Inconveniently, you'll attempt to do what you want with your phone.
In the vast majority of cases, unless the owner of the device has considerable spare time and skills far outside the norm, their ability to do what they want with their device depends largely on the public availability of tools for doing so. Those tools are the ones that are most likely to get harder to find should their legal status shift(architecturally, prosecuting individuals who tamper with a GUID-bearing, cellular-modem-connected, user-account-data-correlated, device would actually be comparatively practical, make one mistake in your jailbreak, hit a tripwire or a tilt-bit somewhere, and run the risk that the hardware will phone home and report you; but unlikely to be a good PR move...)
Against a complex system, you are only as good as your tools, which becomes a much greater limitation if those become contraband.
There is something just heartbreakingly pathetic at the notion that the EFF is going to have to petition to get further devices included, distinguished largely by shape from those originally included, rather than it being a given that the device you buy, you own.
Perversely, I sometimes wonder if the situation would be improved if makers of 'traditional' categories of objects, like cars and appliances and firearms, were to start getting their DRM on and building systems that cryptographically verify every FRU's TPM on start and enter a lockout that can only be cleared by an authorized dealer if any tampering is suspected... Yeah, it'd make those product categories horribly worse; but it might finally give the computer-clueless some idea of just how insane the world of EULAs, DRM, and assorted device lockdown really is...
I'm familiar with various nation-level proposals(and I think that the EU dreamed up something similarly foolish); but I don't remember having seen a US state decide to hop on the telco surveillance bandwagon by itself before...
The overall(presumably composite) pic is pretty cool looking; but does anybody know if they have the data available in the less-immediately-elegant-but-rather-more-useful georectified form?
As wallpaper, the press shot can hardly be beat. If they have the GeoTIFFs somewhere, though, that would have much broader application...
Does anybody have any idea what suddenly possessed Hawaii to freak out about that 'internet' thing that those hackers and terrorists are using?
Has the state been chosen as a soft target in which to pass model legislation by some sinister entertainment industry and/or surveillance state interest group? Is some two-bit local senator trying to weather a 'caught-with-2.5-prostitutes-in-a-blood-soaked-bed' scandal? Are radical Hawaiian nativists waging a guerrilla war to re-establish the monarchy? WTF?
My, my, how the definition of 'militant' has slipped.
A sentence on the internet, without even excessive capitalization, eccentric punctuation, bold typefaces, or calls for extreme violence, now qualifies? Bah, kids these days. Back in my day we had to at least shout angrily on a street corner, and preferably slaughter some believers, to earn the title...
It isn't just competition from Earth orbit that is the problem:
Most of the cheap, reasonably immediate ROI, stuff is, indeed, in satellites. That's why they aren't even a serious question anymore(with the exception of specific scientific payloads) and all sorts of people send them up all the time.
If you want to do something Super Futuristic, just because it would be awesome, putting a base on a permanently hostile, airless, rock with nothing but geologic history(too small for an atmosphere, even if you generated one, basically zero chance that anything biological ever happened there) is both unambitious and rather unhelpful.
If you simply want to do research on closed-loop environments, and how to maintain them in the long term, you could dust off Biosphere 2, or build an equivalent based on lessons learned, for absolute peanuts compared to the cost of getting just about anything out of Earth's gravity well. Just by shutting the door and building in a communications delay you can simulate most of the problem for a few percent of the cost, and easily re-run the experiment with tweaks if it doesn't go properly the first time.
If you want to establish a long-term extra-terrestrial human presence, choosing a body that is simply too small to ever be even remotely comfortable and living in hamster tubes seems rather pointless when you have Mars, which is close to being a winter-jacket-and-oxygen-mask environment in some locations.
It's simultaneously vastly overpriced as a space-habitation R&D exercise and vastly unambitious as a Grand Space Project.
We have a new cold war. It's just that this one is a contest to see who can build the most comprehensive surveillance state the fastest, while fighting as many strategically dubious and chronically expensive guerrilla wars as possible...
The risk of thermonuclear annihilation is rather lower; but the grinding banality is sort of depressing.
If he means something other than "magic handwaving to explain how this isn't going to cost the public money" or "paying Raytheon to build the rocket for us", by the phrase 'private industry incentives', I want some of whatever he is on....
