gathering data to and from nefarious sources. The most common of these 'phone home' events is sending my personal, private data to Google Analytics, which I never allow.

    But what happens when my reverse firewall can't resolve who owns a particular IP address when a process on my computer is attempting to call out to the Internet? What happens is that I am left with NO RESOURCES I can use to decide whether the call out to the net is legitimate or abusive.

    Today, when I run into this problem, my recourse is WHOIS and only WHOIS. I use it at least weekly for specifically this purpose. It let's me know that an obscure IP address a process is attempting to access is only Akamai, or it's only Apple's servers, or instead it's some place I've never heard of in Russia, or the EU for that matter. With this WHOIS data I am able to CHOOSE what connections my computer makes to the Internet. I am able to DEFEND MY PRIVACY and the integrity of my computer systems.

    GDPR takes ALL of that away, unless I play elaborate and annoying bureaucratic games that no mere human wants to endure. Instead, GDPR enables anonymous cowards and criminals to get away with Internet user abuse from which Internet users have only meagre recourse and redress. That's not acceptable! What we have no works for the benefit of all. If an IP address owner wants to be entirely anonymous, I say NO!

    Therefore: Hands Off WHOIS! Get rid of that aspect of GDPR.

  • Jul 31st, 2017 @ 5:07pm

    Australia Ueber Alles

    That Australia is leading the free world into the next sewer of totalitarianism boggles the mind. This is mighty sick stuff.

    Totalitarianism = FAILure = Citizen Abuse.

  • Dec 7th, 2015 @ 4:24am

    Techno Illiteracy or Totalitarianism?

    Either way, #MyStupidGovernment is again showing off it's disinterest in respecting US citizen's constitutional rights. Watch them turn up the FUD volume to 11...

  • Sep 17th, 2015 @ 1:31am

    7 Warning signs: I call "SHENANIGANS!"

    This particular 89% off proXPN 'lifetime' offer is bombarding the Internet at the moment by way of a multitude of different websites. Perform a search for something to the effect of "proXPN VPN: Premium Lifetime Subscription For 89% Off" and see what I mean. That's warning sign #1.

    Warning sign #2 is the use of the word 'lifetime'. I NEVER trust that word when it comes to paying for something, not matter what the deal. I've never seen the word 'lifetime' live up to that promise. Not ever.

    Warning sign #3 is the fact that NOWHERE on the proXPN website is there any ability to actually buy a 'lifetime' subscription for ANYTHING, including their premium service. Huh?!

    Warning sign #4 is the fact that I've TWICE written proXPN directly for verification of this offer, providing them with its details. They have NEVER replied to me.

    Warning sign #5 is a comment posted at 9To5Toys.com, one of the many sites listing this offer. The comment from a fellow named Eric Cook who reports: "It's say lifetime, but they also says "You're now subscribed to 2 Years of proXPN Premium", which one is it? or am I expected to live for only 2 years?"

    Warning sign #6 is another comment at 9To5Toys.com from a fellow named Ryan Nguyen who reports: "Ok I just bought and I thought it was proXPN but when you buy it, it is actually TigerVPN by proXPN, not sure what that means but hopefully that helps clear things up."

    Warning sign #7 is the fact that TigerVPN is located in Slovakia. Plus their website pushes Canvas tracking images into visitor's web browsers, not a good sign of integrity from a VPN service!

    7 warning signs is my limit. I call "SHENANIGANS!"

  • Sep 10th, 2015 @ 10:20am

    Re: Re: Re: Corporatocracy

    The US Congress already gave up their constitutional obligations of "Advice and Consent" regarding TPP when they approved 'Fast Track'. (US Constitution, Article II, Section 2). IOW: They broke from the US Constitution. Why was this done? So there would be NO discussion or debate regarding the final draft of TPP. All they now get is yes or a not vote, which is entirely unconstitutional. Why did the corporatocracy demand this illegal, traitorous decision by the US Congress? Because they want ALL of TPP enacted, not just bits and pieces, forcing renegotiation of the abomination.

    Summary: CRIME. USA: Criminal Nation is the goal. Let's be China. Except let the corporations be our overlords, instead of some bogus 'communist' party. The end result is the same: TOTALITARIANISM. Screw citizen's rights.

