Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Germany Fines Google Over Street View - But Says €145k Is Too Small

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the price-of-doing-business dept.

Google 106

judgecorp writes "Germany's privacy regulator has fined Google €145,000 over its Street View cars' harvesting of private data — but the official has complained that the size of the fine is too small, because of limits to the fines regulators can impose. German data protection commissioner Johannes Caspar said the fine was too low, for 'one of the largest known data breachers ever,' saying, 'as long as privacy violations can be punished only at discount prices, enforcement of data protection law in the digital world with its high abuse potential is hardly possible.' In 2010 it emerged that Google's Street View cars captured personal data from Wi-Fi networks as well as taking pictures — since then regulators have imposed a series of fines — the largest being $7 million reportedly paid to settle a U.S. government probe."

cancel ×

106 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

They need to shut up and get over it. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43515575)

By making that silly mistake Google opened the door to the whole line of Scroogled commercials and other FUD based attacks by their rivals.

The market is correcting this mistake and "imposing harsher fines" is just more ammunition for them to use on some dumb kid whose trying to sniff dirty pictures from other people's wifi connections.

Re:They need to shut up and get over it. (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about a year ago | (#43515865)

By making that silly mistake Google opened the door to the whole line of Scroogled commercials and other FUD based attacks by their rivals.

The market is correcting this mistake and "imposing harsher fines" is just more ammunition for them to use on some dumb kid whose trying to sniff dirty pictures from other people's wifi connections.

The "market" would never know about this if the government agencies hadn't investigated. They could just have ignored the whole issue. In fact it was quite specifically the German authorities that brought this up by auditing the Street View system. The only possible way to do this is to have a special authority which has the right to investigate and punish. The punishments must be more than the amount that the company can expect to make.

Re:They need to shut up and get over it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43516033)

Google came out themselves about the issue. If anything, these years of fighting over the issue should make companies not want to disclose voluntarily.

Re:They need to shut up and get over it. (3, Informative)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about a year ago | (#43516249)

Google came out themselves about the issue. If anything, these years of fighting over the issue should make companies not want to disclose voluntarily.

This article from Tech Eye [techeye.net] says that it the admission was forced by a request to audit from the German authorities. Do you have a more specific time line for this?

Re:They need to shut up and get over it. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43516347)

Google came out themselves about the issue. If anything, these years of fighting over the issue should make companies not want to disclose voluntarily.

This is not correct, and I don't know why this re-written history keeps getting repeated on geek sites like Slashdot.

Google actually first guaranteed the German authorities that they were not collecting anything. And first after the German authorities despite this assurance still demanded a full audit of the data anyway, did Google do their disclosure (source: see link below).

This sequence of events was covered extensively in European press (one of many sources [guardian.co.uk] ), and I don't know how mostly US geek sites ended up with and keep repeating an alternative version.

Re:They need to shut up and get over it. (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year ago | (#43518597)

I guess some people simply still can't accept that Google is not the white knight, but a company like any other.

Re:They need to shut up and get over it. (1)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about a year ago | (#43519511)

I guess some people simply still can't accept that Google is not the white knight, but a company like any other.

That's an insult to most companies.

Re:They need to shut up and get over it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43521441)

Aaaaaahhh, the sweet sweet smell of Microsoft FUD....

Re:They need to shut up and get over it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43517271)

"The "market" would never know about this if the government agencies hadn't investigated."

Two related points on this claim. First, so what? If people permitted to structure resources freely do not care to support and provide a service to investigate such things, what does that say about the value of this knowledge in the eyes of that society? Market failure in this sense is a contradiction in terms; that which people care so little about that they dismiss as less valuable usage of scarce resources is then by definition less valuable to that society. If the unthreatened, unhindered, and uncontrolled voluntary and peaceful actions of society do not produce investigation into this area, then people did not actually want it.

Secondly, those resources that support the non-peacefully chosen investigative body have already been hoovered up by the state. You cannot wring your hands in mock concern over the inability of people to solve some problem peacefully when it is already being done violently. That nonsensical thinking would permit arguments like 'well, the market would have never solved the problem of harvesting cotton if the government agencies hadn't captured and enforced the continued captivity of slaves'. This was actually a common argument in that time; the government was the means by which slavery could possibly 'work' and so peaceful solutions to things like picking cotton did not come about until the statist 'solution' was abandoned(in the most bloody way possible too, compared to the simple solution of just buying the slaves and no longer enforcing their enslavement). So let us not suppose the 'market' cannot solve problems simply by the fact that governments currently monopolize the service in question. That is to assume too much.

Re:They need to shut up and get over it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43520039)

Google admitted it... That's where the probe came from. But thanks for being informed on the topic.

Re:They need to shut up and get over it. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43515911)

Amen dude. The fucking Krauts are just acting like Nazis again, using their gov't to make a BIG FUCKING DEAL out of a whole lotta nothin.

The proposed solution, as always, is to give gov't more power to more harshly enforce laws. Gov't people are like a fuckin idiot that only has a hammer - he thinks everything is a nail.

Privacy protection with custom HOST file... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43515581)

A corrupt slashdot luser has pentrated the moderation system to downmod all my posts while impersonating me.

Nearly 230++ times that I know of @ this point for all of March/April 2013 so far, & others here have told you to stop - take the hint, lunatic (leave slashdot)...

Sorry folks - but whoever the nutjob is that's attempting to impersonate me, & upset the rest of you as well, has SERIOUS mental issues, no questions asked! I must've gotten the better of him + seriously "gotten his goat" in doing so in a technical debate & his "geek angst" @ losing to me has him doing the:

---

A.) $10,000 challenges, ala (where the imposter actually TRACKED + LISTED the # of times he's done this no less, & where I get the 230 or so times I noted above) -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3585795&cid=43285307 [slashdot.org]

&/or

B.) Reposting OLD + possibly altered models - (this I haven't checked on as to altering the veracity of the info. being changed) of posts of mine from the past here

---

(Albeit massively repeatedly thru all threads on /. this March/April 2013 nearly in its entirety thusfar).

* Personally, I'm surprised the moderation staff here hasn't just "blocked out" his network range yet honestly!

(They know it's NOT the same as my own as well, especially after THIS post of mine, which they CAN see the IP range I am coming out of to compare with the ac spamming troll doing the above...).

APK

P.S.=> Again/Stressing it: NO guys - it is NOT me doing it, as I wouldn't waste that much time on such trivial b.s. like a kid might...

Plus, I only post where hosts file usage is on topic or appropriate for a solution & certainly NOT IN EVERY POST ON SLASHDOT (like the nutcase trying to "impersonate me" is doing for nearly all of March/April now, & 230++ times that I know of @ least)... apk

P.S.=> here is CORRECT host file information just to piss off the insane lunatic troll:

--

21++ ADVANTAGES OF CUSTOM HOSTS FILES (how/what/when/where/why):

Over AdBlock & DNS Servers ALONE 4 Security, Speed, Reliability, & Anonymity (to an extent vs. DNSBL's + DNS request logs).

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program). A truly "multi-platform" UNIVERSAL solution for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent (vs. DNS request logs + DNSBL's you feel are unjust hosts get you past/around).

2.) Adblock blocks ads? Well, not anymore & certainly not as well by default, apparently, lol - see below:

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option [slashdot.org] )

AND, in only browsers & their subprogram families (ala email like Thunderbird for FireFox/Mozilla products (use same gecko & xulrunner engines)), but not all, or, all independent email clients, like Outlook, Outlook Express, OR Window "LIVE" mail (for example(s)) - there's many more like EUDORA & others I've used over time that AdBlock just DOES NOT COVER... period.

Disclaimer: Opera now also has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc..

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF (non-mozilla/gecko engine based) family based wares, So AdBlock doesn't protect email programs like Outlook, Outlook Express, Windows "LIVE" mail & others like them (EUDORA etc./et al), Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 5-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, OR make you reach them faster since you resolve host-domain names LOCALLY w/ hosts out of cached memory, hosts do ALL of those things (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html [networkworld.com] for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions (in-addr.arpa) via NSLOOKUP, PINGS (ping -a in Windows), &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

* NOW - Some folks MAY think that putting an IP address alone into your browser's address bar will be enough, so why bother with HOSTS, right? WRONG - Putting IP address in your browser won't always work IS WHY. Some IP adresses host several domains & need the site name to give you the right page you're after is why. So for some sites only the HOSTS file option will work!

6.) Hosts files don't eat up CPU cycles (or ELECTRICITY) like AdBlock does while it parses a webpages' content, nor as much as a DNS server does while it runs. HOSTS file are merely a FILTER for the kernel mode/PnP TCP/IP subsystem, which runs FAR FASTER & MORE EFFICIENTLY than any ring 3/rpl3/usermode app can since hosts files run in MORE EFFICIENT & FASTER Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode operations acting merely as a filter for the IP stack (via the "Plug-N-Play" designed IP stack in Windows) vs. SLOWER & LESS EFFICIENT Ring 3/RPL 3/Usermode operations (which webbrowsers run in + their addons like AdBlock slow down even MORESO due to their parsing operations).

7.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than remote DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server, typically 30-100's of ms, vs. 7-10ms HardDisk speed of access/seek + SSD seek in ns, & back to you - hosts resolutions of IP address for host-domain names is FAR faster...). Hosts are only a filter for an already fast & efficient IP stack, no more layered b.s. (remote OR local). Hosts eat less CPU, RAM, I/O in other forms, + electricity than a locally running DNS server easily, and less than a local DNS program on a single PC. Fact. Hosts are easier to setup & maintain too.

8.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:

GOOD INFORMATION ON MALWARE BEHAVIOR LISTING BOTNET C&C SERVERS + MORE (AS WELL AS REMOVAL LISTS FOR HOSTS):

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org]
  http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ [someonewhocares.org]
  http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html [hostsfile.org]
  http://hostsfile.mine.nu/downloads/ [hostsfile.mine.nu]
  http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download [hosts-file.net]
  https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=online [abuse.ch]
  https://spyeyetracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php [abuse.ch]
  http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
  http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml [malware.com.br]
  http://www.stopbadware.org/ [stopbadware.org]
Spybot "Search & Destroy" IMMUNIZE feature (fortifies HOSTS files with KNOWN bad servers blocked)

And yes: Even SLASHDOT &/or The Register help!

(Via articles on security (when the source articles they use are "detailed" that is, & list the servers/sites involved in attempting to bushwhack others online that is... not ALL do!)).

2 examples thereof in the past I have used, & noted it there, are/were:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1898692&cid=34473398 [slashdot.org]
  http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1896216&cid=34458500 [slashdot.org]

9.) AdBlock & DNS servers are programs, and subject to bugs programs can get. Hosts files are merely a filter and not a program, thus not subject to bugs of the nature just discussed.

10.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders [slashdot.org]

11.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org] ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)

12.) With Adblock you had better be able to code javascript to play with its code (to customize it better than the GUI front does @ least). With hosts you don't even need source to control it (edit, update, delete, insert of new entries via a text editor).

13.) Hosts files are easily secured via using MAC/ACL (even moreso "automagically" for Vista, 7/Server 2008 + beyond by UAC by default) &/or Read-Only attributes applied.

14.) Custom HOSTS files also speed you up, unlike anonymous proxy servers systems variations (like TOR, or other "highly anonymous" proxy server list servers typically do, in the severe speed hit they often have a cost in) either via "hardcoding" your fav. sites into your hosts file (avoids DNS servers, totally) OR blocking out adbanners - see this below for evidence of that:

---

US Military Blocks Websites To Free Up Bandwidth:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/03/16/0416238/US-Military-Blocks-Websites-To-Free-Up-Bandwidth [slashdot.org]

(Yes, even the US Military used this type of technique... because IT WORKS! Most of what they blocked? Ad banners ala doubleclick etc.)

---

Adbanners slow you down & consume your bandwidth YOU pay for:

ADBANNERS SLOW DOWN THE WEB: -> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/30/166218 [slashdot.org]

---

And people do NOT LIKE ads on the web:

PEOPLE DISLIKE ADBANNERS: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/04/02/0058247.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

As well as this:

Users Know Advertisers Watch Them, and Hate It:

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/04/02/0058247.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

Even WORSE still, is this:

Advertising Network Caught History Stealing:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/07/22/156225/Advertising-Network-Caught-History-Stealing [slashdot.org]

---

15.) HOSTS files usage lets you avoid being charged on some ISP/BSP's (OR phone providers) "pay as you use" policy http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/08/2012243/FCC-Approving-Pay-As-You-Go-Internet-Plans [slashdot.org] , because you are using less bandwidth (& go faster doing so no less) by NOT hauling in adbanner content and processing it (which can lead to infestation by malware/malicious script, in & of itself -> http://apcmag.com/microsoft_apologises_for_serving_malware.htm [apcmag.com] ).

