The FBI already stated that they don't want a generic backdoor, nor do they want access to the backdoor, but I guess you know so much more than I do.
Well, we know what FBI Director James Comey has publicly stated. In his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
"Encryption is a problem in our investigations and it is also a great thing. And therein lies the problem."
He mentioned they haven't been able to access the phone of the San Bernadino shooter, and then stated that wider use of encryption is "overwhelmingly affecting" law enforcement operations, including investigations into murder, car accidents, drug trafficking and the proliferation of child pornography. (Sadly, the Senate has not provided a transcript, but this is what was reported in the Reuters story)
He says, specifically, that he doesn't want a "backdoor," and then says that tech companies need to change their business model – by selling only communications gear that enables law enforcement to access communications in unencrypted form rather than products that only the parties participating in the communication can decrypt. So... no "backdoor," but something that sounds exactly like a backdoor. He said the nature of enabling that would be up to the tech companies.
I do not trust apple, they had their hands in the cookie jar until iOS 8. But I do trust the international hero Snowden. He claims apple is doing the right things at the moment. To my knowledge, he is right.
Snowden has been holed up in Russia for the last three years, and it's likely his access to impartial media is even worse than the average American's. How could he possibly know what Apple is doing? He has no special access, he's a sideline watcher like the rest of us.
I have no doubt of his good intentions, but he doesn't have any knowledge of what Apple and the NSA are up to since he fled the country.
How is this for a precedent: The Clipper Chip, an encryption chip designed by the NSA in the early 1990s which was intended to be included in communications devices. They were pretty open about it having a backdoor that only they had access to; this was pretty much the point of its push.
Although it was opposed by the strange-bedfellows partnership of John Kerry and John Ashcroft, it was the technical flaws that doomed the chip, specifically the lack of security inherent with key escrow systems, and some of the papers are being referenced again today in arguments for why Apple couldn't give up a master key that law enforcement agencies could use to access devices.
You jail a CEO for a legislature's inability to understand how math works?
Cryptography isn't about knowing "the algorithm" as in the movies. Nor is it about finding the people who know the right secret trick. When done right, crypto is about being the party holding a particular piece of data, to an incredibly (almost laughably) high degree of certainty.
We jail a CEO for not being able to make P=NP?
That's... not quite what the law requires. It doesn't mandate that a company crack uncrackable encryption. It just makes it illegal to distribute devices with uncrackable encryption, that any encryption must include backdoors, so that companies are not allowed to distribute devices which law enforcement agencies can't inspect.
If this were actually successful (and I doubt this thing will pass), it could signify a return of the early-90s encryption export rules, where the same product (IE, Netscape) would have different encryption routines built-in depending on its destination. Back then, Netscape had strong encryption for US use, weak encryption for versions that were allowed internationally, but since getting the Netscape version with strong encryption was kindof a PITA, most people just used the version with weak keys.
Trump, on the other hand, doesn't seem to care if he lies or tells the truth. When he's caught on lying (e.g. saying he saw thousands of Americans celebrating on 9-11 as the towers came down), he doubles down and insists it's true because he says it is. If he says the sky is green with pink polka dots, it doesn't matter how often you point to the blue sky above you or show him photos, he'll keep insisting it is. For someone who claims to not be a politician, he out-politicians the politicians. (And that's not meant as a compliment.)
He's a Narcissist. One of the hallmarks of someone with a Narcissistic personality disorder is that when they make a mistake, it's not their fault, it's the fault of the people around them. They make pretty good door-to-door salesmen since they don't take rejection personally. After all, if you reject their offer, it's YOUR fault for being stupid enough to reject them. Not their fault for selling a crappy product.
A Narcissist is very good at projecting confidence, regardless of whether that confidence is backed up by competence or expertise. Human beings, maybe out of instinct, seem to value confidence as the most important leadership quality, not intelligence or a well-thought-out plan. Because of that, narcissists find themselves disproportionately in positions of power. Some are actually fairly good at it, but most aren't, which is one reason why there are so many horrible, "how did this person become a manager?" sorts of bosses.
