If I must have a motivation for saying TRUE things about most Android phones, you must have an extremely sinister motivation for saying FALSE things about them. Come on, what is it?
Ohh, I must have a "motivation". Never mind that I have been correct about open and unlocked bootloaders all along, and you have been wrong about it without any evidence except one phone that you forgot the name of and it has vanished from the internet since then. Very plausible.
And I have not attacked Jolla at all, I have just called you out on your lie about "average" Android phones having locked bootloaders. I cannot attack OR praise Jolla yet, because, you know, it is not that widely available yet. I am not like you who attacks something with one forgotten piece of evidence that cannot be found again however much someone "insults" you because of it. Unlike you, I also don't have to hide behind other people to make my argument for me. Whatever the truth, I confronted your "shield" people too with that. Just that they were much less wrong than you are.
On the other hand, YOU did attack Android phones by saying "average" of them are locked , which is blatantly false.
So now, tell me, why YOU hate Android so, in spite of much more phones being open than Jolla's , which doesn't have many phones in the market yet. It is not confirmed whether they will honour warranty after alternate ROMs have been flashed, as that could be highly suicidal for Jolla too.
One never knows whether you are being dishonest, like just recent post where you "admit" you didn't detail it, whereas you hadn't even mentioned it. Or you are modifying your original statement to make the device autonomy optional. Especially since it didn't come with any apology or admission of incorrectness in the original post.
So I didn't detail the automation features as optional to implement, boo-fucking-hoo
You didn't detail it? You didn't fucking mention it. And now you are shouting about it. This is not sufficient admission, I am afraid.
We're talking about Google, they're most likely to implement something like that, so I didn't think it was worth going into that level of detail
Yes, that level of detail as of actually mentioning it. I wonder why you even mentioned as much as you did. Google is most likely to implement it, right ?
Both of your "arguments" are based entirely on the (for the 3rd or 4th time now) OPTIONALLY IMPLEMENTED
Shouting won't help. The post to which I originally replied, discussed the device (on its own accord, possibly against the wishes of the device owner) disabling the camera using a physical button. It is not at all mentioned that it is optional, nor is it mentioned that the physical shutter can be manually activated.
Even the override option that you mentioned relies completely on the device (acting on its own accord, possibly against device owner's wishes) informing the restaurant owner (or public at large around it) that it has been overridden.
Rather than shouting, make sensible statements in the first place so that you don't display your technology illiteracy. First admit that you posted something completely stupid, with device acting against its owner possibly against device owner's wishes in the face of rooting/jailbreaking/hacking. Then I will explain how it is not much better than status quo even otherwise.
The device would NOT act against its owner in any way
Owner to device : pretend as if you are disabled. Device : 2 possible answers :
1. Ok : Your "solution" doesn't work, which consists of the manufacturer telling owner that a device has been overridden, because the device has first told the manufacturer that it has been overridden.
2. No : Device is acting against the owner.
it was intended to solve is that Glass users seem to not want to take
Glass, with a capital G, taken to mean Google Glass in its current form, doesn't have these particular protection measures. So obviously any "solution" is intended for future devices. If you are saying it is not for future devices either, you can as well give up.
you were not criticizing, so much as insisting that I had no solution at all, which is very different. Furthermore, the "paper shields" example actually does provide no solution at all and can therefore be dismissed as an analogy to my proposed actual solution.
This is the exact reason why paper shields example is right for this.
1. According to yourself, I am saying your "solution" is no solution at all 2. You agree that alternative solution is not required for criticism. (I assert that saying your solution is no solution at all is an extreme form of criticism). 3. Hence paper shields, which are no solution at all, demonstrate perfectly why no real solution needs to be proposed when another "solution" is declared to be no solution at all.
If you can't even comprehend this much, I am afraid no one should have let you within a mile of your high school debate team lest you infect them with idiocy.
Anyway, since you have even stopped defending your idea of a device acting against its owner in the face of rooting etc., I guess you have accepted the technological illiteracy of your argument. So it does seem we are done here.
With long enough exposure, a head-mounted camera won't be steady enough to produce a recognizable photograph, so that's not really a concern, now, is it? I've worked with 60+sec exposure times; I know how steady the camera has to be for them to turn out, even at 100ms, the camera must be very steady.
With ever smaller cameras, surely people will find other places to mount , place or hover the camera than the head.
You just love your strawmen, don't you? First of all, an extra shutter would have no detrimental effect on video quality, so I'm not sure the angle from which your attacking this is valid.