16.) If/when ISP/BSP's decide to go to -> FCC Approving Pay-As-You-Go Internet Plans: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/08/2012243/FCC-Approving-Pay-As-You-Go-Internet-Plans [slashdot.org] your internet bill will go DOWN if you use a HOSTS file for blocking adbanners as well as maliciously scripted hacker/cracker malware maker sites too (after all - it's your money & time online downloading adbanner content & processing it)

Plus, your adbanner content? Well, it may also be hijacked with malicious code too mind you:

---

Yahoo, Microsoft's Bing display toxic ads:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/16/bing_yahoo_malware_ads/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Malware torrent delivered over Google, Yahoo! ad services:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/24/malware_ads_google_yahoo/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Google's DoubleClick spreads malicious ads (again):

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/24/doubleclick_distributes_malware/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Rogue ads infiltrate Expedia and Rhapsody:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/30/excite_and_rhapsody_rogue_ads/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Google sponsored links caught punting malware:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/16/google_sponsored_links/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

DoubleClick caught supplying malware-tainted ads:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/13/doubleclick_distributes_malware/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Yahoo feeds Trojan-laced ads to MySpace and PhotoBucket users:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/11/yahoo_serves_12million_malware_ads/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Real Media attacks real people via RealPlayer:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/23/real_media_serves_malware/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Ad networks owned by Google, Microsoft serve malware:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/13/doubleclick_msn_malware_attacks/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Attacks Targeting Classified Ad Sites Surge:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/02/02/1433210/Attacks-Targeting-Classified-Ad-Sites-Surge [slashdot.org]

---

Hackers Respond To Help Wanted Ads With Malware:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/01/20/0228258/Hackers-Respond-To-Help-Wanted-Ads-With-Malware [slashdot.org]

---

Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC:

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/11/doubleclick [wired.com]

---

Ruskie gang hijacks Microsoft network to push penis pills:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/12/microsoft_ips_hijacked/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Major ISPs Injecting Ads, Vulnerabilities Into Web:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/04/19/2148215.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

Two Major Ad Networks Found Serving Malware:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/12/13/0128249/Two-Major-Ad-Networks-Found-Serving-Malware [slashdot.org]

---

THE NEXT AD YOU CLICK MAY BE A VIRUS:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus [slashdot.org]

---

NY TIMES INFECTED WITH MALWARE ADBANNER:

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/09/13/2346229 [slashdot.org]

---

MICROSOFT HIT BY MALWARES IN ADBANNERS:

http://apcmag.com/microsoft_apologises_for_serving_malware.htm [apcmag.com]

---

ISP's INJECTING ADS AND ERRORS INTO THE WEB: -> http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/04/19/2148215.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

ADOBE FLASH ADS INJECTING MALWARE INTO THE NET: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/20/0029220&from=rss [slashdot.org]

---

London Stock Exchange Web Site Serving Malware:

http://www.securityweek.com/london-stock-exchange-web-site-serving-malware [securityweek.com]

---

Spotify splattered with malware-tainted ads:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/25/spotify_malvertisement_attack/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

As my list "multiple evidences thereof" as to adbanners & viruses + the fact they slow you down & cost you more (from reputable & reliable sources no less)).

17.) Per point #16, a way to save some money: ANDROID phones can also use the HOSTS FILE TO KEEP DOWN BILLABLE TIME ONLINE, vs. adbanners or malware such as this:

---

Infected Androids Run Up Big Texting Bills:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/03/01/0041203/Infected-Androids-Run-Up-Big-Texting-Bills [slashdot.org]

---

AND, for protection vs. other "botnets" migrating from the PC world, to "smartphones" such as ZITMO (a ZEUS botnet variant):

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=ZITMO&btnG=Google+Search [google.com]

---

It's easily done too, via the ADB dev. tool, & mounting ANDROID OS' system mountpoint for system/etc as READ + WRITE/ADMIN-ROOT PERMISSIONS, then copying your new custom HOSTS over the old one using ADB PULL/ADB PUSH to do so (otherwise ANDROID complains of "this file cannot be overwritten on production models of this Operating System", or something very along those lines - this way gets you around that annoyance along with you possibly having to clear some space there yourself if you packed it with things!).

18.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars [arstechnica.com]

HOSTS files are NOT THAT EASILY "webbug" BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked on AdBlock in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars [arstechnica.com]

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

19.) Even WIKILEAKS "favors" blacklists (because they work, and HOSTS can be a blacklist vs. known BAD sites/servers/domain-host names):

---

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT (from -> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/16/wikileaks_mirror_malware_warning_row/ [theregister.co.uk] )

"we are in favour of 'Blacklists', be it for mail servers or websites, they have to be compiled with care... Fortunately, more responsible blacklists, like stopbadware.org (which protects the Firefox browser)...

---

20.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own (such as has been seen with the RBN (Russian Business Network) lately though it was considered "dead", other malwares are using its domains/hostnames now, & this? This stops that cold, too - Bonus!)...

21.) Custom HOSTS files gain users back more "screen real estate" by blocking out banner ads... it's great on PC's for speed along with MORE of what I want to see/read (not ads), & efficiency too, but EVEN BETTER ON SMARTPHONES - by far. It matters MOST there imo @ least, in regards to extra screen real-estate.

Still - It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock ( http://adblockplus.org/en/ [adblockplus.org] ), IE 9's new TPL's ( http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Browser/TrackingProtectionLists/ [microsoft.com] ), &/or NoScript ( http://noscript.net/ [noscript.net] especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security"....

It's just that HOSTS files offer you a LOT MORE gains than Adblock ( http://adblockplus.org/en/ [adblockplus.org] ) does alone (as hosts do things adblock just plain cannot & on more programs, for more speed, security, and "stealth" to a degree even), and it corrects problems in DNS (as shown above via hardcodes of your favorite sites into your HOSTS file, and more (such as avoiding DNS request logs)).

ALSO - Some more notes on DNS servers & their problems, very recent + ongoing ones:

---

DNS flaw reanimates slain evil sites as ghost domains:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/16/ghost_domains_dns_vuln/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

BIND vs. what the Chinese are doing to DNS lately? See here:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders [slashdot.org]

---

SECUNIA HIT BY DNS REDIRECTION HACK THIS WEEK:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/26/secunia_back_from_dns_hack/ [theregister.co.uk]

(Yes, even "security pros" are helpless vs. DNS problems in code bugs OR redirect DNS poisoning issues, & they can only try to "set the DNS record straight" & then, they still have to wait for corrected DNS info. to propogate across all subordinate DNS servers too - lagtime in which folks DO get "abused" in mind you!)

---

DNS vs. the "Kaminsky DNS flaw", here (and even MORE problems in DNS than just that):

http://www.scmagazineus.com/new-bind-9-dns-flaw-is-worse-than-kaminskys/article/140872/ [scmagazineus.com]

(Seems others are saying that some NEW "Bind9 flaw" is worse than the Kaminsky flaw ALONE, up there, mind you... probably corrected (hopefully), but it shows yet again, DNS hassles (DNS redirect/DNS poisoning) being exploited!)

---

Moxie Marlinspike's found others (0 hack) as well...

Nope... "layered security" truly IS the "way to go" - hacker/cracker types know it, & they do NOT want the rest of us knowing it too!...

(So until DNSSEC takes "widespread adoption"? HOSTS are your answer vs. such types of attack, because the 1st thing your system refers to, by default, IS your HOSTS file (over say, DNS server usage). There are decent DNS servers though, such as OpenDNS, ScrubIT, or even NORTON DNS (more on each specifically below), & because I cannot "cache the entire internet" in a HOSTS file? I opt to use those, because I have to (& OpenDNS has been noted to "fix immediately", per the Kaminsky flaw, in fact... just as a sort of reference to how WELL they are maintained really!)

---

DNS Hijacks Now Being Used to Serve Black Hole Exploit Kit:

https://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/dns-hijacks-now-being-used-serve-black-hole-exploit-kit-121211 [threatpost.com]

---

DNS experts admit some of the underlying foundations of the DNS protocol are inherently weak:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/12/08/1353203/opendns-releases-dns-encryption-tool [slashdot.org]

---

Potential 0-Day Vulnerability For BIND 9:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/11/17/1429259/potential-0-day-vulnerability-for-bind-9 [slashdot.org]

---

Five DNS Threats You Should Protect Against:

http://www.securityweek.com/five-dns-threats-you-should-protect-against [securityweek.com]

---

DNS provider decked by DDoS dastards:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/16/ddos_on_dns_firm/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Ten Percent of DNS Servers Still Vulnerable: (so much for "conscientious patching", eh? Many DNS providers weren't patching when they had to!)

http://it.slashdot.org/it/05/08/04/1525235.shtml?tid=172&tid=95&tid=218 [slashdot.org]

---

DNS ROOT SERVERS ATTACKED:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/02/06/2238225.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

TimeWarner DNS Hijacking:

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/23/2140208 [slashdot.org]

---

DNS Re-Binding Attacks:

http://crypto.stanford.edu/dns/ [stanford.edu]

---

DNS Server Survey Reveals Mixed Security Picture:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/11/21/0315239.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

Halvar figured out super-secret DNS vulnerability:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/has-halvar-figured-out-super-secret-dns-vulnerability/1520 [zdnet.com]

---

BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning:

http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/08/09/123222.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

DNS Poisoning Hits One of China's Biggest ISPs:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/08/21/2343250.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/06/03/16/1658209.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

High Severity BIND DNS Vulnerability Advisory Issued:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/02/23/156212/High-Severity-BIND-Vulnerability-Advisory-Issued [slashdot.org]

---

Photobucketâ(TM)s DNS records hijacked:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1285 [zdnet.com]

---

Protecting Browsers from DNS Rebinding Attacks:

http://crypto.stanford.edu/dns/ [stanford.edu]

---

DNS Problem Linked To DDoS Attacks Gets Worse:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/11/15/1238210/DNS-Problem-Linked-To-DDoS-Attacks-Gets-Worse [slashdot.org]

---

HOWEVER - Some DNS servers are "really good stuff" vs. phishing, known bad sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malware-in-general & malicious scripting, botnet C&C servers, & more, such as:

Norton DNS -> http://nortondns.com/ [nortondns.com]
  ScrubIT DNS -> http://www.scrubit.com/ [scrubit.com]
  OpenDNS -> http://www.opendns.com/ [opendns.com]

(Norton DNS in particular, is exclusively for blocking out malware, for those of you that are security-conscious. ScrubIT filters pr0n material too, but does the same, & OpenDNS does phishing protection. Each page lists how & why they work, & why they do so. Norton DNS can even show you its exceptions lists, plus user reviews & removal procedures requests, AND growth stats (every 1/2 hour or so) here -> http://safeweb.norton.com/buzz [norton.com] so, that ought to "take care of the naysayers" on removal requests, &/or methods used plus updates frequency etc./et al...)

HOWEVER - There's ONLY 1 WEAKNESS TO ANY network defense, including HOSTS files (vs. host-domain name based threats) & firewalls (hardware router type OR software type, vs. IP address based threats): Human beings, & they not being 'disciplined' about the indiscriminate usage of javascript (the main "harbinger of doom" out there today online), OR, what they download for example... & there is NOTHING I can do about that! (Per Dr. Manhattan of "The Watchmen", ala -> "I can change almost anything, but I can't change human nature")

HOWEVER AGAIN - That's where NORTON DNS, OpenDNS, &/or ScrubIT DNS help!

(Especially for noob/grandma level users who are unaware of how to secure themselves in fact, per a guide like mine noted above that uses "layered-security" principles!)

ScrubIT DNS, &/or OpenDNS are others alongside Norton DNS (adding on phishing protection too) as well!

( & it's possible to use ALL THREE in your hardware NAT routers, and, in your Local Area Connection DNS properties in Windows, for again, "Layered Security" too)...

