Clipper competently done would have worked but would also have required legislation making unapproved encryption unlawful.
A better situation would be to make everybody *think* that their communications are secure while convincing the telecommunication companies to compromise the endpoints. Then the mass surveillance could be hidden with telecom immunity, parallel construction, and national security. Wait, isn't that what we have now?
Given that the FBI can't even track down messages sent between their own agents that they were required to "compliance" and archive, I'm not sure how encryption can add more difficulty. They've got a Keystone Cops vibe going there.
Don't confuse incompetence with deliberate calculated deniable obstruction.
The benefit is that the innocent people will have their communications and data protected from illegal snooping without personal technical knowledge.
So guilty people do not have 4th amendment rights? Why let them have 5th or 6th amendment rights either then? (1) At least I know where you stand.
Undermining the 4th amendment undermines the rule of law and the credibility of all three branches of government.
(1) Oddly enough, civil rights are easier for criminals to enforce because the innocent have fewer remedies. For instance exclusion of evidence means nothing if you are not given a trial.
Department of Justice instead of Department of Law - Justice has nothing to do with law. Department of Defense instead of Department of War Law Enforcement - Well, that's accurate. Homeland Security - Wow, maybe they should have called it NIghtwatch.
But, "honesty"? I guess in the Trump White House it doesn't matter, which is unfortunate because the information is going to be used to place Americans in harm's way and would be critical in negotiating with other countries (trade, arms reduction, etc.).
Lack of honesty undermines the NSA's other job of protecting U.S. communications networks and information systems. They might as well remove this as well.
They also managed to undermine NIST. I no longer trust them either.
There is no legislative, executive, or judicial remedy for this ubiquitous surveillance. None of the three branches of government can be trusted to keep their word. That leaves encrypting absolutely everything whether it denies lawful access or not.
It's a strange way of say that apple paid less than the full amount. Perhaps there is something in european law that forbids a discount to a customer, making the mechanism of giving a discount to a customer illegal. But surely, discounting for a large customer is in general legal???
Volume or other discounts are not unlawful but tying them to not using your competitor's products is if you have a dominant market position. This is what Intel did to AMD when they were producing the Pentium4 and AMD introduced the better performing Athlon64. Intel ordered its customers not to use AMD's products.
So if Qualcomm offers a fantastic price to be a sole supplier, isn't that simply good business on Apple's part to accept it? How is getting the part for lowest price a "crime"? Why should Apple be forced to use multiple vendors for the same part, AND pay a higher price? Fast food restaurants do that all the time, most notably for beverages.
Getting the part for the lowest price by itself was not a crime and Apple would not otherwise have been forced to use other vendors. The crime was being forbidden to use other vendors.
If Qualcomm offers a fantastic price to be sole supplier, isn't that just good business? I see that in fast food joints all the time. What is so different here?
The difference was a contract term forbidding Apple from using parts from Qualcomm's competitors. This is no different than what Intel did by paying customers not to use AMD processors.
Considering how poorly Intel has handled this, I'm looking forward to seeing the legal consequences.
Do you mean like the legal consequences the telecommunications companies faced when it was discovered that they were handing everything over to law enforcement without a court order?
But what the hell is the point of having an automatic driving system if you have to sit there waiting for that split second between when you realize the autopilot isn't working and when the accident occurs?
What is the point? It places liability on the driver instead of the manufacturer.
You can't guarantee that the gamer who was using the card didn't stress the shit out of it by overclocking it and running 3dmark for 3 days to 'burn in' the card.
The risk seems the same. In fact, the used mining cards might be more likely to be safe, as the miner at least had longevity of their money-making investment in mind.
If the gamer was running 3dmark for months to years at a time, then I would agree.
The chips, obviously. Don't think you're getting the "mining" for free. MTTF is still decreasing, even under volted for efficiency.
MTTF is many times longer than your lifespan, puny human, so it's really the video cards that are complaining about the short MTTF of their owners
High performance logic has a designed operating life limited by junction temperature. If you are running your GPU or CPU at below 60C what you say is true however many GPUs operate at 90C or higher and only have a design life long enough to satisfy their relatively short warranty period.
