I learned something new today. Thanks for that link.
With respect to the vacuum packed moon dust, I'm a little surprised that they weren't stored in a (larger) vacuum-sealed room as soon as the first one scratched through its bag.
...now the FBI wants to get a do-over at Apple's expense.
Point of clarification: at the expense of Apple, every technology company who might have a security defect of some kind, and every citizen henceforth who believes that being "secure in their personal effects" includes "not having secret letters commanding a technology company to subvert one of those personal effects without being able to tell anyone about it." This case is not about the 4th Amendment, but you can bet your ass that the next case will be.
Also, checking the "Disable Ads because you've been a good boy" checkbox doesn't work on mobile Slashdot. If you have the feature bit... make it do something.
The places on the internet where I have seen comments on these questions do not supply sources, but seem to agree that #1 is possible. The trouble is that (as GP mentions) the encryption key consists of several parts. One of those parts is the passphrase, but another part is a key for AES 256 that purportedly cannot be read once it is written to the SE.
So rather than brute force a 4-10 character passphrase, they'd be brute-forcing that and a unique key that was created when the phone was manufactured. A key of whatever length Apple decided was necessary to discourage anyone from ever doing what you suggest.
No one in the public knows if any of the people involved are lying, but both the SB County twitter account and someone in their IT department willing to be named in the press have asserted that they reset the password at the behest of the FBI.
As has likewise been stated <hyperbole> times before, including by GP: if the DOJ successfully forces Apple to do this, even with a key particular to that phone, they have then overcome the largest barrier to forcing Apple to do it again: the "unduly burdensome" argument.
If Apple does it once, it is no longer "unduly burdensome" for them to swap out the key. The DOJ will then flood Apple with requests to decrypt phones for all manner of "crimes" until Apple gives up and issues one without the phone-specific code. The only leg Apple has to stand on is to oppose this now, even with all the public ire for standing in the way of an actual terrorist investigation*, while they can still protest that bypassing security measures isn't a thing they do, isn't a thing they have ever done, and would be an unreasonable burden for the government to make them start doing.
* I have doubts as to what would actually be helpful on that phone, and I have doubts that the DOJ believes anything new and substantive would be recovered either. However, this magnificent opportunity for grandstanding against encryption has been thrust upon them, so they are going to milk it.
The FBI doesn't want the data as much as they want to win, both in the legal courts and the court of public opinion, that they can coerce any tech company to circumvent any privacy protections to the best of their ability in the name of "fighting the bad guys."
The "owner" of the phone is San Bernardino County, and they are totally on board with whatever the FBI wants to do. The "owner" is not the dead asshole who set the password.
This is kind of like having a work laptop that the IT department issued you. If you use the laptop to commit a crime, the company is well within their rights to log in and poke around. The Fourth Amendment stuff about your personal effects doesn't apply. Now in this situation, IT issued a device without giving themselves a login. Instead of going after San Bernardino County's IT department for incompetence, the FBI is telling the manufacturer that they are the de facto IT support. Do I like it? No, I hate it, but that's the situation.
The FBI has picked a pretty good case to do their grandstanding.
I like how you linked to a calculator that agrees with Dog-Cow's number. It says 2e+12, which is 2 * 10^12 which is a 2 with 12 zeros.
2,000 <-- two thousand (3 zeros) 2,000,000 <-- two million (6 zeros) 2,000,000,000 <-- two billion (9 zeros) 2,000,000,000,000 <-- two trillion (12 zeros)
And this is with 10k/person*year which is less than a thousand bucks a month. In my town, you could live in a room in a scary part of town, eat hot dogs and rice, shop at a thrift store 3-4 times a year, and maybe own a simple cell phone. If you have kids (which Dog-Cow specifically excluded from his/her calculations), they starve until you find a job and a way to get there.
I think UBI sounds good. The problem is that it is unconscionably expensive. Dog-Cow's post describes a system in which half the Federal budget still isn't enough to sustain a disabled single parent.