---

20++ SLASHDOT USERS EXPERIENCING SUCCESS USING HOSTS FILES QUOTED VERBATIM:

---

"Ever since I've installed a host file (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm) to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)

"I use a custom /etc/hosts to block ads... my file gets parsed basically instantly ... So basically, for any modern computer, it has zero visible impact. And even if it took, say, a second to parse, that would be more than offset by the MANY seconds saved by not downloading and rendering ads. I have noticed NO ill effects from running a custom /etc/hosts file for the last several years. And as a matter of fact I DO run http servers on my computers and I've never had an /etc/hosts-related problem... it FUCKING WORKS and makes my life better overall." - by sootman (158191) on Monday July 13 2009, @11:47AM (#28677363) Homepage Journal

"I actually went and downloaded a 16k line hosts file and started using that after seeing that post, you know just for trying it out. some sites load up faster." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday November 17, @11:20AM (#38086752) Homepage Journal

"Better than an ad blocker, imo. Hosts file entries: http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org] " - by TempestRose (1187397) on Tuesday March 15, @12:53PM (#35493274)

"^^ One of the many reasons why I like the user-friendliness of the /etc/hosts file." - by lennier1 (264730) on Saturday March 05, @09:26PM (#35393448)

"They've been on my HOSTS block for years" - by ScottCooperDotNet (929575) on Thursday August 05 2010, @01:52AM (#33147212)

"I'm currently only using my hosts file to block pheedo ads from showing up in my RSS feeds and causing them to take forever to load. Regardless of its original intent, it's still a valid tool, when used judiciously." - by Bill Dog (726542) on Monday April 25, @02:16AM (#35927050) Homepage Journal

"you're right about hosts files" - by drinkypoo (153816) on Thursday May 26, @01:21PM (#36252958) Homepage

"APK's monolithic hosts file is looking pretty good at the moment." - by Culture20 (968837) on Thursday November 17, @10:08AM (#38085666)

"I also use the MVPS ad blocking hosts file." - by Rick17JJ (744063) on Wednesday January 19, @03:04PM (#34931482)

"I use ad-Block and a hostfile" - by Ol Olsoc (1175323) on Tuesday March 01, @10:11AM (#35346902)

"I do use Hosts, for a couple fake domains I use." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday December 11, @09:34AM (#34523012) Homepage

"It's a good write up on something everybody should use, why you were modded down is beyond me. Using a HOSTS file, ADblock is of no concern and they can do what they want." - by Trax3001BBS (2368736) on Monday December 12, @10:07PM (#38351398) Homepage Journal

"I want my surfing speed back so I block EVERY fucking ad. i.e. http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ [someonewhocares.org] and http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm [mvps.org] FTW" - by UnknownSoldier (67820) on Tuesday December 13, @12:04PM (#38356782)

"Let me introduce you to the file: /etc/hosts" - by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Monday December 19, @05:03PM (#38427432)

"I use a hosts file" - by EdIII (1114411) on Tuesday December 13, @01:17PM (#38357816)

"I'm tempted to go for a hacked hosts file that simply resolves most advert sites to 127.0.0.1" - by bLanark (123342) on Tuesday December 13, @01:13PM (#38357760)

"this is not a troll, which hosts file source you recommend nowadays? it's a really handy method for speeding up web and it works." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday March 22, @08:07PM (#39446525) Homepage Journal

"A hosts file certainly does not require "a lot of work" to maintain, and it quite effectively kills a LOT of advertising and tracking schemes. . In fact, I never would have considered trying to use it for ddefending against viruses or malware." - by RocketRabbit (830691) on Thursday December 30 2010, @05:48PM (#34715060)

---

Then, there is also the words of respected security expert, Mr. Oliver Day, from SECURITYFOCUS.COM to "top that all off" as well:

A RETURN TO THE KILLFILE:

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491 [securityfocus.com]

Some "PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS" to back up my points with (for starters):

---

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!

---

"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

Per my points exactly, no less... & guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly (& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 http://www.furtherleft.net/computer.htm [furtherleft.net] (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates NTCompatible.com (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> http://www.ntcompatible.com/thread28597-1.html [ntcompatible.com] !

---

"Shared host files could be beneficial for other groups as well. Human rights groups have sought after block resistant technologies for quite some time. The GoDaddy debacle with NMap creator Fyodor (corrected) showed a particularly vicious blocking mechanism using DNS registrars. Once a registrar pulls a website from its records, the world ceases to have an effective way to find it. Shared host files could provide a DNS-proof method of reaching sites, not to mention removing an additional vector of detection if anyone were trying to monitor the use of subversive sites. One of the known weaknesses of the Tor system, for example, is direct DNS requests by applications not configured to route such requests through Tor's network."

There you go: AND, it also works vs. the "KAMINSKY DNS FLAW" & DNS poisoning/redirect attacks, for redirectable weaknesses in DNS servers (non DNSSEC type, & set into recursive mode especially) and also in the TOR system as well (that lends itself to anonymous proxy usage weaknesses I noted above also) and, you'll get to sites you want to, even IF a DNS registrar drops said websites from its tables as shown here Beating Censorship By Routing Around DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/09/1840246/Beating-Censorship-By-Routing-Around-DNS [slashdot.org] & even DNSBL also (DNS Block Lists) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL [wikipedia.org] as well - DOUBLE-BONUS!

---

* POSTS ABOUT HOSTS FILES I DID on "/." THAT HAVE DONE WELL BY OTHERS & WERE RATED HIGHLY, 26++ THUSFAR (from +3 -> +1 RATINGS, usually "informative" or "interesting" etc./et al):

BANNER ADS & BANDWIDTH:2011 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2139088&cid=36077722 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907266&cid=34529608 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1490078&cid=30555632 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1869638&cid=34237268 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1461288&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=30272074 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1255487&cid=28197285 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1206409&cid=27661983 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1725068&cid=32960808 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1743902&cid=33147274 [slashdot.org]
  APK 20++ POINTS ON HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1913212&cid=34576182 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1862260&cid=34186256 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 (w/ facebook known bad sites blocked) -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1924892&cid=34670128 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS FILE MOD UP FOR ANDROID MALWARE:2010 -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34713952 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP ZEUSTRACKER:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2059420&cid=35654066 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP vs AT&T BANDWIDTH CAP:2011 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2116504&cid=35985584 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP CAN DO SAME AS THE "CloudFlare" Server-Side service:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2220314&cid=36372850 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS and BGP +5 RATED (BEING HONEST):2010 http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1901826&cid=34490450 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS & PROTECT IP ACT:2011 http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2368832&cid=37021700 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2011 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2457766&cid=37592458 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP & OPERA HAUTE SECURE:2011 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2457274&cid=37589596 [slashdot.org]
  0.0.0.0 in HOSTS:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1197039&cid=27556999 [slashdot.org]
  0.0.0.0 IN HOSTS:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1143349&cid=27012231 [slashdot.org]
  0.0.0.0 in HOSTS:2009 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1198841&cid=27580299 [slashdot.org]
  0.0.0.0 in HOSTS:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1139705&cid=26977225 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1319261&cid=28872833 [slashdot.org] (still says INSIGHTFUL)
  HOSTS MOD UP vs. botnet: 2012 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2603836&cid=38586216 [slashdot.org]

---

Windows 7, VISTA, & Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, & you may not either, depending on your point of view (mine's based solely on efficiency & security), & if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post:

1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.

So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?

Ok - since you can technically use either:

a.) 127.0.0.1 (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) 0.0.0.0 (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0

PER EACH HOSTS FILE ENTRY/RECORD...

You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??

Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.

Simply because

1.) 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) 0.0.0.0 = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
3.) 0 = 1 byte

(& HOSTS files extend across EVERY webbrowser, email program, or in general every webbound program you use & thus HOSTS are "global" in coverage this way AND function on any OS that uses the BSD derived IP stack (which most all do mind you, even MS is based off of it, as BSD's IS truly, "the best in the business"), & when coupled with say, IE restricted zones, FireFox addons like NoScript &/or AdBlock, or Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, for layered security in this capacity for webbrowsers & SOME email programs (here, I mean ones "built into" browsers themselves like Opera has for example))

MS has literally promoted bloat in this file, making it load slower from disk, into memory! This compounds itself, the more entries your HOSTS file contains... & for instance? Mine currently contains nearly 654,000 entries of known bad adbanners, bad websites, &/or bad nameservers (used for controlling botnets, misdirecting net requests, etc. et al).

Now, IF I were to use 127.0.0.1? My "huge" HOSTS file would be approximately 27mb in size... using 0.0.0.0 (next smallest) it would be 19mb in size - HOWEVER? Using 0 as my blocking IP, it is only 14mb in size. See my point?

(For loads either in the local DNS cache, or system diskcache if you run w/out the local DNS client service running, this gets slower the larger each HOSTS file entry is (which you have to stall the DNS client service in Windows for larger ones, especially if you use a "giant HOSTS file" (purely relative term, but once it goes over (iirc) 4mb in size, you have to cut the local DNS cache client service)))

NO questions asked - the physics of it backed me up in theory alone, but when I was questioned on it for PROOF thereof?

I wrote a small test program to load such a list into a "pascal record" (which is analagous to a C/C++ structure), which is EXACTLY what the DNS client/DNS API does as well, using a C/C++ structure (basically an array of sorts really, & a structure/record is a precursor part to a full-blown CLASS or OBJECT, minus the functions built in, this is for treating numerous variables as a SINGLE VARIABLE (for efficiency, which FORTRAN as a single example, lacks as a feature, @ least Fortran 77 did, but other languages do not))!

I even wrote another that just loaded my HOSTS file's entirety into a listbox, same results... slowest using 127.0.0.1, next slowest using 0.0.0.0, & fastest using 0.

And, sure: Some MORE "goes on" during DNS API loads (iirc, removal of duplicated entries (which I made sure my personal copy does not have these via a program I wrote to purge it of duplicated entries + to sort each entry alphabetically for easier mgt. via say, notepad.exe) & a conversion from decimal values to hex ones), but, nevertheless? My point here "holds true", of slower value loads, record-by-record, from a HOSTS file, when the entries become larger.

So, to "prove my point" to my naysayers?

I timed it using the Win32 API calls "GetTickCount" & then again, using the API calls of "QueryPerformanceCounter" as well, seeing the SAME results (a slowdown when reading in this file from disk, especially when using the larger 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 line item entries in a HOSTS file, vs. the smaller/faster/more efficient 0).

In my test, I saw a decline in speed/efficiency in my test doing so by using larger blocking addresses (127.0.0.1 &/or 0.0.0.0, vs. the smallest/fastest in 0)... proving me correct on this note!

On this HOSTS issue, and the WFP design issue in my next post below?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/09/recognizing-improvements-in-windows-7-handwriting.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage [msdn.com] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I am convinced they (MS) do NOT have a good reason for doing this... because of their lack of response there on this note. Unless it has something to do with IPv6 (most folks use IPv4 still), I cannot understand WHY this design mistake imo, has occurred, in HOSTS files...

AND

2.) The "Windows Filtering Platform", which is now how the firewall works in VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7...

Sure it works in this new single point method & it is simple to manage & "sync" all points of it, making it easier for network techs/admins to manage than the older 3 part method, but that very thing works against it as well, because it is only a single part system now!

Thus, however?

This "single layer design" in WFP, now represents a SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE/ATTACK for malware makers to 'take down'!

(Which is 1 of the 1st things a malware attempts to do, is to take down any software firewalls present, or even the "Windows Security Center" itself which should warn you of the firewall "going down", & it's fairly easy to do either by messaging the services they use, or messing up their registry init. settings)

VS. the older (up to) 3 part method used in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, for protecting a system via IP Filtering, the Windows native Firewall, &/or IPSEC. Each of which uses diff. drivers, & layers of the IP stack to function from, as well as registry initialization settings.

Think of the older 3 part design much the same as the reason why folks use door handle locks, deadbolt locks, & chain locks on their doors... multipart layered security.

(Each of which the latter older method used, had 3 separate drivers & registry settings to do their jobs, representing a "phalanx like"/"zone defense like" system of backup of one another (like you see in sports OR ancient wars, and trust me, it WORKS, because on either side of yourself, you have "backup", even if YOU "go down" vs. the opponent)).

I.E.-> Take 1 of the "older method's" 3 part defenses down? 2 others STILL stand in the way, & they are not that simple to take them ALL down...

(Well, @ least NOT as easily as "taking out" a single part defensive system like WFP (the new "Windows Filtering Platform", which powers the VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & yes, Windows 7 firewall defense system)).

On this "single-part/single-point of attack" WFP (vs. Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003's IP stack defense design in 3-part/zone defense/phalanx type arrangement) as well as the HOSTS issue in my post above?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/09/recognizing-improvements-in-windows-7-handwriting.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage [msdn.com] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I'll stick to my thoughts on it, until I am shown otherwise & proven wrong.

----

Following up on what I wrote up above, so those here reading have actual technical references from Microsoft themselves ("The horses' mouth"), in regards to the Firewall/PortFilter/IPSec designs (not HOSTS files, that I am SURE I am correct about, no questions asked) from my "Point #2" above?

Thus, I'll now note how:

----

1.) TCP/IP packet processing paths differences between in how Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 did it (IPSEC.SYS (IP Security Policies), IPNAT.SYS (Windows Firewall), IPFLTDRV.SYS (Port Filtering), & TCPIP.SYS (base IP driver))...

2.) AND, how VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 do it now currently, using a SINGLE layer (WFP)...

----

First off, here is HOW it worked in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 - using 3 discrete & different drivers AND LEVELS/LAYERS of the packet processing path they worked in:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb878072.aspx [microsoft.com]

The Cable Guy - June 2005: TCP/IP Packet Processing Paths

====

The following components process IP packets:

IP forwarding Determines the next-hop interface and address for packets being sent or forwarded.

TCP/IP filtering Allows you to specify by IP protocol, TCP port, or UDP port, the types of traffic that are acceptable for incoming local host traffic (packets destined for the host). You can configure TCP/IP filtering on the Options tab from the advanced properties of the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) component in the Network Connections folder.

* "Here endeth the lesson..." and, if you REALLY want to secure your system? Please refer to this:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE [bing.com]

APK [mailto]

P.S.=> SOME MINOR "CAVEATS/CATCH-22's" - things to be aware of for "layered security" + HOSTS file performance - easily overcome, or not a problem at all:

A.) HOSTS files don't function under PROXY SERVERS (except for Proximitron, which has a filter that allows it) - Which is *the "WHY"* of why I state in my "P.S." section below to use both AdBlock type browser addon methods (or even built-in block lists browsers have such as Opera's URLFILTER.INI file, & FireFox has such as list as does IE also in the form of TPL (tracking protection lists -> http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Browser/TrackingProtectionLists/ [microsoft.com] , good stuff )) in combination with HOSTS, for the best in "layered security" (alongside .pac files + custom cascading style sheets that can filter off various tags such as scripts or ads etc.) - but proxies, especially "HIGHLY ANONYMOUS" types, generally slow you down to a CRAWL online (& personally, I cannot see using proxies "for the good" typically - as they allow "truly anonymous posting" & have bugs (such as TOR has been shown to have & be "bypassable/traceable" via its "onion routing" methods)).