So sure, Trump doubles down on the untruth. And he never acknowledged that -he- made a mistake, only that someone else made the actual mistake. For instance, he repeatedly claimed that he was repeating the findings of a reporter who had mentioned this in a story. But when you read the actual story, the only reference is one police officer who said there was an unverified claim that someone had made saying there was a tailgate-style party on a rooftop. That's the only police report -- that they had heard a rumor and were going to check it out. Nothing came of it, though we do have many, many reports from officers who said they never saw anything like that in various cities of New Jersey. Of course, Trump immediately said "I want an apology! Many people have tweeted that I am right!" He can't be wrong, he's too smart to be wrong. Everyone else is the dumb one for trying to mislead him.
Ben Carson did the same thing, saying "he saw" celebrations in New Jersey. Then when he was called out on it, he said that he said the celebrations he saw were "overseas" and that the media had an agenda in misreporting what he said. Even though he's on record for specifically saying that he saw the celebrations over 9/11 taking place in New Jersey. But he doesn't have the brash forceful confidence that Trump has, so he didn't really get anywhere with it.
I'm aware of that. But don't you find it absurd that this is the case?
Perhaps if the car had been invented in the 18th century it too would be in the Constitution? After all, what use is a well armed militia with no mechanised transport?
Possibly, but firearms were enshrined as they thought them essential for protecting liberty. There's no section in the Constitution about how the right of people to ride horses shall not be abridged, but likely they didn't foresee the situation.
However, it's worth noting that one of the primary objections the founders had to the Bill of Rights was that they felt those rights shouldn't NEED to be enumerated. Since the rest of the Constitution did not give the federal government leeway towards restricting speech or firearms, that there was no way for the government to restrict speech or firearms. Supposedly they found those ten Amendments SO important, that they be absolutely certain that the government could never gain that power.
No, people like rules. We bathe in rules the same as frogs live in water.
I think The Dark Knight movie is underrated in the writing department. I always liked this little speech from the Joker: "You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan". But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!"
We hear all the time in the US about how we need to "harmonize our laws" with those of other countries, usually an excuse for creating more IP law. It's a cycle we see often: another country passes a law more extreme than ours. We have to "harmonize" or else... I'm not sure why else. We look bad? We don't want to be second? I'm not sure why, but then the more extreme version of the law is put into place in the US. Rinse and repeat.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure that Cruz's fixation over Planned Parenthood recently was a Super Tuesday southern strategy to court the evangelical base which doesn't feel comfortable with Trump.
I'm not sure Trump is the biggest moron although definitely a contender. Cruz wants to abolish the IRS. It is a little hard to have a government without taxes.
Ugh. I can't believe I'm defending Ted Cruz. Please understand, this isn't something I do often. Cruz never proposed a government without taxes. He did say that taxes should be entirely flat, and so simple that every person could put their earnings on a postcard and send it in. No deductions, no write-offs, no capital gains, no AMT, no inheritance tax, nothing like that. Just income which gets deducted at 10% or something like that.
There would be -some- type of department that processes those cards, but since it'd be so simple, and probably automated, it would be an extremely small one. It wouldn't be the IRS either, in Cruz's world the IRS is so corrupt and dangerous and incapable of reform that he would fire each and every one of them, and start up a totally different, incredibly small service.
I don't understand their strange obsession with Planned Parenthood either
Cruz is a hard-core evangelical, and in their world, abortion is one of the greatest evils of our time, or at least, the greatest evil that has been allowed to stay legal. They do see it as murder, and it feeds into their dystopian view of government as the evil which ends lives, crushes individuality, enforces conformity for evil ends. Even the ill-advised name Planned Parenthood feeds into their story. "Children weren't part of our plan, so it is fine to murder them. And then sell their organs for profit." Trump actually looked like the moderate (despite his wacko, wacko stances and rhetoric, he's far more moderate than the other candidates left other than Kasich) by being the only one willing to acknowledge that Planned Parenthood actually does something other than provide abortions. Cruz actually had the balls in the debate to outright challenge any assertion that they provided useful services other than abortions.
So if you drive 10000 miles a year, that means there will be one mile a year when your car has no idea what it's doing.
Correct. When you turn off the hard surface road, onto a dirt road overgrown with weeds, your SDC may stop and suggest that you take over and drive manually. That may be inconvenient, but it is not unsafe.
Yet so many of the posters here have implied or outright stated that in order for the roads to be safe, a manual option cannot, must not be a feature. It seemed a bit extreme to me..
You can make software that works but that costs money.. so if lawyers cost more than programmers hopefully everything will be fine.
