If Puzder is going to fire Suzie rather than give her a $3 raise, then his taxes are going to go up to pay for her social safety net costs. It's impossible to have a society where a large fraction of people can't find work that pays a living wage.
I did the exact same thing as Puzder when I went home for lunch yesterday instead of eating fast food, but nobody flamed me for doing that. Why?
I did the same thing as him, when I bought a 3-year-old used car (and shopped around while doing it) instead of a new car. Nobody suggested I was out-of-touch bourgeoisie.
I did the same thing when I last compared two vendor's prices and then chose the lower one. Where were your cautionary words then?
You and I cut unnecessary expenses every chance that we get, and it's seen as prudent and efficient. And I don't know if your personality is anything like mine, but I actually look down a little bit on wasteful people. When someone burns money, I think less of them.
But the expense of hiring people is somehow a religious exception?
Nobody is advocating that people shouldn't have a living wage (indeed, they might even advocate that everyone figure out a way to make a lot more money than that); they just don't want to be the one who pays it. They're just saying "This expense shouldn't be this high, because I think I see how to get it done for less." If that means it's less than a living wage, then perhaps humans shouldn't be doing that particular job anymore (or perhaps different employees have a different idea about how much a living wage really is).
I don't get why employers are called bad guys for issuing low offers. When someone makes me an offer that I reject, I don't get offended. The rejection is enough, and then it's their problem, not mine.
I'm always amazed that the rich think they can hide in their gated communities and enjoy the fruits of other people's labor.
Except it's not the rich, it's every single one of us. Everyone is "the rich" whenever they're spending their own money. When your ISP asks you for a raise, I bet you'll say, "No. Get the fuck out of my office, and if you bring this up again, I'm firing your ass."
The news story is what happens if The People ever start to care about their most basic rights. Because if they gave a fuck, the obvious followup question to the government is: Why was it necessary to keep the target a secret? Everyone knew about Snowden and assumed it was Snowden. Yet Levison was told he can't tell anyone his system was being attacked or else.
I want to know why "don't state the obvious" was a legitimate reason to use secret police powers. Go ahead and explain it, government: this is going to be hilarious.
This new experimental power should be revoked. It didn't work out. The government proved it can't be trusted with the "you don't have 1st, 4th and 5th amendment rights whenever we say 'this is an important post-9/11 exception'" power. Seriously: does anyone have any doubts that the question isn't completely settled now?
Is there still any controversy? Whether you're pro-Snowden or anti-Snowden, now that cat is out of the bag on this case, tell me how things might have gone differently if Snowden had found out that Lavabit was under attack.
If FBI can force Apple to create the custom iOS version and sign it, then it can start asking the courts to force Apple to change the Security Enclave hardware so that it has a backdoor.
They can ask but the precedent wouldn't have anything in common with such a thing, so there wouldn't be any judicial power behind the request. Whose phone (exactly) are you talking about? Because when the FBI goes crawling on their hands and knees to a judge, they're going to need some names, probable cause, and a particular crime.
I'm not saying they don't want this power. (We already gave it to them (in a certain form) 22 years ago with CALEA!) But this campaign doesn't give them any advantage on that one. If anything, it gives advantage to We The People, since this case is helping us to wake up to the obvious fact that it's pretty fucking stupid to have a third party (e.g. Apple, Samsung, Sony, whatever) be in charge of your PC's keys. And once we know that and stop pretending that it's too hard or doesn't matter who is in charge of our PCs, we'll take care of things.
People are worried that the FBI might be empowered to take over your phone?!? You should be worried that YOU AREN'T empowered take over your own phone. You will always be vulnerable to a third party being coerced (and possibly without your knowledge!) until you fix that.
You already have that option. It's called run-you-own-postfix-and-dovecot.
The idea that Gmail should be secure is laughable; go back a decade and look at all the debate over Gmail (or go back another to see people having the same discussions about Hotmail). What you'll find is that all the Gmail defenders were saying "I don't care." I am not making this up: that was the essence of all those peoples' insanity defense.
