It's nearly impossible to prove bad faith though, unless someone kept a record of their intent. So a good faith provision is essentially the same as saying there is no punishment.
The DMCA was written to make it extremely easy to have a take down order, and very burdensome to overturn such an order. Neither individual nor corporations can be punished for having a false claim, so the issue of corporate personhoood is irrelevant in this case.
Ha, I posed the question as a joke. But today the news says that Donald Trump is backing the FBI on this:
"Who do they think they are? They have to open it up." "I agree 100% with the courts. In that case, we should open it up." "I think security, overall, we have to open it up and we have to use our heads. We have to use common sense."
Assuming they used a 4 digit PIN, I don't know about iPhone but my code is longer than that on Android. You theory makes a lot more sense. But there is still a snag: how do you update the firmware on an existing phone to allow this?
I work on a relatively simple device compared to a phone. The security needs it has are much less; prevent network intrustion, provide end to end encryption and authentication, but there is very little need to protect highly confidential data stored on it beyond a few minor things. So with full source code and schematics I can not break into the newest versions with latest firmware; add a debug cable and it will erase internal security keys making anything that's encrypted useless. I'm not saying it's impossible to break in, but this is just basic run of the mill security compared to what is going to be on a phone with full data and firmware encryption.
Sure, Apple could waste a lot of money by putting on a top tier team on it to figure out how to break in. Not a bad idea as that team might uncover security gaps to be patched. But that's going above and beyond a "reasonable" request from the courts for a mere fishing expedition.
I honestly think that the FBI doesn't believe this and think Apple is holding out. Well, the FBI workers probably believe it, but the FBI managers who don't understand technology don't believe it. They've got so much experience with data leaking out left and right from unsecure web sites that they suspect the same thing from Apple.
Taking apart the chip gets you what? They've already got the encrypted data. If they key was on the phone and did not rely on any external key then they could just turn on the phone and it'd be done. So there's an external key that they don't have and will never get off of any chip.
What the FBI is really saying is that they don't believe Apple. They're so used to spying that they probably find it inconceivable (yes it means what I think it means) that a big corporation would not also have a backdoor for spying.
How will the phone decrypt without the keys? If the phone could decrypt on its own then there's be no need to pull in special experts here you could just turn on the phone and read the data.
Short on details because that's how the internet works that way. The information superhighway is now just a superhighway. I suspect someone just provides some detail once, then a youtube video references that with a "see link in the comments section", then a web site has a short blurb that embeds a link to the video, then 391 different web sites all refer to that one site, and 8617 web sites refer to those web sites, and so forth. The web crawlers from Mars. All those sites all talking about the same thing but all of them providing an executive summary that's short on information.
There are already schools oriented towards being job mills. They're called trade schools. For engineering related stuff these would be IIT, DeVry, and so on. And trade schools can produce graduates who are very good and who continue their learning process after graduation. However these are not the same as universities. A university should be preparing the student for a lifetime in a particular field, whereas a trade school prepares the student for their first few entry level jobs only. A university is overkill for a technician whereas a trade school underprepares people for a full engineering mid level job.
Of course there are university graduates who are incompetent as well as made trade school graduates who are top notch. The difference is that the former didn't make good use of their education while the latter excelled above and beyond their education.
A university education is absolutely not needed for many jobs; street cleaning, traffic cop, board rework technician, IT help desk, etc. But if you have a knowledge worker then it makes sense to have someone who's been given knowlege and trained in how to learn. A lot of companies outsource the lower level jobs to places in the third world; not because those workers necessarily have a better education but because they're cheap. So skipping out on good education means competing directly against those workers. If the US wants to remain a top country with the best knowledge workers then it needs to encourage high level education instead of just enough to get a basic job.
There are people who can do without a university education and still succeed, but everyone can do better with one.
That's irrelevant whether it's coerced or not. A major corporation is trying to gain control of education in order to promote their products and services. So the question is whether we should stand by meekly and allow this or to tell Microsoft to shove off.
