We all know what happened. It was adequately described. Fox New just panders to the warmongers among us and is trying to rile them up.
I would advance the argument that the function of a news agency is to report the news. Not some of the news or the news you / I approve of. This is what's really happening in the world around us, without protecting us from things we may find objectionable or viewpoints differing from our own. How can we possibly make rational decisions or hold properly informed opinions based on only some of the information about a given situation?
On the contrary, helping people to succeed does not necessarily mean that others do not succeed.
Assuming a finite supply of resources, helping some people succeed necessarily means that others are not helped. It is therefore important that we choose a good way of selecting who gets the assistance. I strongly suspect that reverse discrimination (giving preference to females, low income students and minorities as explicitly stated in TFA) does not result in ideal selection criteria in this situation. Maybe something involving academic achievement and a desire to learn the subject matter (regardless of gender, social standing or anything else unrelated to the subject matter) might be more appropriate?
As someone who used to use his pocket computer for that, let me assure you they'll completely forget what they learned this week by the same time next week due to a lack of repetition. The idea is good though. Maybe they could work out a way to automate their homework and turn that in for extra credit / dual credit between their math and computers class?
On the off chance you aren't deliberately tossing out a red herring... You will find very few people arguing against improved devices or superior efficiency. The problem arises when your "smart" devices start collecting and distributing information about you over the worlds largest information interchange network. Do you see how that could be objectionable to some people?
I'm fairly sure you were going for the "funny" tag, but just in case you were serious...
When a company assures you your information is secure, look at what recompense you will receive as a result of them being wrong. That figure is a great indicator of how confident the company is in the security of your information.
I just don't get why doing this voluntarily is a good thing.
My read on it is that the telcos don't want to have to comply with laws forcing them to cooperate, so they're just willing to do it in the first place. As a happy side effect, the voluntary implementation would be much less "noisy", saving the telcos from looking like they would happily sell out their customers.
From the Telco's POV, it's the closest to a win this situation has.
If you take a moment and carefully read what I wrote, you will notice I said nothing about weather this execution / lethal shooting was justified, or weather the rioters were justified in their acts of destruction, vandalism and looting. I'm presenting some facts in the hope some people may see the situation from a different viewpoint. I'm saying that we have a problem with our police in the US and people are getting angry, as they have lost faith in our legal system's ability to protect them from the police leaving them stuck between a rock and a hard place. If your problem is the police, and the courts won't help, where do you go? In my opinion, this is the problem we need to be addressing.
They're not interested in any kind of justice. They're only interested in revenge
And you are surprised?...
Can we consider for a moment the possibility that they've given up on the "justice" angle and are now left with "revenge"?
Regardless of everything else, a man under cover of authority has shot and killed an unarmed teenager. Again. Some would consider this a serious crime. Some would even think there should be repurcussions as a result of killing another person. Yesterday evening we learned there will be no criminal charges. How did we think this was going to turn out?
Well, depending on your application (and I'm assuming here it's not too demanding if you're using a mini as a server), you could always stick an external HDD and schedule Carbon Copy Cloner to dupe the boot drive over every now and then and the data portion rather more often. That'll give you a bootable volume in case of primary failure. It's not a raid 1 but for home or small office purposes it would probably do the trick just fine.
"Ordinarily you'd think that the user had a poor password..." Actually we can, you know, look it up. It's in the news. And no it wasn't a poor password and I didn't think that. But thanks for putting words in my mouth.
"And what is precisely why you don't get this." Is this a question? It looks more like a statement.
"This is an either/or case." Why in the world couldn't it be both? Why can't we have a vendor vulnerability and users with bad password discipline? Are they somehow mutually exclusive?