Because it's is believed that mining isn't as stressful on the card. Keeping a constant load on the GPU means the temperature is very stable. It's temperature instability that poses the most risk to damaging the card.
Since nVidia commonly operates their GPUs at 90C+ with the attendant hit in operating life, temperature stability is irrelevant.
What's also shocking to me, Intel is introducing new CPU models to the market that still don't have the flaws fixed. They really think the whole problem is overrated and no urgent action is needed.
Just the processor fabrication pipeline is longer than that so there is not anything to be done on a timescale of months to years. The design pipeline is several years so we will not be seeing any solutions even in 2018.
I assume Intel delayed release of the news as long as possible and would have done so for years or forever had it been only up to them.
How good are Intel engineers these days? Has their ability to fix problems gone up or down in the last few years?
I get the feeling from what Bob Colwell has said in different forums that just before he left, the management level above the engineers was being filled with people less interested in technical excellence and more interested in politics for lack of a better term. This is consistent with various Intel policies since then like excessive market segmentation.
The problem with this is that he's not responding to an Intel engineer.
If Intel wants to respond with public relations, lawyers, and management instead of engineers, that is their choice. Besides which, it makes sense for Intel to respond with the people who are actually designing Intel processors.
Slashdot Mirror
Clipper competently done would have worked but would also have required legislation making unapproved encryption unlawful.
A better situation would be to make everybody *think* that their communications are secure while convincing the telecommunication companies to compromise the endpoints. Then the mass surveillance could be hidden with telecom immunity, parallel construction, and national security. Wait, isn't that what we have now?
Well, then, there's at least one Congresscritter in our government who has a working brain! Who knows, maybe he can educate the rest of them?
Mistakes happen. Senator Wyden serves to lend credibility to Congress.
Given that the FBI can't even track down messages sent between their own agents that they were required to "compliance" and archive, I'm not sure how encryption can add more difficulty. They've got a Keystone Cops vibe going there.
Don't confuse incompetence with deliberate calculated deniable obstruction.
Just because I do not support the Rs does not mean that I support the Ds. Fuck both of their houses.
I expect for 99.99% of all encrypted data it is just information that isn't proof of wrong doing.
If 99.99% of drug sniffing dog "indicators" were false positives, the courts would still consider them reliable.
Because encrypting also hides information from criminals.
The difference between our government and criminals is that criminals are more honest in not expecting you to praise them for stealing from you.
The benefit is that the innocent people will have their communications and data protected from illegal snooping without personal technical knowledge.
So guilty people do not have 4th amendment rights? Why let them have 5th or 6th amendment rights either then? (1) At least I know where you stand.
Undermining the 4th amendment undermines the rule of law and the credibility of all three branches of government.
(1) Oddly enough, civil rights are easier for criminals to enforce because the innocent have fewer remedies. For instance exclusion of evidence means nothing if you are not given a trial.
I was thinking COMAL but not as good.
Montana found a way around Federal preemption which has almost the same effect as direct legislation. That is going to catch on with other states.
Department of Justice instead of Department of Law - Justice has nothing to do with law.
Department of Defense instead of Department of War
Law Enforcement - Well, that's accurate.
Homeland Security - Wow, maybe they should have called it NIghtwatch.
They're a spy organization for god's sake.
But, "honesty"? I guess in the Trump White House it doesn't matter, which is unfortunate because the information is going to be used to place Americans in harm's way and would be critical in negotiating with other countries (trade, arms reduction, etc.).
Lack of honesty undermines the NSA's other job of protecting U.S. communications networks and information systems. They might as well remove this as well.
They also managed to undermine NIST. I no longer trust them either.
"their persons and papers" .... it still takes a warrant to pull the NSA data. Of course, you don't want to believe that.
If the NSA has copies of the data, then it has already be seized whether it was searched or not.
The DoJ's position is that data is not searched until a human looks at it so automated searches are constitutional. Fuck them.
NSA data is being used for law enforcement inside the US and being hidden from court review by parallel construction:
https://www.hrw.org/report/201...