And you mention my strawmen!! I never said it affects camera quality. Just before this sentence, was the tinyness, and wearableness of the device being discussed. LED was disabled by Nokia because of a questionable effect on photography, rendering them (slightly) ineffective in their stated purpose - good video recording . Large shutters will not be put in place in wearable computing because they are large - rendering them (very) ineffective in their stated purpose - being so small that one wouldn't even mind wearing them and still be reasonable cameras. Phew!!
Analogies must be analogous
It was answering your one implied statement (and that statement only) that someone must give some solution for any criticism to be valid. That is clearly not true as perfectly demonstrated by thermonuclear bombs and paper shields. I didn't ask you to stretch the analogy beyond its stated purpose. Either you take back your statement questioning my criticism without solution, or tell me why you dismiss paper shields as ineffective without proposing any solution yourself.
We've convinced toymakers to put orange tips on the active ends of their guns to show that they're harmless; why can't we get them to put them on the active ends of their cameras, as well?
All the danger with toy guns not being orange was someone seeing them, and then mistaking them for real guns. The "danger" with cameras is people not seeing them at all, and them getting smaller and smaller as technology progresses. All the marking is useless if the item is too small to see in the first place.
Have you ever tried shooting photos or video through a colored filter? Anything dark enough to appear opaque from more than a few feet away is too dark to shoot through in a non-studio-lit setting unless all you care about is where the light sources are located in a room and how frequently someone (anyone) walks past them
Yes, I have tried all that. Works great. Learn the ABCD of photography before spouting bullshit. With long enough exposure, very low light can give very good pictures. So slow moving items can be photographed very easily with the limited light coming from the filter.
Furthermore, as the shutter would be internal (e.g. it would slide into the unit when not active, because honestly who wants that thing visible when it doesn't have to be) and these devices aren't exactly built with disassembly in mind (they're tiny and light, as a function of being largely glued together and impossible to take apart and reassemble without breaking something internal
So they are tiny and light. And they feature a large, easily visible, and movable artifact called shutter. If questionable effect on video quality made Nokia remove LED indicator, manufacturers of these devices, marketing them as "wearable" - will love to hang extra "shutters" , right?
By the way, strawmen aren't really any harder to work past than paper bags. Nice try, though.
They are called analogies. Look itt up in a dictionary.
Ah, I see, you think we're trying to achieve n = 2048? Not at all
Ok, I am not sure what you meant by n if they have to try 2^n possibilities, and n is not the dictionary size. You still haven't defined "n" for the statement "still going to have to try 2^n possibilities"
Unless you defined n as the log of number of times the cracker has to try. Was that statement meant as a tautology ?
Far from that. 2^n is assuming there is a possibility all the words are used. For 2048 word dictionary, with average word size 5, 2^n means a password of length 0 to 10240 (over ten thousand) characters. If we assume humans are typing, it has to be restricted to less than 100 characters, practically less than 25.
Assume 0-10 words are required for this, reducing 2^n to n^10 (same word can be chosen twice in the same password, of course). Then all permutations of those 10 words are required, so multiply it by factorial 10. Still much lower than 2^n.
Point 5: To get around the "foreign transaction" problem, States came up with the idea of a "use tax". Since they have no authority to tax a transaction that takes place in another state, what they do is tax the purchaser for the use of the item they purchased elsewhere. The use tax is invariably the same amount as a sales tax would be, BUT it isn't a tax on the transaction, it is a tax on the use of the item within the resident's state. So it is legal.
Ok, so if you say, it must be the way the law works in the US. Fine. But the way you say it, it appears you think it is morally justified, and a fair tax. Is it so?
I don't, because the "use tax" is quite opaquely an adaptation of sales tax, as you yourself say. So why should a buyer pay a "sales tax" twice - once in the state where the "transaction" takes place, and second time in the state where the item will be used?
It does mean "99% of every actual device has been done". Iff :
1. By every actual device, you mean electronic devices 2. By "done" you mean hacked / rooted / jailbroken 3. We are only talking about a month or more old devices 4. The "device" should be in the same general class of "Google glass", in at least a rough way. Means we are not talking about LEDs, loosely sold OPAMPs, etc.
Or, you know, the lockout shutter can be fire-truck red or some other obvious color
In which case, at the very least, red photography cannot be stopped.
or simply presumed to not exist, in which case business owners can simply not allow the device, as they do currently.
