but … but … corruption! … communism! faking heart attack*
5 Likes
As a general rule, most unions don’t like the police and prison unions as they tend to support violence towards strikers rather than solidarity. Police/prison unions are also usually right wing, which is why you rarely see conservatives attacking them.
12 Likes
You know, the US is already a heavily socialized country, right?
The richest and most powerful corporations are taken care of by the government, which helps them redistribute the wealth of the populous into the hands of monied interests.
Some people call it supply-side economics, or “trickle down”.
Most people aren’t really happy with this kind of socialism, and would prefer something that redistributes wealth more evenly. Like regulated capitalism.
3 Likes
It was sarcasm, you know?
Where I live we have this thing called social market economy, and I’m glad about that. Systems like that are often derided as socialism or communism by US citizens/politicians.
6 Likes
Emphasis mine.
They’re universally derided by one political party. Most citizens, if you sit them down and talk to them, end up describing some form of socialism as an ideal economy, where human people are given a safety net, corporations are less than human in the rights they’re able to exercise, and also have responsibility to real living human beings, and people are treated fairly.
6 Likes
It’s hard to tell with you sometimes. You’re often quite overt in expressing disgust and contempt with the American people in general.
Not saying you’re disgusted necessarily with individuals, but you seem to dislike America, just from what you’ve said in the past.
What I interpret is that you’re usually disgusted with our government. You’re in good company in that sense.
7 Likes
but the domain is ¡great!
4 Likes
they piss on the people and call it trickle down…
it is a torrent !!
3 Likes
There’s a sufficient prevalence of spyware, ransomware, and other malware being delivered via compromised, or malicious, websites for me to think that journalists covering black hat issues should check to see that the the website is clean before propagating the link. Given the number of vectors that any given website might try to exploit (browsers, plug-ins, Flash, Java, etc. for each OS), it seems likely that a not insignificant number of readers of a publication as popular as The Guardian would have an unpatched vector. And, if news orgs are going to do the work to check that the site is clean, it seems little additional work to include that in the reporting.
Not everyone stays fully patched. My grandmom still calls me every time iOS asks her to agree to updated terms and conditions. le sigh
I don’t know that. (dude you are blowing your own cover, your supposed to be all incognito and stuff).
5 Likes
How would they do that? They aren’t security professionals. If anyone would get owned by a site, it would be them, after all.
This applies to just about any potential website though. You know how most malware gets served? Through ad networks in place on a random site (and probably via Flash). The site doesn’t get owned, the ad network does and the site just happens to be a vector.
That said, as I asked, if you’re running a “fully patched browser…what do you think will happen?”
Nope and those people will get owned, day in and day out, just doing normal web browsing. This catchy URL site isn’t any more likely to own them than Joe’s wordpress site that’s serving ad network data.
What this really says is the Internet is scary and people get owned. We both know that. I know you’re saying the journalists should probably check these things out. Putting my security hat on, if a journalist said they’d checked a site out and it was safe, I would have a good long belly laugh, wipe away the tears in my eyes from laughing so hard, and then assume that they had no clue anyway. The number of journalists who know anything about security, while greater than zero, is not high.
1 Like
News orgs of a sufficient size should hire security professionals to mitigate this risk for their readers, not pass off the burden to their customers. News is valuable when it reduces friction between the curious reader and the story.
Any given URL is more likely to be visited when it’s linked by a major news org.
You’re right. In my prior posts, I’d said “outlets” and “The Guardian” and later “publications” and “news orgs.” Krebs aside, most Journo’s aren’t up to, and shouldn’t be, tasked with this. I got lazy in the back-forth.
Google “the death of news” and ask yourself if they can afford to hire security professionals when they can’t even afford to hire reporters. They simply can’t afford the expertise.
A smart security person could probably make a name for his or herself by being available on a contract basis for such work.
The exception is something like “The Intercept,” which does have some security chops.
2 Likes
I’d not want to use that as a defense against not taking reasonable precaution to prevent the spread of malicious code.
If their readers install security updates, they are likely fine. It isn’t on the journalists.
Yep. Got 'em right here…nononono, the other pocket, and waaaayyyy at the bottom.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
