And violating [an app's] terms of service puts you in jeopardy under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, which is the law that Ronald Reagan signed in a panic after watching Wargames (seriously!).
I watched it two days ago, that's tragicomic.
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024
308 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
69449 readers
3222 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I know, right? Like how the hell do you get worried from such a silly movie.. Unless he knew the us military defense systems were in fact that weak, against people and their telephones.
Nah, Reagan was just a wuss.
Of all the things that happen in the movie, the thought that someone will have hooked a top-secret defense computer up to a modem is the one that is the absolute most believable.
Like, it's entirely going to have happened at some point.
I kind of expect it to be required, SCADA has had plenty of ancestry. But you'd expect the NSA to have been consulted on how to prevent interaction with the general public..
load more comments
(4 replies)
The story goes that, after watching the film, Reagan asked the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff ”Could something like this really happen? Could someone break into our most sensitive computers?”, and, after looking into it for a week, the general came back with the reply “Mr. president, the problem is much worse than you think.”, which prompted Reagan into setting off a series of interagency memos and studies that led to the signing of classified national security decision directive NSDD-145, “National Policy on Telecommunications and Automated Information Systems Security.”.
So... yeah, things probably actually were that bad, or even worse (except for the AI bit, of course).
Has there ever, once, been an infosec issue that doesn't result in an investigation and someone then going 'oh my god, this is worse than anyone could have imagined'?
Teaching rocks to do math was a terrible, terrible idea.
If it wasn't an infosec issue (because no math rocks), it would be an opsec or comsec issue. We're the weak link unfortunately.
also, just imagine the threat was that defense systems could be invaded by your average citizen.
Let's put resources to making them secure then, right? Nah, let's just make it illegal to guess passwords. That will surely prevent bad things from happening.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The nuclear codes for decades was 00000000. That's all you needed to launch nukes.
Our cyber security was atrocious
At least now it's 00000000!123
Maybe it's my ADHD, but I actually feel much better (very light and easy) reading such things. Nukes with zero launch codes, laws being made after watching movies for teens, Soviet caliber differences intended to make Soviet ammunition just a bit too large to be usable by the potential enemy, BTR-1 being basically a transport so that infantry wouldn't die while traversing nuked land, thus with no real protection against anything, and so on.
I mean, nuking another country by mistake is better than not nuking it when necessarily, or so someone judged. But some other people wanted some protection against fools, so theoretically they had that.
The last time Congress managed to pass a federal consumer privacy law was in 1988: The Video Privacy Protection Act. That’s a law that bans video-store clerks from telling newspapers what VHS cassettes you take home. In other words, it regulates three things that have effectively ceased to exist.
Corey Doctorow always hits so hard
And even though it's being labeled as a "consumer privacy law" it was actually spurred by a politician getting upset that people might find out what he was renting. It was a self-serving law that had the side effect of also helping consumers.
Wasn't it because a couple of anti-porn politicians were outed as having renting porn tapes (yet another thing that doesn't really exist anymore)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Great read. Great summation of the last 30+ years.
Longer than I wanted to keep reading, not dissatisfied that I kept reading.
Thanks for your comment, it encouraged me to actually read the article and I completely agree. Long but worth the read
And your comment encouraged me to immediately read the entire thing haha
Always sweet to see folks incentivize each other to engage with content!
For anyone still daunted by the article, I expect the DEFCON channel will upload this talk soon, which might be more up your alley.
Let me save you the time and summarize the blog post - internet got worse, big tech is bad and the author is just ranting how bad it is nowadays. Nothing new, no idea how to fix it, just complaining about the modern world.
I'm not saying the author is wrong. It's just I heard this many times before.
You didn't read it. Also why is it when someone takes time to address an issue like this, there is guarantee a post like this to dismiss it in favor of basically doing fuck all. Like the implication here is that you're trying to diminish the effort for what? What's the reason when you didn't even read it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The entire second half of the column is literally how to fix it.
I think we have read a different blog post. There was something about Google's antitrust thingy and that all big tech should be regulated but no straight solution were given.
Again, I agree withe the thesis but honestly, anyone who's focused on privacy would tell you the same but in way fewer words.
BTW, similar issue was raised in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. Pretty good read.
You think Cory Doctorow isn't focused on privacy?
anyone who’s focused on privacy would tell you the same but in way fewer words.
Corey Doctorow literally wrote the books on privacy. He coined the term Enshitification. He's even been portrayed as a guest character in a couple of XKCD comics. Generally he's someone to listen to on anything security, privacy or tech policy related
No, fart_pickle knows all.
There was 2,177 words in the "how to fix" portion of the blog post, you dumbass.
The author of this post, Cory Doctorow, literally coined the term “enshittification” in a prior blog post. I think he of all people is allowed to continue talking about the topic as much as he wants.
The article proposes restoring competition, regulation, interoperability and tech worker power as response; in case anyone was wondering.
And the solution for world hunger is to distribute food from rich countries into the poor countries. Here, I've fixed the famine issue. Do you get my point? It's easy to say what to do but when it comes to the details, all those preachers fail short in giving the real solution to the real problem. As I said before, this is just a rant about how bad modern world is.
These are problems that require legislative action to fix, which is why he is encouraging the nerds and hackers who will be most affected by tech policy and understand the tech the most to start meeting with their legislators to discuss tech policy as it comes up for votes
When software changes in a way the user dislikes there's often no choice but to put up with it or stop using it, because it's proprietary. I think this could be fixed if people were to adopt the value of free software and began to ditch proprietary software.
There's nothing wrong with proprietary software as long as it's respects user's privacy and doesn't do crazy licensing stuff.
It is very difficult to tell if a program is respecting user's privacy without the source code to verify what it's actually doing. When you can't see or change what it does then the developer is the one in control of the computing, and even a good intentioned dev will have to resist the temptation to gain at the user's expense.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Just ratted on yourself and dipped, huh?
I'm waiting until someone invents antidisenshittificationism
I think you just did. Good job, you get a cookie 🍪
Is this a third party cookie?
of course.
Yes, we are monitoring
The telephone jumped the shark a few years ago. Now no one expects using the phone for legit business. Now it's email.
I ask everyone I give my number to to text me first so I can verify
The solution is to reject any monetization of anything online. Anti advertise. If a content creator has ads take a minute to talk about how the product is the worst. Maybe it started a fire from a friend of a friend basement and killed their whole family. Maybe it made someone you know infertile. If a marketing team acts like a celebrity to promote rampart, you do what we all did in the rampart ama no matter what it is. Reject anyone trying to monetize and capitalize on the internet until all the assholes that running ever other medium leaves.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Amazon used to sell products, not Shein-grade self-destructing dropshipped garbage from all-consonant brands.
I knew it wasn't just my imagination. Amazon has been filled with cheap Chinese knock-off brands in recent years, to the point where I may as well be using Temu or Wish for a bargain.
If you went from the internet's storefront to an upmarket AliExpress, that's not a good sign.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›