I was replying to your post which this shutter was presumed to exist. And if the owners have to maintain the status quo, your "easy answer" is useless by your own admission.
I don't see you proposing any solution, whatsoever, though. Why is that?
Yes, everyone mentioning that paper shields don't protect against thermonuclear bombs are not proposing any solution so their statement is to be discredited, right? So paper shield, FTW!!!
Or, are you suggesting that, since there is no perfect solution, nothing should be done at all? Because I'm sure that's the best way for us to progress; how could I have been so naive?
Great answer for the paper shield. Which is about as effective as your "easy answer". Yay for the paper shield.
For the record, Google is not the only company capable of putting a brightly-colored (and only visible when the interlock is active) piece of plastic in front of a lens
Right. So as soon as any new company springs up doing the same, all restaurant owners have to scramble to lose their privacy to the new manufacturer too. Without any guarantee of privacy for their customers, because device will be rooted in a month, at the most.
Also, my technologically-illiterate ass has rooted or jaillbroken every smartphone I've ever owned and, in fact, mentioned that possibility elsewhere in this very thread.
Then you should have realized the futility of having the device restrict the owner. In fact, I replied to a particular post of yours, not to "elsewhere in this vey thread".
Furthermore, what part of "with a physical (and visible) shutter" makes you think it should blend in with the device so well as to be so easily defeated
Your "answer" was already rendered useless by the rooting possibility. And a shutter, of whatever kind, can so easily be physically tampered with, that this shutter cannot result in any security over and above the device software. And blending with the device less well can only result in more easily defeated mechanism, unless you mean something else by "blending" than what most others mean.
Perhaps my technological literacy, given that I work in an engineering discipline, is not what should be called into question
Wanting some "respect" for "authority", are we? How about displaying some technological literacy in your posts than mention about the "discipline" of your "work" ?
Slashdot Mirror
This was not for you. Unless dbIII and you are sockpuppets of each other.
If you had made a little less effort to see a pattern in Android phone bootloaders, you wouldn't have made a fool of yourselves like this.
I am not surprised. Defeat frequently produces disinterest.
So finally you accept you were wrong all along about "average" Android phones having locked bootloaders.
Irrelevant.
If I must have a motivation for saying TRUE things about most Android phones, you must have an extremely sinister motivation for saying FALSE things about them. Come on, what is it?
Ohh, I must have a "motivation". Never mind that I have been correct about open and unlocked bootloaders all along, and you have been wrong about it without any evidence except one phone that you forgot the name of and it has vanished from the internet since then. Very plausible.
And I have not attacked Jolla at all, I have just called you out on your lie about "average" Android phones having locked bootloaders. I cannot attack OR praise Jolla yet, because, you know, it is not that widely available yet. I am not like you who attacks something with one forgotten piece of evidence that cannot be found again however much someone "insults" you because of it. Unlike you, I also don't have to hide behind other people to make my argument for me. Whatever the truth, I confronted your "shield" people too with that. Just that they were much less wrong than you are.
On the other hand, YOU did attack Android phones by saying "average" of them are locked , which is blatantly false.
So now, tell me, why YOU hate Android so, in spite of much more phones being open than Jolla's , which doesn't have many phones in the market yet. It is not confirmed whether they will honour warranty after alternate ROMs have been flashed, as that could be highly suicidal for Jolla too.
One never knows whether you are being dishonest, like just recent post where you "admit" you didn't detail it, whereas you hadn't even mentioned it. Or you are modifying your original statement to make the device autonomy optional. Especially since it didn't come with any apology or admission of incorrectness in the original post.
Not even now, I'm afraid.
OPTIONALLY IMPLEMENTED
So I didn't detail the automation features as optional to implement, boo-fucking-hoo
You didn't detail it? You didn't fucking mention it. And now you are shouting about it. This is not sufficient admission, I am afraid.
We're talking about Google, they're most likely to implement something like that, so I didn't think it was worth going into that level of detail
Yes, that level of detail as of actually mentioning it. I wonder why you even mentioned as much as you did. Google is most likely to implement it, right ?
s/physical button/physical shutter/
Both of your "arguments" are based entirely on the (for the 3rd or 4th time now) OPTIONALLY IMPLEMENTED
Shouting won't help. The post to which I originally replied, discussed the device (on its own accord, possibly against the wishes of the device owner) disabling the camera using a physical button. It is not at all mentioned that it is optional, nor is it mentioned that the physical shutter can be manually activated.