There is no legislative, executive, or judicial remedy for this ubiquitous surveillance. None of the three branches of government can be trusted to keep their word. That leaves encrypting absolutely everything whether it denies lawful access or not.
It's a strange way of say that apple paid less than the full amount. Perhaps there is something in european law that forbids a discount to a customer, making the mechanism of giving a discount to a customer illegal. But surely, discounting for a large customer is in general legal???
Volume or other discounts are not unlawful but tying them to not using your competitor's products is if you have a dominant market position. This is what Intel did to AMD when they were producing the Pentium4 and AMD introduced the better performing Athlon64. Intel ordered its customers not to use AMD's products.
So if Qualcomm offers a fantastic price to be a sole supplier, isn't that simply good business on Apple's part to accept it? How is getting the part for lowest price a "crime"? Why should Apple be forced to use multiple vendors for the same part, AND pay a higher price? Fast food restaurants do that all the time, most notably for beverages.
Getting the part for the lowest price by itself was not a crime and Apple would not otherwise have been forced to use other vendors. The crime was being forbidden to use other vendors.
If Qualcomm offers a fantastic price to be sole supplier, isn't that just good business? I see that in fast food joints all the time. What is so different here?
The difference was a contract term forbidding Apple from using parts from Qualcomm's competitors. This is no different than what Intel did by paying customers not to use AMD processors.
Considering how poorly Intel has handled this, I'm looking forward to seeing the legal consequences.
Do you mean like the legal consequences the telecommunications companies faced when it was discovered that they were handing everything over to law enforcement without a court order?
Intel has the best public relations officers that money can buy. This is less expensive than designing secure products and has a larger payoff.
But what the hell is the point of having an automatic driving system if you have to sit there waiting for that split second between when you realize the autopilot isn't working and when the accident occurs?
What is the point? It places liability on the driver instead of the manufacturer.
You can't guarantee that the gamer who was using the card didn't stress the shit out of it by overclocking it and running 3dmark for 3 days to 'burn in' the card.
The risk seems the same. In fact, the used mining cards might be more likely to be safe, as the miner at least had longevity of their money-making investment in mind.
If the gamer was running 3dmark for months to years at a time, then I would agree.
The chips, obviously. Don't think you're getting the "mining" for free. MTTF is still decreasing, even under volted for efficiency.
MTTF is many times longer than your lifespan, puny human, so it's really the video cards that are complaining about the short MTTF of their owners
High performance logic has a designed operating life limited by junction temperature. If you are running your GPU or CPU at below 60C what you say is true however many GPUs operate at 90C or higher and only have a design life long enough to satisfy their relatively short warranty period.
Because it's is believed that mining isn't as stressful on the card. Keeping a constant load on the GPU means the temperature is very stable. It's temperature instability that poses the most risk to damaging the card.
Since nVidia commonly operates their GPUs at 90C+ with the attendant hit in operating life, temperature stability is irrelevant.
What's also shocking to me, Intel is introducing new CPU models to the market that still don't have the flaws fixed. They really think the whole problem is overrated and no urgent action is needed.
Just the processor fabrication pipeline is longer than that so there is not anything to be done on a timescale of months to years. The design pipeline is several years so we will not be seeing any solutions even in 2018.
I assume Intel delayed release of the news as long as possible and would have done so for years or forever had it been only up to them.
How good are Intel engineers these days? Has their ability to fix problems gone up or down in the last few years?
I get the feeling from what Bob Colwell has said in different forums that just before he left, the management level above the engineers was being filled with people less interested in technical excellence and more interested in politics for lack of a better term. This is consistent with various Intel policies since then like excessive market segmentation.
The problem with this is that he's not responding to an Intel engineer.
If Intel wants to respond with public relations, lawyers, and management instead of engineers, that is their choice. Besides which, it makes sense for Intel to respond with the people who are actually designing Intel processors.
Intel didn’t cripple anything. There is no if(cpu == amd) goslow;
Yea, it was just if(cpu == intel) gofast; that is a completely different situation.
Intel is under zero obligation to support any non intel cpus.
So why didn't they just if(cpu != intel) haltandcatchonfire?