B.) HOSTS files do NOT protect you vs. javascript (this only holds true IF you don't already have a bad site blocked out in your HOSTS file though, & the list of sites where you can obtain such lists to add to your HOSTS are above (& updated daily in many of them)).

C.) HOSTS files (relatively "largish ones") require you to turn off Windows' native "DNS local client cache service" (which has a problem in that it's designed with a non-redimensionable/resizeable list, array, or queue (DNS data loads into a C/C++ structure actually/afaik, which IS a form of array)) - mvps.org covers that in detail and how to easily do this in Windows (this is NOT a problem in Linux, & it's 1 thing I will give Linux over Windows, hands-down). Relatively "smallish" HOSTS files don't have this problem (mvps.org offers 2 types for this).

D.) HOSTS files, once read/loaded, once? GET CACHED! Right into the kernelmode diskcaching subsystem (fast & efficient RAM speed), for speed of access/re-access (@ system startup in older MS OS' like 2000, or, upon a users' 1st request that's "Webbound" via say, a webbrowser) gets read into either the DNS local caching client service (noted above), OR, if that's turned off? Into your local diskcac

Jeremiah Cornelius: Grow up (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43515709)

You're embarassing yourself Jeremiah Cornelius http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3581857&cid=43276741 [slashdot.org] since you posted that using your registered username by mistake (instead of your usual anonymous coward submissions by the 100's the past 2-3 months now on slashdot) giving away it's you spamming this forums almost constantly, just as you have in the post I just replied to.

Re:Jeremiah Cornelius: Grow up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43515833)

Hello Paul.

p.s. What do you make of this? [slashdot.org]

LEARN WHY I WAS MODDED DOWN... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43515849)

See here, explains it all -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3561925&cid=43223585 [slashdot.org]

* :)

I.E./Summary: Trolls had a challenge put to them to validly disprove my points in the post I just replied to - result? Trolls FAIL... lol!

APK

P.S.=> That's what makes me LAUGH harder than ANYTHING ELSE on this forums (full of "FUD" spreading trolls) - When you hit trolls with facts & truths they CANNOT disprove validly on computing tech based grounds, this is the result - Applying unjustifiable downmods to effetely & vainly *try* to "hide" my posts & facts/truths they extoll!

Hahaha... lol, man: Happens nearly every single time I post such lists (proving how ineffectual these trolls are), only showing how solid my posts of that nature are...

Ah yes "geek angst" @ it's 'finest' (not), vs. facts & truths = downmod by /. weak trolls!

... apk

Re:LEARN WHY I WAS MODDED DOWN... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43516531)

You really have nothing better to do, do you?

No offense intended but that's very sad.

Re:Privacy protection with custom HOST file... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43515879)

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

* POOR SHOWING TROLLS , & most especially IF that's the "best you've got" - apparently, it is... lol!

Hello, and THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING !! We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

If Natalie Portman is not measurable, hot grits are Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel, claiming that the APK on OSY was fake.

My reputation as a professional in this field clearly shows in multiple publications in this field in written print, & also online in various GOOD capacities since 1996 to present day. This has happened since I was first published in Playgirl Magazine in 1996 & others to present day, with helpful tools online in programs, & professionally sold warez that were finalists @ Westminster Dog Show 2000-2002.

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

apk on 4chan [4chan.org]

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

INCONTROVERTIBLE FEEDBACK PROVIDING ESTABLISHED PROOF OF ALL MY POINTS:

--

That was amazing. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3037687&cid=40948073 [slashdot.org]

--

My, God! It's beatiful. Keep it up, you glorious bastard. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41835161 [slashdot.org]

--

Let us bask in its glory. A true modern The Wasteland. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3037687&cid=40948579 [slashdot.org]

--

put your baby IN ME -- I just read this whole thing. Fuck mod points, WHERE DO I SEND YOU MY MONEY?!!! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3037687&cid=40950023 [slashdot.org]

--

Oh shit, Time Cube Guy's into computers now... - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040317&cid=40946259 [slashdot.org]

--

[apk]'s done more to discredit the use of HOSTS files than anyone [else] ever could. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038791&cid=40945357 [slashdot.org]

--

this obnoxious fucknuts [apk] has been trolling the internet and spamming his shit delphi sub-fart app utilities for 15 years. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041123&cid=40954565 [slashdot.org]

--

this is hilarious. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041123&cid=40955479 [slashdot.org]

--

I agree I am intrigued by these host files how do I sign up for your newsletter? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041123&cid=40961339 [slashdot.org]

--

Gimme the program that generates this epic message. I'll buy 5 of your product if you do... - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041313&cid=40954251 [slashdot.org]

--

a pretty well-executed mashup of APK's style - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038791&cid=40945357 [slashdot.org]

--

a very clever parody of APK - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038791&cid=40944229 [slashdot.org]

--

Please keep us updated on your AI research, you seem quite good at it. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038597&cid=40944603 [slashdot.org]

--

Obviously, it must be Alexander Peter Kowalski. He's miffed at all these imposters... - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040921&cid=40958429 [slashdot.org]

--

Damn, apk, who the fuck did you piss off this time? Hahahahaahahahahahahaahaha. Pass the popcorn as the troll apk gets pwned relentlessly. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041123&cid=40954673 [slashdot.org]

--

I think it's the Internet, about to become sentient. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041313&cid=40956187 [slashdot.org]

--

KUDOS valiant AC. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029723&cid=40897777 [slashdot.org]

--

Polyploid lovechild of APK, MyCleanPC, and Time Cube --> fail counter integer overflow --> maximum win! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029723&cid=40899171 [slashdot.org]

--

You made my day, thanks! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029589&cid=40896469 [slashdot.org]

--

Wow. The perfect mix of trolls. Timecube, mycleanpc, gnaa, apk... this is great! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3027333&cid=40893381 [slashdot.org]

--

truer words were never spoken as /. trolls are struck speechless by it, lol! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042765&cid=41041795 [slashdot.org]

--

It's APK himself trying to maintain the illusion that he's still relevant. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3043535&cid=40967209 [slashdot.org]

--

Mod this up. The back and forth multi posting between APK and this "anti-APK" certainly does look like APK talking to himself. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3043535&cid=40969175 [slashdot.org]

--

APK himself would be at the top of a sensible person's ban list. He's been spamming and trolling Slashdot for years. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3043535&cid=40967137 [slashdot.org]

--

Not sure if actually crazy, or just pretending to be crazy. Awesome troll either way. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3138079&cid=41432951 [slashdot.org]

--

Awesome! Hat off to you, sir! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3154555&cid=41509273 [slashdot.org]

--

That isn't a parody of Time-cube, it is an effort to counter-troll a prolific poster named APK, who seems like a troll himself, although is way too easy to troll into wasting massive amounts of time on BS not far from the exaggerations above - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3154555&cid=41514107 [slashdot.org]

--

that is Art . Kudos to you, valiant troll on your glorious FP - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41832599 [slashdot.org]

--

What? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41832673 [slashdot.org]

--

It is in fact an extremely well thought out and brilliantly executed APK parody, combined with a Time Cube parody, and with a sprinkling of the MyCleanPC spam. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41841251 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] er... many people have disproved your points about hosts files with well reasoned, factual arguments. You just chose not to listen and made it into some kind of bizarre crusade. And I'm not the timecube guy, just someone else who finds you intensely obnoxious and likes winding you up to waste your time. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41843313 [slashdot.org]

--

it's apk, theres no reason to care. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3224905&cid=41847097 [slashdot.org]

--

Seems more like an apk parody. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3224905&cid=41847661 [slashdot.org]

--

That's great but what about the risk of subluxations? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3224905&cid=41847101 [slashdot.org]

--

Read carefully. This is a satirical post, that combines the last several years of forum trolling, rolled into one FUNNY rant! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3227697&cid=41864711 [slashdot.org]

--

I can has summary? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3227697&cid=41861327 [slashdot.org]

--

Trolls trolling trolls... it's like Inception or something. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229177&cid=41869353 [slashdot.org]

--

We all know it's you, apk. Stop pretending to antagonize yourself. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229179&cid=41869305 [slashdot.org]

--

Now you've made me all nostalgic for USENET. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3486045&cid=42981977 [slashdot.org]

--

Google APK Hosts File Manager. He's written a fucking application to manage your hosts file. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3486045&cid=42984521 [slashdot.org]

--

In case you are not aware, the post is a satire of a fellow known as APK. The grammar used is modeled after APK's as you can see here [thorschrock.com] . Or, you can just look around a bit and see some of his posts on here about the wonders of host files. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3486045&cid=42983119 [slashdot.org]

--

You are surely of God of Trolls, whomever you are. I have had stupid arguments with and bitten the troll apk many times. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3486901&cid=42989683 [slashdot.org]

--

"What kind of meds cure schizophrenic drunk rambling?" -> "Whatever APK isn't taking" - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3501001&cid=43028403 [slashdot.org] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3501001&cid=43028425 [slashdot.org]

--

I'm confused, is apk trolling himself now? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3501001&cid=43029495 [slashdot.org]

--

Excellent mashup. A++. Would troll again. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3503531&cid=43037445 [slashdot.org]

--

Best. Troll. Ever. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3506945&cid=43044811 [slashdot.org]

--

I like monkeys. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3508287&cid=43051505 [slashdot.org]

--

This is one of the funniest things I've ever read. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3508287&cid=43052263 [slashdot.org]

--

I admire this guy's persistence. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3511487&cid=43063797 [slashdot.org]

--

It's a big remix of several different crackpots from Slashdot and elsewhere, plus a liberal sprinkling of famous Slashdot trolls and old memes. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3511487&cid=43063881 [slashdot.org]

--

APK is a prominent supporter of Monsanto. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3511487&cid=43063893 [slashdot.org]

--

Here's a hint, check out stories like this one [slashdot.org] , where over 200 of the 247 posts are rated zero or -1 because they are either from two stupid trolls arguing endless, or quite likely one troll arguing with himself for attention. The amount of off-topic posts almost outnumber on topic ones by 4 to 1. Posts like the above are popular for trolling APK, since if you say his name three times, he appears, and will almost endlessly feed trolls. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3511487&cid=43064383 [slashdot.org]

--

I love this copypasta so much. It never fails to make me smile. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3512099&cid=43069271 [slashdot.org]

--

^ Champion Mod parent up. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3513659&cid=43067371 [slashdot.org]

--

I appreciate the time cube reference, and how you tied it into the story. Well done. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3521721&cid=43094565 [slashdot.org]

--

The day you are silenced is the day freedom dies on Slashdot. God bless. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3522191&cid=43097221 [slashdot.org]

--

AHahahahah thanks for that, cut-n-pasted.... Ownage! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3522219&cid=43097215 [slashdot.org]

--

If you're familiar with APK, the post itself is a pretty damn funny parody. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3528603&cid=43115215 [slashdot.org]

--

">implying it's not apk posting it" --> "I'd seriously doubt he's capable of that level of self-deprecation..." - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3528603&cid=43115337 [slashdot.org] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3528603&cid=43115363 [slashdot.org]

--

No, the other posts are linked in a parody of APK [mailto] 's tendency to quote himself, numbnuts. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3528603&cid=43116855 [slashdot.org]

--

Just ban any post with "apk", "host file", or "hosts file", as that would take care of the original apk too. The original has been shitposting Slashdot much longer & more intensively than the parody guy. Or ban all Tor exit nodes, as they both use Tor to circumvent IP bans. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3561925&cid=43216431 [slashdot.org]

--

Sadly this is closer to on-topic than an actual APK post is. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3561925&cid=43216225 [slashdot.org]

--

YOU ARE A GOD AMONG MEN. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569149&cid=43236143 [slashdot.org]

--

I've butted heads with APK myself, and yeah, the guy's got issues - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569173&cid=43236987 [slashdot.org]

--

Can I be in your quote list? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569443&cid=43237531 [slashdot.org]

--

Clearly you are not an Intertubes engineer, otherwise the parent post would be more meaningful to you. Why don't YOU take your meds? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569425&cid=43238177 [slashdot.org]

--

+2 for style! The bolding, italicizing, and font changes are all spot-on - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569149&cid=43238479 [slashdot.org]

--

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3570085&cid=43243509 [slashdot.org]

--

APK is not really a schizophrenic fired former Windows administrator with multiple personality disorder and TimeCube/Art Bell refugee. He's a fictional character like and put forward by the same person as Goatse Guy, GNAA trolls, Dr. Bob and so forth. His purpose is to test the /. CAPTCA algorithm, which is a useful purpose. If you're perturbed by having to scroll past his screeds just set your minimum point level to 1, as his posts are pretty automatically downmodded right away. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3570085&cid=43243145 [slashdot.org]

--

I just saw APK a couple days ago. He surfaced, blew once, and submerged... - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3570111&cid=43245913 [slashdot.org]