Let me guess, part of my lease/buyer agreement with the software will be a forfeiture of my right to sue, instead ferrying me into binding arbitration. The usual way for corporations these days to wipe their hands clean and say "not my problem anymore, I don't give a shit."
Virtually all proposals for self driving cars require that the cars be better than the vast majority of human beings before they're set loose on the world, with that requirement being tested repeatedly before we go ahead and launch them using real world accident rates.
We're not putting VW in charge of the testing, are we? Just curious...
Less prone to a spontaneous crash from an errant cosmic ray flipping a bit.
Humans absolutely crash when faced with, say, an errant heart attack. Or stroke. Or seizure. Or fainting spell from the heat, tiredness, stress, or other medical condition.
I've heard of the cosmic ray thing before, but have never heard of it as being more than an urban legend, or someone's excuse of "I don't know why the data was bad. Must have been a cosmic ray thing." Have any studies been conducted to show how often that situation actually does occur? And does it occur more often than human medical emergencies?
Bridges puts human lives at stake. They typically just stand there without continuous supervision.
Civil Engineering is far more of a mature discipline than "software engineering" is. I might like an individual programmer, but yes, I trust bridge builders far more than I do the software companies.
I don't see why the cars would have to talk to each other. After all, a safe driving system wouldn't trust anything it received from another car. It wouldn't treat a car as different from some other unpredictable object, like a rock falling into the road, or the only-sometimes wifi-enabled deer.
Worse, a wifi system would be yet another attack vector that will be easily exploited, just like everything else is in our connected world. I don't see how any benefits would come from it.
Slashdot Mirror
The FBI already stated that they don't want a generic backdoor, nor do they want access to the backdoor, but I guess you know so much more than I do.
Well, we know what FBI Director James Comey has publicly stated. In his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
"Encryption is a problem in our investigations and it is also a great thing. And therein lies the problem."
He mentioned they haven't been able to access the phone of the San Bernadino shooter, and then stated that wider use of encryption is "overwhelmingly affecting" law enforcement operations, including investigations into murder, car accidents, drug trafficking and the proliferation of child pornography. (Sadly, the Senate has not provided a transcript, but this is what was reported in the Reuters story)
He says, specifically, that he doesn't want a "backdoor," and then says that tech companies need to change their business model – by selling only communications gear that enables law enforcement to access communications in unencrypted form rather than products that only the parties participating in the communication can decrypt. So... no "backdoor," but something that sounds exactly like a backdoor. He said the nature of enabling that would be up to the tech companies.
I do not trust apple, they had their hands in the cookie jar until iOS 8. But I do trust the international hero Snowden. He claims apple is doing the right things at the moment. To my knowledge, he is right.
Snowden has been holed up in Russia for the last three years, and it's likely his access to impartial media is even worse than the average American's. How could he possibly know what Apple is doing? He has no special access, he's a sideline watcher like the rest of us.
I have no doubt of his good intentions, but he doesn't have any knowledge of what Apple and the NSA are up to since he fled the country.
How is this for a precedent: The Clipper Chip, an encryption chip designed by the NSA in the early 1990s which was intended to be included in communications devices. They were pretty open about it having a backdoor that only they had access to; this was pretty much the point of its push.
Although it was opposed by the strange-bedfellows partnership of John Kerry and John Ashcroft, it was the technical flaws that doomed the chip, specifically the lack of security inherent with key escrow systems, and some of the papers are being referenced again today in arguments for why Apple couldn't give up a master key that law enforcement agencies could use to access devices.
Good old DDT! Kill off the mosquitoes (and everything else).
Here's an ugly truth:
Democracy must pander to the majority, which happens to be women.
And there's not much you can do about it.
That's incredibly demeaning to women if you think so little of their intelligence that they would automatically fall for the claptrap in the paper.
Yes, we've heard it before, "The Transparent Society." It was always a horrible idea.
You jail a CEO for a legislature's inability to understand how math works?
Cryptography isn't about knowing "the algorithm" as in the movies. Nor is it about finding the people who know the right secret trick. When done right, crypto is about being the party holding a particular piece of data, to an incredibly (almost laughably) high degree of certainty.
We jail a CEO for not being able to make P=NP?
That's... not quite what the law requires. It doesn't mandate that a company crack uncrackable encryption. It just makes it illegal to distribute devices with uncrackable encryption, that any encryption must include backdoors, so that companies are not allowed to distribute devices which law enforcement agencies can't inspect.