I understand why people are finally changing their minds, but don't blame Gmail. Webmail is for people who don't value privacy. That hasn't changed and isn't going to change. (If you value privacy, webmail is ruled out because the server would have to have your key, and that's a silly idea on the face of it.)
You can trivially build computer storage that the FBI can't crack. If you have $300 (remember to spend some of that on a real keyboard rather than a numeric keypad, which you get tired of using after 4 keypresses) then you have more cryptographic resources than the FBI has cryptanalysic resources. Anyone can be a titan, next to the FBI's ant-like stature. If you did that, the FBI would have no choice but to resort to the $5 wrench (and if we maintain the context of this particular case, the $5 wrench wouldn't work; go threaten some 3-month-old corpses if you don't believe me).
The reason Apple is in court isn't that they can afford it and you can't; it's because they are the third party that some fuckwit outsourced their data security to, instead of doing it themselves. (A fuckwit, I remind you, who didn't care about anything, which is why he is dead, and is also why you don't need to worry about his problems becoming your problems. If you are trying to protect your data, then no precedent that affects you, is going to come out of all this.)
Think about how amazing that is. If you heard of a company or government department who did that, you would say they're shockingly negligent. Their CIO needs to be fired immediately. If you even heard that a private individual did that with their desktop computer, and then it went sour, you would "blame the victim" because even at the low-stakes level of a single person, it's blatantly stupid. But somehow all the rules of common sense are suspended when the PC is handheld.
"My passphrase is four decimal digits long." (Seriously, imagine someone saying that. Your mind inserts the word "duuuh" at the beginning of the sentence, doesn't it?)
"I don't have my computer's root password, but Dell does." (Did the same thing happen when your imaginary actor read this line?)
Apple is a little more motivated to fight than usual, because this case shows the public that we're all doing things wrong. Apple doesn't want you to know that. Google doesn't, either. But I do. I want you to know that most of our sentences about handheld PCs start with an implicit "duuuh," and there's saliva dripping off the sentence as it hangs in the air, waiting for some insensitive clod child to point and laugh at the obvious.
And I wonder if maybe someone at the FBI wants it too, because that's sure-as-fuck what they are proving to everyone. They're pointing their gun at Apple's face but making eye contact with us and saying, "see what happens when someone else is in charge of your computer." (Heh. Now that I think of it, wasn't it the FBI who wanted this whole story public, and Apple who wanted it sealed?)
(In that respect, this case is delicious, but you should be wondering what real security and rights stories are happening right now, from which this is intended to distract you.)
Who knows, maybe the FBI is fucking tired of how our stupidity with regard to handhelds is making things easier for criminals. There could be some very selfish reasons for them wanting us all to learn a little common sense.
BTW, disclaimer: I'm as lazy and dumb as you are. Don't waste your time calling me a hypocrite; I'm not denying anything.
If the FBI wins this sets an extremely dangerous precedent...
It's too late. Even if the FBI loses, by pointing their gun at Apple's face, we the public have already been given a real-life non-tinfoil-hat reminder that signers can be coerced. There is never any going back from this. Or rather, we should go back to when we still had a little common sense, when..
a model in which multiple signatures are required
..Phil Zimmermann taught us that's what we ought to be doing anyway, a quarter century ago when he set up the defaults for what "moderately trusted" means.:-) [Yes, I realized this was in reference to trusting identities rather than messages themselves, but the idea is the same.]
I suppose we can thank the FBI for spurring the community to improve its security practices.
That's probably the healthiest way to look at it. A different attacker (but essentially doing the same thing) would have been publicized much less.
The only reason this is happening, is that the key in question is expected to be unusually easy to brute force. (We think the user's passphrase was 4 or 5 decimal digits.)
The general case is much harder, and it doesn't matter how much you beg/force a manufacturer or anyone else:
With sufficiently tamper-resistant hardware, even the manufacturer can't help you perform a brute force attack. (If they can help, then the hardware is either defective or obsolete, depending on how harsh your views.)
With decent keys (granted, this may remain uncommon with handhelds) even if you're able to perform a brute force attack, you don't expect it to succeed within any practical time limit.
