Reply to Re: Millimeter talks about copyright
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Data:
The digital gyroscope present on mobile devices is a known point of intrusion. As a transmitter/receiver, it broadcasts the existence of the device and provides a portal of access.
A gyroscope is a sensor that measures orientation. It is connected to the CPU through I²C or SPI, I assume, and it gives the CPU some numbers which it may pass on to programs. The numbers that it passes are not run as code. How can such a sensor possibly be used to break into a device? That's like saying you can do brain surgery by showing people a painting, because the optical nerve goes into the brain.
That is, unless the sensor and the operating system work together to provide a back door. In other words, if the sensor can pick up radio signals, and the OS uses those to allow access, you have a point. But in that case, I would argue the danger is in the OS, not in the sensor.
the average user is more likely to use "open source", simply to rebel against Corporate monopoly.
That is not my impression. Personally, I use it because I want to be in control of my computer. And I want things to be easy. On proprietary systems, I may not be allowed to do everything I want. Most software for it also costs money, or is crippled or contains ads. If I want to install something on my system, I have a package manager which has almost everything I want, prepared for fitting in with the system. And I get it through a trusted channel. On Windows, my experience is that for anything except Windows itself, you generally have to download it from some random website and hope they don't destroy your system.
What percentage of open source distribution occurs over P2P networks
My guess is approximately 0%. The open source community is very concerned with security, much more than proprietary vendors. This is partly because of the types of people that want to be part of the community, but partly also because everything is open: if someone does it wrong, lots of people will complain on mailing lists and in other public places.
I think you may be confused about the terminology. That's not surprising given that there is big money behind a campaign aimed to confuse everyone. Here's a clarification of some terms:
- Free software: Software that gives you freedom (to use, modify, redistribute). The main organization in this community is the Free Software Foundation. Their flagship is the GNU operating system, which is used in combination with the Linux kernel. Many people call this system simply "Linux", even though there is much more in it than that. Other famous free programs are Firefox and Apache (the world's most popular web server).
- Open source software: Exactly the same thing; Eric Raymond gave it a new name because when people hear "Free software", they think of "no money". Also, "Freedom" sounds a bit scary to corporations. Raymond started the Open Source Initiative to bring the free software ideals to the corporate world.
- Freeware: Proprietary software that doesn't cost money. This is often not free software, and I trust it less than I trust proprietary software. Nowadays mostly famous as "free to play" games.
- Proprietary software: Software which uses copyright as it was intended. Windows and most programs that run on it are proprietary.
- Copyleft: the use of copyright law to do the opposite: allow redistribution to anyone as long as you give your users the same right you received. The idea is to guarantee freedom to all users. (This is contrary to public domain, which you can modify and then redistribute under a non-free license.)
The software that is sent over P2P networks is mostly illegal copies of proprietary software. That has nothing to do with free/open source software, and I agree that those are very likely to be dangerous.
Personal security is still a potential risk for the Mom & Pop who only use their computer to read email, view facebook, and do their online banking.
Microsoft and others have shown time and time again that they don't care about their users. I don't trust them with my security; I have much more trust in a program that can be inspected by many people.
The average person doesn't have the time nor technical desire to try to install something to replace Windows or OSX, depending on the platform.
Oh, if you mean by "doing so well" that many people have it installed, sure. I was talking about user satisfaction. I've talked to quite a few people who have Windows 8 because their computer came with it. I don't think I've seen even a single one of them that was happy with it. But indeed, it doesn't bother them to the level that they replace it.
Windows 8's biggest feature is that it resembles the same interface used on mobile devices
Except it doesn't, because most people don't have a Windows phone. My limited exposure to it had me frustrated that it doesn't seem to understand that it is installed on a laptop as opposed to a tablet. I think I'm not alone with that either.
Respectfully, it would make it 'nearly' impossible for the average citizen who happens on the signal to gain access before their conscience talked them out of it, but for someone intent on gaining access it does not.
What are you trying to protect against? If you have the NSA or a similarly resourceful entity after you personally, I'm not sure if anything can help you. Most people aren't in that situation. The threat is from entities (government or otherwise) that try to get access to as many systems as possible. Taking your computer off the internet (as you seem to suggest) would still be an effective defense, but it gets in the way of getting angry and depressed.
Good encryption is something that hasn't been cracked yet. Of course you never know if it really hasn't, but it's the best we have. If encryption works as intended, people sniffing the line cannot decipher the messages that are sent.
However, you are not talking about this now; you are talking about breaking into the computer. That's a whole different beast. Windows is known for its vulnerabilities and once you have a connection you shouldn't have a hard time getting in, unless there is a very good administrator on it. But if there is, it's unlikely that they are running Windows.
Now I'm not claiming that free software can protect you against everything. Operating systems are so complex, that it's almost impossible to make break ins impossible. But a lot of free software users care about it, and quite a few of them can and do audit the parts of the code that are sensitive. Also, lots of code is read just to learn from it, and if someone finds a problem while doing that, it is also reported and fixed. That system gives me a lot more confidence than "the vendor doesn't care much about you, and if there's a problem, you have to wait for them to fix it and until that happens you're screwed".