If this were actually successful (and I doubt this thing will pass), it could signify a return of the early-90s encryption export rules, where the same product (IE, Netscape) would have different encryption routines built-in depending on its destination. Back then, Netscape had strong encryption for US use, weak encryption for versions that were allowed internationally, but since getting the Netscape version with strong encryption was kindof a PITA, most people just used the version with weak keys.
Good heavens.
So basically, in the 1700s, the law was forked, and Justice Breyer is suggesting we might want to merge in the upstream changes?
15 Anti-nuke FUD submissions this week alone.
Do you not have a job or something?
Maybe this is his job?
Can't understand why he's not as popular as Trump, Sanders, or Clinton. He's doing the same things they are!
-jcr
They're experts at selling the lie.
McAfee is an amateur in comparison.
Trump, on the other hand, doesn't seem to care if he lies or tells the truth. When he's caught on lying (e.g. saying he saw thousands of Americans celebrating on 9-11 as the towers came down), he doubles down and insists it's true because he says it is. If he says the sky is green with pink polka dots, it doesn't matter how often you point to the blue sky above you or show him photos, he'll keep insisting it is. For someone who claims to not be a politician, he out-politicians the politicians. (And that's not meant as a compliment.)
He's a Narcissist. One of the hallmarks of someone with a Narcissistic personality disorder is that when they make a mistake, it's not their fault, it's the fault of the people around them. They make pretty good door-to-door salesmen since they don't take rejection personally. After all, if you reject their offer, it's YOUR fault for being stupid enough to reject them. Not their fault for selling a crappy product.
A Narcissist is very good at projecting confidence, regardless of whether that confidence is backed up by competence or expertise. Human beings, maybe out of instinct, seem to value confidence as the most important leadership quality, not intelligence or a well-thought-out plan. Because of that, narcissists find themselves disproportionately in positions of power. Some are actually fairly good at it, but most aren't, which is one reason why there are so many horrible, "how did this person become a manager?" sorts of bosses.
So sure, Trump doubles down on the untruth. And he never acknowledged that -he- made a mistake, only that someone else made the actual mistake. For instance, he repeatedly claimed that he was repeating the findings of a reporter who had mentioned this in a story. But when you read the actual story, the only reference is one police officer who said there was an unverified claim that someone had made saying there was a tailgate-style party on a rooftop. That's the only police report -- that they had heard a rumor and were going to check it out. Nothing came of it, though we do have many, many reports from officers who said they never saw anything like that in various cities of New Jersey. Of course, Trump immediately said "I want an apology! Many people have tweeted that I am right!" He can't be wrong, he's too smart to be wrong. Everyone else is the dumb one for trying to mislead him.
Ben Carson did the same thing, saying "he saw" celebrations in New Jersey. Then when he was called out on it, he said that he said the celebrations he saw were "overseas" and that the media had an agenda in misreporting what he said. Even though he's on record for specifically saying that he saw the celebrations over 9/11 taking place in New Jersey. But he doesn't have the brash forceful confidence that Trump has, so he didn't really get anywhere with it.
Cruz is a genuine thumper.
You can tell: constant scowl, beady eyes.
Don't forget the "punchable face!" (Thank you, SNL...)
I'm aware of that. But don't you find it absurd that this is the case?
Perhaps if the car had been invented in the 18th century it too would be in the Constitution? After all, what use is a well armed militia with no mechanised transport?
Possibly, but firearms were enshrined as they thought them essential for protecting liberty. There's no section in the Constitution about how the right of people to ride horses shall not be abridged, but likely they didn't foresee the situation.
However, it's worth noting that one of the primary objections the founders had to the Bill of Rights was that they felt those rights shouldn't NEED to be enumerated. Since the rest of the Constitution did not give the federal government leeway towards restricting speech or firearms, that there was no way for the government to restrict speech or firearms. Supposedly they found those ten Amendments SO important, that they be absolutely certain that the government could never gain that power.
No, people like rules. We bathe in rules the same as frogs live in water.
I think The Dark Knight movie is underrated in the writing department. I always liked this little speech from the Joker: "You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan". But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!"
We hear all the time in the US about how we need to "harmonize our laws" with those of other countries, usually an excuse for creating more IP law. It's a cycle we see often: another country passes a law more extreme than ours. We have to "harmonize" or else... I'm not sure why else. We look bad? We don't want to be second? I'm not sure why, but then the more extreme version of the law is put into place in the US. Rinse and repeat.
