Yeah it can happen but so far I've never had a voting reversal.

@ᆼᆺᆼ It is on-topic, but it seems very similar to this, perhaps that Q&A (even if it is different (enough)) still answers your question better.

Completely flooded outside

damn

Looks... wet.

@SonictheInclusiveHedgehog since then though, we've gotten a lot more efficient at clearing those out

There's a flash flood warning in effect for many areas in TX:

Yep, I'm in Austin and I got one of those Wireless Emergency Alerts about it

I have to rely on radio for emergency alerts. I don't even have a phone.

At least radio is more resilient to natural disasters than mobile networks. :P

I have the Wireless Emergency Alert where cell towers broadcast the alert to your phone for disaster warnings. Just have to go to settings and turn it on.

I wonder if there are any standalone devices which support that kind of thing.

Forest, to get a WEA there must be cellular reception. I took a look around, I don't see a receive-only radio (that you'd pay a monthly subscription) with a cellular chip. There's plenty of 'Weather Radios' for well under a hundred bucks, so there's probably no market to pay at least 5 bucks a month (and most likely a lot more). For good or bad in the US if your provider offers WEA you get the alerts free (and can't

disable the presidential ones).

Well not thinking about WEA specifically.

#'s 4, 6, & 7, for example.

neato

@rene so, turns out it was almost a mirror image of this bug - and it was caused by the same change that broke the editor elsewhere.

Took me long enough to figure that out though :-/

thanks for the heads-up

threatpost.com/iot-devices-vulnerable-takeover/144167

^ And this is why anyone who buys a "smart" device is an idiot.

Especially if it's a baby monitor. :D

ancient news, forest, loads of devices havn't really thought it through commitstrip.com/en/2019/02/04/open-door

Yeah for sure, but that specific batch is new.

and there'll be another batch tomorrow

mmhm

Those, and children's toys are the funniest to see hacked.

(As much as I hate laws, I really think there should be some regulation for IoT...)

@forest iot was bork from the outset, was thinking to search out the original devices and list each one of them that's been cracked but that would be all of them. the only winning move is not to play

Exactly why there needs to be regulation.

And the sad thing is, it's not even that hard to secure an IoT device!

It's just that companies don't give a crap.

so you know how to do it, and all you need is some investment, and it's just unbelievable that nobody's thought of doing it properly before?

@ocæon No, plenty of people know how to do it, but why would a company hire someone like me? It's not like they're losing money to bad PR.

The only way to make sure photos don't get leaked is to shoot them on film and develop those at home. (Except you could be subject to a different kind of leak.)

Or use a "dumb" camera connected to a well-secured computer.

I'm sure there are cameras designed for security too. If not, it would be easy to design one assuming it can run Linux.

@forest But even airgapped computers can theoretically be hacked...might as well just keep everything in the analog realm.

If an attacker has access while you are recording videos or taking pictures, then it doesn't matter if it's analog or digital. If the only thing that matters is data at rest, then digital is superior.

How can a completely mechanical film camera get hacked?

Yeah, or break into someone's home and steal the developed negatives

mhm

Those aren't issues with a camera that stores to an encrypted hard drive.

Especially if it uses asymmetric cryptography to ensure that it can only be encrypted, not decrypted (rekeying every 30 seconds or something).

@forest Film cameras (usually) do have a kill switch, though: open the back with film loaded and it'll be exposed to light and all the pictures will be destroyed

That would just cause overexposure. It wouldn't destroy them.

No, it would.

The original image would still be possible to recover (at very poor quality).

Light will hit all areas, not just the ones that were previously exposed when the shutter clicked.

Sure, but sophisticated forensics techniques could likely recover some of it.

Now, if you blasted it with extremely high-intensity light, it might be harder...

@forest The only thing you can do is reduce the development time (pulling), and even then it wouldn't work.

I'd general expect a very thorough research paper demonstrating the inability to recover any information whatsoever from an overexposed film before relying on intentional overexposure as a critical security measure.