No matter which side wins this battle, the war is settled: attack loses and defense wins.
It should be worthless to the government to attempt to win this new right of theirs, since they're in the closing days of ever getting to use it anyway. It also looks like it's nearly worthless to Apple and the public, to win the defense against this government expansion. No matter which side's shoes I try to wear, victory and defeat look nearly the same, and there's little risk of dangerous precedent.
What am I missing? Tell me how a government or Apple win causes a future that is unlike its alternative.
Yeah! Without a government-granted monopoly on the production of Batmobiles, the comic company had no incentive to R&D the appearance of a cool-looking car, since they were doing it at a loss.
That's why you couldn't buy a 'legit' Batmobile previously, and why the Batmobile was never seen in the TV show or movies (except the pirate ones).
Now that their monopoly is going to be upheld, the progress of arts and useful sciences will be successfully promoted by the government policy as planned. The comic company will start selling the cars and you might even some day see the vehicle appear in an audiovisual work of entertainment.
Whether or not they're correct, their argument comes down to "we think we're right." The issue isn't whether the licenses are incompatible (I doubt anyone disputes that) but whether or not a kernel module is a necessarily derivative work of the kernel (because that must be true for the license incompatibility to matter). And here is what they say about that:
our lawyers have analyzed these situations with the assistance of our license compliance and software forensics staff for many years, and we have yet to encounter a Linux module that — when distributed in binary form — did not, in our view, yield combined work with Linux. The FSF, stewards of the GPL, have stated many times over the past decades that they believe there is no legal distinction between dynamic and static linking of a C program and we agree. Accordingly, the analysis is quite obvious to us... Canonical has found some lawyers who disagree — a minority position, from our understanding of community norms.
And there you have it. If you agree with them (and why wouldn't you? It's "quite obvious" so therefore that settles it) then they're preaching to the choir and you can applaud now. If you disagree with them (and side with Canonical) then.. oh my, you're in a "minority position."
We have Very Special Fuckwits in my city, who every New Years and Independence Day, go outside and shoot their rifles into the air, in lieu of fireworks. (Because "gravity is just a theory.") If the bullets would fall apart at apogee, that'd be great, and if they explode all pretty-like, that's even better.
And please understand, even if it's ten dollars a bullet, that's ok. We'll pay any cost as an alternative to [contemptuous sneer]education.[/contemptuous sneer]
A terrorist will buy a set of Star Trek steak knives over eBay and they'll use HTTPS to transmit their eBay password. A future terrorist will lock the door of their house (why are these people even allowed to have locks, anyway?) and his wife will plaintext email him, "Did you lock the house? Remember, we're going to that party right after work tonight," and he'll say "quit telling all the snoops on the Internet which days our house has no one home," and they'll start encrypting their personal conversations. And that'll be that: they'll be encryption users too, just like the rest of us.
Some day, a terrorist is going to use a motor vehicle to travel from their home to the site of their terror.
Some day, a terrorist will use an alarm clock, instead of the sun, to get up at the correct time.
We need to face the facts: technology is bad. Anything that empowers humanity, can be used by humanity in the service of bad things. Power is bad. Capability is bad. Failing to starve when the gods wants you to starve is bad, and being immune to smallpox is bad and is why the gods have to invent new ones, like AIDS. It's time to end this nonsense of technology, and go back up into the trees. Because the apes in the trees never do anything bad to one another.
The reason I know that apes never try to harm one another, is because I carefully cultivate shocking ignorance about anthro-- er I mean -- zoology -- no, wait -- I mean biology since plants also do ev-- no wait: game theory. Well, I mean, statistics. I try to remain ignorance of mathematics and everything which stands upon or can be modelled by mathematics.
And you can too. Join me in giving a fuck about whether or not bad people use the same technology as good people.
It is not clear to me that this is going to be done with trojan firmware merely uploaded. It's conceivable that Apple might have to fab a custom IC for this, scrape epoxy off of the existing IC and board to replace the IC, etc. If the FBI's problem can be "fixed" with mere software, then Apple's product wasn't any good anyway, and it was already waiting for any and all attackers to come "fix" it. Somehow I suspect that's not the case.
