Internet of shit
-
-
@timebandit said in Internet of shit:
@polygeekery said in Internet of shit:
We are very close to ending up on a watch list
We're already on Google's watch list
Better than an iWatch list…
-
@polygeekery said in Internet of shit:
@tsaukpaetra said in Internet of shit:
@cvi said in Internet of shit:
@mott555 said in Internet of shit:
No, that procedure doesn't involve enough Twitter/Instagram/whatever the latest stupid social site is.
Obviously I wasn't suggesting you'd use an actual telephone call. You can do that via snapchat, or better yet, whatsapp (since leaving a trail of the message at only one big international company would be silly).
OMG can you imagine?
Get a dozen phones, hook them up to an app that receives notifications. Set Do Not Disturb for a while (so you can set everything up and test), then let it fall back to Vibrate mode once emplaced. Tweet at a hashtag (or whatever) and BOOM! Simultaneous (ish) trigger!
We are very close to ending up on a watch list.
Good! Perhaps they can send me a w
ifeaifu!
-
@polygeekery said in Internet of shit:
We are very close to ending up on a watch list.
Someone has to be their thinktank for weird ideas!
-
@blakeyrat said in Internet of shit:
You'd do a lot more damage than 9-11 and only a single person or team of two need to be involved,
I've had this kind of thought before, I really think our society is actually somewhat lucky that those terrorists are interested in doing visible high-profile damage rather than actually doing serious and lasting damage...
There are so many unprotected-but-crucial points like power lines (probably transformer stations more than the lines themselves), or major oil pipelines (inb4: transport oil by road!), or water/sewage stations (I'm sure there are major cities where all pipes go through a couple of critical bottlenecks and blowing those could be very costly/hard to fix!). Even blowing up a bridge on some major road would cause long-term harm, judging by the chaos when some road gets an unplanned closure (weather event etc.)! (really blowing up a highway bridge probably requires lots of explosive, but making enough damage to it that it has to be closed for a long time until the structure is properly assessed can probably be done easily -- also the real damage would not only be on the single structure that gets hit, but on all the other similar ones that the government now has to monitor and protect)
and there's a lot less risk of being caught and no need for making yourself a victim.
I think most terrorists nowadays don't see themselves as "victims" of their plots, on the contrary. That might have been true (well, that probably was) in most terror plots before (IRA, ETA and such...), but clearly that's no longer true. This is also why we see a shift from bombing (which as you say can be done relatively "safely" by the attacker) to direct gun/knife attacks. The terrorist now wants to be seen directly (and either wants, or at least doesn't care, if he gets caught/killed). That part is bad for our societies, since terrorists can do more damage when they don't have to worry about getting away...
@polygeekery said in Internet of shit:
We are very close to ending up on a watch list.
I did my part to ensure we get on it.
-
@timebandit said in Internet of shit:
The time on my alarm clock is flashing 8:88
It’s trying to tell you you need to activate the flux capacitor.
-
@remi said in Internet of shit:
I've had this kind of thought before, I really think our society is actually somewhat lucky that those terrorists are interested in doing visible high-profile damage rather than actually doing serious and lasting damage...
The clue is in the first two syllables of the word “terrorist”. Most people and the media, though, usually seem to assume the aim of terrorists is to fight a war. No, they’re not: they’re trying to influence public opinion.
I think most terrorists nowadays don't see themselves as "victims" of their plots, on the contrary. That might have been true (well, that probably was) in most terror plots before (IRA, ETA and such...), but clearly that's no longer true.
The joys of not thinking for yourself. Well, joys for the people who set themselves up as leaders, anyway.
This is also why we see a shift from bombing (which as you say can be done relatively "safely" by the attacker) to direct gun/knife attacks. The terrorist now wants to be seen directly (and either wants, or at least doesn't care, if he gets caught/killed).
I’m not sure that’s the motivation. I suspect it’s more a combination of the fact that making reliable bombs and detonating them is difficult, as is gathering the necessary materials for them these days (without getting caught, that is), but it’s impossible to stop people owning knives (or, in some countries, guns) or cars, and you can easily stay off the radar buying or renting one.
-
@gurth said in Internet of shit:
The clue is in the first two syllables of the word “terrorist”. Most people and the media, though, usually seem to assume the aim of terrorists is to fight a war. No, they’re not: they’re trying to influence public opinion.
True. But we're still lucky they don't think further, because I believe they could do much more lasting damage if they wanted to (and I guess that would also have a stronger long term impact on public opinion as well, but I'm just speculating anyway). Note also that one reason most people assume that they're fighting a war is that they are themselves using those words and claiming that (and probably some of them do believe it).