The digital gyroscope present on mobile devices is a known point of intrusion. As a transmitter/receiver, it broadcasts the existence of the device and provides a portal of access.
A gyroscope is a sensor that measures orientation. It is connected to the CPU through I²C or SPI, I assume, and it gives the CPU some numbers which it may pass on to programs. The numbers that it passes are not run as code. How can such a sensor possibly be used to break into a device? That's like saying you can do brain surgery by showing people a painting, because the optical nerve goes into the brain.
That is, unless the sensor and the operating system work together to provide a back door. In other words, if the sensor can pick up radio signals, and the OS uses those to allow access, you have a point. But in that case, I would argue the danger is in the OS, not in the sensor.
the average user is more likely to use "open source", simply to rebel against Corporate monopoly.
That is not my impression. Personally, I use it because I want to be in control of my computer. And I want things to be easy. On proprietary systems, I may not be allowed to do everything I want. Most software for it also costs money, or is crippled or contains ads. If I want to install something on my system, I have a package manager which has almost everything I want, prepared for fitting in with the system. And I get it through a trusted channel. On Windows, my experience is that for anything except Windows itself, you generally have to download it from some random website and hope they don't destroy your system.
What percentage of open source distribution occurs over P2P networks
My guess is approximately 0%. The open source community is very concerned with security, much more than proprietary vendors. This is partly because of the types of people that want to be part of the community, but partly also because everything is open: if someone does it wrong, lots of people will complain on mailing lists and in other public places.
I think you may be confused about the terminology. That's not surprising given that there is big money behind a campaign aimed to confuse everyone. Here's a clarification of some terms:
- Free software: Software that gives you freedom (to use, modify, redistribute). The main organization in this community is the Free Software Foundation. Their flagship is the GNU operating system, which is used in combination with the Linux kernel. Many people call this system simply "Linux", even though there is much more in it than that. Other famous free programs are Firefox and Apache (the world's most popular web server).
- Open source software: Exactly the same thing; Eric Raymond gave it a new name because when people hear "Free software", they think of "no money". Also, "Freedom" sounds a bit scary to corporations. Raymond started the Open Source Initiative to bring the free software ideals to the corporate world.
- Freeware: Proprietary software that doesn't cost money. This is often not free software, and I trust it less than I trust proprietary software. Nowadays mostly famous as "free to play" games.
- Proprietary software: Software which uses copyright as it was intended. Windows and most programs that run on it are proprietary.
- Copyleft: the use of copyright law to do the opposite: allow redistribution to anyone as long as you give your users the same right you received. The idea is to guarantee freedom to all users. (This is contrary to public domain, which you can modify and then redistribute under a non-free license.)
The software that is sent over P2P networks is mostly illegal copies of proprietary software. That has nothing to do with free/open source software, and I agree that those are very likely to be dangerous.
Personal security is still a potential risk for the Mom & Pop who only use their computer to read email, view facebook, and do their online banking.
Microsoft and others have shown time and time again that they don't care about their users. I don't trust them with my security; I have much more trust in a program that can be inspected by many people.
The average person doesn't have the time nor technical desire to try to install something to replace Windows or OSX, depending on the platform.
Oh, if you mean by "doing so well" that many people have it installed, sure. I was talking about user satisfaction. I've talked to quite a few people who have Windows 8 because their computer came with it. I don't think I've seen even a single one of them that was happy with it. But indeed, it doesn't bother them to the level that they replace it.
Windows 8's biggest feature is that it resembles the same interface used on mobile devices
Except it doesn't, because most people don't have a Windows phone. My limited exposure to it had me frustrated that it doesn't seem to understand that it is installed on a laptop as opposed to a tablet. I think I'm not alone with that either.
Respectfully, it would make it 'nearly' impossible for the average citizen who happens on the signal to gain access before their conscience talked them out of it, but for someone intent on gaining access it does not.
What are you trying to protect against? If you have the NSA or a similarly resourceful entity after you personally, I'm not sure if anything can help you. Most people aren't in that situation. The threat is from entities (government or otherwise) that try to get access to as many systems as possible. Taking your computer off the internet (as you seem to suggest) would still be an effective defense, but it gets in the way of getting angry and depressed.
Good encryption is something that hasn't been cracked yet. Of course you never know if it really hasn't, but it's the best we have. If encryption works as intended, people sniffing the line cannot decipher the messages that are sent.
However, you are not talking about this now; you are talking about breaking into the computer. That's a whole different beast. Windows is known for its vulnerabilities and once you have a connection you shouldn't have a hard time getting in, unless there is a very good administrator on it. But if there is, it's unlikely that they are running Windows.
Now I'm not claiming that free software can protect you against everything. Operating systems are so complex, that it's almost impossible to make break ins impossible. But a lot of free software users care about it, and quite a few of them can and do audit the parts of the code that are sensitive. Also, lots of code is read just to learn from it, and if someone finds a problem while doing that, it is also reported and fixed. That system gives me a lot more confidence than "the vendor doesn't care much about you, and if there's a problem, you have to wait for them to fix it and until that happens you're screwed".