One of the reasons they might be complaining about the order, is that it's going to cost them so much money. And if the order stands, it could be seen as intimidation. ("My my my, this is an expensive process we made you go through. It sure would be a shame if it happened to you thousands of times per year, now that we have discovered a magic power to force you to do things for us. You know, if you just made future phones a little easier to subvert, you wouldn't have to worry about each of them turning into tens of thousands of dollars of labor later..."
Slashdot might as well start reporting on what popstar1 said (right before dropping the mic) to popstar2 at an awards ceremony. And it'd be "tech news" because it's a digital wireless microphone.
Streaming is the tech that people upgraded from, when they got their VCRs (and later: DVDs), and the reasons to upgrade from streaming are numerous and obvious.
Downloads are next in the upgrade path from physical media distribution (so: two tech levels beyond streaming), but currently Hollywood doesn't want that money, so it's mostly just used by pirates and Louie C.K. customers.
This whole case is about the ways that Hollywood is telling its paying customers to stop paying. People will just have to decide whether or not to take Hollywood's advice and move on to piracy, or keep fighting Hollywood by shoving unwanted money down their throats as they gag and curse you for doing that.
At the _top_, forget algorithms. Hopefully your _application_ is big/complex enough to break into many processes, and then some of those process' algorithms are easily threadable. (And the fact that you keep wanting more speed might sometimes be a hint that you apps _are_ getting bigger and more complex.)
It could very easily happen, by enforcing blocking rules that restrict or eliminate third party content.
That won't work. Even if you don't communicate directly with the third party, you don't have any way to prevent the content provider (who is also the ad provider from your point of view) from passing the information along.
We seem to have latched onto this "third party content" as The Problem, where it's really just a hack du jour for easily spotting a problem. But the only reason a content provider is putting <script src="somewhere else"> into their pages is because it still gets them paid by the "somewhere else." If you hit their own server instead of the third party, they can still forward any requests behind the scenes to anyone, and you won't even know it's happening, but all the same information will be there.
If you eliminate "third party content" you're just going to turn second parties into proxies. And they'll really do it, too. Why wouldn't they?
Slashdot Mirror
I did the exact same thing as Puzder when I went home for lunch yesterday instead of eating fast food, but nobody flamed me for doing that. Why?
I did the same thing as him, when I bought a 3-year-old used car (and shopped around while doing it) instead of a new car. Nobody suggested I was out-of-touch bourgeoisie.
I did the same thing when I last compared two vendor's prices and then chose the lower one. Where were your cautionary words then?
You and I cut unnecessary expenses every chance that we get, and it's seen as prudent and efficient. And I don't know if your personality is anything like mine, but I actually look down a little bit on wasteful people. When someone burns money, I think less of them.
But the expense of hiring people is somehow a religious exception?
Nobody is advocating that people shouldn't have a living wage (indeed, they might even advocate that everyone figure out a way to make a lot more money than that); they just don't want to be the one who pays it. They're just saying "This expense shouldn't be this high, because I think I see how to get it done for less." If that means it's less than a living wage, then perhaps humans shouldn't be doing that particular job anymore (or perhaps different employees have a different idea about how much a living wage really is).
I don't get why employers are called bad guys for issuing low offers. When someone makes me an offer that I reject, I don't get offended. The rejection is enough, and then it's their problem, not mine.
Except it's not the rich, it's every single one of us. Everyone is "the rich" whenever they're spending their own money. When your ISP asks you for a raise, I bet you'll say, "No. Get the fuck out of my office, and if you bring this up again, I'm firing your ass."
The news story is what happens if The People ever start to care about their most basic rights. Because if they gave a fuck, the obvious followup question to the government is: Why was it necessary to keep the target a secret? Everyone knew about Snowden and assumed it was Snowden. Yet Levison was told he can't tell anyone his system was being attacked or else.
I want to know why "don't state the obvious" was a legitimate reason to use secret police powers. Go ahead and explain it, government: this is going to be hilarious.
