fweespee_ch

Honestly, shoplifting and other small scale financial crime committed by individuals who are not conspiring, should be largely considered in financial terms.

$11-15[1] by 2020 is a reasonable national range for a minimum wage with certain states/localities raising it higher. The simple fact is, the peach picker in rural Georgia has a lower cost of living than the Subway "sandwhich artist" in NYC.

[1] 2016 Dollars, permanently adjusting for inflation against 2016 USD indefinitely. This whole "random correct every so often" is simply disruptive to both businesses and workers since it makes projection difficult compared to small, annual raises linked to inflation.

Yes but by "upsell" you mean "extort by way of feature removal after the product was purchased".

And how many members of the general population do you think are aware of this?

> I understand "the" NHS is complex, but it's pretty frustrating talking to someone who has very strong opinions and who clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.

It probably has something to do with the fact you are completely missing the point I'm discussing rather than the strength of my opinions.

So if you change the master password regularly, they'd need to hack a database in that time window and steal your codebook. I highly doubt anyone would put that level of effort in.

2) You asked why they were astonished. Well, #1 is why. Most people don't have the time/energy/desire to study the implementation details on every facet of their lives.

> "All necessary safeguards would be in place to ensure protection of patients' details - the data will be anonymised and the process will be carefully and robustly regulated.

> "Proper regulation and essential safeguards need to be in place when it comes to patients data," he said. "It cannot be done in a way where essential rules are threatened."

The legality of these data sharing laws start off with public promises of anonymization, robust regulation, safeguards, and privacy.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/2014/01/geraint-lewis/

> Amber data are where we remove each patient’s identifiers (their date of birth, postcode, and so on) and replace them with a meaningless pseudonym that bears no relationship to their “real world” identity. Amber data are essential for tracking how individuals interact with the different parts of the NHS and social care over time. For example, using amber data we can see how the NHS cares for cohorts of patients who are admitted repeatedly to hospital but who seldom visit their GP. In theory, a determined analyst could attempt to re-identify individuals within amber data by linking them to other data sets. For this reason, we never publish amber data. Instead, amber data are only made available under a legal contract to approved analysts for approved purposes. The contract stipulates how the data must be stored and protected, and how the data must be destroyed afterwards. Any attempt to re-identify an individual is strictly prohibited and there is a range of criminal and civil penalties for any infringements.

The problem with psuedonymous data is the NHS basically admits it can be used to identify people given sufficient effort.

---

That is why people are "astonished" by these decisions. The politician provides the initial promises that imply anonymity, the implementation doesn't provide true anonymity but provides criminal penalties for pulling off the mask, and then the data is handed to enough 3rd parties if such data is leaked its likely impossible to know by whom unless the data was tampered with to provide a per-contract identifier.

I understand this specific decision did not involve a politician but the conversation was why people are surprised. How many people do you think really know the anonymity originally promised became a permeable pseudonym?

Because politicians keep making promises in regards to privacy that they don't keep in regards to "confidential" information.

Similarly, most of the medical value from such information [e.g. Frequency of X within a given population fitting certain characteristics] would likely deanonymize people.

It would happen if Gavin was Satoshi. Gavin attempts to permanently deflect things on to a smooth talking conman with liquidity problems to maintain his privacy.

Hell, he could even give Wright some of the bitcoins as payment for the cover.

I think the problem with this is their ideological goals are to starve the beast and play at being antiestablishment. They were always unscrupulous about the how and have been since at least 2011 when I first noticed they existed.

I honestly don't think the tone has changed substantially.

Does anyone else feel this is particularly generous?

ZeroHedge is borderline conspiracy theorist nonsense surrounded by occasionally correct financial analysis with a level of accuracy on par with a dart board.

They are clearly lying through indirection unfortunately. :P

I think a couple years ago they got tired of their stock tanking every time they reported a lower profit than previous quarters.

Sorry, that isn't likely. We have basically "infinite" (50+ years worth) of Oil @ $100 [1] [2] [3] a barrel which is why all those shale wells came online when oil was priced higher. We've already been ~$100 for years at a time. Similarly, the shift to greener technologies is going to put downward pressure on it once it is back to the ~$100 baseline from years past.

[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-03/texas-toug...

[2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2016/02/29/the-break-eve...

[3] http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/20/us-crude-oils-break-even-cost...

I wouldn't have a desire to reveal that either.

That is the illusion many people have convinced themselves of but literally 0 of my coworkers could answer the questions I was asked simply because don't have similar responsibilities despite us applying for literally word-for-word identical job ads.

The reality is, unless you do X regularly, you simply aren't going to be able to impress people with your answer to X.

Really the only problem we have is the fact the US keeps using it as a tool of assassination which results in too much collateral damage:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-...

The problem with this stance is it appears to be a conflict of interest. The easier it is to access a booter site, the more people who need Cloudflare's services.

I'm not saying that is the reason they do it. I'm just saying that is a conflict of interest that can really only be resolved by removing clearly labeled booter sites.

> Think also from the customer standpoint: people who need DDoS protection are people who are having their site shutdown without due process (by criminals who launch DoS attacks). When the company you hire to fix the problem becomes part of the problem, it's not good - and they would be part of the problem if they offered a 'send us an email and we shut down our users' denial of service attack vector.

Hosting booters makes them part of the problem is the flaw in that logic.

> Computer disks and USB sticks were dropped in parking lots of government buildings and private contractors, and 60% of the people who picked them up plugged the devices into office computers. And if the drive or CD had an official logo on it, 90% were installed.

It sounds more like someone left usb sticks with logos on them in the parking lot.

There is never going to be a one-sided nuclear exchange when a substantial number of powerful, ideologically opposed countries have access to ICBMs.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11440951

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11377425

I mean if you are going to accuse me of being a liar, you may want to at least check to see if I mentioned having other accounts first.

Also, you may want to consider the OP was posted in 2013 to HN and I've said publicly I've been around on and off since 2010.

Look folks, maybe as part of some second or third factor it might be okay...but you still need a password.

> The security mechanisms in snap packages allow us to open up the platform for much faster iteration across all of our flavours as snap applications are isolated from the rest of the system. Users can install a snap without having to worry whether it will have an impact on their other apps or their system. Similarly, developers have a much better handle on the update cycle as they can decide to bundle specific versions of a library with their app. Transactional updates make deployments of snap packages more robust and reliable.

> By bringing snap packages to Ubuntu 16.04 LTS we are unifying the experience for Ubuntu developers, whether they are creating software for PC, Server, Mobile, and IoT Devices. Snapcraft, a tool available for snap development, makes it easy for developers to package their apps and dependencies. Developers targeting snap packages get a great environment to write and test their applications – directly on their desktop, rather than being forced to use a device or a virtual machine.

I think it is just a poorly worded announcement that implied security isolation on Ubuntu 16.04 LTS when that was not the intention.

Similarly, they are just as secure as apt so there is no loss of security so the claim of the OP's title is misleading.

It doesn't matter to me tbh. They want to investigate, they can.

I just don't want them to be able to "scale" their investigations like they seem to want so they can get into all encrypted communications without a serious financial hurdle because they'll abuse it.

> I don't know if I understand the hypocrisy of hn. We cry "oh humanity" when Ford pays $50k over sticker for a new Tesla car for reverse engineering but of course if the FBI does something then surely they were judicious with their purse strings.

I didn't. Generalizing like that is unhealthy because it causes you to make some silly assumptions.