>> ^shinyblurry:

At your service..
>> ^Boise_Lib:
shinyblurry
I'll take you off ignore for this posting.
I have a couple of questions for you.



Thanks,

Are you male, or female?

I guess this could be considered to be trying to get personal information about a user--which is not permitted here. But, I'm confused so I thought I would ask you personally.

I've heard some say that you have said that you are female. And I've heard from others that you have said you are male. So, if you don't mind, which is it?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^burdturgler:
BTW, pass my congrats on to your banking colleagues for the bang-up job they're doing with security. Thank God there are professionals on the scene to ensure that no one ever gets their private banking information compromised. Whew. What a relief
Banks would completely not give a fuck about safeguarding anyone's personal information if it weren't for government regulations forcing them to. And I can report firsthand that the way management looks on it is something to be done as cheaply and incompletely as the law will allow.
Safeguards against things that could actually result in someone being able to commit fraud or otherwise steal money are in a completely different category, and the object of many millions of dollars worth of security.
>> ^burdturgler:
Odds of a fireman robbing my business with an axe .. zero.
Odds of my business being robbed by someone when my key is available .. greater than zero.
Of course, most crooks would sign out for keys before robbing someone, so you have a good point with the whole paper trail thing.
All jokes aside .. I do love you! .. lol I wonder if I'm slipping to the darkside tbh.

Why do you think the odds of a fireman robbing your business with an axe (or more probably, one of their battering-rams designed for forcibly opening locked doors) is zero? Trust in the fire department? False belief that your door is impervious to such techniques?
The point of the safeguard I mentioned is to make sure that if keys go missing, it's known about immediately. Plus it's a ritual that reinforces the importance of keeping that key secure. Picking supervisors as the only people authorized people who gets them protects against people getting a job at the fire department just to get access to the keys. Putting them in a safe makes sure only the authorized firemen ever have physical access to them.
Is it perfect? No. Better than hanging them on the wall in the firehouse? Absolutely.
Bank security is full of that kind of shit. Logs, log review, tracking, authentication, access control, access review, checks and balances on access reviewers, background checks, etc. Banks do physical security really well, and electronic security about as well as a big organization can, at least when it comes to protecting us against electronic theft that might hurt our bottom line...
But I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Fire Department has keys into our offices and server rooms. But then that's definitely true at the Nationwide Insurance buildings downtown where I used to work years ago.
Oh, and I love you too. You've just been sounding like some sort of libertarian lately though, with the "the government is wants to take my keys so they can commit unspeakable evil with them" thing here and "amorally maximizing profit is the only way anything is ever going to work, so stop asking our Galtian overlords to behave ethically" in the other.
Kinda scary!


I was taught by Yoda (schmawy) to never let an argument from one post bleed into another.

So .. Why do I think the odds of a fireman robbing my business with an axe is zero? Risk of detection. During the crime. Yes, whoever compromises the lockbox may be detected after the crime, but by then my shit is already stolen.

You know, police have similar methods with weapons, maintaining inventory and control over ammunition and firearms, making authorized personnel sign out for things .. yet innocent people still get shot. Nothing helps much after the crime is committed.

Besides all that, it's my place. Seriously, do I not have the right to decide who I give the keys to my property? You're literally saying it's OK to rip my keys out of my hand because that's what's in the greater good. I just think, fuck that. It's my place. Use "one of their battering-rams designed for forcibly opening locked doors". Also, banks do physical security for shit as well. Banks get physically robbed easily and fairly often. Seems like I hear way more about bank robberies than I do about 'thwarted' bank robberies anyway.

Maybe that's just cable "news" though (sorry schmawy)

>> ^burdturgler:

BTW, pass my congrats on to your banking colleagues for the bang-up job they're doing with security. Thank God there are professionals on the scene to ensure that no one ever gets their private banking information compromised. Whew. What a relief

Banks would completely not give a fuck about safeguarding anyone's personal information if it weren't for government regulations forcing them to. And I can report firsthand that the way management looks on it is something to be done as cheaply and incompletely as the law will allow.

Safeguards against things that could actually result in someone being able to commit fraud or otherwise steal money are in a completely different category, and the object of many millions of dollars worth of security.

