Rjevski

It doesn’t work. Only honest callers would follow this. In addition, looking up a number in there is paid which is less than ideal. The service itself is already an inconvenience to its “target market” (aka telemarketers or robocallers) so at least you should make it as easy as possible to use it.

I actually worked on a lawful telemarketing operation a few years back (don’t ask - desperate times called for desperate measures) and paying for TPS lookups was both a surprise and a huge problem.

The only reason it seems like it works is because the US is a much juicier market for the scammers so most don’t bother with the UK, but I still see people occasionally getting tech support scams or similar so clearly there’s nothing actually preventing them from spamming the UK - for now it’s just that the US is a bigger fish.

Depends on the carrier. Proper equipment should be like “WTF? This is obviously spoofed” and reject the call but then again the entire telco industry is fucked up.

I thought about a similar system but based on cryptography.

The telecoms regulators for each country would act as a CA and have their root key capable of signing anything for that particular country code, and phones would have all of them in their trust store (it could be all managed by the GSMA or something).

They would in turn issue certificates to any telecoms company that has number ranges allocated - those certs allow signing of calls for any of the number ranges the cert is for, as well as signing further certs. The telecoms company will in turn issue certificates for their customers for their assigned number only. It could be placed on the SIM card or distributed by email (perfect security isn’t needed here - “good enough” is all that’s required).

When a phone places a call it signs it with its certificate and the current date & time (to avoid replay attacks), and any equipment in the call path can verify the chain of trust all the way back to a trusted CA before relaying the call.

As the user still holds the end certificate, legitimate caller ID spoofing is still possible by them, but not anyone else.

> You're using a browser set to private or incognito mode. To continue reading articles in this mode, please log in to your Globe account.

http://archive.is/AvaqZ

I'm not sure why the quality I'm talking about is so "mystical", when hundreds of thousands of people on social media seem to have it just fine (given their reaction to the redesign), as well as pretty much anyone who talks about the Snapchat UI.

Maybe the problem isn't with my rant, but that somehow the people running that company do indeed not know what they're doing?

Basic user testing would’ve been recommended by anyone with even a tiny bit of common sense.

Either the company truly didn’t have anyone do user testing, or they did and were ignored (which doesn’t surprise me either considering the child they appointed as “CEO”).

I would ageee with you for cases where both sides had a strong argument, but in Snapchat’s case everyone was complaining about the new UI, so I’m not sure how to describe that sense - people who complained are from all different ages & backgrounds so it’s not like they had UI design experience or anything - “common sense” is probably the only thing they all had in common and that thing alone was enough for them to determine the UI sucked.

In this case, simply doing some basic user-testing would’ve been considered common sense and would’ve brought up the problem immediately.

> your existing users have a very different set of needs and priorities as new users coming onto your platform, or not yet users you want to attract

In this case you should side with your existing users who 1) you already convinced to sign up and engage with your product 2) helped you build your product in the first place.

I’d take an established power-user any day over a potential new user that has yet to prove themselves (they might quit the platform as quickly as they joined).

Of course, some idiots don’t understand this, and “Twitter” is the result.

Snapchat didn’t need A/B testing. Snapchat needed someone with common sense to take a look at the new design and say “this is bullshit!”

Sadly this didn’t happen because the entire company is based on a lack of common sense by the looks of it.

Seems like there will be no reason for the bad guys not to shoot at law enforcement anymore.

> a good way is using the time provided by mobile basestations

That would definitely not be Stratum-1, so I wouldn’t recommend it.

The new redesign completely melts down my MacBook (2016, so not outdated by any means) every time I try to load a page. It’s loading more shit JavaScript than actual content.

I’m not sure what is it that you find good about the new design? The old one did the job perfectly with the added bonus on working on less powerful machines.

I think he’s referring to Snapchat’s initial UI around 2013. This was the best UI - one single list of all your sent & received snaps and that’s it. No stories, no “discover”, no bullshit. Just double tap on any contact you want to send a snap to and you’re good to go.

There was also this lovely feature where you could see anyone’s “best friends” (aka who’s banging who).

As someone who’s Snapchat’s target market I greatly miss all of that. After they ruined the app I deleted my account and never looked back.

Make a fake ID confirming the fake date of birth and see if that works? Either way you have nothing to lose.

Can it? A particular recording can be copyrighted, but as far as I know nothing prevents someone from singing it themselves and selling that.

Veracrypt is a maintained fork.

We stop them when we no longer needs cookies and the market demands privacy-respecting services.

I personally stopped visiting a lot of sites that have them. For example, I no longer even consider clicking on Tumblr links or anything by the cancer company called "Oath" (ex Yahoo).

When enough people do this there will be a business incentive for less cookies & tracking.

I’m more impressed by having WiFi on such a Mac rather than the Spotify client itself.

> The company says the move comes in recognition of the fact that Twitter is often most useful in real time, particularly during live events such as sports games or the Oscars.

It took those idiots 4 years to admit that, wow.

I know there are perverse incentives at play in favour of the bullshit “algorithmic” feed (you can’t tell when you reach the end, so you end up spending more time on the app and more “engagement” for the bean counters) but in case of Twitter the real-time nature of it is literally the main purpose of the product (and what made it successful in the first place) so I would’ve expected common sense to prevail... apparently that was too much to ask.

No stats on whether anyone was caught or prosecuted, and I guess that’s because nobody was.

Laws are sometimes stupid.

However this assumes they will be able to trace back the device to you. If you do it properly (I guess start with not leaving 3 phones with active SIM cards inside) they won’t be able to and you can enjoy your sweet revenge.

A lot of social media “bots” are actually human farms against which no captcha can defend.

Selenophenol: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2012/05/15/th...

> The biggest stinker I have run across... Imagine 6 skunks wrapped in rubber innertubes and the whole thing is set ablaze. That might approach the metaphysical stench of this material.

> if they lose control of their car and hurt or kill some innocent driver / bystander

Wouldn't this be the responsibility of the thief/driver for fiddling with the package while driving in the first place? Otherwise you may as well sue any manufacturer because you happened to have an accident while interacting with any item while driving.

This is good but I wish he used something that inflicts actual monetary damage, like paint or something. Glitter is fun and all but is relatively easy to clean up. Paint is usually impossible to take off from fabric and would cost quite a bit if it were to explode in these assholes' cars for example. Would teach them a good lesson.

Considering how much card fraud (and other stuff like money laundering, etc) happens all the time on the Internet and nothing gets done, do you really think someone is going to care?

Tracking?

So far the only thing I saw that could break previous "squiggly text" style captchas was some research papers. I have yet to see any of it used in the wild.

So I doubt spammers brought this upon us - the previous captchas were more than effective at keeping them at bay already.

The real reason is shitty Google being greedy and needing someone to label their training data.

TLDR: malware uses meme images containing hidden instructions posted on Twitter as a way to receive commands. It's one-way communication though - the result of the operation is still uploaded to a C&C server.

Is that a problem? Swear words have their place in a language. You should explain when it’s appropriate and when not to use these words instead of pretending they don’t exist.