bigmofo

Lets take this one step farther, call it identity fraud and not just fraud; otherwise, identity theft will probably be with us.

I agree. Also, the code repository has no changes since 2017 (at least on the default branch).

I thought of that (adding a number) when posting, but then one has to remember that number...

This looks to be the same as https://www.grc.com/offthegrid.htm (pointed to by normal access).

I am not sure how this works, when say in the example one's example.com password has been breached and example.com is forcing one to rotate the password. Then it looks like one has to have two sheets. One for all current passwords and a second sheet just for example.com. Am I missing something? (Does one rotate all of one's passwords so that one can use a single sheet? Seems time consuming to rotate all passwords.)

Whenever I see articles like this, I have to question our drug policy. People have been getting high since before we were human (non-human primates get intoxicated). We can't stop people from getting high as we discovered with prohibition. Why not legalize drugs to help bring it out into the open and have laws to make sure one uses them responsibly (need to be an adult, don't drive, etc.). This way the user can know that they get something that is not tainted with fentanyl. Also, when purchasing, one can sign or get a sheet of dosing and symptoms to watch for (in case one needs to call 911). Also, it could have standard tax sales tax applied (can't make it close to 50% like cannabis is in California otherwise, dark market will still exist) to bring in some revenue. This should also reduce violence of drug dealers/gangs and reduce expenses associated with prosecuting, jailing and forth.

This seems like the feds pissing into the wind to get into headlines so that it appears that they are doing something.

That would make for a good topic. Also, it is difficult to maintain older cars going when parts become harder to get. So, even if one does not want to buy a new car; at some point one might be forced to getting a newer car. I very much appreciate these hackers and hope that there will be a thriving and vibrant hacking community for new vehicles. I am personally not interesting in unlocking unpaid for features; but for privacy, security and safety reasons.

I would have thought that EFF and FSF would be more active in trying to promote open source in automobiles for privacy, security and being able to repair and modify the vehicle. I would think that it would be rather mind blowing how much information is gathered by the new vehicles about oneself. I have enough money to buy any model of Tesla, but will not due to privacy, security and safety reasons. (I consider drive by wire braking and acceleration a safety issue. With a stick shift I can insert the clutch and know that the drive system can be disabled. I also consider that the software can be modified over the air forcibly by Tesla a safety issue because it could be used for nefarious purposes.)

How do the data brokers know whether one shops at dollar stores? Who is leaking our inforamtion to the brokers? Is the store or the credit card company releasing information to a third party? Store gets the customer name from the credit card. Credit card company knows that a transaction took place at the dollar store. Any other possibilities?

That is pretty screwed up. So, you have a merchant that is stalking one and they get updated information.

I think I will stick with with the new next gen taxi service where one pays with cash.

I have done this. Yes, they initial did keep the subscription going. However, I told the credit card company that I did not authorized any further; they reversed everthing out. I really wonder whether they give the company the new information or whether they just allow authorization using the old numbers; seems like it is pretty screwed up security if they give the new information to the company.

Also, if you say: - Card was lost. - After reviewing all accounts, it was discovered that the CC information couldn't be deleted from the ubuer UI. - I hereby do not authorized uber to make any charges. - tell them in writing or record the conversation.

I don't see any way uber can make any valid charges against your account (assuming no more action on one's part).

I also wonder whether it follows CC guidelines/rules to keep CC information when the customer has explicitly tried to remove and communicated to the company to remove said information.

When you lose your credit card and you call your credit card company and them them that you lost it, they issue you a new card with new numbers; this way anybody that had the information on the card would not be able to make further transactions. I would consider the card lost when a company would not delete the credit card information on my request to delete the information.

Thanks for pointing that out. The link for destroying a sample does not work. The page:

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/nbs/Pages/Default.aspx

has the following code for the link:

<a href="http://cdphiprod/pubsforms/forms/CtrldForms/cdph4410.pdf"tar... Request to Have Newborn Blood Specimen Card Destroyed - CDPH 4410 (PDF)&nbsp;<IMG style="BORDER-TOP: 0px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px solid; BORDER-LEFT: 0px solid" border=0 hspace=2 alt="Opens a new browser window." align=absMiddle src="http://cdphiprod/SiteCollectionImages/1newwind.gif"></a>

Note that "cdphiprod" is not a valid host name. Also, your article linked to:

http://newsmom.com/newborn-blood-spot-dna/

It pointed out that the state sells the information to private companies. As the author points out, it is a test you pay for. Lets see state law requires one to get a test, one has pay for it, one have no control over the handling of it and the state makes money off of it. The state need to do the right thing and protect people's privacy and not sell the people out.