I’m not sure that’s the motivation. I suspect it’s more a combination of the fact that making reliable bombs and detonating them is difficult
There is that, but if you're not ready to get caught/killed during the act, you would still try to make a bomb, even if it's hard. I think it goes both ways: they don't care about their lives, so they can go for the easy route (guns/knives/cars); and at the same time they go for the easy route because it makes them more directly visible (that makes them kind of heroic in their eyes, instead of anonymously dropping a bomb...).
you can easily stay off the radar buying or renting [a car].
And now, in the "UK police state news of the day", the British government wants vans sellers/renters to notify authorities if the buyer doesn't sound like a legitimate buyer... :-(
(mmm... I heard that on radio the other morning but can't find a link... maybe that was just a suggestion from some weird sub-group committee that wasn't newsworthy past one mention one day?)
-
@remi said in Internet of shit:
There are so many unprotected-but-crucial points like power lines (probably transformer stations more than the lines themselves)
Everything on the very high voltage level is 2-connected and operating with enough reserve capacity that any single failure won't overload any other point (trying to; there may be periods where this is not satisfied, but you don't know in advance when such situation will arise). It would take several coordinated attacks to cause power outage in any significant area and coordinating anything carries quite a bit of risk of being caught.
@remi said in Internet of shit:
or major oil pipelines
Last mile is not done by pipelines. You could force a refinery or two to stop, which would cause some increase in prices, but there is enough refineries that it wouldn't take major shortage of anything.
@remi said in Internet of shit:
Even blowing up a bridge on some major road would cause long-term harm
Blowing up a bridge is hard. Detonating explosives on the outside does very little damage to structures, so you'd either need really lot of them (and even them you have to arrange them to the load-bearing structure), or drill them in.
Besides, while these would cause economic damage, none of it causes immediate danger to life, so not much terror.
-
@bulb said in Internet of shit:
Blowing up a bridge is hard.
Have you read the rest of my post? Where I brought up and addressed this exact point?
Also, like I said, the threat on various infrastructures would be not so much the actual immediate threat, as the fact that by starting to target those the governments would have to protect all similar ones, and there are billions of those. Like it happened here, there was one school attack a few years back and now all schools have to set up fences and block traffic and what not, which is a huge pain for the thousands of tiny ones in the middle of the countryside.
@bulb said in Internet of shit:
Besides, while these would cause economic damage, none of it causes immediate danger to life, so not much terror.
Yeah, but that's kind of my point. Somehow them wanting terror means they don't really try to cause lasting damage, even though IMO they could do so with about the same effort as what they put into terror. Not that I'm complaining about that, nor thinking that terror attacks are acceptable in any way (because they would be less than some other hypothetical threat), of course.
-
@remi said in Internet of shit:
and either wants, or at least doesn't care, if he gets caught/killed
I'd think that, at least for the religious fanatic kind of terrorist, getting killed in the process is an explicit aim; it's the whole martyr aspect where you have an assured place of honor in afterlife if you give your life for the religious cause. Consequently I suspect that it might be dissuasive if a significant portion of them was caught alive. They were aiming for eternal bliss in heaven, not a life of rotting in prison, after all.
Same goes IMHO for the "amok shooter" / "going postal" kind of indiscriminate killer. Even though the underlying motivations are quite different in these cases (and thus it's IMHO bad to conflate them with terrorists), the resulting mechanics are kind of similar.
-
@bulb said in Internet of shit:
Besides, while these would cause economic damage, none of it causes immediate danger to life, so not much terror.
There's this great book called Little Brother that shows exactly what would happen if terrorists bombed somewhere important (in the book, the Bay Bridge in California). It doesn't matter if they cause any lasting damage to the structure, or even to life. The government kicks into oh-shit mode and starts passing laws that go against the constitution if you look hard enough but why would you be looking hard if you have nothing to hide? Terror is a matter of public opinion, which is easier to sway than you think.
-
@dcon Someone needs to cross-correlate the stupid ideas thread with this one to see if people actively watch it for dumb IoS things to build next.
-
@pie_flavor An excellent book that I can only recommend. It's nice example of how terrorists aim to create terror (fear), which is only enabled by the overarching news-reporting and state reaction to it, including taking people's freedom to protect their safety.
The Ben Franklin quote comes to mind.
-
@timebandit said in Internet of shit:
the kind of devices that use tiny and relatively low-powered microcontrollers (MCUs) for basic control or connectivity features. Typically...
I don't understand what this has to do with the Marvel Cinematic Universe...