This new experimental power should be revoked. It didn't work out. The government proved it can't be trusted with the "you don't have 1st, 4th and 5th amendment rights whenever we say 'this is an important post-9/11 exception'" power. Seriously: does anyone have any doubts that the question isn't completely settled now?
Is there still any controversy? Whether you're pro-Snowden or anti-Snowden, now that cat is out of the bag on this case, tell me how things might have gone differently if Snowden had found out that Lavabit was under attack.
Sorry, but one of the rules of this story is that your thread is supposed to say something about ad blockers. Where's your ad blocker comment?
Maybe you're right, but I still can't figure out how these guys are scamming us. They sure look innocent.
They can ask but the precedent wouldn't have anything in common with such a thing, so there wouldn't be any judicial power behind the request. Whose phone (exactly) are you talking about? Because when the FBI goes crawling on their hands and knees to a judge, they're going to need some names, probable cause, and a particular crime.
I'm not saying they don't want this power. (We already gave it to them (in a certain form) 22 years ago with CALEA!) But this campaign doesn't give them any advantage on that one. If anything, it gives advantage to We The People, since this case is helping us to wake up to the obvious fact that it's pretty fucking stupid to have a third party (e.g. Apple, Samsung, Sony, whatever) be in charge of your PC's keys. And once we know that and stop pretending that it's too hard or doesn't matter who is in charge of our PCs, we'll take care of things.
People are worried that the FBI might be empowered to take over your phone?!? You should be worried that YOU AREN'T empowered take over your own phone. You will always be vulnerable to a third party being coerced (and possibly without your knowledge!) until you fix that.
You already have that option. It's called run-you-own-postfix-and-dovecot.
The idea that Gmail should be secure is laughable; go back a decade and look at all the debate over Gmail (or go back another to see people having the same discussions about Hotmail). What you'll find is that all the Gmail defenders were saying "I don't care." I am not making this up: that was the essence of all those peoples' insanity defense.
I understand why people are finally changing their minds, but don't blame Gmail. Webmail is for people who don't value privacy. That hasn't changed and isn't going to change. (If you value privacy, webmail is ruled out because the server would have to have your key, and that's a silly idea on the face of it.)
I think you haven't read up on exactly what the court demanded Apple give the FBI, and why it will work on the iPhone 5C. Am I mistaken?
You can trivially build computer storage that the FBI can't crack. If you have $300 (remember to spend some of that on a real keyboard rather than a numeric keypad, which you get tired of using after 4 keypresses) then you have more cryptographic resources than the FBI has cryptanalysic resources. Anyone can be a titan, next to the FBI's ant-like stature. If you did that, the FBI would have no choice but to resort to the $5 wrench (and if we maintain the context of this particular case, the $5 wrench wouldn't work; go threaten some 3-month-old corpses if you don't believe me).
The reason Apple is in court isn't that they can afford it and you can't; it's because they are the third party that some fuckwit outsourced their data security to, instead of doing it themselves. (A fuckwit, I remind you, who didn't care about anything, which is why he is dead, and is also why you don't need to worry about his problems becoming your problems. If you are trying to protect your data, then no precedent that affects you, is going to come out of all this.)
Think about how amazing that is. If you heard of a company or government department who did that, you would say they're shockingly negligent. Their CIO needs to be fired immediately. If you even heard that a private individual did that with their desktop computer, and then it went sour, you would "blame the victim" because even at the low-stakes level of a single person, it's blatantly stupid. But somehow all the rules of common sense are suspended when the PC is handheld.
"My passphrase is four decimal digits long." (Seriously, imagine someone saying that. Your mind inserts the word "duuuh" at the beginning of the sentence, doesn't it?)
"I don't have my computer's root password, but Dell does." (Did the same thing happen when your imaginary actor read this line?)
Apple is a little more motivated to fight than usual, because this case shows the public that we're all doing things wrong. Apple doesn't want you to know that. Google doesn't, either. But I do. I want you to know that most of our sentences about handheld PCs start with an implicit "duuuh," and there's saliva dripping off the sentence as it hangs in the air, waiting for some insensitive clod child to point and laugh at the obvious.