No, not really. There are various ways to poll weather "most people approve of what R&D are doing" but Congressional approval at 14% and presidential approval around 50% (with some pretty significant drops), I don't know that you could safely take the approval of the majority as a foregone conclusion. The general tone I'm seeing is that people are getting increasingly discontented(sp?) with their government, Occupy style. There are two realistic choices, and I think the argument could be made they are both similar enough to be considered functionally equivalent (think Bush / Obama actions). To a large degree, they are also not what the people want.
Absolutely!
When I go "shipping" online though, there are fairly rigorous security measures in place to assure both me and, say, Amazon that everything is on the up-and-up. If something goes south, Visa will step in and kick someone's hindquarters. Regardless, I as the end-user don't end up assuming liability for, say, someone getting my CC# and making purchases on my behalf. In this case, the security was plainly not sufficient to the task and JL has no intermediary to run interference for her. You're right, same tubes, but the implementation is what makes the difference.
News flash: vendors may stretch the truth just a bit when telling you how great their services are!
Fact: the services in question had a weakness which was successfully exploited.
What I'm trying to explain to you is that the pictures were not properly secured. We can tell because they went public without authorization via a hack. That security was Jennifer Lawrence's responsibility. You will notice nothing in the links you sent talking about guarantees or compensation in case of a breach. She did not assign responsibility for the security of her photos to Apple or Dropbox.
So, to recap...
1) Nude selfies produced by Jennifer Lawrence.
2) Insufficient security used to protect pictures after they were sent across / posted on the INTERNET.
3) Pictures go public because there are bad people on the internet.
4) Jennifer Lawrence claims she is a victim of a sex crime
To put it another way (per your request): If your picnic in the middle of the street on a blind turn is ruined by a car driving through it, while the driver may be cited for not yielding right of way to a pedestrian, it's really your fault for exercising poor judgment locating it there in the first place.
When you say " that's equivalent to putting photos in an envelope and putting them in a post office? I don't think so.". Well, it was an analogy but YES. We have insufficiently secured personal documents posted on a public medium.
If I have naked selfies printed out in my house[*] and someone comes in and steals them...
Ah, but what if "Sam" puts nude selfies in an envelope and pins the envelope up at the local post office? Without a doubt the guy that takes them out of the envelope is wrong to do so, but as the possessor of an extremely low UID "Sam" should know his nude pics would be interesting to many people. In this scenario, you don't think "Sam" should bear any responsibility for creating and insecurely distributing his selfies? Note I'm not arguing that breaking into the account and making a copy of the pics contained therein was right, I'm just saying that a celebrity sending nude pictures of themselves over a worldwide network designed to disseminate data looks a bit silly crying crocodile tears when someone other than the intended recipient sees them.
So you're saying there could be issues with uploading nude pics of yourself (that you don't want public) to a world encompassing network whose primary purpose is the free interchange of data? Amazing!
Of course, this is all ignoring the fact that US is a democracy. You don't need a revolution to change the people in charge, you simply need to express support for someone else, and anonymously at that.
There was this country recently that had huge protests because while they were getting a democratic election the only people they could vote for were preapproved by a third party not necessarily interested in what the people wanted. Yeah, we have two choices (we can pretend there are more but let's stick to reality here) and they end up being functionally the same and not what we want.
Additionally, there’s no known way to make the boot loader just dump an image of the encrypted flash for you to start brute forcing on. You’d need to disassemble the phone, desolder the flash chips, and read them out in another circuit.
As I understand it, if they're serious about getting the contents of your phone and it's not unlocked / trivially made available, they just get your backup files and hack the information out of those. Encrypt your backups!
Slashdot Mirror
We all know what happened. It was adequately described. Fox New just panders to the warmongers among us and is trying to rile them up.
I would advance the argument that the function of a news agency is to report the news. Not some of the news or the news you / I approve of. This is what's really happening in the world around us, without protecting us from things we may find objectionable or viewpoints differing from our own. How can we possibly make rational decisions or hold properly informed opinions based on only some of the information about a given situation?
On the contrary, helping people to succeed does not necessarily mean that others do not succeed.