Now, there are two failure modes: 1. if a lot of pictures have already been taken, the first few ones will have been wound tightly onto the takeup spool and would thus be unaffected. 2. So far, I've only been referring to cameras with a traditional winding mechanism, where the film is wound out of the cartridge one at a time as pictures are taken, and then at the end it has to be rewound back;...

my main SLR camera actually uses a different prewinding mechanism where it initially winds out all of the film onto the takeup spool and rewinds the film back one at a time when each photo is taken. This mechanism would preserve all photos taken in case the back is opened (but would make the rest of the film unusable).

what make is it?

Canon EOS Rebel 2000 (sold as the EOS 300 outside of the U.S.)

my pentax also did it that way IIRC

to me it seems like taking photos on a smartphone is much more secure. there's a remote kill switch even if it's stolen

@ᆼᆺᆼ But that person could also hack your account and prevent you from accessing said kill switch

looking at a patent for a wireless headless device from 1995 google.com/patents/US6208266alot of which looks familiar.. mentions UMPNET protocol and barely mentions security at all! anyone know how many devices still incorporate it?

@SonictheInclusiveHedgehog how would they even find which account the phone is linked to? and even if they did, hacking an icloud/google play account is something only governments security agencies could do (only strong passwords allowed, regular security audits done on the servers...)

It'd be better to use a dedicated security camera than a smart phone.

That way you could have a vigilance monitor on it as well, and forward-sealing encryption with RSA.

i may as well just put up two baby monitors and a sign saying my home is hackable in 3d

heh

→ 37 messages moved to Chimney

→ 5 messages moved to Chimney

@Rishi that specific user has some history on SE so there might be an account merge gone haywire. Could also be caching. Wait for a couple (6 to 8) of days so all batch processes have run and if it doesn't resolve itself there might be bug.

They are unworthy to operate the chalk, unless they're doin' like Lewin:

Crank the volume, and check out one of his lectures. Vrrrrt.

Don't want to crank it (so turn it down) and check out the Circle Guy draw the perfect circle, instantly.

I flagged this post to have the comments moved to chat, but it was declined on the reason that it doesn't require moderator intervention. I thought moving comments to chat was something a mod is needed for?

Also, there were significantly more comments between me and the author that existed at the time I flagged, but in the between time, many of those comments were deleted; was the onus on me to notice and retract the flag? (I thought the official guidance was that it's not, and mods should dismiss flags as if the retraction feature didn't exist - which it didn't for a long time)

@SonictheInclusiveHedgehog AFAIK your interpretation is correct. Not 100% sure, though...

@SonictheInclusiveHedgehog If they need moving, yes.

@Tinkeringbell If none of the comments had been purged at the time the flag was being handled, would it have likely been done?

@SonictheInclusiveHedgehog "ballot" makes zero sense.

It's one vote.

There are two different ways to interpret the word "vote": one vote going to each candidate in order, or three votes (one first-choice vote, and so on) going to each candidate. Also, the video I linked uses the word "ballot", which is unambiguous.

@JourneymanGeek My Canco pen makes noises on paper, and it makes me feel smart. Same argument.

Yes, some chalk is 'more equal' than other chalk. Definitely agree there

And blackboard lectures are the best lectures

@SonictheInclusiveHedgehog it's literally in the name. Single Transferable Vote.

When editing FAQs these days, I often worry if others will understand it, especially since FAQ posts are referred to as documentation. But I get that the word "ballot" is not preferred, since the system never uses it.

@SonictheInclusiveHedgehog if you're not sure, try asking people whether your suggestion makes sense

not being able to suggest edits doesn't stop you running it past tavern first

Tried that before several times, but with no responses. Generally, I boldly apply them, and if it gets rolled back, I discuss it with the rollbacker.

Also, since you reverted my other wording changes (e.g. "knocked out" to "eliminated"), can you please explain to me what was the reason? (In the edit history, it seems like it could have just been an edit conflict, but is that so?)

@SonictheInclusiveHedgehog the latter is what gets you peevish responses from people who are tired of explaining their actions. I'd strongly advise dropping it here first, even if that means you have to wait a few hours to get a response.

@SonictheInclusiveHedgehog I edited from Catija's revision - the wording changes were mostly superfluous, so I saw no reason to keep them

@ArtOfCode Okay, I'll discuss major, potentially controversial changes here first.

@ArtOfCode You wouldn't object if I reinstated them (with the exception of the word "ballot" per the discussion here)?

@SonictheInclusiveHedgehog there's not really much reason to

they make no substantive difference