I find it a little surprising that there are "hundreds of thousands of innocent people" in a database of 18 million people in the UK. I mean, have you been there? There couldn't be more than two, three dozen, tops!
More seriously, you should consider revising the title - the linked article mentions "up to 18 million mugshots", and I'd suggest that would likely represent far less than 18 million people - it just isn't feasible that they have "mugshots" of nearly a third of their population. Surveillance photos, on the other hand...
I have a Sonos system at home... and while it is expensive and proprietary, it's definitely not centralised. Any Sonos unit can be plugged in anywhere, and as long as any of them is connected to wifi, and all of them are within (proprietary) wireless range of at least one other device, they'll all coordinate and cooperate together happily.
The waveBlend looks interesting, but is targeted at people who want a home audio network and already have the speakers and the network, and just need the audio controller? I think it's neat, but possible a little too niche...
Except that its original conversation with Judge Rakoff indicates that it would rather do anything but "ensure… defendants receive a fair trial."
I think you're both misreading and misquoting Ms Yates's comment here, Tim. I would have thought it was easy to see just how seriously the DoJ takes their obligations, by the lengths to which they will go to try to remove them!
I mean, why bother trying to get out of something that you don't take seriously? In that case you'd just ignore it.
On the recent story about Chrome marking non-SSL sites as untrusted, beltorak made what I thought was an awfully good suggestion that I believe would make "trust" on the internet easier to understand for everyone (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141213/07112629425/chrome-security-team-considers-marking-all-h ttp-pages-as-non-secure.shtml#c599)
Basically, separate the definitions of "secure" communication and "trusted" communication. Secure means only you and the endpoint you're connected to (and anyone that endpoint wants to talk to) can see the content of your communications. Trusted means that you are definitely connected to the endpoint that you think you are connected to. Secure and trusted means that your communications are private, or at least as much as the internet can make them.
The Mariott is talking about the security of their guests because they claim to be blocking random third parties from entering the hotel, setting up their own wireless hotspots that claim to be the Marriot official hotspots, and doing terrible unspeakable* things to the data that hotel guests are sending via what they think is an official hotspot.
Which is true, as far as it goes... but there are (unfortunately?) better ways to handle that problem that doesn't require blocking any and all hotspots that happen to interfere with an extremely lucrative opportunity for the hotel.
* No really, they can't speak about what the rogue hotspot might do to the data. Maybe they don't know?
We already have solar powered watches, and watches that are charged from the kinetic energy of you moving your hand around.
There are a bunch of projects around the place for even more alternative portable energy generation methods. Shoe inserts to generate power from walking, perhaps electronics to generate power from bending and unbending components when you flex your elbows and knees - you'd get a slight workout at the same time!
On the other hand, you need to wash your PJs and socks... so you recharge the control unit (which in the RL polo shirt isn't washable) at the same time as the clothes are being washed.
I'm not completely sure what your smart tie would do, other than notify your boss when you're browsing websites when you should be working... I think I'd just forget to charge that one. Accidentally, of course!
Why the heck do you even care that much about Mike's opinion on a specific point that's only tangentially related to the article you're commenting on?
Don't you realise that it's perfectly valid to argue a point from somebody else's opinion in order to demonstrate some aspect of that opinion? What Mike thinks about it is, quite frankly, irrelevant. The whole point is that *anyone* thinks it, and even a fair use argument couldn't keep you out of court to defend against a claim against you.
You didn't read a contract that you entered into, but you expect the other party to conform to your wishes that you didn't specify, then get upset when the other party takes what you said at face value rather than reading your mind?
To me it seems Google hasn't yet learned what Microsoft did with Vista. Microsoft put in so many warnings about "are you sure you want to save" that everyone got to ignoring the nag screens because it was a constant PNA.
tl;dr: The Microsoft UAC debacle helped to improve computer security (slightly). If this lesson is appropriate, it suggests that website security will improve (eventually) following the proposed UX change.
Yes, people hated UAC. Yes, people often disabled it. But it's also absolutely true that third-party Windows software is currently written much better today than it was before UAC was introduced. Nobody wants to install that piece of software that writes data into the program directory any more, because you have to deal with those stupid UAC warnings whenever you run it - go for the software that follows better principles instead.
If Flickr had presented this as "We're selling beautiful, museum-quality frames for pictures we host, and we'll even do museum-quality prints to match the frames!", with the focus on the frames rather than on the pictures, then this might be a reasonable angle to take
Yeah, that worked really well for Aereo with all that focus on the antennas.
This is my take on it too. I'm curious how much backlash there would have been if somebody else trawled Flickr for popular photos with an attribution license and offered high quality prints of those photos for sale?
How about if Yahoo created a new company separate from Flickr to sell the prints? Would it be fine until people realised that the same company owned both the online service and the print service? That doesn't make sense to me.
but I agree that it's a tough call on both sides. Do something and you risk overreacting. Do nothing and you risk endangering passengers.
Do you? Do you really?
I mean, letting the plane take off AT ALL risks endangering passengers. Delaying the flight also has distinct and measurable impact on the lives of passengers.
Consider... In what possible universe could this be a credible threat? You're positing the existence of a terrorist that is simultaneously competent enough to build or acquire a wifi-triggered bomb, get it onto the plane undetected and have it located somewhere that it will do enough damage to matter, and fly so completely under the radar that there's no other evidence of risk to the flight... yet so incompetent that not only do they broadcast their SSID, but they think the irony in the name is worth risking the entire operation?
Even if such a terrorist exists, what's the worst they can do? As soon as he (she?) threatens to detonate the bomb he'll have half of the rest of the passengers pinning him to the ground and loosening his teeth the old fashioned way - no hijacking there. Or detonate the bomb and take out everyone in the plane, possibly over a populated area. That's definitely a tragedy, and it would inch flying slightly closer to being more dangerous than driving, assuming there are more such uniquely qualified terrorists.
But if that was going to happen, the tragedy was NOT in failing to react to the wireless network name. It was failing to identify the plot BEFORE it reached the plane... because if the only reason we avoided a terror incident was because of the name of a wireless network, then that's a failure rather than a success.
I really don't think it's in any way a tough call.