Assuming a finite supply of resources, helping some people succeed necessarily means that others are not helped.
It is therefore important that we choose a good way of selecting who gets the assistance. I strongly suspect that reverse discrimination (giving preference to females, low income students and minorities as explicitly stated in TFA) does not result in ideal selection criteria in this situation.
Maybe something involving academic achievement and a desire to learn the subject matter (regardless of gender, social standing or anything else unrelated to the subject matter) might be more appropriate?
Let's keep this problem in the proper perspective. There's only 9 of them in the first place.
Unless you're an elf.
Or a dwarf.
Or a hobbit.
As someone who used to use his pocket computer for that, let me assure you they'll completely forget what they learned this week by the same time next week due to a lack of repetition. The idea is good though. Maybe they could work out a way to automate their homework and turn that in for extra credit / dual credit between their math and computers class?
On the off chance you aren't deliberately tossing out a red herring...
You will find very few people arguing against improved devices or superior efficiency. The problem arises when your "smart" devices start collecting and distributing information about you over the worlds largest information interchange network. Do you see how that could be objectionable to some people?
I'm fairly sure you were going for the "funny" tag, but just in case you were serious...
When a company assures you your information is secure, look at what recompense you will receive as a result of them being wrong. That figure is a great indicator of how confident the company is in the security of your information.
Sure if its just janie talking to grandma, they can leave it all in the clear.
Wouldn't it be better if everything were encrypted, so stuff that's actually important / private doesn't stick out like a xmas tree lit in a forest?
I just don't get why doing this voluntarily is a good thing.
My read on it is that the telcos don't want to have to comply with laws forcing them to cooperate, so they're just willing to do it in the first place. As a happy side effect, the voluntary implementation would be much less "noisy", saving the telcos from looking like they would happily sell out their customers.
From the Telco's POV, it's the closest to a win this situation has.
Restatement of the "If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" idiocy. Not even going to trouble myself to refute it.
If you take a moment and carefully read what I wrote, you will notice I said nothing about weather this execution / lethal shooting was justified, or weather the rioters were justified in their acts of destruction, vandalism and looting. I'm presenting some facts in the hope some people may see the situation from a different viewpoint. I'm saying that we have a problem with our police in the US and people are getting angry, as they have lost faith in our legal system's ability to protect them from the police leaving them stuck between a rock and a hard place. If your problem is the police, and the courts won't help, where do you go? In my opinion, this is the problem we need to be addressing.
They're not interested in any kind of justice. They're only interested in revenge
And you are surprised?...
Can we consider for a moment the possibility that they've given up on the "justice" angle and are now left with "revenge"?
Regardless of everything else, a man under cover of authority has shot and killed an unarmed teenager. Again. Some would consider this a serious crime. Some would even think there should be repurcussions as a result of killing another person. Yesterday evening we learned there will be no criminal charges. How did we think this was going to turn out?
Well, depending on your application (and I'm assuming here it's not too demanding if you're using a mini as a server), you could always stick an external HDD and schedule Carbon Copy Cloner to dupe the boot drive over every now and then and the data portion rather more often. That'll give you a bootable volume in case of primary failure. It's not a raid 1 but for home or small office purposes it would probably do the trick just fine.
"Ordinarily you'd think that the user had a poor password..." Actually we can, you know, look it up. It's in the news. And no it wasn't a poor password and I didn't think that. But thanks for putting words in my mouth.
"And what is precisely why you don't get this." Is this a question? It looks more like a statement.
"This is an either/or case." Why in the world couldn't it be both? Why can't we have a vendor vulnerability and users with bad password discipline? Are they somehow mutually exclusive?
Is it really "stolen" when they're actually just copied from an improperly secured repository?