Earth-orbit satellites(while they still include a significant chunk of state-funded scientific and surveillance payloads) are doing just ducky through private incentives(albeit with most of the cold-war era state-sponsored R&D as basically a giveaway); because there are lots and lots of profitable things to do up there.
The moon, not so much. After the one big burst of nationalist symbolism, you can't even interest state actors in the place. Even the spaceship futurist squad, who are reliably gung-ho about anything with rocket ships, are sort of lukewarm on the moon: it's too small to ever have an atmosphere, so any habitation would involve oversized hamster habitats forever(unlike, say, Mars, which is a trifle hostile; but not so very much worse than antarctica with supplemental oxygen in the right places, or some of the Jovian moons).
Unless Newt is just having one of his crazy episodes again, I take this about as seriously as GWB's brief stab at pretending to be enthusiastic about an American Mars base, which predictably went more or less nowhere.
Because 1). People treat voting counting as a basic data collection and management problem, rather than something with particular significance.
2). Because of 1) they go shopping for a commodity "IT Solution". Unfortunately, humans (on average) are barely better than insentient objects at choosing a "Solution" that isn't a raging clusterfuck(even in those situations where there is such a solution).
3). Because of 2), somebody is left with an onrushing deadline and a pile of shit, and has to make everything appear to go more or less smoothly on time, working with whatever they have.
There certainly is reason to be substantially more suspicious of electoral matters, given what's at stake; but organizations of all types routinely build horribly maladjusted systems for all sorts of purposes, so it isn't a huge surprise...
Honestly, even if you have no interest in animals, photography, or the First Amendment, those sorts of proposals should probably still make you nervous.
If the chaps who handle the most-likely-to-carry-cool-zoonotic-diseases part of your food supply are so proud of their processes that they want independently documenting them to be a felony, how good can you reasonably trust them to be?
There has been some haggling(largely unsuccessful; because what wouldn't we do to Win The War On Drugs?) about exactly how much specialized gear you are allowed to 'observe' with before it becomes surveillance in gross violation of reasonable expectations.
Thermal imaging has attracted a number of court cases: cops in vehicles or aircraft go hunting for anomalously high longwave IR emissions that suggest a building may be being used as a grow-op. It can certainly be argued that IR radiates away from your house just the same that visible light does; but it doesn't do so well under the 'what a member of the public might observe from the street' test.
I'm assuming that cheaper drones, fancy terahertz imaging technology, laser mics, and other sci-fi stuff will continue to nibble at the question of what standard, exactly, 'observation' constitutes... Is it "absolutely anything I infer without physical trespass" or does it have some relation to what the 'ordinary man' could be expected to notice?
True. My thinking, rough draft, is that the router would go and sign itself up for a dynamic DNS service(presumably bundled into the cost of the device by the manufacturer and, since the configuration would be handled automatically by the config file, the hostname needn't be memorable in the slightest SHA1-of-something.vendor.com style addresses wouldn't exactly be scarce...) when the first VPN key is requested.
It is certainly a rough-cut approximation of a plan, it just seems a pity that all the ingredients, except for being dead simple, are already in place with even fairly cheap and awful home routers, for the problem of security in untrusted locations to be largely solved.
Is there any particular reason why that class of things would be necessarily excluded from the list?(I'm not saying that they are on it, just that there isn't any obvious reason why they couldn't conceivably be).
The notion of a 'fundamental human right' is really just a bit of emotional embellishment given to rights that the people discussing them feel particularly strongly about. The arguments that something is a 'fundamental human right' tend either to be pragmatic arguments about why it would be a good idea for everybody to have that right(with a touch of handwaving at the end, to justify the jump from 'pragmatically desireable human right' to the much nicer sounding 'fundamental human right'...) or simple bald assertions on no solid basis whatsoever("All men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights"..)
Given the rather sorry foundations of the field, it seems that just about anything could be asserted or denied to be a "fundamental right", subject to the restriction that some assertions or denials are likely to go better than others...