And I wonder if maybe someone at the FBI wants it too, because that's sure-as-fuck what they are proving to everyone. They're pointing their gun at Apple's face but making eye contact with us and saying, "see what happens when someone else is in charge of your computer." (Heh. Now that I think of it, wasn't it the FBI who wanted this whole story public, and Apple who wanted it sealed?)
(In that respect, this case is delicious, but you should be wondering what real security and rights stories are happening right now, from which this is intended to distract you.)
Who knows, maybe the FBI is fucking tired of how our stupidity with regard to handhelds is making things easier for criminals. There could be some very selfish reasons for them wanting us all to learn a little common sense.
BTW, disclaimer: I'm as lazy and dumb as you are. Don't waste your time calling me a hypocrite; I'm not denying anything.
Suppose that happens. So what? FBI says to manufacturer: "unlock this phone."
Manufacturer: "Sure thing. I will help you however I can. What model phone do you need help with?"
FBI: "It's a 2014 or later model."
"Oh. Sorry. I literally lack the capacity to help you, because that phone answers to its user, not us."
This entire issue is sliding into obsolesence.
It's too late. Even if the FBI loses, by pointing their gun at Apple's face, we the public have already been given a real-life non-tinfoil-hat reminder that signers can be coerced. There is never any going back from this. Or rather, we should go back to when we still had a little common sense, when..
..Phil Zimmermann taught us that's what we ought to be doing anyway, a quarter century ago when he set up the defaults for what "moderately trusted" means. :-) [Yes, I realized this was in reference to trusting identities rather than messages themselves, but the idea is the same.]
That's probably the healthiest way to look at it. A different attacker (but essentially doing the same thing) would have been publicized much less.
The only reason this is happening, is that the key in question is expected to be unusually easy to brute force. (We think the user's passphrase was 4 or 5 decimal digits.)
The general case is much harder, and it doesn't matter how much you beg/force a manufacturer or anyone else:
No matter which side wins this battle, the war is settled: attack loses and defense wins.
It should be worthless to the government to attempt to win this new right of theirs, since they're in the closing days of ever getting to use it anyway. It also looks like it's nearly worthless to Apple and the public, to win the defense against this government expansion. No matter which side's shoes I try to wear, victory and defeat look nearly the same, and there's little risk of dangerous precedent.
What am I missing? Tell me how a government or Apple win causes a future that is unlike its alternative.
Yeah! Without a government-granted monopoly on the production of Batmobiles, the comic company had no incentive to R&D the appearance of a cool-looking car, since they were doing it at a loss.
That's why you couldn't buy a 'legit' Batmobile previously, and why the Batmobile was never seen in the TV show or movies (except the pirate ones).
Now that their monopoly is going to be upheld, the progress of arts and useful sciences will be successfully promoted by the government policy as planned. The comic company will start selling the cars and you might even some day see the vehicle appear in an audiovisual work of entertainment.
This is why we have copyright!
More like, drones to keep watch over people who might be talking about "munitions."
Whether or not they're correct, their argument comes down to "we think we're right." The issue isn't whether the licenses are incompatible (I doubt anyone disputes that) but whether or not a kernel module is a necessarily derivative work of the kernel (because that must be true for the license incompatibility to matter). And here is what they say about that:
And there you have it. If you agree with them (and why wouldn't you? It's "quite obvious" so therefore that settles it) then they're preaching to the choir and you can applaud now. If you disagree with them (and side with Canonical) then .. oh my, you're in a "minority position."
We have Very Special Fuckwits in my city, who every New Years and Independence Day, go outside and shoot their rifles into the air, in lieu of fireworks. (Because "gravity is just a theory.") If the bullets would fall apart at apogee, that'd be great, and if they explode all pretty-like, that's even better.
And please understand, even if it's ten dollars a bullet, that's ok. We'll pay any cost as an alternative to [contemptuous sneer]education.[/contemptuous sneer]
It will happen someday, though.