-
@gurth said in Internet of shit:
@timebandit said in Internet of shit:
The time on my alarm clock is flashing 8:88
It’s trying to tell you you need to activate the flux capacitor.
Internet of seeing some serious shit
-
@remi said in Internet of shit:
The terrorist now wants to be seen directly (and either wants, or at least doesn't care, if he gets caught/killed).
Islamic terrorists have a strong incentive to be KIA. Islam believes (AIUI) that Allah judges people on the balance between their good deeds and bad deeds (but he can still be completely arbitrary, if he so chooses; there are no guarantees — except...). However, if you die fighting infidels, you get a free pass; you get admitted into paradise and get your 72 virgins, regardless of how awful the rest of your life may have been. Thus, it is strongly beneficial for an evil (nominal) Muslim to die while in the act of killing non-Muslims. And most non-Muslims seem to completely not understand (or ignore for reasons of political correctness) this motivation.
-
@remi said in Internet of shit:
one reason most people assume that they're fighting a war is that they are themselves using those words and claiming that (and probably some of them do believe it).
Undoubtedly, and many of them are fighting a war — in Afghanistan, Syria, or wherever. But when they attack the general public in a European or American city, that’s not fighting that war but using other means to affect its outcome.
There is that, but if you're not ready to get caught/killed during the act, you would still try to make a bomb, even if it's hard. I think it goes both ways: they don't care about their lives, so they can go for the easy route (guns/knives/cars); and at the same time they go for the easy route because it makes them more directly visible (that makes them kind of heroic in their eyes, instead of anonymously dropping a bomb...).
Also interesting is that the islamic terrorist groups don’t seem to have realised — or deliberately ignore — what, say, the PIRA and ETA did: you don’t need to kill or maim any more people once you’ve shown you can. Plant a bomb, phone the authorities, and let them disarm it. This disturbs people almost as much as blowing up random passersby does, but it also shows you’re humane enough to not do that even though you could.
I suppose that’s an important reason for people like ISIS to not do that, though: they want to be seen as the bad guy, as that will cause Western governments to react against them more strongly, and that in turn lets them “prove” to the people who believe in them that “the West is out to destroy Islam” or whatever.
And now, in the "UK police state news of the day", the British government wants vans sellers/renters to notify authorities if the buyer doesn't sound like a legitimate buyer... :-(
Not like there have never been any other half-baked ideas for “security” in the UK that are impossible to put into practice.
-
@tsaukpaetra said in Internet of shit:
Good! Perhaps they can send me a w
ifeaifu!I'm pretty sure they keep all of those for themselves.
-
-
@polygeekery said in Internet of shit:
https://twitter.com/PicturesFoIder/status/1011268105903988736?s=19
I guess she agreed...
-
@dcon a while back my wife and I were in a department store that had those monstrosities. A salesman came over, started showing me all the "cool" stuff you could do with it. I told him we were checking it out for a laugh and there is no way I would ever buy such a thing.
If fridges ever get smart enough that they can generate a grocery list for me based on what is inside and/or let me check from my phone to see what I have then I might get interested. Right now it is basically just a tablet in the fridge door.
-
@polygeekery I'd add a "Will go bad soon"-feature to that list. Because that would be really helpful for a lot of people I suspect.
Plus a "Don't put tomatoes in the fridge, you nitwit" warning.
-
@polygeekery said in Internet of shit:
let me check from my phone to see what I have
That would be so great !
Be right back, going to kickstarter
-
@rhywden said in Internet of shit:
Plus a "Don't put tomatoes in the fridge, you nitwit" warning.
As well as potatoes and onions; I've seen people put both in the fridge. It seems to blow their minds when I give them the common-sense rule that if it wasn't refrigerated in the produce section it doesn't need to be refrigerated at home.
-
@heterodox (uncut) apples are another. Do you want grainy, mushy apples? That's how you get them.
-
@polygeekery said in Internet of shit:
If fridges ever get smart enough that they can generate a grocery list for me based on what is inside and/or let me check from my phone to see what I have then I might get interested
Pretty sure they can. At least, some of them. I don't remember where I saw it, but I distinctly remember this being a thing.
-
@erufael said in Internet of shit:
Pretty sure they can
Samsung's tablet fridge is back, can now make grocery lists
The Samsung Family Hub 2.0 gets new tech—but still no Alexa.
-
@heterodox said in Internet of shit:
As well as potatoes and onions; I've seen people put both in the fridge.
I don't put onions in the fridge; I put them in the freezer. It drastically reduces the amount of syn-propanethial S-oxide that is released into the air when they are sliced or chopped, making for a less eye-watering cooking experience.