Idiot. Those guns are why our (un)civil serpents (wannabe masters) even slow down from imitating yours.
I... what, you really think this? All it means is that the SWAT guys wear a bit more body armor. That's IT.
So you're saying that Rhode Island or Massachusetts is more dangerous than New Mexico or Florida ?
Forgive me if I find that a little hard to believe on the face of it.
Have you actually been to New Mexico? It's an absolutely fantastic place.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure that Cruz's fixation over Planned Parenthood recently was a Super Tuesday southern strategy to court the evangelical base which doesn't feel comfortable with Trump.
I'm not sure Trump is the biggest moron although definitely a contender. Cruz wants to abolish the IRS. It is a little hard to have a government without taxes.
Ugh. I can't believe I'm defending Ted Cruz. Please understand, this isn't something I do often.
Cruz never proposed a government without taxes. He did say that taxes should be entirely flat, and so simple that every person could put their earnings on a postcard and send it in. No deductions, no write-offs, no capital gains, no AMT, no inheritance tax, nothing like that. Just income which gets deducted at 10% or something like that.
There would be -some- type of department that processes those cards, but since it'd be so simple, and probably automated, it would be an extremely small one. It wouldn't be the IRS either, in Cruz's world the IRS is so corrupt and dangerous and incapable of reform that he would fire each and every one of them, and start up a totally different, incredibly small service.
I don't understand their strange obsession with Planned Parenthood either
Cruz is a hard-core evangelical, and in their world, abortion is one of the greatest evils of our time, or at least, the greatest evil that has been allowed to stay legal. They do see it as murder, and it feeds into their dystopian view of government as the evil which ends lives, crushes individuality, enforces conformity for evil ends. Even the ill-advised name Planned Parenthood feeds into their story. "Children weren't part of our plan, so it is fine to murder them. And then sell their organs for profit." Trump actually looked like the moderate (despite his wacko, wacko stances and rhetoric, he's far more moderate than the other candidates left other than Kasich) by being the only one willing to acknowledge that Planned Parenthood actually does something other than provide abortions. Cruz actually had the balls in the debate to outright challenge any assertion that they provided useful services other than abortions.
We live in crazy times.
So if you drive 10000 miles a year, that means there will be one mile a year when your car has no idea what it's doing.
Correct. When you turn off the hard surface road, onto a dirt road overgrown with weeds, your SDC may stop and suggest that you take over and drive manually. That may be inconvenient, but it is not unsafe.
Yet so many of the posters here have implied or outright stated that in order for the roads to be safe, a manual option cannot, must not be a feature. It seemed a bit extreme to me..
You can make software that works but that costs money.. so if lawyers cost more than programmers hopefully everything will be fine.
Let me guess, part of my lease/buyer agreement with the software will be a forfeiture of my right to sue, instead ferrying me into binding arbitration. The usual way for corporations these days to wipe their hands clean and say "not my problem anymore, I don't give a shit."
Virtually all proposals for self driving cars require that the cars be better than the vast majority of human beings before they're set loose on the world, with that requirement being tested repeatedly before we go ahead and launch them using real world accident rates.
We're not putting VW in charge of the testing, are we? Just curious...
Less prone to a spontaneous crash from an errant cosmic ray flipping a bit.
Humans absolutely crash when faced with, say, an errant heart attack. Or stroke. Or seizure. Or fainting spell from the heat, tiredness, stress, or other medical condition.
I've heard of the cosmic ray thing before, but have never heard of it as being more than an urban legend, or someone's excuse of "I don't know why the data was bad. Must have been a cosmic ray thing." Have any studies been conducted to show how often that situation actually does occur? And does it occur more often than human medical emergencies?
Bridges puts human lives at stake. They typically just stand there without continuous supervision.
Civil Engineering is far more of a mature discipline than "software engineering" is. I might like an individual programmer, but yes, I trust bridge builders far more than I do the software companies.
I don't see why the cars would have to talk to each other. After all, a safe driving system wouldn't trust anything it received from another car. It wouldn't treat a car as different from some other unpredictable object, like a rock falling into the road, or the only-sometimes wifi-enabled deer.
Worse, a wifi system would be yet another attack vector that will be easily exploited, just like everything else is in our connected world. I don't see how any benefits would come from it.