>> ^burdturgler:
Odds of a fireman robbing my business with an axe .. zero.
Odds of my business being robbed by someone when my key is available .. greater than zero.
Of course, most crooks would sign out for keys before robbing someone, so you have a good point with the whole paper trail thing.
All jokes aside .. I do love you! .. lol I wonder if I'm slipping to the darkside tbh.


Why do you think the odds of a fireman robbing your business with an axe (or more probably, one of their battering-rams designed for forcibly opening locked doors) is zero? Trust in the fire department? False belief that your door is impervious to such techniques?

The point of the safeguard I mentioned is to make sure that if keys go missing, it's known about immediately. Plus it's a ritual that reinforces the importance of keeping that key secure. Picking supervisors as the only people authorized people who gets them protects against people getting a job at the fire department just to get access to the keys. Putting them in a safe makes sure only the authorized firemen ever have physical access to them.

Is it perfect? No. Better than hanging them on the wall in the firehouse? Absolutely.

Bank security is full of that kind of shit. Logs, log review, tracking, authentication, access control, access review, checks and balances on access reviewers, background checks, etc. Banks do physical security really well, and electronic security about as well as a big organization can, at least when it comes to protecting us against electronic theft that might hurt our bottom line...

But I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Fire Department has keys into our offices and server rooms. But then that's definitely true at the Nationwide Insurance buildings downtown where I used to work years ago.

Oh, and I love you too. You've just been sounding like some sort of libertarian lately though, with the "the government is wants to take my keys so they can commit unspeakable evil with them" thing here and "amorally maximizing profit is the only way anything is ever going to work, so stop asking our Galtian overlords to behave ethically" in the other.

Kinda scary!

>> ^MarineGunrock:

@NetRunner - No one is saying the Fire Department will use the keys for ill will. They're saying that an individual could. Please, allow me to render your point moot and borderline retarded. People are assholes and degenerate pieces of shit. Giving your key to the government is just one more way for someone to fuck you over. Yes, I'd MUCH rather the FD break my door down than to have a key to my house just out there floating around.

And if you look at my comments again, you'll see that I said that's a legitimate complaint, but that additional safeguards would be the natural response to that if you otherwise agreed with the idea.

For example, have the keys kept in a safe, to be checked out by the fire supervisors for their shifts. Logs get kept about who had which key when, and if one goes missing or a crime gets committed with one, then there's a paper trail that can be used to track who did what.

I'm well familiar with insiders stealing public information. I never quite brought myself to say it earlier on this thread, but I work for a financial services company that handles the transactions for, well, essentially every bank you've ever heard of.

As a result, I'm pretty familiar with the kinds of precautions you can put in place to prevent information theft. It seems like physical asset theft is even easier to track since you can't just take a picture of it with a cameraphone to steal it...

>> ^MarineGunrock:

As for your comment regarding apartments: No, tenants do not own the space, but it is their private area. Even the companies that own them aren't allowed to enter without permission.


I'd want to look at the law about this, but I've had landlords literally have people into my apartment for a tour without my permission before while I was out.

Hell, multiple companies did it, even.

They only seem to need your permission if you're there.

@NetRunner - No one is saying the Fire Department will use the keys for ill will. They're saying that an individual could. Please, allow me to render your point moot and borderline retarded. People are assholes and degenerate pieces of shit. Giving your key to the government is just one more way for someone to fuck you over. Yes, I'd MUCH rather the FD break my door down than to have a key to my house just out there floating around.



As for your comment regarding apartments: No, tenants do not own the space, but it is their private area. Even the companies that own them aren't allowed to enter without permission.

What a weak arse, softball interview. How about that these leaks will force governments to act more ethically, since the more reprehensible their activities undertaken in our names, the more likely it is that a conscientious staffer will want to blow the whistle?

There was more in the cables released at the time than simply how much of a dickhead any given head of state is.

The only pointed question she asked was about how ethical it was for Hillary Clinton to order diplomats to gather personal information on foreign dignitaries. For Brzezinski's assertion that this was nothing illegal to go unchallenged is absolutely astounding. Her only concern seemed to be that 'on balance' this would effect diplomatic relations.

The deference to power on displayed here is palpable.

>> ^radx:

Q: Was my personal data encrypted?
A: All of the data was protected, and access was restricted both physically and through the perimeter and security of the network. The entire credit card table was encrypted and we have no evidence that credit card data was taken. The personal data table, which is a separate data set, was not encrypted, but was, of course, behind a very sophisticated security system that was breached in a malicious attack.