Please correct me if I'm mistaken. I thought the original HL capsule expected to pump (already low pressure) air from in front of the capsule to be (slightly higher pressure) behind it. Was that the mechanism for propulsion, or was there something else besides?
I was frankly surprised to see levitation on the MIT capsule. That implies to me that the tube has electromagnetics to repel against and is no longer "just a tube" with capsule-charging segments every so often.
Having used Labview in college, I am genuinely curious about how to "code [it] properly" in a fashion that makes it maintainable. My observation hereunto is that it becomes a wild spaghetti mess for all but the most trivial programs, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
(C) I don't think everything about Beta was bad. However, it screwed up the moderation system, and depending on whether posts used <p> tags, the formatting was different. Those two things killed it for me. If you fixed those, I'd take another look.
(1) Agree. (2) Agree. (3) No opinion. (4) No opinion. (5) Agree. (6) N/A (7) Agree. (8) What? (9) Agree. (10) No opinion.
Also: (A) Fix the styling for <ul> and <ol>. This is way overdue. It's just a little CSS. I could frankly fix it in my own browser, but that would just make me forget that everyone else was seeing a crappy indented text wall. (B) If you're going to continue doing those videos (and I think you shouldn't), you need to have a transcript available for all formats, including mobile.
I think an easy test is to ask someone opposed to anonymity if they also oppose secret ballots. Make sure to record the doublespeak they spout. If they oppose your recording, ask why... should their opinions be lost in anonymity?
Slashdot Mirror
I learned something new today. Thanks for that link.
With respect to the vacuum packed moon dust, I'm a little surprised that they weren't stored in a (larger) vacuum-sealed room as soon as the first one scratched through its bag.
Bravo!
Oh, well. At least we get Copter Chassis.
It's amusing (and very cynical) that MMI allows the "diplomatic" victory.
...now the FBI wants to get a do-over at Apple's expense.
Point of clarification: at the expense of Apple, every technology company who might have a security defect of some kind, and every citizen henceforth who believes that being "secure in their personal effects" includes "not having secret letters commanding a technology company to subvert one of those personal effects without being able to tell anyone about it." This case is not about the 4th Amendment, but you can bet your ass that the next case will be.
jadÂed
ËjÄdÉ(TM)d/
I've been mispronouncing it all this time!
Can the summary actually summarize what ABP does say, in addition to the commentary about how it still isn't transparent enough?
Also, checking the "Disable Ads because you've been a good boy" checkbox doesn't work on mobile Slashdot. If you have the feature bit... make it do something.
Hint hint, whipslash.
I read this in my head with JK Simmons' "Cave Johnson" voice. I would pay money to hear him read it out loud.
The places on the internet where I have seen comments on these questions do not supply sources, but seem to agree that #1 is possible. The trouble is that (as GP mentions) the encryption key consists of several parts. One of those parts is the passphrase, but another part is a key for AES 256 that purportedly cannot be read once it is written to the SE.
So rather than brute force a 4-10 character passphrase, they'd be brute-forcing that and a unique key that was created when the phone was manufactured. A key of whatever length Apple decided was necessary to discourage anyone from ever doing what you suggest.
No one in the public knows if any of the people involved are lying, but both the SB County twitter account and someone in their IT department willing to be named in the press have asserted that they reset the password at the behest of the FBI.
As has likewise been stated <hyperbole> times before, including by GP: if the DOJ successfully forces Apple to do this, even with a key particular to that phone, they have then overcome the largest barrier to forcing Apple to do it again: the "unduly burdensome" argument.
If Apple does it once, it is no longer "unduly burdensome" for them to swap out the key. The DOJ will then flood Apple with requests to decrypt phones for all manner of "crimes" until Apple gives up and issues one without the phone-specific code. The only leg Apple has to stand on is to oppose this now, even with all the public ire for standing in the way of an actual terrorist investigation*, while they can still protest that bypassing security measures isn't a thing they do, isn't a thing they have ever done, and would be an unreasonable burden for the government to make them start doing.
