|
bump_fn posted:this post is a call from your bank we need your routing and account number I wonder how many average people would actually give the correct answer to both of those if they were legit trying to buy into whatever scam the guy was selling. They can barely manage to type addresses correctly.
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 11:40 |
|
|
Optimus_Rhyme posted:"Hi, this is you bank calling. We've had some gently caress up with a new teller. Can you take a picture of your check and confirm your account number is 443567843?" "how do i take a picture?" "ok here you go *picture of check from their grandma from 1998*" "i tried faxing it but it didn't work" "ok here's my real check *picture of parking ticket or something that doesn't look like a check at all*"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:i find apple's whole "if it's not signed right you have to go into the settings screen to explicitly allow it using a button that nothing in the denial dialog tells you exists" incredibly frustrating and therefore a real good solution for normies, good on you apple No one normal owns a Mac tho
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
Chris Knight posted:so how many do you have i've had about 20 in total. got 3 now
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
Lain Iwakura posted:reminds me of how a customer at $av_vendor was pissed off when we told them that we wouldn't give them follow the sun support for their inability to understand that you don't go and update the software across the board. that said, the software was poo poo but still you don't go deploying crap without testing how it'll affect things for further context on that chat snippet: - the software they are talking to the support engineering team for is the 5 year old version too - the bug they have was fixed in an update 4 years ago - they claim it would be too hard to update all 5000 of their endpoints to a new version, but - it is impossible to fix this, even with a custom patch, without updating all the endpoints to a new version, because the bug exists both client and server side
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
Plug this Web key into the USB drive on your computer. what is with this copy
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:just show up to DEFCON with a pad of paper, an analog watch, and one of those old big-rear end camcorders that takes full-size VHS cassettes Nah nah just show up with obscure devices on obscure yet still operating networks (if applicable). Like let's say a gridpad with mobitex modem, one of those mid 80s digital watches that docked onto a keyboard assembly the size of your forearm, and a digital8 camcorder
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
lol @ how estonia is 90% powered by two of the most polluting possible power plant designs on earth
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
most casino machines aren't required to be as random as possible, they're instead designed to meet standards of payback rates if applicable, and standards of "the user can't literally just push some hidden key combo and always win" at all times. sometimes ensuring that say slot machines meet a state's "minimum 95% money in is returned to a customer" laws might require the machine to periodically cheat in the favor of whoever's standing in front of it when it notices that its payout rate over an audit term is too low. having it come up in a known prng state might even have been handy for being able to perform tests showing that it was in compliance.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
lol right to be forgotten more like incentive to have people spitefully rehost everything possible
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:"Your company property is not allowed to reference me. Please provide me with proof you've removed my contact information from all your systems." "you don't have an expensive enough lawyer for that, get hosed idiot"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
a few billion euro fine toa tech company, aka, a 1,000 euro fine paid after the next 8 years of litigation
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:Go away, Nintendo Kid nice meltdown, guy who is literally too dumb to know google's primary business is ads
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
wow, it's almost like the idea of "right to be forgotten" is stupid as hell and has made sense never in the history of the world as some sort of all-reaching order
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Maximum Leader posted:no when it comes to financial data like that you're allowed to keep it which makes the whole thing loving pointless lol ate all the Oreos posted:fishmech is just keeping on brand with his whole "privacy never actually existed" schtick hey guess what: that's true. but also you can't actually make people forget anything, or keep them from talking in private. which is why this is really dumb
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Bonfire Lit posted:
in actual practice existing laws like these tend to be used to cover up when some rich/powerful/connected guy gets caught in a massive scandal or something and they want to try to hide as much related documentation as possible. or depending on country, just regular people who are mad about some embarrassing thing they did still being spread. but since people already know about the embarassing thing, newspapers have already been printed, etc etc its not really effective about hiding the thing, though it tends to cause things to rise to get more embroidered. a particular aspect is that, say, if you search on google.de for a certain person you'll get a message about hidden search results, but if you just go on google.com you can see the thing they wanted hidden just fine. this particular set of legislation is basically being written and passed in response to several different court rulings along those issues in recent years, for example there was a 2014 ECJ case that led to this http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets/factsheet_data_protection_en.pdf