CS 50 AP is a silly idea anyway. It's not really computer science and it would be better for studens to know core fundamentals about mathematics before learning computer science. We need to stop treating universities as job training mills.
I am totally amazed how much new DVDs cost though. Saw one at the local drug store, the sort not frequented by posh purveyors, and a DVD for a low rated movie from last year was going for $20. I was completely surprised, it's so expensive and few people ever watch one more than once or twice, and it wasn't the sort of movie one would want to collect. It was also a price increase over buying it on Amazon too, but it was at the checkout line so presumably it was intended to be one of those impulse buys for people who don't shop around.
One excuse with some movies is that if you've got toddlers that the $20 DVD will be played at least once a week until it wears itself out (at which point the parents are ready to shoot themselves).
Now the armchair economic excuse to go out and see the movies at a cinema is that a ticket and drink and hotdog is less than the cost of a DVD...
For streaming, they never let you own a movie. It's $5 to "rent" which is more expensive than pay-per-view on some cable/satellite services. There often is a purchase option to "own" but in that case you are still not allowed to make a backup copy so that you can watch it after the streaming service goes bankrupt. DVDs have additional benefits that you can take them with you camping, onto an airplane. Annoying is that they're not that much cheaper than blu-ray; worse both physical forms on amazon are cheaper than the streaming copy, despite the extra costs to produce and distrubute, someone's getting ripped off in the transaction and it isn't Amazon.
Though I'm a decline to state voter. I don't have a party. In the past California let me choose which party to vote for in a primary, but it was overturned by angry party loyalists. And when I did vote this way the election workers were baffled and confused and required me to have a provisional ballot (which are only counted weeks after the elections are decided anyway). So now in the primary I only get to vote for judges, school boards, and propositions.
Eventually means the citizens will eventually demand that something happens, whether it's approving a nomination or changing the rules, or changing the constitution. Most likely it will mean kicking out congress if they continue to not do the job they're being paid to do.
What, a long haired socialist like Jesus on the court? Nonsense, they'd want a proper Christian not some middle eastern immigrant who's soft on crime.
Of course they're not the party of Lincoln anymore. They were invaded by the racist southern Democrats who were opposed to desegregation. Lincoln's party was the party of the damn yankees interfering in their god given right to keep slaves and beat them regularly.
None of them were "rubber stamped". There was debate over the nominees. The real sort of debate where you talk back and forth rather than holding your breath until the other side gives in. Many past nominee decisions weren't even made across party lines.
Remember when Scalia was nominated. There had been a somewhat small fight over Rehnquist, didn't last long though just long enough for senators to have their say. But even that small fight seemed a too disruptive and unseemly so they gave little to no fight over Scalia (I suspect everyone was secretly happy Bork wasn't nominated instead). The assumption from senators in the past was they they had to have someone approved and it was better to have the imperfect nominee than to leave it unfilled for too long.
Ideologues can't see subtlety. I personally would hate if the congress and courts were only filled with people I agreed with. I'd prefer an honest debate over issues, let the courts struggle to reach fair decisions instead of deciding based upon politics.
The position has to be filled eventually. Hopefully it's not 9 years in the future. This current congress is more intransigent than any congress we've had and they appear poised to get worse as they continue kicking out moderates (also known as people willing to govern rather than be controlled by ideology).
Which is why the Catholic church created the notion of limbo and various levels of hell, making fine distinctions of it all. The Bible however can be interpreted as not having a literal hell as well and just a separation from God. With all religions the fundamental core of the religions and cultural add-ons get muddled together and become hard to separate over time.
Slashdot Mirror
It's nearly impossible to prove bad faith though, unless someone kept a record of their intent. So a good faith provision is essentially the same as saying there is no punishment.
Sort of the polar opposite of Josie and the Pussycats?