--

oh man, that incredible interminable list of responses is almost as funny as the original post. This is getting to be truly epic. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247231 [slashdot.org]

--

"Does anyone know of an Adblock rule for this?" -> "No, but I bet there's a hosts file entry for it..." - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43246997 [slashdot.org] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247097 [slashdot.org]

--

"Can a hosts file block apk's posts, though?" -> "The universe couldn't handle that much irony." - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247135 [slashdot.org] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247219 [slashdot.org]

--

"That's it, I've had enough. ... Bye everyone, most of the last decade or so has been fun, but frankly, I quit." - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247225 [slashdot.org]
--> "So basically what you're saying is that you've added yourself to the HOST file?" - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247481 [slashdot.org]

--

Sweet baby Moses, this is beautiful work - I wish we could get trolls as good as this on TF. :) - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572629&cid=43247533 [slashdot.org]

--

you have a point - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247823 [slashdot.org]

--

I do admire that level of dedication. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247765 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] shut up you stupid cock. Everyone knows you're wrong. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43250533 [slashdot.org]

--

I will hand it to him, he is definitely consistent. I wish I knew how he did this. That thing is scary huge. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572629&cid=43250411 [slashdot.org]

--

I admire the amount of dedication you've shown - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3573571&cid=43251593 [slashdot.org]

--

Word is, ESR buttfucks CmdrTaco with his revolver. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3573679&cid=43252957 [slashdot.org]

--

Hey APK, Protip: It's not the truth or value (or lack of) in your post that gets it modded into oblivion, it's the fucking insane length. In addition to TL;DR (which goes without saying for a post of such length), how about irritating readers by requiring them to scroll through 20+ screenfuls just to get to the next post. If you want to publish a short story like this, please do everyone a favor and blog it somewhere, then provide a brief summary and link to your blog. Readers intrigued by your summary will go read your blog, and everyone else will just move along at normal /. speed. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3573873&cid=43255013 [slashdot.org]

--

I like how this post seems to just sum up every Slashdot comment ever without actually saying anything. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3574283&cid=43256029 [slashdot.org]

--

extremely bright - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3574035&cid=43255855 [slashdot.org]

--

You provide many references, which is good. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3574035&cid=43257043 [slashdot.org]

--

Obviously very passionate - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3574035&cid=43261975 [slashdot.org]

--

Thanks ... You should probably stay - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3577613&cid=43262993 [slashdot.org]

--

Art? -- http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569681&cid=43244883 [slashdot.org]

--

PROOF apk sucks donkey dick. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3577639&cid=43263029 [slashdot.org]

--

I've been around /. for a while now, but this post is by far the most unique I've seen. Many have tried, but few achieve the greatness of this AC. My hat's off to you. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3576225&cid=43264325 [slashdot.org]

--

I think it's hilarious. Get over it! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3578301&cid=43265657 [slashdot.org]

--

Obviously APK filled his hosts files with backdoors before distributing them to ensure he doesn't block himself. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3578229&cid=43265767 [slashdot.org]

--

Alexander Peter Kowalski is an obnoxious prick. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3406867&cid=42698875 [slashdot.org]

--

Don't mention that file. Ever. It'll draw APK like a fly to rotting meat. Last thing I want to read is 80 responses worth of his stupid spam about that file! I swear that cocksucker does nothing but search Slashdot for that term and then spams the entire article. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3554655&cid=43209619 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] You have had it repeatedly explained to you that your posts are long-winded, unpleasant to read due to your absurd formatting style and full of technical inaccuracies borne of your single minded i-have-a-hammer-so-every-problem-is-a-nail attitude. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3406867&cid=42701491 [slashdot.org]

--

You are my favorite Slashdot poster. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3580251&cid=43270359 [slashdot.org]

--

Most insightful post on the Internet - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3579259&cid=43275207 [slashdot.org]

--

I read the whole thing *again* just to see if my comment was in there - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3588003&cid=43293069 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] So, did your mom do a lot of drugs when she was pregnant? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3586303&cid=43291531 [slashdot.org]

--

people are looking at me funny because I'm laughing hysterically at what a perfect APK imitation it is. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3581991&cid=43278203 [slashdot.org]

--

Slashdot devs seem in no hurry to fix this problem and it's been driving me nuts. So for anybody who values viewing at -1 and uses greasemonkey here's a Script [pastebin.com] . There's a chance of false positives and it's not the most optimized. But I value not having to scroll through > 10 paragraphs of APK, custom hosts files, or 'acceptable ads' spam. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3586291&cid=43287671 [slashdot.org]
--> slashdot devs are too busy installing itunes for their hipster nerd buddys to sort this problem out. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3586291&cid=43290701 [slashdot.org]

--

I can't get enough of all of this good stuff! Thanks for the informative links! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3586291&cid=43287553 [slashdot.org]

--

When threatened, APK typically produces a post with links showing he's essentially posted this hundreds of times to slashdot stories... - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3586291&cid=43290275 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] Your post got downmodded because you're a nutjob gone off his meds. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3586081&cid=43288893 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] The reason people impersonate you is because everyone thinks you're a moron. The hosts file is not intended to be used as you suggest. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3591803&cid=43302885 [slashdot.org]
-->What? You don't have a 14MB hosts file with ~1million entries in it? Next you'll probably tell me that your computer doesn't start thrashing and take 5 minutes for a DNS lookup! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3591803&cid=43302977 [slashdot.org]

--

[about apk] - this fwit is as thick as a post. worse, this shithead has mod points. and using them. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3591681&cid=43302873 [slashdot.org]

--

In before the fight between those two guys and their walls of text... - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3592647&cid=43306485 [slashdot.org]

--

HEY APK YOU ARE A WASTE OF OXYGEN -GET A LIFE - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3593009&cid=43308147 [slashdot.org]

--

KPA ...thgim dik a ekil .s.b laivirt hcus no emit hcum taht etsaw t'ndluow I sa ,ti gniod em TON si ti - syug ON - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3592933&cid=43307605 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] You seriously need to go see a shrink. You are a fucking fruitcake! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3592933&cid=43307559 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] Did you ever consider that it's not just one corrupt moderator, it's a bunch of regular slashdot users who infrequently get mod points who think you are totally full of shit? Stop posting annoying off topic irrelevant bullshit, and people won't mod you down. I'm seriously sick of reading your posts about someone impersonating you. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3592933&cid=43308389 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] you should be forced to use a cholla cactus as a butt-plug - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3592647&cid=43308219 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] No one is on your side, that is why you're here. posting. still. No one cares. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3595009&cid=43310903 [slashdot.org]

--

Who's the more moronic? The original moron, or the one who replies to him knowing full well his comment will certainly be ignored, if not entirely unread, thus bringing the insane troll post to the attention of those who would otherwise not have seen it at all (seeing as it started at 0 and would have rapidly been modded down to -1) and whose post (and, somewhat ironically I grant you, this one as well) now requires 3 more mod points to be spent to hide it? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3593207&cid=43311073 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] I miss trollaxor. His gay porn world of slashdot executives and open-source luminaries was infinitely more entertaining than this drivel. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3593207&cid=43311225 [slashdot.org]

--

PLEASE stop modding biters up. Anyone who responds to an abvious troll, especually one of these APK trolls, should autometically get the same -1 troll as the damned troll. Any response to a troll only makes the troll do more trolling. Come on, guys, use your brains -- it isn't that hard. Stop feeding the damned trolls! - (missing link)

--

[to apk] Lick the inside of goatse's anus, it's delicious! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3589605&cid=43301757 [slashdot.org]

--

Excellent post A++++++++++++ would scroll past again!!!! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3595009&cid=43312407 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] You are the one who is pitiful. If you didn't spam /. with your bullshit you wouldn't have spammer 'impostors' doing the same. Just fuck off and die already, ok? Please, really. Step in front of a bus. Drink some bleach. Whatever it takes, just FUCK OFF and DIE. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3595851&cid=43313459 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] From one AC to another please for the love of god, PRINT YOUR HOST FILE OUT AND CRAM IT DOWN YOUR JAPS EYE!!! For fucks sake we don't care we see this and it takes the piss, short of a full frontal lobotomy what will it take to stop you posting this you moronic fuckwit? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596285&cid=43314755 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] And someone forgot to take his meds today...Are you really that dense that you cant tell that the only reason the "impostor" exists because you have a hard time realizing that you are wrong and/or wont let it go. It would take a complete moron to not realize that the whole reason he continues to do it is because he knows he can get you to respond by simply posting. This isnt rocket science, this is internet 101... Let me offer you some advice on how to get rid of this "impostor"...shutup - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3595561&cid=43313235 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] If you had a 'luser' account it wouldn't be a problem. But you don't want one of those, because your long rambling and bizarrely formatted posts mean your karma gets nuked in next to no time. So I guess you just have to work out which is 'worth it'. Posting AC because I don't want to become your latest fixation. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3593207&cid=43314397 [slashdot.org]

--

I wouldn't be surprised if that is APK trying to draw attention to himself, since he thinks such endless tirades are examples of him winning and make him look good. When people stop paying attention to him, or post actual counterpoints he can't come up with a response to, he'll post strawman troll postings to shoot down, sometimes just copy pasted from previous stories. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3592647&cid=43308851 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] No one wants to read your copy pasted crap. Maybe someone is mocking you because you make it so easy to? So drop it, and participate like an adult please. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596383&cid=43315069 [slashdot.org]

--

Seriously.... What. The. Fuck. Can you two homos just go make out on brokeback mountain already, and stop talking about how one of you misspelled "penetration", and how the other cockblocks with their hosts files while grabing the other's goat? Goodness, it sure feels like being in a mountain range, trying to peer around those fucking orbital tether lengthed posts of pure premium bullsit the two of you somehoq manage to keep pushing out on demand. Shit stinks! At this point, i'd be willing to risk the fucking extinction of all life on earth by redirecting siding spring C/2013 1A to miss Mars and land on both of your fucking heads instead. The deaths of billions would be a small price to pay to shut you two cackling lovebirds up! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596513&cid=43315327 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] Listen up jackass, why the hell would somebody want to impersonate you? You're a certified internet kook. Nobody gives a hot about your 3 gig hosts file. And nobody is impersonating you. You're already a fucking parody. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596557&cid=43315579 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] You have had it repeatedly explained to you that your posts are long-winded, unpleasant to read due to your absurd formatting style and full of technical inaccuracies borne of your single minded i-have-a-hammer-so-every-problem-is-a-nail attitude. Despite this advice you are convinced that your comments are valuable contributions, ignoring the obvious evidence to the contrary (namely the -1 scores your posts earn on a regular basis). - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3406867&cid=42698875 [slashdot.org]

--

[about apk] Can this be killed off? I don't mean this account, I mean the actual meatbag behind it. - http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3598035&cid=43319201 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] Get an account retard. If you format your password as crazily as your posts no-one will ever crack it. - http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3598035&cid=43319999 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] You are the most consistently annoying creature on the internet. There are people worse than you, just like cancer is worse than psoriasis, but you're more like the latter: pervasive, annoying, and always cropping up when one has mostly forgotten about it. You are that indeterminate, continuous itching that slowly erodes someone's mood until they consider cutting off a part of themselves just to stop it for a while. And like psoriasis, you're auto-immune and not fully understood by science. Slashdot continuously makes it worse by scratching that itch over and over again. It's not smart. It just encourages the disease. But everybody's got a limit to their patience. There is no cure for you. But at least, when slashdot dies, you will die with it, and there will be peace. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3626185&cid=43394107 [slashdot.org]

--

Alexander Peter KowalskI and anyone arguing with him are insane. I saw their crazy tirades once and googled his name, and HOLY SHIT. This guy has mini battle raging all over many sites for some of the most inane shit you can think of. He meticulously catalogs the people who have crossed him and works to MAKE SURE everyone understands they are fools. Now, they well be fools, but by his meticulous and obsessive actions Kowalski (APK) has proved without a shadow of doubt his absolutE insanity. I haven't even argued with this guy so don't think I'm part of these internet crusades. All this I've found by googling his name. The trove of flaming and incomprehensible obsessive agression is humongous and both funny, and pathetic to varying intense degrees. Just google if you are curious about the kinds of crazy that are out there." - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3667319&cid=43499927 [slashdot.org]

--

I'm convinced APK is serious, he has got battles raging everywhere, meticulously catalogued, yet he thinks this is proof of his knowledge and experience, not obsessive insanity. And making that point doesn't make him reconsider, it incites him. He also seems to think what looks like many multiples of people saying this are one or a few people who are out to get him. Just read my post and google Alexander Peter Kowalski. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3667319&cid=43499959 [slashdot.org]

--

Alexander Peter Kowalski ubuntu touched my junk liberally. he strapped me in to his HOSTS file and he couldnt keep his offensive hands off of me - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3667507&cid=43499285 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] Hey man, I know this is important to you, but maybe you should talk to someone outside of the internet about it? I mean, you sound really batshit insane. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3667319&cid=43499419 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] You're an AC and you say you have impersonators? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3667275&cid=43502821 [slashdot.org]

--

ghod bless you APKtroll for bringing some much needed balance and reason to this thread! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3666269&cid=43492403 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] APK, you suck. Go die in a fire. The hosts file in Windows is a _terrible_ way to filter internet traffic. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3666873&cid=43497201 [slashdot.org]

--

I'm replying just so you'll add me to your quote list. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3669649&cid=43505105 [slashdot.org]

--

Alexander Peter Kowalksi's low intelligence, extreme narcissism, and histrionic personality make him unsuited for anything but menial labor. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3669841&cid=43505717 [slashdot.org]

--

SOME QUOTES REMOVED FOR SPACE CONSTRAINTS - MIRRORED HERE:
http://pastebin.com/Cm0HHC66 [pastebin.com]

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

Did you see the movie "Pokemon"? Actually the induced night "dream world" is synonymous with the academic religious induced "HOSTS file" enslavement of DNS. Domains have no inherent value, as it was invented as a counterfeit and fictitious value to represent natural values in name resolution. Unfortunately, human values have declined to fictitious word values. Unknowingly, you are living in a "World Wide Web", as in a fictitious life in a counterfeit Internet - which you could consider APK induced "HOSTS file". Can you distinguish the academic induced root server from the natural OpenDNS? Beware of the change when your brain is free from HOSTS file enslavement - for you could find that the natural Slashdot has been destroyed!!

