It should not be assumed that all applications will be backward compatible. History tells us that.
It is the application developer's responsibility to ensure that their apps work with the latest OS. It is the school's IT guys who have the responsibility to ensure that the applications they deploy work with the OS's in use and if not, they then have the responsibility to mitigate any compatibility issues.
Actually, the vast majority of the case law applies to soley domestic phone calls. When you bring an international variable in, it could be considered similar to postal mail. Most people probably do not realize this, but postal mail coming from outside the U.S., can be searched without a court order.
Then there is the whole national security trumpt card the Executive branch can play.
To split hairs even further, the case law also places a lot of emphasis on intent. If we are intending to intercept the phone call of someone overseas and that individual just happens to be talking to a U.S. citizen, (the devil is in the details, but) it very likely is not illegal because of the intent.
Not only that, but he's also wrong in his criticism. What he says is a trojan horse can be a virus. It can also be a worm. It all depends on what it does and if/how it propogates.
None of that is a real solution for the average user though. SELinux is nice, if you know what you're doing. You have to define what is and is not allowed by each individual program. That right there is too much work for the average user. Its even worse to implement on Windows, considering how many applications that exist for it; many of them all but unheard of. There is no way to protect against the truly unknown.
Always ask if your technologically-challenged grand parents are able to use the system easily with little to no real training. That is what companies are aiming for, and always will. Yes, certain things can be done to reduce the damage inflicted by malware, some involve better technological design and others involve better social-engineering type design, but none of that will be as secure as what many here seem to expect,or experience, every day.
Microsoft should improve its software. It should add new features and new capabilities. Hopefully that includes security features, capabilities, applications. While I have a very strong desire to just say that Microsoft can do whatever it wants with its software, I also believe that users would ultimately be happier with Microsoft should they have the ability for many other choices. In this situation, Microsoft could probably take some actions to reduce the criticisms directed toward them, but its competitors should receive just as much criticism.
Slashdot Mirror
It should not be assumed that all applications will be backward compatible. History tells us that. It is the application developer's responsibility to ensure that their apps work with the latest OS. It is the school's IT guys who have the responsibility to ensure that the applications they deploy work with the OS's in use and if not, they then have the responsibility to mitigate any compatibility issues.
When the article states that the stones at the bottom are denser, does that not mean they are stronger?
Well, that brings the total number of people who actually know the law to 2.
Actually, the vast majority of the case law applies to soley domestic phone calls. When you bring an international variable in, it could be considered similar to postal mail. Most people probably do not realize this, but postal mail coming from outside the U.S., can be searched without a court order. Then there is the whole national security trumpt card the Executive branch can play. To split hairs even further, the case law also places a lot of emphasis on intent. If we are intending to intercept the phone call of someone overseas and that individual just happens to be talking to a U.S. citizen, (the devil is in the details, but) it very likely is not illegal because of the intent.
Not only that, but he's also wrong in his criticism. What he says is a trojan horse can be a virus. It can also be a worm. It all depends on what it does and if/how it propogates.
None of that is a real solution for the average user though. SELinux is nice, if you know what you're doing. You have to define what is and is not allowed by each individual program. That right there is too much work for the average user. Its even worse to implement on Windows, considering how many applications that exist for it; many of them all but unheard of. There is no way to protect against the truly unknown. Always ask if your technologically-challenged grand parents are able to use the system easily with little to no real training. That is what companies are aiming for, and always will. Yes, certain things can be done to reduce the damage inflicted by malware, some involve better technological design and others involve better social-engineering type design, but none of that will be as secure as what many here seem to expect ,or experience, every day.
Microsoft should improve its software. It should add new features and new capabilities. Hopefully that includes security features, capabilities, applications. While I have a very strong desire to just say that Microsoft can do whatever it wants with its software, I also believe that users would ultimately be happier with Microsoft should they have the ability for many other choices. In this situation, Microsoft could probably take some actions to reduce the criticisms directed toward them, but its competitors should receive just as much criticism.