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
294 points (95.1% liked)
Technology
58012 readers
2832 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- 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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year 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..
I love Star Wars EU mostly for correctly showing how societies work in such regards.
When something happens there (unconnected to ancient magic), it usually involves a few pretty mundane snafus, and even if descriptions used make tech people and engineers cringe, the general situation just makes sense.
TCW and Disney era, on the other hand - ugh.
for several years in the early 00's, the process for getting security clearance involved no background check, just knowing who to ask. they literally rubber stamped it.
getting a fed job or something still did, but just security clearance, on its own, for anyone? just ask. not even nicely.
I did a security clearance interview for someone a while ago, and the agent they sent was very polite and the whole conversation ended up being about if my friend pirated media.
I was very confused and had no idea what his media acquisition methods were, and no idea why that was literally the only thing I was asked during the interview.
it WAS dealt with pretty quick, but yeah I bet it's still pretty absurd, even if they at least ask... some questions?
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.
basic state logic.
they're incapable of sucking less. their whole episteme is about centralizing, about reducing thought the farther it gets from the central authority (whether that's one guy, a class, or a building like the pentagon), but you CAN increase violence, threaten, flatten, disable, basically wherever.
That's how I feel about it as well. Better to upgrade the safe than to add warning posters.
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)
IIRC that was what happened.
That's exactly right. It's called the bork tapes, and it gives rise to the eponymous phrase, "getting borked."
I wonder if there's any case law that could support applying that law to other media, such as preventing streaming sites from handing watch history over to the media.
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.
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.
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
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.
Just my last two orders:
- expensive quality Covid test -> get the cheapest, which stopped working properly at Alpha / Beta
- 3M respirators for $ 4 a piece -> a literal fake, hard to see, but it breaks already when putting on. 1 hour in support chat to convince them that something is wrong, but only got my money back, no investigation into the seller or product
I will stay there for now though, because it's still a great software, easy to use
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.
If we all collectively did that (not happening), we'd remove the main funding for content hosting, which means we'd get more paywalls. That's not what I want at all. Information should be freely available, we just need to make options to avoid the advertising. For example, I pay for Nebula, because I find enough content there that I enjoy, and my understanding is that the creators get a larger chunk per watch vs YouTube. That works for me, but it probably doesn't work for the average person.
I would like to see pay-per-watch become mainstream. So I could, for example, load a balance into my browser and press a button to view content w/o ads by paying a small fee (like a couple pennies here and there). The browser would ensure that transaction isn't traceable to me (protects my privacy), and they'd pay the content creator on some schedule to reduce transaction fees. The cost to me is whatever the creator would make from ads, and I can choose which content to pay for or not. It would also make it really easy to add a tip if I found a particular piece of content particularly engaging.
I remember the "big movement" when Twitter turned into a right wing cesspool.
At first, the biggest problem was that there were TWO main alternatives: Mastodon and Bluesky. So those who left split into two groups, ending up with a dead timeline, missing out on news. (I and my "bubble" use it to keep up with Covid vaccines, politics, safety etc.)
I joined the Mastodon group, because it solves the problem of a single crazy billionaire potentially buying & enshittifying it. But I fully admit that it is not user friendly at all. People who are not in IT just want it to WORK, like Twitter used to. They don't want to "educate themselves" about servers, fediverse and networks. The user experience clearly hasn't even been a thing. It's techies writing software for themselves. What it needs is a full analysis of the experience from the start: Who are you, user, why are you considering Mastodon, what are your expectations, what are the experiences in the first 30 seconds after entering "mastadon" (oh, you misspelled it?) or "twitter alternative" into a search engine, etc. "pick an instance" is already the passive-aggressive demand nobody wants to hear.
In the end, my instance was shut down without a fair warning, all the reconnected and new contacts lost, no option to move. Trying Bluesky now, but many stayed at Twitter (now X), moved to Mastodon with or without success (most onto my dead instance), or gave up on microblogging.
I think we need something simple again. I remember what SUSE did for Linux in the 90s. Linux users were all like: Only debian is even somewhat useable, but if you should really do LFS. Non-techies willing to switch for "political" or other reasons were hit in the face with "Pick a distro!!!". SUSE has been called "the Windows among the Linux distros" by those people, but it did the right thing. It provided exactly the simplification we needed: "This is Linux, you simply buy it on CD in a retail store like your other software, you run the installer." It was a good thing.
IRC is the one good old thing that still works great. When they tried to enshittify freenode, we just moved, collectively. Many non-IT channels & servers died after 2010, though.
Five giant websites featuring screenshots of the other four.
Holy shit.