I suspect by "safe so far" they are worried less about long-term erosion of the gains to vision(which would be unfortunate; but if you are treating blind people, or those headed there fast, not a major reduction over the status quo); but the old "stem cells turning into delightful cancer, rather than the intended tissue" problem...
That has, historically, been a major issue with using them. If you can get the little things to grow at all, they have a nasty tendency to exercise their pluripotent tendencies in order to form tumor lumps, rather than the tissue you want. Once you get around that issue, you can start the work of fine-tuning the tissue you do get.
One wonders if Cisco's legal chaps got a trifle nervous about shipping a system that involved quite-possibly-subject-to-CFR 47 15.5 device or devices intentionally causing interference to other such devices...
In particular, I'd be a trifle leery of the possibility that I was contravening the letter, as well as the spirit, of part B:
"(b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental
radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is
caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the
operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional or
unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM)
equipment, or by an incidental radiator."
Arguably, trying to solve this problem at the AP level is something of a fool's errand. There are easily thousands upon thousands of entities running non-malicious access points, many of which the user would have not the slightest reason to be able to judge the legitimacy of(Hotel Chain A might entirely plausibly hire ObscurePoint Access LLC to run their wifi, so name recognition won't help you much, and SSL wont' be too useful because, even when it works, that only helps prevent spoofing of a name, it doesn't attest to behavior).
It seems like you'd be much better off assuming that APs simply cannot be trusted to any significant degree and working on the problem of how best to make establishing a secure channel over an untrusted AP as easy as possible(for less paranoid users, common services moving to encryption by default will at least protect the content of the communication, though not the origin and destination, more serious users will need a full tunnel to somewhere more trusted).
One perhaps useful point of attack might actually be at the users' own home AP... Your contemporary router/access point is a fairly punchy little machine, by historical standards. Easily enough to function as a VPN endpoint for a few remote systems not moving too much traffic. It would be nice to see some sort of dead-simple VPN configuration mechanism built into a consumer router out of the box. Something like the following: router has a USB port on the front. User inserts a USB drive, presses the "Create VPN key" button. Router dumps a text file onto the USB drive containing a private key, and information about its dynamic DNS hostname, supported VPN protocols, etc. User pulls the drive, plugs it into their computer, computer's network connection wizard widget ingests the file, configures itself to establish a VPN connection to the router. Should a key be compromised or system stolen, the matching public key could be purged from the authentication list.
The question of whether you are at risk out and about(yes, yes you probably are) would be much less salient if making yourself 'eh, about as safe as at home' were very much easier...
Already done; but not really designed for the 'open' deployment scenario:
WPA2 (if you flip the switch to "enterprise", this is exactly the sort of hassle that gets left out in order for things to Just Work and not get returned to the store by frustrated Joe User) adds 802.1X authentication, which includes validation of the authentication server's certificate.
Trouble is, all that stuff is basically aimed at a big serious corporate deployment, where everybody has a username and password and things are configured by IT, and so on. There isn't, to the best of my knowledge, any terribly elegant way of setting up your basic "bunch of more or less open APs that also have verifiable SSIDs".
VPN to trusted offsite host and trust no one!
It would appear that the Canadians are eroding Canadian culture by choosing American products(is it even logically coherent to be able to erode 'your' own culture? Is it even logically coherent for a population as large and geographically dispersed as Canada to have 'a' culture?).
Lest my opening mislead, though, I would argue that the technological developments that the CRTC flunkie is complaining about are eroding the CRTC's ability to 'protect' 'Canadian culture'; but they are also eroding any need(we can argue about whether there ever was one; but there is a framework for arguing that there was) for that ability at the same time and by the same means.
Traditionally, 'culture' came in two flavors: small-scale, organic, locally-produced stuff, which is produced spontaneously, for basically nothing, for some mixture of pleasure and local consumption. Interaction with any broader market is limited; but capital costs are virtually zero, and operating costs are subsistence level. The other flavor, substantially newer, was the 'national culture' which really only existed in a coherent sense with the advent of modern printing technology, reliable mail, radio, TV, national distribution networks for recorded media, etc. This stuff is almost exclusively produced as an economic matter(even if some author or violinist or something does it for the love of the art, it ain't getting printed, taped, or mass-distributed unless some bean-counter says so). Its production and distribution tend to be moderately to heavily capital intensive, fairly centralized, and with considerable economies of scale.