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Cybernetic Vermin posted:do you know something else that has never actually existed? corporations. and we agree to pretend they exist in exchange for them fitting into a legal framework we choose. in this framework they have no right to store personal information willy-nilly corporations have literally existed for hundreds of years. also people do have the right to store personal information of other people. it's called being conscious. you may not be familiar with it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Arcsech posted:people may, corporations do not, because corporations are not people corporations are made of people, many of who are probably going to remember whatever thing someone's trying to cover up. corporations are legally people everywhere that corporations exist. that is the concept of the corporation, a single person that acts for multiple.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Cybernetic Vermin posted:that is a fantastically stupid idea, we are granting corporations rights which the people working for the corporation does not have individually Cybernetic Vermin posted:
what are you even talking about at this point. fact is the embarrassing thing people attempt to use these rulings to hide from are likely to be made more notorious by the attempt to hide them. not to mention that current EU jurisprudence is that most attempted instances of invoking "right to be forgotten" probably won't be approved by legal force, but would instead need to be basically a voluntary thing by the companies involved. your apparent idea of an expansive right everyone already has that is being taken away is not backed by law or courts or sense. fishmech fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Jul 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
dude understands corporations on about the level ur typical greythread understands a strong digital defense lmboShaman Linavi posted:i had an email secfuck this week when i got someone's direct deposit info/address because a company confused the l(L) in his email with the I(i) in mine should have sent him $5
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
duz posted:i couldn't make it to this talk to see how bitcoin can solve healthcare If you die waiting for the medical chain to confirm, your illness never happened. Healthcare solved.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
Mr SuperAwesome posted:lol i was hopin to see some funny defcon poo poo but no 3 pages of spergin about backups defcon was mostly lame this year
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Arcsech posted:what the gently caress is this post about and why does anyone care nearly 10 year old defcon joke
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
FAT32 SHAMER posted:ok that explains a lot more I think it was the post Graham did before he banned himself
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
MononcQc posted:the Quebec government argument there is that there is a strong separation of state and religion, and if you're working as a provincial employee, you represent the government and should also not represent any religion. lol @ all of this quebec
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:that's incredibly depressing, i hope i never have to live in boston "it's incredibly depressing that it's easy to have coffee and a donut from a local store. getting coffee and a donut should be hard." -you, 2017
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:it's because dunkin donuts isn't good Whatever artisinal bullshit coffee shop you like is what sucks
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:unironically agree with this, society needs fewer fried dough stores that are harder to access Cool poor hating, chief.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:Yes, Dunkin Donuts, bastion of the hungry poor. loving moron. You're the guy who thinks Google's primary business is search and not ads, lmao
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:you're the guy arguing in the secfuck thread that being against dunkin donuts is "poor hating" It is, because it is. Typical, how dare people be able to eat the food they like. It should be harder to get to (read: no longer possible for those undeserving poor)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:being pro- lovely fast food is not the same as being pro-poor people. never has been Dunkin Donuts, is good
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
still haven't seen any evidence that security updates are being "a/b tested" but rather just that 55 was too buggy and they're holding off until 55.0.2 is out (55.0.1 was already out)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:there's apparently a new ublock origin for firefox that you have to remove and reinstall? lol https://twitter.com/ronindey/status/902645903210815489 it's a thing where it will ahve problems moving the database for ublock settings forward to the new storage setup. for some people it transfers fine for others it doesnt. if you dont care about your previous settings, you can simply set up ublock again, pickign ur lists etc. if you happened to have a backup of previous settings you can reimport your filters and such
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
surebet posted:so what i'm hearing is "stop burdening local orgs getting computers with added costs of ram purchases", right? yes, no reason to remove the ram to avoid data leakage. if some auditor is still concerned, running a round of memtest86 would inherently flush anything left on there anyway in the process of testing the ram.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:they do that all the time
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:So supposedly the ir part prevents you from using a photo, right? Does this mean if you paint ir reflective paint on the irises of a photo it will still work? You'll find out at whatever the next convention is!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
i'm just baffled by the whole decision as it's designed to like work when you're quite a few feet away by design. and probably can't handle something like "the user looks angry so we know we shouldn't unlock" it's almost like it's designed so a hostile actor has plenty of ability to get you to unlock the phone unwillingly
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 11:40 |
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:as i mentioned before a PIN is compelled speech while "look at your phone" would probably fall under the same rules as fingerprints and be physical evidence or whatever, so at the very least this wouldn't work if we assume the rule of law still exists (which is a pretty big assumption lol) or you know, "look at me" is a valid order and the cop can just hold the phone up at the same time.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2017 21:33
|
|