No, not really. There are various ways to poll weather "most people approve of what R&D are doing" but Congressional approval at 14% and presidential approval around 50% (with some pretty significant drops), I don't know that you could safely take the approval of the majority as a foregone conclusion. The general tone I'm seeing is that people are getting increasingly discontented(sp?) with their government, Occupy style. There are two realistic choices, and I think the argument could be made they are both similar enough to be considered functionally equivalent (think Bush / Obama actions). To a large degree, they are also not what the people want.
Absolutely!
When I go "shipping" online though, there are fairly rigorous security measures in place to assure both me and, say, Amazon that everything is on the up-and-up. If something goes south, Visa will step in and kick someone's hindquarters. Regardless, I as the end-user don't end up assuming liability for, say, someone getting my CC# and making purchases on my behalf. In this case, the security was plainly not sufficient to the task and JL has no intermediary to run interference for her. You're right, same tubes, but the implementation is what makes the difference.
News flash: vendors may stretch the truth just a bit when telling you how great their services are!
Fact: the services in question had a weakness which was successfully exploited.
What I'm trying to explain to you is that the pictures were not properly secured. We can tell because they went public without authorization via a hack. That security was Jennifer Lawrence's responsibility. You will notice nothing in the links you sent talking about guarantees or compensation in case of a breach. She did not assign responsibility for the security of her photos to Apple or Dropbox.
So, to recap...
1) Nude selfies produced by Jennifer Lawrence.
2) Insufficient security used to protect pictures after they were sent across / posted on the INTERNET.
3) Pictures go public because there are bad people on the internet.
4) Jennifer Lawrence claims she is a victim of a sex crime
To put it another way (per your request): If your picnic in the middle of the street on a blind turn is ruined by a car driving through it, while the driver may be cited for not yielding right of way to a pedestrian, it's really your fault for exercising poor judgment locating it there in the first place.
When you say " that's equivalent to putting photos in an envelope and putting them in a post office? I don't think so.". Well, it was an analogy but YES. We have insufficiently secured personal documents posted on a public medium.
If I have naked selfies printed out in my house[*] and someone comes in and steals them...
Ah, but what if "Sam" puts nude selfies in an envelope and pins the envelope up at the local post office? Without a doubt the guy that takes them out of the envelope is wrong to do so, but as the possessor of an extremely low UID "Sam" should know his nude pics would be interesting to many people. In this scenario, you don't think "Sam" should bear any responsibility for creating and insecurely distributing his selfies?
Note I'm not arguing that breaking into the account and making a copy of the pics contained therein was right, I'm just saying that a celebrity sending nude pictures of themselves over a worldwide network designed to disseminate data looks a bit silly crying crocodile tears when someone other than the intended recipient sees them.
Why is this so hard to grasp?
So you're saying there could be issues with uploading nude pics of yourself (that you don't want public) to a world encompassing network whose primary purpose is the free interchange of data? Amazing!
No, the leak was an *improbable* negative. Improbable doesn't mean impossible, but it also doesn't mean probable, or guaranteed.
Did anyone else think "Heart of Gold" while reading this?
Of course, this is all ignoring the fact that US is a democracy. You don't need a revolution to change the people in charge, you simply need to express support for someone else, and anonymously at that.
There was this country recently that had huge protests because while they were getting a democratic election the only people they could vote for were preapproved by a third party not necessarily interested in what the people wanted.
Yeah, we have two choices (we can pretend there are more but let's stick to reality here) and they end up being functionally the same and not what we want.
How does a copy of a drive image wipe itself after any number of failed attempts?
Apple branded rainbows and magical unicorns. I'm fuzzy on the details, but any Apple fanboy could probably explain it to you.
Additionally, there’s no known way to make the boot loader just dump an image of the encrypted flash for you to start brute forcing on. You’d need to disassemble the phone, desolder the flash chips, and read them out in another circuit.
As I understand it, if they're serious about getting the contents of your phone and it's not unlocked / trivially made available, they just get your backup files and hack the information out of those. Encrypt your backups!
Chevy Chase was awesome...
Dark Star reference?