The DMCA was written to make it extremely easy to have a take down order, and very burdensome to overturn such an order. Neither individual nor corporations can be punished for having a false claim, so the issue of corporate personhoood is irrelevant in this case.
Ha, I posed the question as a joke. But today the news says that Donald Trump is backing the FBI on this:
"Who do they think they are? They have to open it up."
"I agree 100% with the courts. In that case, we should open it up."
"I think security, overall, we have to open it up and we have to use our heads. We have to use common sense."
Assuming they used a 4 digit PIN, I don't know about iPhone but my code is longer than that on Android. You theory makes a lot more sense. But there is still a snag: how do you update the firmware on an existing phone to allow this?
I work on a relatively simple device compared to a phone. The security needs it has are much less; prevent network intrustion, provide end to end encryption and authentication, but there is very little need to protect highly confidential data stored on it beyond a few minor things. So with full source code and schematics I can not break into the newest versions with latest firmware; add a debug cable and it will erase internal security keys making anything that's encrypted useless. I'm not saying it's impossible to break in, but this is just basic run of the mill security compared to what is going to be on a phone with full data and firmware encryption.
Sure, Apple could waste a lot of money by putting on a top tier team on it to figure out how to break in. Not a bad idea as that team might uncover security gaps to be patched. But that's going above and beyond a "reasonable" request from the courts for a mere fishing expedition.
I honestly think that the FBI doesn't believe this and think Apple is holding out. Well, the FBI workers probably believe it, but the FBI managers who don't understand technology don't believe it. They've got so much experience with data leaking out left and right from unsecure web sites that they suspect the same thing from Apple.
You just gotta ask yourself in these situations... What Would The Donald Do?
Taking apart the chip gets you what? They've already got the encrypted data. If they key was on the phone and did not rely on any external key then they could just turn on the phone and it'd be done. So there's an external key that they don't have and will never get off of any chip.
What the FBI is really saying is that they don't believe Apple. They're so used to spying that they probably find it inconceivable (yes it means what I think it means) that a big corporation would not also have a backdoor for spying.
How will the phone decrypt without the keys? If the phone could decrypt on its own then there's be no need to pull in special experts here you could just turn on the phone and read the data.
Short on details because that's how the internet works that way. The information superhighway is now just a superhighway. I suspect someone just provides some detail once, then a youtube video references that with a "see link in the comments section", then a web site has a short blurb that embeds a link to the video, then 391 different web sites all refer to that one site, and 8617 web sites refer to those web sites, and so forth. The web crawlers from Mars. All those sites all talking about the same thing but all of them providing an executive summary that's short on information.
There are already schools oriented towards being job mills. They're called trade schools. For engineering related stuff these would be IIT, DeVry, and so on. And trade schools can produce graduates who are very good and who continue their learning process after graduation. However these are not the same as universities. A university should be preparing the student for a lifetime in a particular field, whereas a trade school prepares the student for their first few entry level jobs only. A university is overkill for a technician whereas a trade school underprepares people for a full engineering mid level job.
Of course there are university graduates who are incompetent as well as made trade school graduates who are top notch. The difference is that the former didn't make good use of their education while the latter excelled above and beyond their education.
A university education is absolutely not needed for many jobs; street cleaning, traffic cop, board rework technician, IT help desk, etc. But if you have a knowledge worker then it makes sense to have someone who's been given knowlege and trained in how to learn. A lot of companies outsource the lower level jobs to places in the third world; not because those workers necessarily have a better education but because they're cheap. So skipping out on good education means competing directly against those workers. If the US wants to remain a top country with the best knowledge workers then it needs to encourage high level education instead of just enough to get a basic job.
There are people who can do without a university education and still succeed, but everyone can do better with one.
Well, if humans created God, then humans get pretty upset of God behaves in ways they don't like.
That's irrelevant whether it's coerced or not. A major corporation is trying to gain control of education in order to promote their products and services. So the question is whether we should stand by meekly and allow this or to tell Microsoft to shove off.