-
@polygeekery said in Internet of shit:
https://twitter.com/PicturesFoIder/status/1011268105903988736?s=19
If your kitchen is designed in such a way that it locks from the outside (i.e. you can't just turn the lock knob) you're doomed anyways.
Who does that?
-
@tsaukpaetra said in Internet of shit:
If your kitchen is designed in such a way that it locks from the outside (i.e. you can't just turn the lock knob) you're doomed anyways.
That word.
Who does that?
Someone who doesn't understand fire codes?
-
@tsaukpaetra And of course it's completely impossible that someone on Twitter would just post some shit they made up.
-
@blakeyrat said in Internet of shit:
@tsaukpaetra And of course it's completely impossible that someone on Twitter would just post some shit they made up.
Everything you receive from the Internet must be true. The Internet informed me so!
-
-
@timebandit said in Internet of shit:
@erufael said in Internet of shit:
Pretty sure they can
The Samsung Family Hub 2.0 gets new tech—but still no Alexa.
I have my doubts about how well they could pull that off.
-
Swann home security camera sends video to wrong user
Swann Security acknowledges it sent clips from inside a family's home to the wrong person's app.
A leading security camera-maker has sent footage from inside a family's home to the wrong person's app.
Swann Security has blamed a factory error for the data breach - which was brought to its attention by the BBC - and said it was a "one-off" incident. However, last month another customer reported a similar problem saying his version of the same app had received footage from a pub's CCTV system. (...) Following an internal investigation, a Swann spokeswoman later provided an explanation. She said that "human error" had caused two cameras to be manufactured that shared the same "bank-grade security key - which secures all communications with its owner".
The BBC discovered there had been a report of a similar incident in May. (...) Swann's spokeswoman said that this matter was still under investigation, but that it suspected both parties had registered their products with the same username and password. (...) But when The Bradgate and Mr Lane agreed to divulge their usernames to the BBC, the logins did not match.
-
@polygeekery said in Internet of shit:
I have my doubts about how well they could pull that off.
Yes, I would be more confident in Samsung building a fireplace
-
@zerosquare said in Internet of shit:
"bank-grade security key - which secures all communications with its owner".
It "bank grade security key" like the 5 digit PIN my bank forces me to use?
-
@topspin You get 5?!? Wow, you're privileged. My bank only lets me use 4.
-
@hardwaregeek said in Internet of shit:
@topspin You get 5?!? Wow, you're privileged. My bank only lets me use 4.
Same. And I can't use my (nominally) more secure password, because it doesn't allow symbols so I have to omit a few characters.
-
@timebandit said in Internet of shit:
Yes, I would be more confident in Samsung building a fireplace
You could probably use apps on it, but I’m not sure it would keep you warm.
-
@gurth It would make crackling sounds, and then give you some fun facts about how your body can trick you into feeling colder than it actually is.
-
https://www.bungajungle.com/products/nope-microphone-blocker?variant=37981010117
$25 for a plug with a few resistors soldered to the pins.
Wow.
-
@tsaukpaetra If it's so easy, why not make one yourself?
-
@pie_flavor said in Internet of shit:
@tsaukpaetra If it's so easy, why not make one yourself?
Why do you think I know exactly what's inside it?
-
@tsaukpaetra said in Internet of shit:
https://www.bungajungle.com/products/nope-microphone-blocker?variant=37981010117
$25 for a plug with a few resistors soldered to the pins.
No, you got that all wrong:
$25 for two plugs with a few resistors soldered to the pins!
-
@tsaukpaetra said in Internet of shit:
$25 for a plug with a few resistors soldered to the pin
I doubt you're getting any resistors even. The usual way this is done is with a leaf-spring contact arrangement in the socket itself. Mating the plug into the barrel forces these auxiliary contacts together/apart and you just detect that.
That was definitely the way one of my old phones did it because I had it apart to fix the power socket.
Edit: Ultra-miniature TRS connector. You can see the aux contacts 4 and 5 here:
-
@cursorkeys Indeed. Plugging in an unconnected line usually causes the switch.
-
@cursorkeys In that case, wouldn't a solid-plastic plug work just as well (and probably be cheaper to manufacture)?
-
@pleegwat said in Internet of shit:
@cursorkeys In that case, wouldn't a solid-plastic plug work just as well (and probably be cheaper to manufacture)?
Yep, should do. I guess it ruins their aesthetic if it's just a piece of injection-moulded plastic maybe? Or possibly the metal jack bodies are available at such a low price-point they still win.
Edit: Possibly durability too, don't want something galling in there and then mangling the contacts.
