HN user
"Should happen remotely" – according to who? What is the security risk for the end-user?
"this suggest a fundamental lack of security practices at the company" – that's a stretch of a conclusion to make. You're being as hyperbolic as the original post.
What didn't I understand about the article? This still offers a slight increase in security over static barcodes, without introducing any new vulnerabilities.
Do you have a source for this? What platform are they selling multiple copies of the ticket through, and what app are the buyers using that allows multiple buyers to receive and show the same animated barcode?
Assuming that you can actually do that.
If the seller re-opens the TM app and it generates a new token and invalidates the old one, then that's not the case.
I'd argue that a few extra people sneaking in on the same ticket (assuming this is even possible) is more like sharing your Netflix credentials than ripping Netflix content and having it be shareable with the entire world.
You're also walking into a stadium/concert in plain view of security cameras, so the stakes and deniability are different as well.
I hate TM and ridiculous fees as much as anyone, but this article is overly hyperbolic.
There's a section named "Pirating Tickets", that just explains how to re-create a barcode that you already paid for. You're not using this to rob anyone of anything.
And at the end, "Have fun refactoring your ticket verification system". Why? There are no vulnerabilities here. A rotating barcode (even if following a known pattern) is still more secure than a static barcode on a piece of paper.
starting a fire at a Target is not quite the same thing as raiding the US Capitol filled with congress, staffers, and confidential documents (in an effort to overturn a national election).
If GH takes a 25% cut, then they need to be adding 25% more revenue to the takeout market. I would bet good money they are not.
Instead, they are paying for ad space to siphon the traffic of already hungry customers looking to order from a restaurant.
GH then shows the numbers to the restaurant and says "Look how much business GH brings you. You need to pay us for this"
In many cases they are extorting restaurants over what would be organic web traffic. In these cases they are not adding new revenue to the industry, and are instead choking the restaurants that already operate on thin margins.
I'd much rather get my food from someone that has not been interacting with the previous 100 customers.
And now every customer after me won't be exposed to me, either.
Their incentive is to make money by providing goods or services to customers, which is the same as every business. Go buy something from the department store, give them your phone number when they ask for it, and tell me you don't receive spam calls afterward.
Given all that Google knows about you, i'd say they're actually quite polite in how invasive they are. I'd much rather them have this data than 99% of the other companies out there.
It sounds like you basically just hate businesses that collect data. I'm sorry to break it to you, but there are a ton of them.
Have you considered the ability to "Share" a Contact? For example, if my Wife wants to share the info she collected about our niece?
Or is the entire idea that each person is logging a unique POV or set of information about someone, rather than the system gravitating towards there being a single, cultivated profile about each person that is shared around?
(right now it's kind of the anti social media -- which seems like a refreshing take. Just curious if that's on purpose)
OpenID does not provide your password to each site that you use it on... It uses a token that only that site can use, for the permissions that were shown when you created the token. If someone did acquire that token, you could just change your Facebook password and the token would expire
"Weighs 165 lbs, out drinks the 275 lbers"
These are always really awesome. But for the love of god, invert the controls. Or maybe a button to switch between methods
The Start Button is just a symbol for the larger issue, which is the shafting of Desktop users. There were only a small handful of things in Windows 8.0 that I felt offered an improved Desktop experience, whereas there were tons of things that I felt required more buttons clicks, more steps, etc
I hope 8.1 addresses the Desktop users in more ways than just the Start Button.