Source: Sony
Arrogance, incompetence, mix of both?
Sounds to me like they put all their faith into the security of the client (aka the console) and completely neglected the security between server and client.


Fun fact, banks don't encrypt your personal information either. Just credit card account numbers, and that's only because there's a law that forces them to.

The laws for personal information just cover physical access, network access, and audit requirements surrounding the process for granting employees access to the information. Stuff like encryption is something companies have to voluntarily choose to do out of their own sense of civic duty.

But it costs money to keep that shit encrypted, and their goal is to maximize profit by cutting costs, so for the most part they don't bother. So, most likely it's not arrogance or incompetence in their IT department, just profit motive on the part of management.

That said, I'm curious who's behind the hacking -- this is a real feather in their cap. I suspect Sony's security was tougher than the average bank's.

Apparently the personal information dataset was not even encrypted, despite being behind layers of "sophisticated security". Rookie error!

Yeah, total screw up by Sony really. You always, always encrypt personal, user information. To simply say "our security and firewalls will keep anyone out always" is just not good enough. If it's a computer, it can be hacked, and you should assume it will be.

The worst part is that it seems that ALL the personal information was unencrypted which includes the passwords themselves, and given how many people use the same password for other sites... well... the hackers now have a gold mine of information to get working on.

Kind of a conflicting concept for myself. Not that I think anyone would want to write anything at all about me because I have never really been involved in any particular scandal on the site, but I would be very irritated if articles were written about members that involved personal information. Such as locations, real world names, and facebook profiles etcetera. That kind of information should be left up to the member itself. Although I feel anything that is already documented on the site is up for grabs because all it takes is a little detective work to find out who someone was or what a member did not to mention if you ask people they usually give the answer.

On a side note even if you try and ban this now the cats out of the bag whats to stop said malicious offender of writing a web documentation somewhere where the sift cannot control? People are curious by nature and destructive by nature while I may have good intentions another member may just love mischief and mayhem none of us really have the power to stop gossip here on the internets or in our real lives.

Using a member's name in a character assassination is NOT OK
Using a member's name in connection to personal information is NOT recommended.

Using a member's name in conjunction with an event sounds OK to me.
A user-name is just a user-name, they are publicly used on the site. The users are a huge part of what makes this site what it is. I really don't think it's possible to have a Wiki without usine member names.

I agree with use of a member's user-name as long as it is for historical reasons. The Wiki absolutely should not be a place to air one's dirty laundry or continue into a soap opera. We also don't want people to use the Wiki to gather personal info so profiles don't belong in the Wiki - We have profiles for that already.

-Yes, keep a list of Sift-ups, locations and joining members
-Yes, Let us know who had a hand in the milestones of the site
-Yes, Keep a list of the channels and who manages them

UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment:

Part I
Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

....

I wish to submit this video as a form of torture

....

I'd like to also state that the tide goes in, and the tide goes out

What makes you think if he bought it, he didn't know it was not stolen? The computer was not in the seller's name, the passwords are all unknown to him, data is still all there. What seller would leave all their data on their drives? He obviously was the thief or knew it was stolen. So either way, hes guilty of something.


>> ^TreacleMine:

I would DOWNVOTE this if I could. This 'Mel' was probably not the thief (first booted up 2 years later, in Las Vegas?). He probably just bought it off Craigslist and could not know for sure it was stolen.
So what does Zoz do? Instead of just contacting the police to retrieve his property, he publicly humiliates this guy AND the women he is in contact with. Women who are completely innocent of anything related to this theft.
Posting nude photos of these people and publishing their personal information is immature and petulant. Sorry, but this guy is a douchebag.

I would DOWNVOTE this if I could. This 'Mel' was probably not the thief (first booted up 2 years later, in Las Vegas?). He probably just bought it off Craigslist and could not know for sure it was stolen.

So what does Zoz do? Instead of just contacting the police to retrieve his property, he publicly humiliates this guy AND the women he is in contact with. Women who are completely innocent of anything related to this theft.

Posting nude photos of these people and publishing their personal information is immature and petulant. Sorry, but this guy is a douchebag.

It's nice to know all my personal information is having a good time in a relaxing environment.