A terrorist will buy a set of Star Trek steak knives over eBay and they'll use HTTPS to transmit their eBay password. A future terrorist will lock the door of their house (why are these people even allowed to have locks, anyway?) and his wife will plaintext email him, "Did you lock the house? Remember, we're going to that party right after work tonight," and he'll say "quit telling all the snoops on the Internet which days our house has no one home," and they'll start encrypting their personal conversations. And that'll be that: they'll be encryption users too, just like the rest of us.
Some day, a terrorist is going to use a motor vehicle to travel from their home to the site of their terror.
Some day, a terrorist will use an alarm clock, instead of the sun, to get up at the correct time.
We need to face the facts: technology is bad. Anything that empowers humanity, can be used by humanity in the service of bad things. Power is bad. Capability is bad. Failing to starve when the gods wants you to starve is bad, and being immune to smallpox is bad and is why the gods have to invent new ones, like AIDS. It's time to end this nonsense of technology, and go back up into the trees. Because the apes in the trees never do anything bad to one another.
The reason I know that apes never try to harm one another, is because I carefully cultivate shocking ignorance about anthro-- er I mean -- zoology -- no, wait -- I mean biology since plants also do ev-- no wait: game theory. Well, I mean, statistics. I try to remain ignorance of mathematics and everything which stands upon or can be modelled by mathematics.
And you can too. Join me in giving a fuck about whether or not bad people use the same technology as good people.
It is not clear to me that this is going to be done with trojan firmware merely uploaded. It's conceivable that Apple might have to fab a custom IC for this, scrape epoxy off of the existing IC and board to replace the IC, etc. If the FBI's problem can be "fixed" with mere software, then Apple's product wasn't any good anyway, and it was already waiting for any and all attackers to come "fix" it. Somehow I suspect that's not the case.
One of the reasons they might be complaining about the order, is that it's going to cost them so much money. And if the order stands, it could be seen as intimidation. ("My my my, this is an expensive process we made you go through. It sure would be a shame if it happened to you thousands of times per year, now that we have discovered a magic power to force you to do things for us. You know, if you just made future phones a little easier to subvert, you wouldn't have to worry about each of them turning into tens of thousands of dollars of labor later..."
Slashdot might as well start reporting on what popstar1 said (right before dropping the mic) to popstar2 at an awards ceremony. And it'd be "tech news" because it's a digital wireless microphone.
Poor Jethro Tull and Edge of Sanity!
Streaming is the tech that people upgraded from, when they got their VCRs (and later: DVDs), and the reasons to upgrade from streaming are numerous and obvious.
Downloads are next in the upgrade path from physical media distribution (so: two tech levels beyond streaming), but currently Hollywood doesn't want that money, so it's mostly just used by pirates and Louie C.K. customers.
This whole case is about the ways that Hollywood is telling its paying customers to stop paying. People will just have to decide whether or not to take Hollywood's advice and move on to piracy, or keep fighting Hollywood by shoving unwanted money down their throats as they gag and curse you for doing that.
A humanity's capabilities advance, the good guys can get gooder but the bad guys can get badder!
When an adversary lives, you can insult him. When he's "cold" you can insult him. What's so special about the few hours in between?
At the _top_, forget algorithms. Hopefully your _application_ is big/complex enough to break into many processes, and then some of those process' algorithms are easily threadable. (And the fact that you keep wanting more speed might sometimes be a hint that you apps _are_ getting bigger and more complex.)
Maybe it's a dedicated Dwarf Fortress machine.
That won't work. Even if you don't communicate directly with the third party, you don't have any way to prevent the content provider (who is also the ad provider from your point of view) from passing the information along.
We seem to have latched onto this "third party content" as The Problem, where it's really just a hack du jour for easily spotting a problem. But the only reason a content provider is putting <script src="somewhere else"> into their pages is because it still gets them paid by the "somewhere else." If you hit their own server instead of the third party, they can still forward any requests behind the scenes to anyone, and you won't even know it's happening, but all the same information will be there.
If you eliminate "third party content" you're just going to turn second parties into proxies. And they'll really do it, too. Why wouldn't they?