Now, if you give any credence to the argument that the preservation of 'national culture'(to the degree that such an animal exists, and to the degree that such an animal is seen as "authentic" rather than as a bland, homogenous, destroyer of small-scale local cultures within the nation), Canada had a problem: traditional broadcast media and mass-market printed matter all reward capital investment and economies of scale(marginal cost of a paperback or an additional listener, fuck-all. Fixed cost of media empire or initial production, huge). Since the US is much larger, population wise, and modestly wealthier, it makes overwhelming economic sense that most of the 'culture' companies would be large US conglomerates producing 'American'(whatever that means in this context) culture tailored to appeal to American customers, and sold incidentally to anybody else who was interested. Thus, a competition between the 'Canadian' and the 'American' mass-culture businesses would likely favor the 'American' ones(the scare quotes are because, as businesses, the locations barely matter, they are probably both Delaware corporations operating as subsidies of multinationals headquartered at a P.O. box in the Cayman Islands, their 'location' just refers to their intended market). Now, America happens to have been historically superb at such contests(being reasonably populous, quite wealthy per-capita, and good at grabbing creative people from various messy collapses into war and mayhem of the 20th century); but the phenomenon isn't uniquely American, the same outcome would hold between any two nearby countries of sharply dissimilar market size with competing mass-culture industries.
However, the various effects of the internet(which do weaken the CRTC's abilities) also weaken the traditional dynamics of mass-culture sale. If the only way for something to hit the radio is because ClearChannel decides to put it there, Canadian music might have a problem. If technology radically reduces the cost of production and distribution of mass culture, it suddenly becomes much easier for the organic, local, semi-recreational, Canadian grassroots cultural producers to spread their stuff far and wide. Even if the means by which they do so are scary American companies, those scary American companies now exert much less cultural pressure. An American record label isn't going to
The trouble is that, not only will the die be huge(which is an issue because it increases the odds that you'll have to throw the whole thing away because of a defect in some vital bit of it); but the entire die will have to be produced on a single process, presumably the one used by the most demanding of the parts.
That doesn't make it impossible; but it would very likely make it extraordinarily expensive. If you totted up the total die area of a contemporary PC, CPU,RAM, GPU, assorted peripherals and interconnect stuff,it is already very large; but it is very large spread out over a number of processes, and a lot of dice that can be tested(and if necessary trashed) individually during production. Requesting the same functions, on a single die, from the fancy-cutting-edge process probably used to make the CPU, would be ruinously expensive...
Arguably, targeting things like lifestyle factors is also "personalized medicine", in the sense that treating patient X specially because a defect in their homozygous foo allele predisposes them to cardiac disease isn't all that different from treating patient X specially because getting no exercise predisposes them to cardiac disease.(and, in uncomfortably-many-but-not-all cases, the "personal" element is just the most visible factor in a stew that includes environmental and social influences, like diesel soot and cube farms...)
I'd be inclined to say that Emanuel is neither a dinosaur(he isn't rejecting the new-and-shiny out of hand, just pointing out that much of it offers questionable bang-for-buck compared to the low hanging fruit offered by seriously boring lifestyle stuff), nor a pragmatist(y'know why people like to ignore lifestyle factors and focus on genetic whiz-bangs and hypothetical personalized super-pills? Because lifestyle intervention lies dead at the center of the intersection of "really boring", "really hard", and "lousy patient compliance".
We already have plenty of good advice to go around(by no means perfect knowledge; but we know much better than we do), largely unheeded and often coexisting with social conditions that actively work against heeding it. We don't actually have personalized genetic-super-pills(with limited but important exceptions: oncology, for instance, has a number of genetic markers that have proved tractable to test for and highly useful to know. Some rare hereditary disorders have also been well worked up. Much of the rest of it remains in the "yeah, it sure does appear to run in families; and we made this mouse model by tweaking the genes like so; but that doesn't help you very much...); but we could probably get people to take them fairly regularly if we did...
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry, consumer. Your ECU will be verifying the 'authenticity' of all peripherals on the local bus before authorizing ignition soon enough.