Even the override option that you mentioned relies completely on the device (acting on its own accord, possibly against device owner's wishes) informing the restaurant owner (or public at large around it) that it has been overridden.
Rather than shouting, make sensible statements in the first place so that you don't display your technology illiteracy. First admit that you posted something completely stupid, with device acting against its owner possibly against device owner's wishes in the face of rooting/jailbreaking/hacking. Then I will explain how it is not much better than status quo even otherwise.
No, I don't hate it. It is also irrelevant whether I hate it or not.
Please apologize for calling the open phones non-open, and calling the unlocked phones locked.
thanks
It is open. You also said it's "locked". It is not locked.
The device would NOT act against its owner in any way
Owner to device : pretend as if you are disabled.
Device : 2 possible answers :
1. Ok : Your "solution" doesn't work, which consists of the manufacturer telling owner that a device has been overridden, because the device has first told the manufacturer that it has been overridden.
2. No : Device is acting against the owner.
it was intended to solve is that Glass users seem to not want to take
Glass, with a capital G, taken to mean Google Glass in its current form, doesn't have these particular protection measures. So obviously any "solution" is intended for future devices. If you are saying it is not for future devices either, you can as well give up.
you were not criticizing, so much as insisting that I had no solution at all, which is very different. Furthermore, the "paper shields" example actually does provide no solution at all and can therefore be dismissed as an analogy to my proposed actual solution.
This is the exact reason why paper shields example is right for this.
1. According to yourself, I am saying your "solution" is no solution at all
2. You agree that alternative solution is not required for criticism. (I assert that saying your solution is no solution at all is an extreme form of criticism).
3. Hence paper shields, which are no solution at all, demonstrate perfectly why no real solution needs to be proposed when another "solution" is declared to be no solution at all.
If you can't even comprehend this much, I am afraid no one should have let you within a mile of your high school debate team lest you infect them with idiocy.
Anyway, since you have even stopped defending your idea of a device acting against its owner in the face of rooting etc., I guess you have accepted the technological illiteracy of your argument. So it does seem we are done here.
And the red "shutter" replacement can be extremely thin without giving any clue to casual observers.
With long enough exposure, a head-mounted camera won't be steady enough to produce a recognizable photograph, so that's not really a concern, now, is it? I've worked with 60+sec exposure times; I know how steady the camera has to be for them to turn out, even at 100ms, the camera must be very steady.
With ever smaller cameras, surely people will find other places to mount , place or hover the camera than the head.
You just love your strawmen, don't you? First of all, an extra shutter would have no detrimental effect on video quality, so I'm not sure the angle from which your attacking this is valid.
And you mention my strawmen!! I never said it affects camera quality. Just before this sentence, was the tinyness, and wearableness of the device being discussed. LED was disabled by Nokia because of a questionable effect on photography, rendering them (slightly) ineffective in their stated purpose - good video recording . Large shutters will not be put in place in wearable computing because they are large - rendering them (very) ineffective in their stated purpose - being so small that one wouldn't even mind wearing them and still be reasonable cameras. Phew!!
Analogies must be analogous
It was answering your one implied statement (and that statement only) that someone must give some solution for any criticism to be valid. That is clearly not true as perfectly demonstrated by thermonuclear bombs and paper shields. I didn't ask you to stretch the analogy beyond its stated purpose. Either you take back your statement questioning my criticism without solution, or tell me why you dismiss paper shields as ineffective without proposing any solution yourself.
We've convinced toymakers to put orange tips on the active ends of their guns to show that they're harmless; why can't we get them to put them on the active ends of their cameras, as well?
All the danger with toy guns not being orange was someone seeing them, and then mistaking them for real guns. The "danger" with cameras is people not seeing them at all, and them getting smaller and smaller as technology progresses. All the marking is useless if the item is too small to see in the first place.
Have you ever tried shooting photos or video through a colored filter? Anything dark enough to appear opaque from more than a few feet away is too dark to shoot through in a non-studio-lit setting unless all you care about is where the light sources are located in a room and how frequently someone (anyone) walks past them
Yes, I have tried all that. Works great. Learn the ABCD of photography before spouting bullshit. With long enough exposure, very low light can give very good pictures. So slow moving items can be photographed very easily with the limited light coming from the filter.
