I wouldn't suggest that it is any less secure, but I think it's unlikely to be more secure... and so would be vulnerable to nefarious entities exactly as any domestic backdoor would be.
Further, all other things equal, the NSA I believe is more likely to be fairer even to those it may persecute than the Chinese government would be. I realize that the Chinese government is far away and not able to significantly impact you or I right now, but I feel that when something wrong is happening, wanting to ignore it, or worse, endorse or somehow prefer it, simply because the really bad stuff isn't in one's own backyard is not really ethically justifiable, nor even an ultimately sustainable position.
I'm reminded of a well known poem, written, I think, in the 1950's:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.
Yes, a backdoor is in your phone. Which in itself is a risk that ought to concern you, since it could be exploited by others as well. However that wasn't exactly the point of your question.
Actually, that was *exactly* the point of my question. For the same reason that any backdoor that might be intended only for use by legitimate law enforcement would certainly be exploited by nefarious individuals as well, whether because of the almost inevitable leaks or through hacking efforts or what you, any backdoor that might exist in a Chinese phone would be exposing you to the exact same risks... plus, because you would further be basically giving the Chinese your private information gratis, you are compounding any of the vulnerabilities you otherwise have with any domestic backdoor, potentially limiting your ability to travel as well.
Assuming they are backdoored by the chinese government, people would still be handing over information gratis to them, and China is, at the end of the day, considered a competitor to the USA.
But owing to the inherent insecurities that backdoors of *ANY* kind can cause, any backdoor that is usable by the chinese could be invaded upon by the NSA anyways, either because of leaks, or simply as the result of a successul hacking effort, etc.
There is no objectively justifiable rationale for preferring a foreign backdoor to a domestic one, and in some ways it could be worse in that it may impact your ability to travel as well.
The only justifiable reason I can see for thinking it is somehow better is based on a complete inverse reasoning of the expression "better the devil you know than one you don't", and actually preferring to have to deal with potentially unknown problems instead of ones that might somehow be in your purview, which seems entirely backwards to me.
Obviously the ideal is that there are no backdoors at all, but the post to which I responded suggested that a foreign one would somehow be preferable, comes across as irrational and reactionary to the mere existence of domestic backdoors rather than being based on a coherent and sound argument.
Except that backdoor is still in *YOUR* phone.... so all you've done by choosing a foreign device is brought the foreign "disaster" into your own neighborhood as well anyways.
I never meant to suggest that American spying should somehow be preferable. Obviously the ideal is no backdoors, but the post to which I responded *explicitly* made the assumption that the foreign phone would have a backdoor, and I was wondering why *THAT* would still somehow be preferred.
Doesn't a plane at least have to take off from the ground under its own power, or at least be able to sustain its flight through its own power? This thing needs to be launched with significant velocity that ionic wind simply cannot maintain. It doesn't even really fly under its own weight, let alone having a payload or passenger which is necessary for it to be even moderately useful.
In terms of real companies that want to call hundreds, or thousands or more people per day, my response is mostly this: too bad, you get to eat the extra costs
Of course, and I get that... but I would suggest that if this overhead is low enough that it is not going to be a problem for legitimate businesses, then I don't think it will be terribly problematic for robocallers either.
Nice in theory, except what do you do with companies that have a legitimate reason to be making lots of calls to maybe hundreds of people every day? Suddenly their phone bill goes up by hundreds or even thousands of dollars every month simply because of how many people they have to contact. And if you don't think that's enough to break the bank for companies like that, then why do you think it would stop robocallers?
There is a legitimate reason to spoof ID, however.... one example is when a company's direct dial line needs to spoof a company's main business line, which might be a toll free number or not even be located on the same exchange
When they start charging the telco's for every robocall they don't filter, it's a near-certainty that this cost will just be passed on to all subscribers, and rates will simply go up.
I expect that if they try to file a trademark dispute against the administration, they will probably just lose their trademark entirely and the issue will be resolved that way.
I feel bad for the owners of that trademark, but there's probably shit all they can do here.
So it does not matter if you waste 80% of zero cost thing or 60% of zero cost thing.