I am not in the mood to check the wording of the law; I wonder if one can refuse to have the hospital to do the test and do it on one's own with a private company where one has control. If one can't do this, then I would look at this as nothing more than state collection of DNA pure and simple and in such a case the state should go F' itself.

If they require one to send an email outside of the company network, then should supply the equipment. I would never give my employer control of any personal device. If they don't give employee equipment to send the email on, then I don't see how they can reasonably require one to send an email. What happens if one does not have a smart phone? Do they require one to purchase one?

Also, if one is stuck in traffic one most definitely should not be sending email or a text message because that is dangerous to you and others on the road; it also gives the impression that the company does not care about the safety of people.

If I could not call my boss (or coworker) when I hit bad traffic and have said person send the email for me, I think that there is something wrong with the company or group. What exactly is the problem? Do they think your boss or co-worker are lying?

Anyway, sounds like a company that I would leave and save them the trouble of firing me.

I read the article. My only question was where Matt on the nextbsd page and Kip are the same person. I guess I could have searched first. Anyway this article seems to help indicate Kip and Matt of the nextbsd article are probably the same person:

http://gawker.com/383763/freebsd-developer-kip-macy-arrested...

Definitely not somebody I would want to associated with, work with on any project or be around. Even though he has served his time and could be a changed person, one would always wonder.

The page referenced, refers to Matt Macy and not Kip. If it is the same person, then I disagree. One can't tell whether he would undermine any project he is on because he does not care about other people. That landlord episode was not a crime of passion where one can chuck it up to emotions at the time. Looks like something that was thought about and planned for an extended period of time. The landlords cared very little about how they were effecting their tenants lives.

Every OS gets software updates to patch various security issues every few weeks or month or so. There is absolutely no reason why the NSA or FBI can't have a warrant saying that the person that they want to tap gets government spy ware on it via an update.

Also, I have to assume that every OS has security vulnerabilities that are not known to the public. If so, those can be used.

Also, I remember reading some story about something like Intel IPMI being used to read arbitrary memory remotely regardless of OS installed.

I think that there are far too many security holes for an agency with tons of employees and money to not be able to exploit. How many mathematicians and cryptographers does the NSA employ? I think that there is only one full time person working on GNU Privacy Guard.

I don't really see any information stored on a phone as safe. I would think that the manufacturer, the OS writer and the ISP can probably patch the phone, which can come with government spy ware.

I have no doubt that if if they want to target somebody that they can do it.

I think that is just a bunch of publicity to make the general public think that they are weak and impotent. Also, consider the fact that it has been reported that the government uses parallel construction to hide where the evidence really originated...

Most shops and location that have audio/video recording equipment have sign indicating that such activity is taking place. So, I don't think that the officers could claim that they were not informed. Also, the mere visual presensense of such equipment implied notice of such activity.

Is it even about using put the radio into an illegal mode? OpenWRT has been around since 2004. One does notice those facist in the US governement pushing for weaking security so that the government can spy on everybody... Until there is real and actual data to back up the misuse of open source software, I must say to the FCC "liar, liar, pants on fire!"

Web sites can put a robots.txt that prohibits crawlers. Are violations of the robots.txt a violation of the computer fraud and abuse act, which would knowing operating a bit in violatoin a felony?

The content and images posted could also be copyrighted or such that they are only for viewing in a browser and any other purpose would be a copyright violation or at a minimum a violation of the terms and conditions of using the site.

Companies don't like their content being made available elsewhere, and would probably fight vigorously.

How much bandwidth would polling and copying the site take? Wouldn't the companies notice it? Wouldn't they stop it?

Wouldn't most of these sites would want to work with the police to ensure that there were no underage people offering sex for money or anybody of any age being forced to work? Wouldn't most of these sites have an alert link for each posting? People can probably ignore consensual adults making an illegal business transaction, but probably not underage or forced prostitution.

If the software can recognize under age workers or people being forced to work, wouldn't the sites welcome the software alerting them of such listing? Would they be willing to pay for it?