FROM -> Man - how many times have I dusted you in tech debates that you have decided to troll me by ac posts for MONTHS now, OR IMPERSONATING ME AS YOU DID HERE and you were caught in it by myself & others here, only to fail each time as you have here?)...

So long nummynuts, sorry to have to kick your nuts up into your head verbally speaking.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb. you're completely pathetic.

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

* :)

Ac trolls' "BIG FAIL" (quoted): Eat your words!

P.S.=> That's what makes me LAUGH harder than ANYTHING ELSE on this forums (full of "FUD" spreading trolls) - When you hit trolls with facts & truths they CANNOT disprove validly on computing tech based grounds, this is the result - Applying unjustifiable downmods to effetely & vainly *try* to "hide" my posts & facts/truths they extoll!

Hahaha... lol , man: Happens nearly every single time I post such lists (proving how ineffectual these trolls are), only showing how solid my posts of that nature are...

That's the kind of martial arts [google.com] I practice.

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

Disproof of all apk's statements:

OLD POST LINKS MIRRORED HERE (UPDATED 4/20, 223 POSTS):
http://pastebin.com/zZqNtDmR [pastebin.com]

RECENT POST LINKS:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3663317&cid=43487937 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3663521&cid=43487979 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3663317&cid=43487985 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3663727&cid=43487993 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3663845&cid=43488509 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3663921&cid=43490079 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3666269&cid=43494423 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3664097&cid=43495983 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3666699&cid=43496091 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3666873&cid=43496149 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3666977&cid=43496213 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3666987&cid=43496301 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=0020721&cid=43496387 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3667105&cid=43496409 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3667121&cid=43497457 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3667275&cid=43498161 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3667319&cid=43504327 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3667481&cid=43504343 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3667507&cid=43504357 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3669649&cid=43504429 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3669721&cid=43505201 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3669789&cid=43505273 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3669787&cid=43505555 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3669841&cid=43505813 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3669915&cid=43506235 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3670019&cid=43507103 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3671573&cid=43512289 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3671613&cid=43512571 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3671623&cid=43515565 [slashdot.org]
LIST MAY BE INCOMPLETE
REPORT MISSING LINKS FOR REWARD (check pastebin archive first)

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

DID YOU FIND THIS MESSAGE HELPFUL?
TIP JAR: 1EtLgU5L3jhmVkDmqrWT9VhoZ1F2jSimHS [blockchain.info]
RECEIVED: 0.0195 BTC - thx! ;-)

Re:Privacy protection with custom HOST file... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43515945)

Ok, this is hilariously bad advice. I tested his 645,000 line hosts file under linux. The result: DNS lookups took 3 seconds longer since scanning the hosts file is O(N) and is done for every DNS lookup, before checking the DNS cache, before querying the DNS server.

Under Windows, the situation is the same if you have the local DNS cache server disabled. If the local DNS cache server is enabled, it took almost 2 hours to load the hosts file, during which time all DNS lookups were blocked. Why? Well, the DNS cache isn't designed to holed 645,000 items so after every insert, it rehashes and moves all the previous entries around. That's ~ O(N*N*N) performance.

tl;dr - APK is an idiot or a troll. Probably a troll since his early comments were about Windows being more secure than Linux before he started spewing this HOSTS shit.

DISPROVE MY POINTS TROLL... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43516125)

See here, explains it all -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3561925&cid=43223585 [slashdot.org]

* :)

I.E./Summary: Trolls had a challenge put to them to validly disprove my points in the post I just replied to - result? Trolls FAIL... lol!

APK

P.S.=> That's what makes me LAUGH harder than ANYTHING ELSE on this forums (full of "FUD" spreading trolls) - When you hit trolls with facts & truths they CANNOT disprove validly on computing tech based grounds, this is the result - Applying unjustifiable downmods to effetely & vainly *try* to "hide" my posts & facts/truths they extoll!

Hahaha... lol, man: Happens nearly every single time I post such lists (proving how ineffectual these trolls are), only showing how solid my posts of that nature are...

Ah yes "geek angst" @ it's 'finest' (not), vs. facts & truths = downmod by /. weak trolls!

... apk

Re:Privacy protection with custom HOST file... apk (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about a year ago | (#43516381)

"Ok, this is hilariously bad advice. I tested his 645,000 line hosts file under linux."

But there's one benefit.
The hosts stuff is always in his posts, so you can use it to filter the asshole out.

You FAIL, & here's WHY troll... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43516405)

1.) By placing your hardcoded favorite sites @ the top you're faster than DNS indexing (for starters) & you don't risk local DNS servers setup in recursive mode (which you will have to do for them to update) DNS poisoning redirects, OR, wasting power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O on what a custom hosts file can do in the FASTEST mode of operation possible: Ring 0/RPL 0/kernelmode, via the TCP/IP stack itself (which hosts act merely as a filter for).

---

2.) THIS IS THE STUPIDEST THING YOU DID:

"Under Windows, the situation is the same if you have the local DNS cache server disabled. If the local DNS cache server is enabled, it took almost 2 hours to load the hosts file, during which time all DNS lookups were blocked. Why? Well, the DNS cache isn't designed to holed 645,000 items so after every insert, it rehashes and moves all the previous entries around. That's ~ O(N*N*N) performance." - by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22, @11:45AM (#43515945)

Clue/New NEWS/NewsFlash:

You HAVE to disable the FAULTY LOCAL DNS CLIENTSIDE CACHE SERVICE IN WINDOWS with larger hosts files - that, in turn, ALLOWS THE LOCAL KERNELMODE DISKCACHING SUBSYSTEM TO CACHE THE HOSTS FILE DATA, for speed!

(Inclusive of what you block AND what you have as favorite sites, which lookup faster LOCALLY than from remote DNS servers, with all of their security issues & faults).

---

3.) As to what is blocked, which IS the majority of what goes into custom hosts for security/protection:

Who CARES about getting to those sites you block FAST (they are the lower part of the hosts file) - you do NOT WANT TO GET TO THEM ANYHOW since they are blocked for good reasons!

(In them being KNOWN bad sites/servers that serve up exploits of many types in malicious scripts OR malwares, etc.).

* YOU FAIL, troll... & you know it.

APK

P.S.=> Funniest part is, under Linux? You DO NOT GET THAT "LAG" YOU DO WITH THE KNOWN FAULTY DNS CLIENTSIDE CACHE SERVICE in Windows (it's the 1 thing I'll give Linux, over Windows, in fact, in favor of Linux)...

... apk

It's not I folks: It's Jeremiah Cornelius... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43516515)

THIS is why he's doing it & proof of it, here -> http://interviews.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3585927&cid=43295193 [slashdot.org] when others pointed out Jeremiah Cornelius forgot to submit one of the "first post spams" masquerading as myself as AC, & mistakenly submitted one of the impersonations of myself as his registered 'luser' name here on /. forums.

Pretty pitiful actually, but like every up to no good idiot does? He screwed up & submitted it under his registered 'luser' name here.

* Jeremiah Cornelius: DO YOURSELF, and the rest of us, A GIANT FAVOR MAN: Seek professional psychiatric help!

(Since Jeremiah Cornelius obviously can't get over the fact he made a spelling error on what it is HE ALLEGEDLY DID FOR A LIVING? That's not MY fault... it's HIS!)

APK

P.S.=> I seriously must have dusted JC (in his mind @ least) for his BAD spelling error & it "got his goat"...

I.E.-> Catching what he claimed to do as a job, for YEARS he left "PENETRATION" (correct) spelled as "PENTRATION" (incorrect) on his resume on LinkedIn & I pointed it out as he & his friends trolled me as usual (webmistressrachel, gmhowell, & crew (probably ALL JC no doubt using alterate emails or TOR to do it as a possible - I've caught "them & theirs" doing it before, ala Barbara, not Barbie = TomHudson (same person))).

So THAT is what has gotten his goat in a technical debate & his "geek angst" could only come up with *trying* to "impersonate me" in every news thread on /. for the month of March 2013 so far!

(Just to attempt to 'discredit me' as a spammer here obviously)

Doing so, by posting that "$10,000 challenge" &/or reposts of my old posts on hosts file value to end users into EVERY SINGLE NEWS ARTICLE POSTED on /. ...

It's all I can think of that *might* cause such a mentally troubled 'reaction' like the Jeremiah Cornelius is doing & there's NO QUESTION he's the one doing this spamming of nearly every posted article masquerading as myself...!

... apk

Jeremiah Cornelius: Grow up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43516623)

You're embarassing yourself Jeremiah Cornelius http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3581857&cid=43276741 [slashdot.org] since you posted that using your registered username by mistake (instead of your usual anonymous coward submissions by the 100's the past 2-3 months now on slashdot) giving away it's you spamming this forums almost constantly, just as you have in the post I just replied to.

Why? (4, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year ago | (#43515585)

How is it a "data breach" â" or at least how is such a "breach" Google's issue when it's on the user's side? How can it be illegal to acquire signals "floating freely" through the air? Did Google "crack" anythingâ? Use any "back doors"? I'm sure we'll see a lot of "unlocked door" analogies and perhaps a "car analogy" or two, but this is a "left a Euro on the sidewalk" type deal here...

I know, Google is the new boogieman after Apple and Microsoft...

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

imbusy (1002705) | about a year ago | (#43515669)

Using the same logic your mobile phone call data can be acquired freely to listen to your calls just because it's floating through the air. Why would that be a breach of privacy?

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43515727)

That is the reality on AMPS and GSM.

Re:Why? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43515741)

Mobile phone calls are encrypted. Maybe not very well, but a lock is a lock even if the door is made of cardboard. So that's different.

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43515755)

Using the same logic your mobile phone call data can be acquired freely to listen to your calls just because it's floating through the air. Why would that be a breach of privacy?

Your mobile phone call data is encrypted, so no it can't...

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

5KVGhost (208137) | about a year ago | (#43516851)

Using your same logic, your conversation with your friend across the room can be heard by any random person passing nearby, just because it's floating through the air. Why would that be a breach of privacy?

It would not be. And neither is intercepting unencrypted wifi traffic. Because you've deliberately chosen a means of communication which you know can be easily overheard.

This case is just an example of self-serving bureaucratic pandering. It makes just as much sense as the government demanding that everyone wear earplugs in public lest we overhear "private" information being shouted from the rooftops.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43518161)

Using your same logic, your conversation with your friend across the room can be heard by any random person passing nearby, just because it's floating through the air. Why would that be a breach of privacy?

It would not be. And neither is intercepting unencrypted wifi traffic. Because you've deliberately chosen a means of communication which you know can be easily overheard.

If you are closed inside your house and I cannot hear you, but take a directional microphone to spy on you, you bet I'm breaching your privacy even if your communication is floating thorugh the air unencrypted. WiFi communications cannot be easily overheard too in the sense that you need an instrument and willing intent to do so.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43518523)

...If you are closed inside your house and I cannot hear you...

So you're saying it's not really "floating through the air", but "you've taken precautions not to be overheard"?

If your ears would "hear" radiowaves (like, you know, any old wi-fi card), you'd hear all the unencrypted traffic. And if someone took care not to be overheard (like, you know, switching on WPA2), you'd need a directional microphone (or, rather, a WPA/WPA2 encryption cracker).

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43521207)

But your ears don't hear radiowaves, so, moot point.

Re:Why? (1)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about a year ago | (#43519565)

And neither is intercepting unencrypted wifi traffic.

But storing it is. And this is what this is fucking about. Well, that and lying about it. And then lying about deleting the data.

Re:Why? (1)

BrentNewland (2832905) | about a year ago | (#43521331)

I could easily write down what you're saying while you're talking to someone.

Re:Why? (2)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#43515715)

I think Apple and Microsoft are the new boogiemen after Microsoft and Apple and I do mean in that exact order, lol. Anyway, did you notice how it's funny that if I drove my car around and recorded a couple packets of unencrypted wifi data and got a 140,000 euro fine, people would be outraged. Since it's a billion dollar company, now all of a sudden the fine should go up. And yet, it's the same "crime." That's right up there with fines being higher for blacks because they're black.