Inconveniently, you'll attempt to do what you want with your phone.
In the vast majority of cases, unless the owner of the device has considerable spare time and skills far outside the norm, their ability to do what they want with their device depends largely on the public availability of tools for doing so. Those tools are the ones that are most likely to get harder to find should their legal status shift(architecturally, prosecuting individuals who tamper with a GUID-bearing, cellular-modem-connected, user-account-data-correlated, device would actually be comparatively practical, make one mistake in your jailbreak, hit a tripwire or a tilt-bit somewhere, and run the risk that the hardware will phone home and report you; but unlikely to be a good PR move...)
Against a complex system, you are only as good as your tools, which becomes a much greater limitation if those become contraband.
There is something just heartbreakingly pathetic at the notion that the EFF is going to have to petition to get further devices included, distinguished largely by shape from those originally included, rather than it being a given that the device you buy, you own.
Perversely, I sometimes wonder if the situation would be improved if makers of 'traditional' categories of objects, like cars and appliances and firearms, were to start getting their DRM on and building systems that cryptographically verify every FRU's TPM on start and enter a lockout that can only be cleared by an authorized dealer if any tampering is suspected... Yeah, it'd make those product categories horribly worse; but it might finally give the computer-clueless some idea of just how insane the world of EULAs, DRM, and assorted device lockdown really is...
I'm familiar with various nation-level proposals(and I think that the EU dreamed up something similarly foolish); but I don't remember having seen a US state decide to hop on the telco surveillance bandwagon by itself before...
The overall(presumably composite) pic is pretty cool looking; but does anybody know if they have the data available in the less-immediately-elegant-but-rather-more-useful georectified form?
As wallpaper, the press shot can hardly be beat. If they have the GeoTIFFs somewhere, though, that would have much broader application...
Does anybody have any idea what suddenly possessed Hawaii to freak out about that 'internet' thing that those hackers and terrorists are using?
Has the state been chosen as a soft target in which to pass model legislation by some sinister entertainment industry and/or surveillance state interest group? Is some two-bit local senator trying to weather a 'caught-with-2.5-prostitutes-in-a-blood-soaked-bed' scandal? Are radical Hawaiian nativists waging a guerrilla war to re-establish the monarchy? WTF?
My, my, how the definition of 'militant' has slipped.
A sentence on the internet, without even excessive capitalization, eccentric punctuation, bold typefaces, or calls for extreme violence, now qualifies? Bah, kids these days. Back in my day we had to at least shout angrily on a street corner, and preferably slaughter some believers, to earn the title...
Have you met any republicans lately(or democrats, for that matter)?
It isn't just competition from Earth orbit that is the problem:
Most of the cheap, reasonably immediate ROI, stuff is, indeed, in satellites. That's why they aren't even a serious question anymore(with the exception of specific scientific payloads) and all sorts of people send them up all the time.
If you want to do something Super Futuristic, just because it would be awesome, putting a base on a permanently hostile, airless, rock with nothing but geologic history(too small for an atmosphere, even if you generated one, basically zero chance that anything biological ever happened there) is both unambitious and rather unhelpful.
If you simply want to do research on closed-loop environments, and how to maintain them in the long term, you could dust off Biosphere 2, or build an equivalent based on lessons learned, for absolute peanuts compared to the cost of getting just about anything out of Earth's gravity well. Just by shutting the door and building in a communications delay you can simulate most of the problem for a few percent of the cost, and easily re-run the experiment with tweaks if it doesn't go properly the first time.
If you want to establish a long-term extra-terrestrial human presence, choosing a body that is simply too small to ever be even remotely comfortable and living in hamster tubes seems rather pointless when you have Mars, which is close to being a winter-jacket-and-oxygen-mask environment in some locations.
It's simultaneously vastly overpriced as a space-habitation R&D exercise and vastly unambitious as a Grand Space Project.
We have a new cold war. It's just that this one is a contest to see who can build the most comprehensive surveillance state the fastest, while fighting as many strategically dubious and chronically expensive guerrilla wars as possible...
The risk of thermonuclear annihilation is rather lower; but the grinding banality is sort of depressing.
