I met Ajit shortly after he started in his role. I specifically told him how we can track and trace back these robocalls via SS7 (at least once they hit the PSTN - SIP ingress even easier to track back to the trunks they originate), and I even had proof of concept code and examples. He seemed really excited, then did nothing. No follow-up, etc. It would only work if mandated by the FCC because there is no financial incentive for the telcos to do it.
I think the pressure to implement better ROA checking and something like RPKI will be much stronger than the push to IPv6 was if we keep having major route leaks multiple times a year.
Eventually some governments will have to get involved...
My middle school aged daughter wanted this installed on her phone the other day. I said no way. The last thing she needs her electronic devices doing is serving up tinder for kids, leaving her obsessing over popularity contests, or another avenue for anonymous bullying.
I'm appalled that everybody carries around a real time yearbook. High school seems to never end. I shudder the effect this app will have on the self esteem of the user.
We didn't know tobacco was harmful back when everybody was doing it. We didn't know cocaine was harmful back when it was the thing. We also don't know about the sort of damage and stress of the human psyche with these engineered digital toxins.
I think that for America, and white america in particular life's non plus ultra is senior year of high school. At the very least country music seems to paint this picture.
I feel like if you look at a country's high school culture, you can get a feel for what their values are.
For example, students from Korea are studious, exam taking machines and there's no "jock" culture. The smartest cookies are the "jocks". "Jocks" are looked down upon.
In contrast, students in USA seem, at least White America, seems uninterested, unmotivated or believe in studying. Everybody's trying to become an NBA or NFL player or a celebrity. People who excel academically are shunned and looked down upon.
I think it's actually quite an apt metaphor. Yearbooks are a collection of snapshots-in-time and the kind of trite social cache signalling of shallow observations and pseudo-intellectual "deep" insights about who's going to make what of themselves that only an immature, ignorant, inexperienced kid can make. That's exactly what Facebook is: a forum for the most trite kinds of social engagement and signalling.
There are too many idiots who go and "tag" photos with people who are not active on Facebook and help create a shadow profile.
There are too many idiots who willingly give Facebook the permission to mine their address book to triangulate the phone number + name + email address + misc. contact info of people who are not active on Facebook and help create a shadow profile.
There are too many idiots who don't think one extra second about filling up the messages they send to other people who are not on Facebook with all kinds of sensitive information and help create not just a shadow profile, but one which can be mined in ways that the idiots don't ever want to acknowledge.
Oh, and there are too many idiots who think that their "right" to use Facebook also gives them the right to send the personal information of other people to Facebook, whether or not those other people consent to such abuse of trust.
So yes, it is just another site. The smart folks who are concerned about tattling on their friends have mostly left. The remnants are mostly idiots, and damn it, I just can't find a way to stop these idiots from being so idiotic other than filling up internet comment threads with not-so-subtle hints about how these idiots are fucking up my life. Do you have any suggestions for how I can stop these idiots from acting in such an idiotic way?
At best, their behavior is idiotic. But short of consuming our entire vocabulary with ever-further steps of euphemism, there are few if any accurate alternative descriptions of the set of people who trust Facebook.
"Naïve", perhaps, but that excludes the vast swath of people who trust Facebook for more than a rather short duration of time.
I think "Tinder for kids" is a really good break down of what this is. As someone else stated, they are going to be desperately awaiting the next compliment's arrival. Just like a lonely person on Tinder desperately swipes hoping for a match. Good eye!
OR she’ll be the one person in her grade without it, get isolated from social activity, and get detached from her friends. (Coming from first-hand experience of someone whose parents restricted them from video games and social media)
Well then, if everyone else is doing it!.. I don't buy it. People don't have friends based off of if they're on social media, or play specific video games. If they do, you don't want them as friends. It's the same reason I don't let my 3rd grade boy play FPS games even though he REAAALY wants to, and all his friends do. An 8 year old should not be running around in a realistic game shooting people. When his brain is more mature, he will have plenty of time to play such games.
Of course people have friends based on what their hobbies are. In my childhood and teenage years I was only allowed to play computer games during the weekend. While my friends were online chatting and gaming together, I was sitting alone in my room reading books and watching TV. That affected my social skills, the lack of which I still suffer greatly from. I'd be careful with denying kids things that are important in their social circles. The damage done by FPS games or other similar things is nowhere close to the damage done by social isolation.
I am interested in the legalities of this. There are other areas where legality of a sale is dependent upon the seller's knowledge or beliefs about the buyer's intent. For example, drug paraphernalia… if you sell someone a pipe in Mississippi, and they don't say anything or they mention tobacco, that is fine. However if they said they wanted to use it to smoke cannabis, completing the sale would be distribution of drug paraphernalia, even though it's the same item.
The article says he was selling his software by advertising it as a tool to steal credit card and banking information from people infected by it. There is no legitimate purpose for that.
This is like a gun manufacturer advertising their gun as "Great for robbing liquor stores!"
Guns have plenty of legitimate uses. Self defense, hunting, and recreation. Guns aren't intended or even primarily purchased and used for criminal purposes. They will probably try to argue this tool was.
Cloudflare has always sidestepped their responsibility by claiming not to be a "hosting provider". They claim not to host the content, so they claim not to be able to stop any abuse related to it. If the DNS points to cloudflare, if the content to the rest of the world looks and feels like it comes from Cloudflare, then you're responsible for the content whether you consider yourself a "hosting provider" or not. Providing bullet-proof hosting to scammers, spammers, etc. and then ignoring abuse reports and throwing their hands up in the air because it's not their content has left a pretty terrible impression of Cloudflare to me.
I don't know why you're being downvoted. Cloudflare's entire business model is "make your content look like it comes from us." Every guide online to complaining about dangerous/illegal content will end with you running rDNS against CF, looking up CF's ASNs, etc. They want to view themselves as a network, but all of the content is coming from them, in every way that matters.
It's strange to see you being downvoted. Cloudflare is, for many intents and purposes, the acting hosting provider. The fact that they locally have a short TTL shouldn't matter in this case.
They are not a neutral party in-between, like your ISP or upstream ISP's. They are being paid by the person hosting the content, their customer, to provide a service in the customers name. This means the comparison to ISPs they make in the blog post just falls flat. In traditional terms, from the outside, they are a hosting provider.
They have daemons running who respond to http(s) requests with someones content and they are being paid for that by that person to do just that.
Point me to an ISP who does that.
I feel like Cloudflare knows this and it's disingenuous of them to pretend otherwise. As much as they would like to be seen as an ISP, there's a fundamental difference and conflating the two very different services muddies the net neutrality debate in a way I don't like.
Ignore was perhaps a poor word choice. They do get responded to, but the response results in no action being taken to stop the abuse, which is what I meant by ignore.
