jointhedvnc
Joseph@FXX
jointhedvnc

I don't know about that. Just because something hasn't been secured doesn't mean it can't be. That sounds too much like a sound barrier to me. There's now a mythology of unbelief, and that's just as not helpful as a lack of sound security. http://www.thedvnc.org/newsblog/2014/…

Now playing

Oh metadata. So not a real term in this context.

Thank you, Alan. I think some people give it up as a lost cause because they don't believe in the idea of privacy on the internet. It'll get hacked eventually, or whatever. I think sometimes we need to question the premise of why you can't have privacy among the doubters and the apathetic. There is actually

Given how much has changed in IE over the last few years, I'm really surprised there would be a single codeset in common that could be vulnerable from 8 or 9 through to 11

Exactly! that level of increase isn't worth talking about. Is that a typo, missing a digit maybe?

The question I have is why do so many rely on just this implementation? At some level someone has to do a risk assessment, right? How could this not be a liability time-bomb if everyone uses an obviously underfunded solution?

I wonder if these rules will stick or get struck down in a few years like the last set...

Excellent point. The whole content ownership thing especially, that's what really matters.

It's funny you mention dashcams. It's so easy to want to install a dashcam, but yet mandatory cameras are scary? It's probably more likely a WiFi enabled dashcam is bugged and being recorded than a manufacturer installed one. Still, the point isn't its role, its how it can be abused.

Think of these as WiFi cameras. Unsecured WiFi cameras aren't being recorded 24/7 that we know of, but intruders could track someone by breaking into enough of them. For cars, there already network connectivity through a user's existing phone. There's no reason to think an intruder couldn't use the phone's