If he means something other than "magic handwaving to explain how this isn't going to cost the public money" or "paying Raytheon to build the rocket for us", by the phrase 'private industry incentives', I want some of whatever he is on....
Earth-orbit satellites(while they still include a significant chunk of state-funded scientific and surveillance payloads) are doing just ducky through private incentives(albeit with most of the cold-war era state-sponsored R&D as basically a giveaway); because there are lots and lots of profitable things to do up there.
The moon, not so much. After the one big burst of nationalist symbolism, you can't even interest state actors in the place. Even the spaceship futurist squad, who are reliably gung-ho about anything with rocket ships, are sort of lukewarm on the moon: it's too small to ever have an atmosphere, so any habitation would involve oversized hamster habitats forever(unlike, say, Mars, which is a trifle hostile; but not so very much worse than antarctica with supplemental oxygen in the right places, or some of the Jovian moons).
Unless Newt is just having one of his crazy episodes again, I take this about as seriously as GWB's brief stab at pretending to be enthusiastic about an American Mars base, which predictably went more or less nowhere.
Because 1). People treat voting counting as a basic data collection and management problem, rather than something with particular significance.
2). Because of 1) they go shopping for a commodity "IT Solution". Unfortunately, humans (on average) are barely better than insentient objects at choosing a "Solution" that isn't a raging clusterfuck(even in those situations where there is such a solution).
3). Because of 2), somebody is left with an onrushing deadline and a pile of shit, and has to make everything appear to go more or less smoothly on time, working with whatever they have.
There certainly is reason to be substantially more suspicious of electoral matters, given what's at stake; but organizations of all types routinely build horribly maladjusted systems for all sorts of purposes, so it isn't a huge surprise...
Honestly, even if you have no interest in animals, photography, or the First Amendment, those sorts of proposals should probably still make you nervous.
If the chaps who handle the most-likely-to-carry-cool-zoonotic-diseases part of your food supply are so proud of their processes that they want independently documenting them to be a felony, how good can you reasonably trust them to be?
There has been some haggling(largely unsuccessful; because what wouldn't we do to Win The War On Drugs?) about exactly how much specialized gear you are allowed to 'observe' with before it becomes surveillance in gross violation of reasonable expectations.
Thermal imaging has attracted a number of court cases: cops in vehicles or aircraft go hunting for anomalously high longwave IR emissions that suggest a building may be being used as a grow-op. It can certainly be argued that IR radiates away from your house just the same that visible light does; but it doesn't do so well under the 'what a member of the public might observe from the street' test.
I'm assuming that cheaper drones, fancy terahertz imaging technology, laser mics, and other sci-fi stuff will continue to nibble at the question of what standard, exactly, 'observation' constitutes... Is it "absolutely anything I infer without physical trespass" or does it have some relation to what the 'ordinary man' could be expected to notice?
It would fit a general trend...
True. My thinking, rough draft, is that the router would go and sign itself up for a dynamic DNS service(presumably bundled into the cost of the device by the manufacturer and, since the configuration would be handled automatically by the config file, the hostname needn't be memorable in the slightest SHA1-of-something.vendor.com style addresses wouldn't exactly be scarce...) when the first VPN key is requested.
It is certainly a rough-cut approximation of a plan, it just seems a pity that all the ingredients, except for being dead simple, are already in place with even fairly cheap and awful home routers, for the problem of security in untrusted locations to be largely solved.
Is there any particular reason why that class of things would be necessarily excluded from the list?(I'm not saying that they are on it, just that there isn't any obvious reason why they couldn't conceivably be).
The notion of a 'fundamental human right' is really just a bit of emotional embellishment given to rights that the people discussing them feel particularly strongly about. The arguments that something is a 'fundamental human right' tend either to be pragmatic arguments about why it would be a good idea for everybody to have that right(with a touch of handwaving at the end, to justify the jump from 'pragmatically desireable human right' to the much nicer sounding 'fundamental human right'...) or simple bald assertions on no solid basis whatsoever("All men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights"..)
Given the rather sorry foundations of the field, it seems that just about anything could be asserted or denied to be a "fundamental right", subject to the restriction that some assertions or denials are likely to go better than others...
