oops, bad URL! This one works: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dmoz.org%2Frdf%2Fstruc...

I fantasized about stealing their category hierarchy RDF file (i.e., structure.rdf.u8.gz ) - for building a classification thingamajig of my own. Here's their short sample: http://rdf.dmoz.org/rdf/struct...

Wait until you use a phone with a rear-mounted fingerprint reader, like my Nexus 5x.

Or you could launch your drone-interceptor drone.

It's easy to justify drones economically-- if not now, then really soon when they're cheaper. (They won't always be bigger than king sized beds.)

The important question is, do we want to let the drones get a foot in the door?

Maybe the "interests" behind the reports were just some crazy day trader with potential upside of chump change compared to total market movement. Or, If not this time, some time soon it will be kids or terrorists or a disgruntled ex-employee.

Do you think that as long as an organization lets us know that "People will be able to track the aircraft online whenever they're used in order to learn where and why they were deployed" we should allow the creepy, annoying presence of machines buzzing around our visual and sonic spheres?

hopefully this will encourage misinformation awareness or foster some web-of-trust technology.

So the scenario is a someone is selling hard drugs / distributing child porn / etc from a corporate VPN? Wouldn't the FBI just ask the company to provide the logs and wouldn't the company gladly comply?

I don't think corporate VPNs will be much affected/troubled by this.. Only the VPNs that market themselves as hiding internet users are likely to be affected I would say.

Not saying whether that's good or bad, I've not got enough info to know. I would be interested to know why they don't want to give any details in these cases, since I can't think why it should be any more or less private than a regular wiretap (not "hack" as the title misleadingly states).

(It's 2015 and I still need to put <br /> for newlines.. Come on guys.)

I'd say the debate about the consequences is fairly scientific, as in there is a debate to be had. I don't think there's much of a debate about the existence.

* (we Australians do have a small film industry)

I don't think this is / will be specifically aimed at Hollywood (we Australian's do have a small film industry).. I think that was just a rabble-rousing association made by someone who wants to whip up opposition.

That you're a content creator who wants his work protected and you oppose it because of an implication it's for Hollywood shows how effective this tactic is.


FYI I am also a content creator (software dev), but since I write business software that isn't distributed and my personal software is open-source, I do appreciate the benefits of the status-quot (though the proposal isn't particularly hard-line anyway), I don't have strong views on this. I just wouldn't get too foamy at the mouth about an implied association.

You'd need to exploit the browser in such a way that you can POST to the modem with a custom user agent set, that'd be a pretty serious exploit, and I'd be more worried about that. You could then use the modem to try and trick around with DNS to get on other machines, but it'd be hard to do transparently. It would all have to be pretty well tailored.

Anyway I'm not saying this isn't a security hole that needs to be fixed, but that the idea that this shows the need for increased regulation is nonsense.

How about this one from a month ago?

You can also compare Apple's 2095 vulnerabilities for 97 products to D-Link's 43 vulnerabilities for 40 products.