Re:Why? (1)

Holi (250190) | about a year ago | (#43515767)

If you did it with multiple cars in multiple locations I think a lot of people would say WTF why are you getting a fine and not going to jail.

Re:Why? (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about a year ago | (#43521469)

So should these guys go to jail? They mapped out half the access points in the city.

Warflying

Warflying or warstorming is an activity consisting of using an airplane and a Wi-Fi-equipped computer, such as a laptop or a PDA, to detect Wi-Fi wireless networks. Warstorming shares similarities to Wardriving and Warwalking in all aspects except for the method of transport.
It originated in Western Australia with the WaFreeNet (WAFN) group taking up a Grumman Tiger four-seater near Perth City in 2002, as documented on the weblog of Jason Jordan

Most warflying is harmless, as most of the people will just scan for the networks, either as an experiment, or just for the pure amusement, or to map out the wireless networks in the area.[citation needed] Due to the nature of flying, it is much more difficult to attempt to access open networks while warflying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warflying [wikipedia.org]

Re:Why? (1)

Score Whore (32328) | about a year ago | (#43518525)

Depends on what you believe the purpose of the law is. If it's to provide restitution to the victims then a low value fine for a low amount harm is appropriate. If it's to discourage people from breaking the law, then it's perfectly reasonable to have the fine adapt to the wealth of the perpetrator. (See this [bbc.co.uk] for a real life example.)

Peeping Tom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43515937)

I'm sure we'll see a lot of "unlocked door" analogies and perhaps a "car analogy" or two, but this is a "left a Euro on the sidewalk" type deal here...

No, it's more like a peeping tom looking through someone's window.

And we in the US of A need to start being like Europe with our privacy laws.

There's this huge market for people's data and considering how cheap data storage has gotten, it's nothing for big corp to create a dossier on someone - today.

Just pull your own credit file from the bureaus and just see what THEY have - and you'll see all the previous addresses where you have lived and other information when they try to verify your identity.

The Medical Information Bureau has all your health history available to anyone with the $$$.

And now we have Google on the street photographing our yards and seeing what wi-fi we have.

We peons are at the mercy of corporate America.

And in the meantime, Google's billionaires have enclosed yards, private armed security guards, and the resources to give themselves all the privacy they want - and the power to crush anyone who wants to use any available public information against them.

Re:Peeping Tom (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43516203)

No. It is like taking a photo from the street.
The same exact thing google already does, except with things that get information we normally can't (i.e. wee can't percieve those kind of signals with our own eyes, ears or any other part of our body that I know of). Some other being may, but we can't.

Re:Peeping Tom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43518049)

Except that Google drove their peepmobile onto my property without my permission and took pictures through the window of my minor child's bedroom.

They did take the pictures down, admittedly, but not until after the third time I threatened to sue them for dealing child porn. Those shots were up for weeks.

And taking the pictures down does not make what they did right. I have an easement across my property that allows through traffic (moving at a speed that makes peeping through my windows impossible without a high-speed camera peepmobile). This is a privilege I extend to travelers out of good citizenship and a recognition of need. Google is abusive of my generosity and unrepentant about their abuse of road easements worldwide. Just because I am a good neighbor, they are using their tremendous resources to enable the entire Internet to invade my privacy. Nobody needs to see inside my house except thieves and paedophiles, and it's unreasonable to say I have to keep my windows and curtains closed 24/7 or risk Google making a profit off abusing my good citizenship.

Google makes no effort to distinguish public roads from travel easements, and they should be fined strongly enough to remove the profit they gain from this behavior. But don't give the money to me - give it to victims of the criminals who use Google's through-the-window shots to case houses.

Re:Peeping Tom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43518117)

Hey, thanks for notifying us in advance to disregard your argument by throwing in a "but the children!!11" bit in.

Re:Peeping Tom (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year ago | (#43518357)

Your child's window appeared in streetview and you think that's dealing child porn? No wonder they didn't take you seriously the first 2 times. They probably complied if only to shut up a nutter.

Re:Peeping Tom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43518381)

Links to pics of your daughter?

Re:Peeping Tom (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year ago | (#43516559)

The Medical Information Bureau has all your health history available to anyone with the $$$.

"Medical Information Bureau"? Never heard of them.

But of course, if anyone is releasing medical data on people without their permission, they are already breaking Federal Law...

Re:Why? (2)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year ago | (#43515961)

but this is a "left a Euro on the sidewalk" type deal here...

It is not even that, since someone would have to lose a Euro for someone else to find it, and nobody "lost" anything. This is more like someone walking down the street and recording your house number. This is a classic case of manufactured outrage. [urbandictionary.com]

Failed analogy alert (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43516131)

Finding a single unlocked door is completely different from deliberately going around and testing every single door you find.

Stumbling across a Euro left "on the sidewalk" is nothing like putting on scuba gear and diving into a wishing fountain and taking all the money you find in it.

Why the hell is there such a "It's GOOGLE so it must be OK" bent here?

Re:Failed analogy alert (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43516185)

Good thing you alerted us about your failed analogies. Now, please do educate yourself about WiFi and keep the pumping up for less technically oriented forums.

Re:Failed analogy alert (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43518987)

Good thing you alerted us about your failed analogies. Now, please do educate yourself about WiFi and keep the pumping up for less technically oriented forums.

Let's see: construct lots and lots of devices that record all WiFi packets they pick up. Mount those devices on automobiles and hire drivers to drive them around, hoovering every damn thing they find on the airwaves.

Spend millions and millions of dollars in the process.

Yeah, sounds inadvertent to me. Just like stumbling across a fiver on the sidewalk, or finding one unlocked door.

You're an utter waste of protoplasm, you moronic Google fanboi.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43519153)

How about an apple-thief analogy? (no, not the iThing company): If you pick an apple from your neighbour's tree, I'm sure nobody will mind. However, if you drive around the whole neighbourhood, picking one or two apples from each, to start a fruit juice business out of it, it would be frowned upon.

The difference is the scale at which Google or any sufficiently large company operate. Society already recognises difference in scale with other crimes, e.g. shop-lifting vs. arm bank-robbery, so the fines against Google in this case is fitting.

the general problem with fixed-size fines (4, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#43515601)

If fines are intended as compensation, then fixed-size fines make sense. But if they're intended as a deterrent, they end up being completely ineffective for people or companies with a lot of money. A $10k fine might deter a small business, and a $100k fine will truly scare them, but for a Google-sized company those numbers are all noise, lost somewhere in the sushi budget.

If you really want to have effective deterrence, fines based on a percentage of annual income would be more effective. Some countries already do this with traffic tickets, to ensure that rich people have to care about getting a speeding ticket, rather than just laughing at the (to them) paltry amount.

Re:the general problem with fixed-size fines (1)

KingMotley (944240) | about a year ago | (#43515955)

If you really want to have effective deterrence, fines based on a percentage of annual income would be more effective. Some countries already do this with traffic tickets, to ensure that rich people have to care about getting a speeding ticket, rather than just laughing at the (to them) paltry amount.

If by some countries, you include the United States, then yes. Sure, silly infractions like 5-10 mph over the speed limit are fixed, but once you get higher, that's not always true. Take it from someone who got a fine, based on what I make, for speeding, in the United States.

Re:the general problem with fixed-size fines (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43516337)

If by some countries, you include the United States, then yes.

Why wouldn't you include the US in 'some countries'?

Re:the general problem with fixed-size fines (1)

Qwavel (733416) | about a year ago | (#43516087)

I agree with your general point, but the fine should also take into account that there is no evidence or indication that this was done on purpose, that they did anything with the data, or that they ever intended to do anything with the data.

So now they have been fined, sued (class action lawsuits), and pilloried in pretty much every jurisdiction of the world for this.

Do you really think that is not sufficient deterrent, and why do you even need deterrent there isn't really much of an upside?

Re:the general problem with fixed-size fines (2)

bickerdyke (670000) | about a year ago | (#43517165)

According to German news sources, this IS the fine for accidental collection of personal data.

Re:the general problem with fixed-size fines (1)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about a year ago | (#43519799)

I agree with your general point, but the fine should also take into account that there is no evidence or indication that this was done on purpose, that they did anything with the data, or that they ever intended to do anything with the data.

Yeah, nothing but the fact that a company that makes its money with collecting and storing all sorts of data did exactly that while all the other entities also linking WiFi networks to locations failed to collect and store personal data on those networks.

But that aside - after Google promised they would delete the "accidentally" collected and stored data they -errm, say- managed to forget to actually do it [slashdot.org] . Got any explanation for that?

Re:the general problem with fixed-size fines (2, Interesting)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year ago | (#43516199)

If you really want to have effective deterrence, fines based on a percentage of annual income would be more effective. Some countries already do this with traffic tickets, to ensure that rich people have to care about getting a speeding ticket, rather than just laughing at the (to them) paltry amount.

These are different situations. Someone who makes 100 times more money than I will be driving about as much as I do and should get statistically the same number of parking tickets that I do. To make us both avoid parking tickets, we should get different fines.

But a company with 100 times more employees than another will statistically do things that are wrong 100 times more often than the smaller company. so for small offenses (like one employee cheating a customer) they shouldn't be fined more. It will happen 100 times more often, so they will be 100 times more because of that. Only for big offenses where the offense is big due to the size of the company they should be charged more. If the boss ordered all employees to cheat their customers, that's 100 times worse if the company is 100 times bigger and should be fined 100 times more.

Re:the general problem with fixed-size fines (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43516273)

Some countries already do this with traffic tickets, to ensure that rich people have to care about getting a speeding ticket, rather than just laughing at the (to them) paltry amount.

The amount doesn't matter so much. Take Pennsylvania for example. In Pennsylvania, two tickets triggers a requirement to take a written test. A third ticket triggers a license suspension. At some point, the license gets revoked. Now, the ticket amounts may be paltry, but the other measures impact the rich as much as they do those with more moderate incomes.

It's also worth noting that the problem here seems to be that they are counting separate events together. If Google had to pay 145 thousand euros (or even just 145 euros) every time their cars accessed data over a WiFi signal, that would add up to real money soon enough. Germany doesn't need to levy bigger fines; they need to levy fines more frequently. If they aren't willing to do that, then they aren't applying the laws equally. They should be passing out these fines for single instances from small businesses. Think of Google as just a conglomerate of smaller businesses.

Levying fines for each occurrence does scale with size and is appropriate in this case, since each occurrence is separate.

Re:the general problem with fixed-size fines (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43518471)

If you really want to have effective deterrence, fines based on a percentage of annual income would be more effective. Some countries already do this with traffic tickets, to ensure that rich people have to care about getting a speeding ticket, rather than just laughing at the (to them) paltry amount.

Is this law in place because we want to control people's lives, or because activity X incurs a cost on everyone else?
If it's the former, then fines based on wealth or income might be appropriate.
If it's the latter, then a fixed fine equal to the cost on others is appropriate.

Re:the general problem with fixed-size fines (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43518683)

What about the fact that they very likely spent way more than 145k on lawyers for this case than they're getting out of the fine.

Re:the general problem with fixed-size fines (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43518787)

If you really want to have effective deterrence, fines based on a percentage of annual income would be more effective

That seems fine in principle, but then you end up with 'Generic Corp' which is subdivided up into many many smaller businesses. Sure, fine one of our small businesses at a percentage of what they make, and it still doesn't touch the true company. It would simply be the same game with different rules - pretty much the game we have been playing for years and will continue to play for years.

Fines (4, Insightful)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year ago | (#43515603)

That is a generic problem with fines and big corporations, not only something related with privacy issues. As long as fines are applied at absolute values corporations will only laugh at them and keep doing what they want. Fines should be applied at amounts proportionally to a company's value.

Re:Fines (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year ago | (#43516257)

That is a generic problem with fines and big corporations, not only something related with privacy issues. As long as fines are applied at absolute values corporations will only laugh at them and keep doing what they want. Fines should be applied at amounts proportionally to a company's value.

If one rogue employee does something wrong and the company is find 145,000 Euros, they won't be laughing. They'll fire him so he won't do it again. I think the problem here is not that they think Google should be fined more because the company is big, but Google should be fined more because they spied on an awful lot of people. Let's say a small company loses personal information of all their 1,000 customers. And eBay loses personal information of 0.01% of their customers, which happens to be also exactly 1,000 customers. The fine should be the same. If eBay loses data of a million customers, the fine should be so much higher.

Re:Fines (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43516505)

Disagree. Number of people in this case doesn't really matter - data was collected presumably not on purpose, presumably was not used (and probably not really useful anyways). This seems to be why prosecutors were limited to this fine in the first place.

Fine in this case should be for a single count of illegal data collection and should be higher to be the warning and deterrent for others. This amount - what that equals to, one or two torrented songs? - doesn't work for companies that big.

Re:Fines (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43516509)

Bullshit. The purpose of the fine is to be painfull enough to discourage the prohibited behavior. Ideally (and the ideal can not be acheived), the fine should be just as small as possible to discourage the behavior. However, it must be large enough (and might not be in this case) to discourage both the perpetrator and others from behaving the same way again.