I suspect by "safe so far" they are worried less about long-term erosion of the gains to vision(which would be unfortunate; but if you are treating blind people, or those headed there fast, not a major reduction over the status quo); but the old "stem cells turning into delightful cancer, rather than the intended tissue" problem...
That has, historically, been a major issue with using them. If you can get the little things to grow at all, they have a nasty tendency to exercise their pluripotent tendencies in order to form tumor lumps, rather than the tissue you want. Once you get around that issue, you can start the work of fine-tuning the tissue you do get.
One wonders if Cisco's legal chaps got a trifle nervous about shipping a system that involved quite-possibly-subject-to-CFR 47 15.5 device or devices intentionally causing interference to other such devices...
In particular, I'd be a trifle leery of the possibility that I was contravening the letter, as well as the spirit, of part B:
"(b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator."
Arguably, trying to solve this problem at the AP level is something of a fool's errand. There are easily thousands upon thousands of entities running non-malicious access points, many of which the user would have not the slightest reason to be able to judge the legitimacy of(Hotel Chain A might entirely plausibly hire ObscurePoint Access LLC to run their wifi, so name recognition won't help you much, and SSL wont' be too useful because, even when it works, that only helps prevent spoofing of a name, it doesn't attest to behavior).
It seems like you'd be much better off assuming that APs simply cannot be trusted to any significant degree and working on the problem of how best to make establishing a secure channel over an untrusted AP as easy as possible(for less paranoid users, common services moving to encryption by default will at least protect the content of the communication, though not the origin and destination, more serious users will need a full tunnel to somewhere more trusted).
One perhaps useful point of attack might actually be at the users' own home AP... Your contemporary router/access point is a fairly punchy little machine, by historical standards. Easily enough to function as a VPN endpoint for a few remote systems not moving too much traffic. It would be nice to see some sort of dead-simple VPN configuration mechanism built into a consumer router out of the box. Something like the following: router has a USB port on the front. User inserts a USB drive, presses the "Create VPN key" button. Router dumps a text file onto the USB drive containing a private key, and information about its dynamic DNS hostname, supported VPN protocols, etc. User pulls the drive, plugs it into their computer, computer's network connection wizard widget ingests the file, configures itself to establish a VPN connection to the router. Should a key be compromised or system stolen, the matching public key could be purged from the authentication list.
The question of whether you are at risk out and about(yes, yes you probably are) would be much less salient if making yourself 'eh, about as safe as at home' were very much easier...
Already done; but not really designed for the 'open' deployment scenario:
WPA2 (if you flip the switch to "enterprise", this is exactly the sort of hassle that gets left out in order for things to Just Work and not get returned to the store by frustrated Joe User) adds 802.1X authentication, which includes validation of the authentication server's certificate.
Trouble is, all that stuff is basically aimed at a big serious corporate deployment, where everybody has a username and password and things are configured by IT, and so on. There isn't, to the best of my knowledge, any terribly elegant way of setting up your basic "bunch of more or less open APs that also have verifiable SSIDs". VPN to trusted offsite host and trust no one!
It would appear that the Canadians are eroding Canadian culture by choosing American products(is it even logically coherent to be able to erode 'your' own culture? Is it even logically coherent for a population as large and geographically dispersed as Canada to have 'a' culture?).
Lest my opening mislead, though, I would argue that the technological developments that the CRTC flunkie is complaining about are eroding the CRTC's ability to 'protect' 'Canadian culture'; but they are also eroding any need(we can argue about whether there ever was one; but there is a framework for arguing that there was) for that ability at the same time and by the same means.
Traditionally, 'culture' came in two flavors: small-scale, organic, locally-produced stuff, which is produced spontaneously, for basically nothing, for some mixture of pleasure and local consumption. Interaction with any broader market is limited; but capital costs are virtually zero, and operating costs are subsistence level. The other flavor, substantially newer, was the 'national culture' which really only existed in a coherent sense with the advent of modern printing technology, reliable mail, radio, TV, national distribution networks for recorded media, etc. This stuff is almost exclusively produced as an economic matter(even if some author or violinist or something does it for the love of the art, it ain't getting printed, taped, or mass-distributed unless some bean-counter says so). Its production and distribution tend to be moderately to heavily capital intensive, fairly centralized, and with considerable economies of scale.