It matters very much.... if you spend, say, half as much money building these but they only harness 20% as much energy, then it's not a positive return on investment.
Cheaper is always nice, but if you have to make an even greater compromise on efficiency than the amount of money you saved, then you aren't actually getting anything better for your dollar.
I think this is a case where tone doesn't read well on the internet.
My usage of expletives was not meant to suggest anger, but simply complete and utter shock that it would even be a thing to try.
It was more of a "What the fuck?" expression than one that was meant to suggest I was in any way outraged or that I actually thought I knew better than the people who were doing this.
It sincerely (and still) makes absolutely no sense to me to be trying this sort of thing without also trying right from the beginning to also get as much power as you can get from the reaction to feed back and try sustain it until at least you get to a self-sustaining system, after which of course, once you've got there, you can start drawing useful power.
Anything else isn't being "maintained" in the first place... it's just putting a whole lot of energy into making a brilliant fusion reaction that is going entirely to waste.
People without a Facebook account are more positive, more driven, more motivated. They are socially more skilled, have better communication, they're simply better. It's a proven fact.
I'd very much like to see the so-called proof of that.
Of course, I'd like even more if you said what so-called "firm" this is that you represent, because I find your claims to be a bit dubious. Given the existence of support groups for all kinds of things on Facebook, you might even be running afoul of discriminating against a protected class if you happened to offer a job to a person who utilized such groups.
Seriously.... I have no qualms whatsoever with employers not allowing people to check Facebook while at work (not even on their own devices, let alone using work equipment to do so), but this policy runs afoul of trying to tell employees what sort of people they are allowed to have as friends or family, because for some people, it really is a primary mode of communication.
Honestly, as another AC suggested, I'm skeptical that this "firm" even exists.
No, what would have been petty would be to make the iOS version of their app paid, and keep the android version free, and then eventually deprecate the free version of the iOS app so that it no longer works.
The reason for the change was uniformity. There were two definitions o words like billion and trillion for decades. This was causing confusion, so we settled on just one of the definitions, and that is now being used by everybody.
My point is not that I would expect a fusion experiment to instantly produce viable energy output... if they haven't gotten it to self-sustaining levels yet, that's to be expected. I would, however, think that would still be the entire initial goal, and I would have expected that right out of the starting gate they'd be siphoning off as much power as they could into keeping the reaction going until they were able to get enough to keep the reaction going, and anything over and above that, if and when they get there, would be useful generated power. If they weren't generating enough power yet to do so, again.... that's okay. It's still progress, and the amount of time they are able to sustain it would still be a measure of how long they were able to keep feeding it enough power over and above what it generated to keep going, and a real measurement of how close they are actually getting to having a sustained fusion reaction.
If, however, they weren't ever intending on trying to do that right away, then I honestly don't see what the point of talking about "maintaining" a reaction was in the first place, if they didn't actually have anything in place to even *try* to maintain it?
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't suggest that it is any less secure, but I think it's unlikely to be more secure... and so would be vulnerable to nefarious entities exactly as any domestic backdoor would be.
Further, all other things equal, the NSA I believe is more likely to be fairer even to those it may persecute than the Chinese government would be. I realize that the Chinese government is far away and not able to significantly impact you or I right now, but I feel that when something wrong is happening, wanting to ignore it, or worse, endorse or somehow prefer it, simply because the really bad stuff isn't in one's own backyard is not really ethically justifiable, nor even an ultimately sustainable position.
I'm reminded of a well known poem, written, I think, in the 1950's:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.
Actually, that was *exactly* the point of my question. For the same reason that any backdoor that might be intended only for use by legitimate law enforcement would certainly be exploited by nefarious individuals as well, whether because of the almost inevitable leaks or through hacking efforts or what you, any backdoor that might exist in a Chinese phone would be exposing you to the exact same risks... plus, because you would further be basically giving the Chinese your private information gratis, you are compounding any of the vulnerabilities you otherwise have with any domestic backdoor, potentially limiting your ability to travel as well.
Assuming they are backdoored by the chinese government, people would still be handing over information gratis to them, and China is, at the end of the day, considered a competitor to the USA.