  • Sep 10th, 2015 @ 2:58am

    News Corp, Our Information Overlords

    I personally consider Wall Street Journal to be entirely worthless, thanks to it being merely a tentacle of News Corp.

    As a victim of Time Warner Cable, I might as well have been reading nonsense with that hated company as the by-line instead of Holman W. Jenkins. It's corporatocracy at work. Lie to the customer. Gouge the customer. Screw the customer.

    Neo-Feudalism in action.

    Cable TV is over. Customer retribution for decades of abuse is here. We get what we want. Deal with it or sell off your crap companies to someone who considers the customer to be a collaborator, not an enemy.

  • Sep 10th, 2015 @ 2:46am

    Corporatocracy

    Corporatocracy - SOPA/PIPA
    Corporatocracy - ACTA
    Corporatocracy - TPP/TPPA
    Corporatocracy - TTIP/TAFTA
    Corporatocracy - TISA

    To hell with democracy. :-P

    This is Neo-Feudalism.

  • Sep 5th, 2015 @ 5:26am

    Real vs Fake Fluffy Stuff

    What started upsetting me about 'Food Science' ice cream was the infestation of propylene glycol. I don't eat industrial chemicals, especially that one.

    Then I figured out that the fluffy stuff in the containers was being sold by volume, not by mass. That means the fluffy stuff is composed largely of air. The more air you can inject into the fluffy stuff, the more profit you can make per container.

    Then I realized the consistency and density are all wrong. The flavors are largely fake and no where near as delicious as actual ice cream. The fluffy stuff is industrial food science 'product'. All I want is actual ice cream. That is the only 'ice cream' I will buy and eat. I'll enjoy the calories, versus not enjoying the fake mock-up of 'ice cream'.

    Sadly, identifying actual ice cream can still be difficult, despite a simple 'natural' ingredients list on the package. There is still the injected air factor and the quality of ingredients. Then there is the quality of dairy products, with or without growth hormone and antibiotics, etc.

    Taking all of this into account, it's amazing what utter and udder crap has infiltrated the grocery stores.

  • Aug 18th, 2015 @ 6:32pm

    Totalitarian Surveillance Maniac Traitors

    Does this phrase describe the NSA? Let's change that. The US Constitution is how We The People rule the USA, NOT our elected government and their assigned lackeys . Deal with it or drop out and leave. No '1984' scenarios are welcome.

  • Aug 11th, 2015 @ 7:23am

    #MyStupidCorporatocracy

    This is insane. TPP, TTIP and CISPA are insane.

    The level of demanded lunacy in 'data exclusivity' points out that the LAST entities that should be ruling the world are corporations. They represent a GAMING SYSTEM called 'finance', NOT real life.

    No thank you to allowing game players to run anything IRL. Stick to playing your game, corporate kiddies! Stay Out of my REAL life please.

  • Aug 8th, 2015 @ 9:15am

    Speaking of Lies and 9/11...

    There is no need for 'conspiracy theories' when the facts are at hand:

    http://www.911truth.org

    So many arguments for unconstitutional citizen surveillance are based on the 9/11 story. But darn! That yarn has been proven to have some whopping holes in it. So now what?

  • Aug 7th, 2015 @ 8:18am

    Is this case about Slander?

    The pertinent question here is whether Melissa Lucas has committed slander. Slander is a crime, no matter what state you're in. Why did Brian Mannal pursue this situation with a bogus old statute that was obviously contrary to the First Amendment? Is this a case of having an lawyer ignorant of the law?

  • Jul 28th, 2015 @ 3:22am

    Not Hologram: Pepper's Ghost. It's done with mirrors.

    Just to be a techno nagging nelly: None of the 'hologram' stage performances done have had anything to do with actual holography. None of them.

    The technology is formally called 'Pepper's Ghost and is performed with light and mirrors. It was first formally performed in 1862 and has a history dating back to the 1500s.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper's_ghost

    vs

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography

    No, it's not OK to mislead people with wrong terminology. Research your subject.

More comments from DerekCurrie >>