this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024
294 points (94.8% liked)

Technology

59495 readers
3081 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 91 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 32 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business 28 points 3 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

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..

[–] primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

it WAS dealt with pretty quick, but yeah I bet it's still pretty absurd, even if they at least ask... some questions?

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] leftzero@lemmynsfw.com 25 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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).

[–] schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] austinfloyd@ttrpg.network 5 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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)
[–] Kaboom@reddthat.com 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

The nuclear codes for decades was 00000000. That's all you needed to launch nukes.

Our cyber security was atrocious

[–] essteeyou@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

At least now it's 00000000!123

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 62 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] irreticent@lemmy.world 25 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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)

[–] irreticent@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

IIRC that was what happened.

load more comments (1 replies)

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.

[–] EarthShipTechIntern@lemm.ee 40 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Great read. Great summation of the last 30+ years.

Longer than I wanted to keep reading, not dissatisfied that I kept reading.

[–] BroccoLemuria@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Thanks for your comment, it encouraged me to actually read the article and I completely agree. Long but worth the read

[–] confuser@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 months ago

And your comment encouraged me to immediately read the entire thing haha

[–] mke@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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.

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 36 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm waiting until someone invents antidisenshittificationism

[–] YooperJeff@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think you just did. Good job, you get a cookie 🍪

[–] slumberlust@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Is this a third party cookie?

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 3 points 3 months ago

Yes, we are monitoring

[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The telephone jumped the shark a few years ago. Now no one expects using the phone for legit business. Now it's email.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 4 points 3 months ago

I ask everyone I give my number to to text me first so I can verify

[–] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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)
[–] Clbull@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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)
load more comments
view more: next ›