CS 50 AP is a silly idea anyway. It's not really computer science and it would be better for studens to know core fundamentals about mathematics before learning computer science. We need to stop treating universities as job training mills.
I am totally amazed how much new DVDs cost though. Saw one at the local drug store, the sort not frequented by posh purveyors, and a DVD for a low rated movie from last year was going for $20. I was completely surprised, it's so expensive and few people ever watch one more than once or twice, and it wasn't the sort of movie one would want to collect. It was also a price increase over buying it on Amazon too, but it was at the checkout line so presumably it was intended to be one of those impulse buys for people who don't shop around.
One excuse with some movies is that if you've got toddlers that the $20 DVD will be played at least once a week until it wears itself out (at which point the parents are ready to shoot themselves).
Now the armchair economic excuse to go out and see the movies at a cinema is that a ticket and drink and hotdog is less than the cost of a DVD...
For streaming, they never let you own a movie. It's $5 to "rent" which is more expensive than pay-per-view on some cable/satellite services. There often is a purchase option to "own" but in that case you are still not allowed to make a backup copy so that you can watch it after the streaming service goes bankrupt. DVDs have additional benefits that you can take them with you camping, onto an airplane. Annoying is that they're not that much cheaper than blu-ray; worse both physical forms on amazon are cheaper than the streaming copy, despite the extra costs to produce and distrubute, someone's getting ripped off in the transaction and it isn't Amazon.
Though I'm a decline to state voter. I don't have a party. In the past California let me choose which party to vote for in a primary, but it was overturned by angry party loyalists. And when I did vote this way the election workers were baffled and confused and required me to have a provisional ballot (which are only counted weeks after the elections are decided anyway). So now in the primary I only get to vote for judges, school boards, and propositions.
Eventually means the citizens will eventually demand that something happens, whether it's approving a nomination or changing the rules, or changing the constitution. Most likely it will mean kicking out congress if they continue to not do the job they're being paid to do.
What, a long haired socialist like Jesus on the court? Nonsense, they'd want a proper Christian not some middle eastern immigrant who's soft on crime.
Of course they're not the party of Lincoln anymore. They were invaded by the racist southern Democrats who were opposed to desegregation. Lincoln's party was the party of the damn yankees interfering in their god given right to keep slaves and beat them regularly.
None of them were "rubber stamped". There was debate over the nominees. The real sort of debate where you talk back and forth rather than holding your breath until the other side gives in. Many past nominee decisions weren't even made across party lines.
Remember when Scalia was nominated. There had been a somewhat small fight over Rehnquist, didn't last long though just long enough for senators to have their say. But even that small fight seemed a too disruptive and unseemly so they gave little to no fight over Scalia (I suspect everyone was secretly happy Bork wasn't nominated instead). The assumption from senators in the past was they they had to have someone approved and it was better to have the imperfect nominee than to leave it unfilled for too long.
Except a Democrat could become president. Is congress going to hold out and do nothing for another eight years?
Ideologues can't see subtlety. I personally would hate if the congress and courts were only filled with people I agreed with. I'd prefer an honest debate over issues, let the courts struggle to reach fair decisions instead of deciding based upon politics.
It probably won't happen. The only thing the tea party hates more than a Democrat is a moderate Republican.
The position has to be filled eventually. Hopefully it's not 9 years in the future. This current congress is more intransigent than any congress we've had and they appear poised to get worse as they continue kicking out moderates (also known as people willing to govern rather than be controlled by ideology).
Even if it's a game someone cares about, ultimately there's still one conclusion: It's just a game!
Which is why the Catholic church created the notion of limbo and various levels of hell, making fine distinctions of it all. The Bible however can be interpreted as not having a literal hell as well and just a separation from God. With all religions the fundamental core of the religions and cultural add-ons get muddled together and become hard to separate over time.