Re:Fines (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43517981)

They didn't 'spy' on anybody. They effectivly drove through a neighborhood with the window down and ran an audio recorder while doing it. They heard your dog barking, and your neighbors kid backing into the garage door with dad screaming and all upset about it.

That's not spying. The rest I more or less agree with, fines are a joke to big companies and soul-crushing to individuals and small businesses. That said, nothing illegal actually happened here, other than some political sock-puppets making a bunch of noise and trying to look tough on corporate screw-ups.

Re:Fines (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43518545)

If you just want to prevent this activity at all costs, then the penalty should be complete forfeiture of all assets. If you want to allow exceptions when they have a good reason, then they should be fined in proportion to damage done. The latter doesn't change with the size of the company.

I Still Don't Get It (3, Insightful)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | about a year ago | (#43515607)

Every article I see about this always wails about Google's capture of personal data from wifi networks. Are they cracking the encryption? No? So why is it their fault if people are sending their data over unencrypted links? If people don't want their data read by strangers, they shouldn't be broadcasting it into the street in the clear! I wish someone would force Google to delete all the data they took. Instantly Google Street View would cease to function, as would the Wifi triangulation location system that so many people probably don't realise they use. I bet there would be a far bigger outcry over that than the original "privacy" issues ever raised.

I'm not sure I entirely sympathise with the photo privacy issue either. They haven't put online anything I couldn't have seen myself by standing on top of a car. Or a wheelie bin. Or a bench. Or a phone box. Or a post box. We seem to have very strange ideas of what "privacy" really entails.

Re:I Still Don't Get It (5, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#43515653)

Europe has privacy laws that regulate what kinds of databases of user data you can compile. It's not an issue of cracking encryption, but that you simply cannot collect certain kinds of information, and the information you do collect has to be used in certain ways. The goal is to keep companies like Google or Facebook from doing what amounts to surveillance of the population.

Re:I Still Don't Get It (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year ago | (#43516323)

The goal is to keep companies like Google or Facebook from doing what amounts to surveillance of the population.

Sounds like a good idea. Can we bring that over here, and maybe make it apply to governments as well?

Re:I Still Don't Get It (4, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#43516437)

The problem is that, IIRC, Google was essentially driving around with a wifi adapter set to "sniff" in order to gather SSID beacons, to compile a geolocation-by-SSID database. In the process, they also grabbed a bunch of unencrypted data.

Its essentially as if they had driven around New York with an off-the-shelf recorder grabbing "sounds of the city" for some research project, and managed to pick up a bunch of people discussing their social security number on their cellphones. Technically youre not supposed to do that, but the problem is that people were discussing sensitive details in public.

Google definately should have taken better precautions, but this isnt them being bad guys (what on earth do they want with random people's network captures? Problems of of "too much noise", "not useful", and "its illegal, to boot" apply here); its an issue of simply not thinking things through. I cant imagine what motivation people are assuming Google might have had when they assume this was an intentional action of an evil corporation; do you suppose Google has infrastructure set up to analyze and use illicit network dumps to somehow generate ad revenue?

Re:I Still Don't Get It (2)

Bigby (659157) | about a year ago | (#43517833)

Ironically, private companies like Google aren't allowed to listen, but the government can listen all they want without a warrant. Quite the opposite of what the Constitution states...

Re:I Still Don't Get It (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43518925)

The goal of government is to serve people of the state as a whole the goal of commercial company is to make money for it's owners/shareholders so you can't compare those.
Protecting people as a whole of course contradicts with protecting everyone individually so yes, it's kinda okay.
Misuse of power given to the state by some individuals for their personal gain is a different issue.

Re:I Still Don't Get It (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43518123)

I think the only remotely legitimate concern people may have in this situation isn't that Google as such will do anything with the data, but more that individual Google employees may misuse the data which they weren't technically allowed to have in the first place. It wouldn't be the first time a Google employee has misused such data.

To be entirely honest though, this kind of law and enforcement seems heavy handed in excess. I'm glad to see things like them having to do education on privacy and encrypting your network, as that seems productive, and given that they did technically break the law (however weird the law may seem), it fits the crime. Trying to fine them enough that they'll feel it, on the other hand, feels more just like a shameless money grab over an honest mistake which in all likelihood, was entirely harmless. The best thing to come out of this is that people are hearing about what kind of data loss happens when you leave your wifi open (without otherwise securing your data), because while this incident was a relatively harmless accident, had it been some more nefariously minded folk doing the wardriving, it may not have been so harmless.

Re:I Still Don't Get It (1)

5KVGhost (208137) | about a year ago | (#43516991)

"The goal is to keep companies like Google or Facebook from doing what amounts to surveillance of the population."

European governments prefer to do that sort of thing themselves. They get so jealous.

But in all seriousness, it's a pretty stupid law if the intent is to prevent gathering information. The allegedly private information that those people broadcast to the entire neighborhood via unencrypted wifi is still being broadcast and presumably is still unencrypted. Sure, the courageous privacy police may have saved Europe from those nefarious Google people and their dastardly plan to map public streets. But, meanwhile, the skeevy guy in the apartment across the street is still watching his neighbors' financial transactions, romantic dalliances, porn-watching habits, religious observances, and all the other lets-pretend-it's-private public network traffic that Google's wifi triangulation system really couldn't have cared less about.

If the EU actually wanted to protect people from broadcasting private things in public, then they'd need to make it against the law to sell an open wifi router. Why do you suppose they don't do that?

Re:I Still Don't Get It (1)

ancientt (569920) | about a year ago | (#43515713)

This is a really interesting and good point. I wonder if Google could get much of the same desired result by offering a bounty on images/video/wifi to people with Google+ and Android phones. They could offer the legal protection of Google's legal team to each person who captures a legitimate data area. If this kind of event came up, Google's legal team could handle it in stride and there'd be no profit to be had by attacking the big bad Google.

Who'd be foolish to do that you might ask? Millions and millions of us. Imagine if Android users got a pop up message saying "Google is offering a 30 GB expansion to Google drive space to anyone who captures video and radio signal info for your current area, are you interested?" The thing is that I could do the exact same thing as Google is getting fined for and nobody would ever know or care. Nor should they.

Re:I Still Don't Get It (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43516365)

I think Ingress was created exactly for that -- or as a testballon for that.

Re:I Still Don't Get It (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year ago | (#43516955)

You aren't trying to capture a street view of every residence on the planet and publish it on a web site where every anti social human can study it for reasons to firebomb your home.

As far as the wardriving it really is a just stupid thing to do. In the US that sort of activity is probably a felony. Not sure why some enterprising DA (Carmen are you listening?) hasn't filed charges.

Re:I Still Don't Get It (1)

Branciforte (2437662) | about a year ago | (#43519391)

Anyone who is dedicated enough to want to firebomb a house is also dedicated to drive by it themselves.

It's not like there is anyone out there going, "Gosh I want to firebomb Steve but I don't have a picture of his front yard, and I can't be bothered to drive by his place myself."

$5 dollar fine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43515617)

...and time served!

Hate to say it, but I kind of like Bing's method.. (-1, Troll)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about a year ago | (#43515623)

I hate to admit it, but I kind of like Bing's various bird's-eye views. They offer plane-shots at around a 45-60 degree angle. And from all 4 major directions (N/S/E/W).

The quality is actually decent enough that, unless you're in a city with really tall buildings, you can make out the store fronts fairly well and see what the roads/turns are going to be like on your trip before-hand.

Sure, no-where near as good as high-quality as street view. But this way you have a view of ALL of the minor / small streets that Google's Street View hasn't taken yet. And I imagine this kind of thing is a lot quicker to do than Street View so it has the (potential) benefit of being more up-to-date and thus show a more accurate depiction of what the area looks like NOW vs a couple years ago.

Don't get me wrong, I LIKE street view. But for my region, the Bing bird's-eye view kind of works out better unless I'm looking at something on a major road.

Re:Hate to say it, but I kind of like Bing's metho (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43515777)

It's hard to astroturf when no subject ever is about the thing you are trying to promote. I guess the closest one will have to do.

Re:Hate to say it, but I kind of like Bing's metho (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about a year ago | (#43515929)

LOL, fine be a jerk. I wasn't astro-turfing. Honestly, I'm not a fan of MS's products.

It's just kind of a weird world: where renting/leasing out flippin' airplanes to take pictures of neighborhoods... is somehow less of a legal-nightmare and invasion of privacy than a car with a panoramic camera. There was a time when people feared "black helicopters" invading their rights and such more than people in cars.

Hey, some guy driving the car made a mistake going where he/she shouldn't... some private road, some really long driveway that looked like a continuation of the road, etc. It was a mistake by a poor guy that probably got fired / reprimanded for his goof, not some company trying to be evil. Now the whole WiFi thing... meh. Haven't been following up on it.

Re:Hate to say it, but I kind of like Bing's metho (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43516681)

Hey, some guy driving the car made a mistake going where he/she shouldn't... some private road, some really long driveway that looked like a continuation of the road, etc. It was a mistake by a poor guy that probably got fired / reprimanded for his goof, not some company trying to be evil. Now the whole WiFi thing... meh. Haven't been following up on it.

What I've seen is the groupthink shift from "if the signals are floating through the air it's OK to intercept them while I look for free wifizzz" to "google collecting all this information must be eeeevil!" It's OK if people do it, but not OK if google does it, apparently.

There's some merit to the idea, because google is in a much better position to abuse information. But on the other hand, is your network secure or isn't it?

Re:Hate to say it, but I kind of like Bing's metho (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43516027)

Found any girls sunbathing topless in their fenced yards? Now this you can't get with Street View's cars, for sure.

Huh?, "they lacked a grasp of basic syntax." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43515635)

What do you get "the official"? Monkeys with typewriters edit submissions.

Nail everyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43515663)

I walked past that house/building and didn't shut my eyes. Biological or digital. Lock me up.

Proportions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43515689)

From the article, "Many believe that isn’t enough, hence why the European Commission wants to introduce fines for up to two percent of companies’ turnover, as part of an overhaul of EU data privacy law."

Now, I agree that 145k euros is a paltry sum for Google, but two percent of Google's turnover would be overkill to the most extreme degree for gathering data from open WiFi networks. The punishment should be proportional to the crime, not to the perpetrator.

Re:Proportions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43516899)

It should still be a punishment not a fare for going on doing what they were doing.
And it really should be proportional to the perpetrator, because otherwise some of us [i]can afford[/i] crime.

Re:Proportions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43517171)

If the fines exceed their previous profits, then it is unprofitable for them to continue, and they will stop, as any reasonable business would. That was the point of making it proportional to profits.

How big of a fine for Google to notice? (1)

concealment (2447304) | about a year ago | (#43515789)

In the time it took me to type this message, Google earned $1.54 million.

How much do you fine them before it's a rounding error that they fail to notice?

Re:How big of a fine for Google to notice? (1)

Grumpinuts (1272216) | about a year ago | (#43516067)

Know what you mean....I'm pretty slow at typing as well and this dyslexic keyboard doesn't hlep.....

Isn't just the users' faults, either (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43516023)

Both parties are to blame in this case. Users with unencrypted home wifi are being careless by taking no precautions to secure their data, and Google is morally in the wrong for taking advantage of that. Just because something is in plain sight and not locked up does not mean you should take it without asking.

Nazi fagets (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43516115)

Fucken nazi fagets should fine themselves for swa-sticking it up each other's butthole.

This is the new European tax raising effort (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43516377)

You'll see all the Euro countries continue to extort monies from companies like Google to prop up their failed operating models and those of their businesses. We had France fine Google 100,000 Euros for taking pictures in the street. We had them fine Google, 400,000 Euros for providing a free mapping service. They're going to try to get 1 Billion Euros for tax non-compliance, what a nice round number. Now you have Germany, which has a legal limit on the "fine", with the commissioner wanting more. What private data did they get? The name of an access point, the channel it's operating on, the strength from the street? As they drive past apartment buildings, whose access point is whose? Unless I'm missing something, it is someones choice to connect a wireless access point to their internet connection, enable it/or leave it on, name it, broadcast the name, etc. What is Google "making" from this information? I'd love to see them in a position to tell some of these countries to go F themselves then turn off the service and see what the general population wants.

Why were they only capturing the start of frames? (2)

Branciforte (2437662) | about a year ago | (#43516499)

The data that was collected consisted of only the beginnings of packets, by an antenna that randomly switched between many different frequencies.

If Google was really trying to collect personal data, why didn't they collect entire packets on all the frequencies? They certainly have the resources to do it right.

Here's an Anagram (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43516691)

George Orwell
Google Rewler

Prime example... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43516845)

...of how laws represent the morale of the masses, not what's right and wrong.

Fines smaller than profits cost of doing business (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about a year ago | (#43518133)

Short of criminal penalties (even a couple days in jail), paying any amount less than the profits is just a cost of doing business.

The fines should be "profits from the illegal activity" plus a reasonable punitive fine on top.

Too much for doing nothing wrong! (1)

darth_borehd (644166) | about a year ago | (#43520203)

It's not like they are hacking into networks--these are *unsecured* wi-fis.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>