Now, if you give any credence to the argument that the preservation of 'national culture'(to the degree that such an animal exists, and to the degree that such an animal is seen as "authentic" rather than as a bland, homogenous, destroyer of small-scale local cultures within the nation), Canada had a problem: traditional broadcast media and mass-market printed matter all reward capital investment and economies of scale(marginal cost of a paperback or an additional listener, fuck-all. Fixed cost of media empire or initial production, huge). Since the US is much larger, population wise, and modestly wealthier, it makes overwhelming economic sense that most of the 'culture' companies would be large US conglomerates producing 'American'(whatever that means in this context) culture tailored to appeal to American customers, and sold incidentally to anybody else who was interested. Thus, a competition between the 'Canadian' and the 'American' mass-culture businesses would likely favor the 'American' ones(the scare quotes are because, as businesses, the locations barely matter, they are probably both Delaware corporations operating as subsidies of multinationals headquartered at a P.O. box in the Cayman Islands, their 'location' just refers to their intended market). Now, America happens to have been historically superb at such contests(being reasonably populous, quite wealthy per-capita, and good at grabbing creative people from various messy collapses into war and mayhem of the 20th century); but the phenomenon isn't uniquely American, the same outcome would hold between any two nearby countries of sharply dissimilar market size with competing mass-culture industries.
However, the various effects of the internet(which do weaken the CRTC's abilities) also weaken the traditional dynamics of mass-culture sale. If the only way for something to hit the radio is because ClearChannel decides to put it there, Canadian music might have a problem. If technology radically reduces the cost of production and distribution of mass culture, it suddenly becomes much easier for the organic, local, semi-recreational, Canadian grassroots cultural producers to spread their stuff far and wide. Even if the means by which they do so are scary American companies, those scary American companies now exert much less cultural pressure. An American record label isn't going to
The trouble is that, not only will the die be huge(which is an issue because it increases the odds that you'll have to throw the whole thing away because of a defect in some vital bit of it); but the entire die will have to be produced on a single process, presumably the one used by the most demanding of the parts.
That doesn't make it impossible; but it would very likely make it extraordinarily expensive. If you totted up the total die area of a contemporary PC, CPU,RAM, GPU, assorted peripherals and interconnect stuff,it is already very large; but it is very large spread out over a number of processes, and a lot of dice that can be tested(and if necessary trashed) individually during production. Requesting the same functions, on a single die, from the fancy-cutting-edge process probably used to make the CPU, would be ruinously expensive...
I can't imagine the type of two faced dickery it would take to spin weaponized exploits as something not to be concerned with.
Which is why the world has lobbyists and advertisers to handle the job...
Arguably, targeting things like lifestyle factors is also "personalized medicine", in the sense that treating patient X specially because a defect in their homozygous foo allele predisposes them to cardiac disease isn't all that different from treating patient X specially because getting no exercise predisposes them to cardiac disease.(and, in uncomfortably-many-but-not-all cases, the "personal" element is just the most visible factor in a stew that includes environmental and social influences, like diesel soot and cube farms...)
I'd be inclined to say that Emanuel is neither a dinosaur(he isn't rejecting the new-and-shiny out of hand, just pointing out that much of it offers questionable bang-for-buck compared to the low hanging fruit offered by seriously boring lifestyle stuff), nor a pragmatist(y'know why people like to ignore lifestyle factors and focus on genetic whiz-bangs and hypothetical personalized super-pills? Because lifestyle intervention lies dead at the center of the intersection of "really boring", "really hard", and "lousy patient compliance".
We already have plenty of good advice to go around(by no means perfect knowledge; but we know much better than we do), largely unheeded and often coexisting with social conditions that actively work against heeding it. We don't actually have personalized genetic-super-pills(with limited but important exceptions: oncology, for instance, has a number of genetic markers that have proved tractable to test for and highly useful to know. Some rare hereditary disorders have also been well worked up. Much of the rest of it remains in the "yeah, it sure does appear to run in families; and we made this mouse model by tweaking the genes like so; but that doesn't help you very much...); but we could probably get people to take them fairly regularly if we did...