* I have doubts as to what would actually be helpful on that phone, and I have doubts that the DOJ believes anything new and substantive would be recovered either. However, this magnificent opportunity for grandstanding against encryption has been thrust upon them, so they are going to milk it.
The FBI doesn't want the data as much as they want to win, both in the legal courts and the court of public opinion, that they can coerce any tech company to circumvent any privacy protections to the best of their ability in the name of "fighting the bad guys."
And they picked a masterful case to do so.
The "owner" of the phone is San Bernardino County, and they are totally on board with whatever the FBI wants to do. The "owner" is not the dead asshole who set the password.
This is kind of like having a work laptop that the IT department issued you. If you use the laptop to commit a crime, the company is well within their rights to log in and poke around. The Fourth Amendment stuff about your personal effects doesn't apply. Now in this situation, IT issued a device without giving themselves a login. Instead of going after San Bernardino County's IT department for incompetence, the FBI is telling the manufacturer that they are the de facto IT support. Do I like it? No, I hate it, but that's the situation.
The FBI has picked a pretty good case to do their grandstanding.
I like how you linked to a calculator that agrees with Dog-Cow's number.
It says 2e+12, which is 2 * 10^12 which is a 2 with 12 zeros.
2,000 <-- two thousand (3 zeros)
2,000,000 <-- two million (6 zeros)
2,000,000,000 <-- two billion (9 zeros)
2,000,000,000,000 <-- two trillion (12 zeros)
And this is with 10k/person*year which is less than a thousand bucks a month. In my town, you could live in a room in a scary part of town, eat hot dogs and rice, shop at a thrift store 3-4 times a year, and maybe own a simple cell phone. If you have kids (which Dog-Cow specifically excluded from his/her calculations), they starve until you find a job and a way to get there.
I think UBI sounds good. The problem is that it is unconscionably expensive. Dog-Cow's post describes a system in which half the Federal budget still isn't enough to sustain a disabled single parent.
It is now HR 4528
Please correct me if I'm mistaken. I thought the original HL capsule expected to pump (already low pressure) air from in front of the capsule to be (slightly higher pressure) behind it. Was that the mechanism for propulsion, or was there something else besides?
I was frankly surprised to see levitation on the MIT capsule. That implies to me that the tube has electromagnetics to repel against and is no longer "just a tube" with capsule-charging segments every so often.
Having used Labview in college, I am genuinely curious about how to "code [it] properly" in a fashion that makes it maintainable. My observation hereunto is that it becomes a wild spaghetti mess for all but the most trivial programs, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
Yeah but what's still missing? Hoverboard!
False. You can get one for $20k.
No modpoints today, but I agree with this position.
(C) I don't think everything about Beta was bad. However, it screwed up the moderation system, and depending on whether posts used <p> tags, the formatting was different. Those two things killed it for me. If you fixed those, I'd take another look.
(1) Agree. (2) Agree. (3) No opinion. (4) No opinion. (5) Agree. (6) N/A (7) Agree. (8) What? (9) Agree. (10) No opinion.
Also:
(A) Fix the styling for <ul> and <ol>. This is way overdue. It's just a little CSS. I could frankly fix it in my own browser, but that would just make me forget that everyone else was seeing a crappy indented text wall.
(B) If you're going to continue doing those videos (and I think you shouldn't), you need to have a transcript available for all formats, including mobile.
Disagree with mod-bombing.
I think an easy test is to ask someone opposed to anonymity if they also oppose secret ballots. Make sure to record the doublespeak they spout. If they oppose your recording, ask why... should their opinions be lost in anonymity?
If it's not one fing, it's another.
The "optimal combination" will be slowly taken over by "all Uber, all the time."