Furthermore, as the shutter would be internal (e.g. it would slide into the unit when not active, because honestly who wants that thing visible when it doesn't have to be) and these devices aren't exactly built with disassembly in mind (they're tiny and light, as a function of being largely glued together and impossible to take apart and reassemble without breaking something internal
So they are tiny and light. And they feature a large, easily visible, and movable artifact called shutter. If questionable effect on video quality made Nokia remove LED indicator, manufacturers of these devices, marketing them as "wearable" - will love to hang extra "shutters" , right?
By the way, strawmen aren't really any harder to work past than paper bags. Nice try, though.
They are called analogies. Look itt up in a dictionary.
Right, thanks.
Ah, I see, you think we're trying to achieve n = 2048? Not at all
Ok, I am not sure what you meant by n if they have to try 2^n possibilities, and n is not the dictionary size. You still haven't defined "n" for the statement "still going to have to try 2^n possibilities"
Unless you defined n as the log of number of times the cracker has to try. Was that statement meant as a tautology ?
Bootloaders are open, but flashing results in loss of warranty. If you are too thick to get the difference, too bad.
he's still going to have to try 2^n possibilities
Far from that. 2^n is assuming there is a possibility all the words are used. For 2048 word dictionary, with average word size 5, 2^n means a password of length 0 to 10240 (over ten thousand) characters. If we assume humans are typing, it has to be restricted to less than 100 characters, practically less than 25.
Assume 0-10 words are required for this, reducing 2^n to n^10 (same word can be chosen twice in the same password, of course). Then all permutations of those 10 words are required, so multiply it by factorial 10. Still much lower than 2^n.
Point 5: To get around the "foreign transaction" problem, States came up with the idea of a "use tax". Since they have no authority to tax a transaction that takes place in another state, what they do is tax the purchaser for the use of the item they purchased elsewhere. The use tax is invariably the same amount as a sales tax would be, BUT it isn't a tax on the transaction, it is a tax on the use of the item within the resident's state. So it is legal.
Ok, so if you say, it must be the way the law works in the US. Fine. But the way you say it, it appears you think it is morally justified, and a fair tax. Is it so?
I don't, because the "use tax" is quite opaquely an adaptation of sales tax, as you yourself say. So why should a buyer pay a "sales tax" twice - once in the state where the "transaction" takes place, and second time in the state where the item will be used?
It does mean "99% of every actual device has been done". Iff :
1. By every actual device, you mean electronic devices
2. By "done" you mean hacked / rooted / jailbroken
3. We are only talking about a month or more old devices
4. The "device" should be in the same general class of "Google glass", in at least a rough way. Means we are not talking about LEDs, loosely sold OPAMPs, etc.
Or, you know, the lockout shutter can be fire-truck red or some other obvious color
In which case, at the very least, red photography cannot be stopped.
or simply presumed to not exist, in which case business owners can simply not allow the device, as they do currently.
I was replying to your post which this shutter was presumed to exist. And if the owners have to maintain the status quo, your "easy answer" is useless by your own admission.
I don't see you proposing any solution, whatsoever, though. Why is that?
Yes, everyone mentioning that paper shields don't protect against thermonuclear bombs are not proposing any solution so their statement is to be discredited, right? So paper shield, FTW!!!
Or, are you suggesting that, since there is no perfect solution, nothing should be done at all? Because I'm sure that's the best way for us to progress; how could I have been so naive?
Great answer for the paper shield. Which is about as effective as your "easy answer". Yay for the paper shield.
For the record, Google is not the only company capable of putting a brightly-colored (and only visible when the interlock is active) piece of plastic in front of a lens
Right. So as soon as any new company springs up doing the same, all restaurant owners have to scramble to lose their privacy to the new manufacturer too. Without any guarantee of privacy for their customers, because device will be rooted in a month, at the most.
Also, my technologically-illiterate ass has rooted or jaillbroken every smartphone I've ever owned and, in fact, mentioned that possibility elsewhere in this very thread.
Then you should have realized the futility of having the device restrict the owner. In fact, I replied to a particular post of yours, not to "elsewhere in this vey thread".
Furthermore, what part of "with a physical (and visible) shutter" makes you think it should blend in with the device so well as to be so easily defeated
Your "answer" was already rendered useless by the rooting possibility. And a shutter, of whatever kind, can so easily be physically tampered with, that this shutter cannot result in any security over and above the device software. And blending with the device less well can only result in more easily defeated mechanism, unless you mean something else by "blending" than what most others mean.
Perhaps my technological literacy, given that I work in an engineering discipline, is not what should be called into question
Wanting some "respect" for "authority", are we? How about displaying some technological literacy in your posts than mention about the "discipline" of your "work" ?