404? Has it been taken down?
The Bare Minimum You Should Do to Protect Your Family's Data
61–70 of 119 posts
Re: The Bare Minimum You Should Do to Protect Your Family's Data
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
15 years ago? Source control was very, very standard 15 years ago. 15 years ago I would have run, not walked, from a job if they didn't use source control. There was no git, we used CVS, which was almost old enough to vote at that time.
> Source control was very, very standard 15 years ago. For commercial shops, perhaps. But back then the bar for using source control was much, much higher, so for many small projects, people didn't bother. There wasn't anything as simple as `git init`. There were a few public CVS and SVN servers that were appropriate for open source projects, but for anything personal or commercial, you had to use a local, single-use…
> you had to set up your own server.
That was like 5 minutes of work, though. Maybe an hour or two if you hadn't done it before. It's absurdly easy to set up and use SVN. CVS was easy to set up, but a nightmare to use.
> you had to use a local, single-user repo or set up your own server.
That's the opposite of having no source control, that's having source control.
Re: The Bare Minimum You Should Do to Protect Your Family's Data
#63Link to archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20181127021739/https://blog.mozil...
Re: The Bare Minimum You Should Do to Protect Your Family's Data
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your brother and you share a lot of your DNA. You could be flagged by an insurance company for genes that your brother has.
No you can't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_Nondiscrim... And if GINA was repealed, (and it wouldn't be, it was passed the House 420-3 a and passed the Senate 95-0), the insurance companies aren't going to beat around the bush and try to hack 23andMe, they'd just demand DNA samples directly as a requirement of being insured.
Is "hack 23andMe" code for "partner with 23andMe"?
> they'd just demand DNA samples directly as a requirement of being insured.
Unless GINA was repealed, but that remained illegal.
Re: The Bare Minimum You Should Do to Protect Your Family's Data
#65[deleted]
Re: The Bare Minimum You Should Do to Protect Your Family's Data
#66More than half of that I wouldn't advice or would have serious caveats about the advice given... This is really a strange document... Just a few examples: "Don’t open emails, texts, ]...] from anyone you don’t know, don’t recognize, or weren’t expecting" "Don’t use unsecure Wi-Fi networks" Largely outdated due to HTTPS and completely impractical. Everyone uses the Wifi at starbucks. "Even better, get a VPN (virtual p…
I agree and I'm glad that it was taken down. However, an appeal to popularity, "Everyone uses the wifi at starbucks" is strange to see from someone who is advocating better security practices. Most phones should have certain network sharing features disabled before accessing an unsecured network. Among people I know it is common for someone to ask if anyone is currently running a mobile hotspot before opening their own. Questions like "Why not just use the cafe's (or bar's) WiFi?" don't even need to be asked.
Many people click the links at the bottom of a news article, open every email they get and click their contents with abandon and generally ignore they privacy and security on the web. That does not mean that that behavior should go unchallenged or that we should dismiss basic personal security with the old phrase, "Everyone is doing it."
Re: The Bare Minimum You Should Do to Protect Your Family's Data
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Compromise" in what sense? I don't find any sort of value in DNA services, but I don't feel "compromised" one bit that my brother uses them. Anyway, the idea of "family" when we get into DNA is not useful, a skilled person can track you down because a total stranger who you share great great great grandparents with uploaded their DNA into an open source DNA database, which is what happened with the Last Area Rapist.
If you murder someone, they might be able to find you via 32andme. Some people would say, "Don't murder people, then!" but folks sometimes prefer, "How dare they catch you, what a violation of your privacy!"
Even if you don't commit the crime, you become more vulnerable to being false-flagged for it by a combination of lab contamination and a DNA database search.
Of course, if you go down this line of reasoning, you need to weigh the probability of this versus the probability of dying to an undiagnosed/late-diagnosed genetic condition.
Re: The Bare Minimum You Should Do to Protect Your Family's Data
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you murder someone, they might be able to find you via 32andme. Some people would say, "Don't murder people, then!" but folks sometimes prefer, "How dare they catch you, what a violation of your privacy!"
So don't use 23 and me to make sure if your relatives can get away with murder?
Everyone who doesn't want their genetics searched has a murder to hide.
The punchline: the series of rapes and murders that was used to institutionalize mass DNA collection turned out to have been done by a cop who didn't have DNA taken.
Re: The Bare Minimum You Should Do to Protect Your Family's Data
#69Hitting a 404 now. Maybe all the comments here made them the blog editors realize they posted some bizarre advice.
Re: The Bare Minimum You Should Do to Protect Your Family's Data
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
15 years ago? Source control was very, very standard 15 years ago. 15 years ago I would have run, not walked, from a job if they didn't use source control. There was no git, we used CVS, which was almost old enough to vote at that time.
> Source control was very, very standard 15 years ago. For commercial shops, perhaps. But back then the bar for using source control was much, much higher, so for many small projects, people didn't bother. There wasn't anything as simple as `git init`. There were a few public CVS and SVN servers that were appropriate for open source projects, but for anything personal or commercial, you had to use a local, single-use…
Sourceforge is almost 20 years old now, and offered version control free of charge. For a while it was almost as dominant in the free software world as github is now. The FreeBSD CVS archive is 25 years old. Version control was absolutely mainstream back then.