But owing to the inherent insecurities that backdoors of *ANY* kind can cause, any backdoor that is usable by the chinese could be invaded upon by the NSA anyways, either because of leaks, or simply as the result of a successul hacking effort, etc.
There is no objectively justifiable rationale for preferring a foreign backdoor to a domestic one, and in some ways it could be worse in that it may impact your ability to travel as well.
The only justifiable reason I can see for thinking it is somehow better is based on a complete inverse reasoning of the expression "better the devil you know than one you don't", and actually preferring to have to deal with potentially unknown problems instead of ones that might somehow be in your purview, which seems entirely backwards to me.
Obviously the ideal is that there are no backdoors at all, but the post to which I responded suggested that a foreign one would somehow be preferable, comes across as irrational and reactionary to the mere existence of domestic backdoors rather than being based on a coherent and sound argument.
Please explain how, exactly, a backdoor that is usable by the chinese could not also be usable by the NSA.
Leaks happen. Hacks happen. Backdoors are inevitably found, with enough time.
Except that backdoor is still in *YOUR* phone.... so all you've done by choosing a foreign device is brought the foreign "disaster" into your own neighborhood as well anyways.
I never meant to suggest that American spying should somehow be preferable. Obviously the ideal is no backdoors, but the post to which I responded *explicitly* made the assumption that the foreign phone would have a backdoor, and I was wondering why *THAT* would still somehow be preferred.
And how is that actually a preferable thing, when we are still talking about invading people's privacy?
Explain this reasoning.... how is a foreign backdoor preferable to a domestic one?
Doesn't a plane at least have to take off from the ground under its own power, or at least be able to sustain its flight through its own power? This thing needs to be launched with significant velocity that ionic wind simply cannot maintain. It doesn't even really fly under its own weight, let alone having a payload or passenger which is necessary for it to be even moderately useful.
The first real plane flight wasn't very long either, but it at least carried the weight of a real person.
It's my understanding that Ionic wind doesn't scale very well, and probably can't work for anything larger than a very lightweight toy.
I think it depends if they bought it for their own use or if they bought to resell based on that information.
Of course, and I get that... but I would suggest that if this overhead is low enough that it is not going to be a problem for legitimate businesses, then I don't think it will be terribly problematic for robocallers either.
Nice in theory, except what do you do with companies that have a legitimate reason to be making lots of calls to maybe hundreds of people every day? Suddenly their phone bill goes up by hundreds or even thousands of dollars every month simply because of how many people they have to contact. And if you don't think that's enough to break the bank for companies like that, then why do you think it would stop robocallers?
There is a legitimate reason to spoof ID, however.... one example is when a company's direct dial line needs to spoof a company's main business line, which might be a toll free number or not even be located on the same exchange
When they start charging the telco's for every robocall they don't filter, it's a near-certainty that this cost will just be passed on to all subscribers, and rates will simply go up.
So no.... that's not a solution.
I expect that if they try to file a trademark dispute against the administration, they will probably just lose their trademark entirely and the issue will be resolved that way.
I feel bad for the owners of that trademark, but there's probably shit all they can do here.
Even the universe will end... someday.
So obviously, nothing is too big to fail.
But there are big companies that have been around for a lot longer than 30 years. IBM comes to mind as one.
It matters very much.... if you spend, say, half as much money building these but they only harness 20% as much energy, then it's not a positive return on investment.
Cheaper is always nice, but if you have to make an even greater compromise on efficiency than the amount of money you saved, then you aren't actually getting anything better for your dollar.
I think this is a case where tone doesn't read well on the internet.
My usage of expletives was not meant to suggest anger, but simply complete and utter shock that it would even be a thing to try.
It was more of a "What the fuck?" expression than one that was meant to suggest I was in any way outraged or that I actually thought I knew better than the people who were doing this.
It sincerely (and still) makes absolutely no sense to me to be trying this sort of thing without also trying right from the beginning to also get as much power as you can get from the reaction to feed back and try sustain it until at least you get to a self-sustaining system, after which of course, once you've got there, you can start drawing useful power.
Anything else isn't being "maintained" in the first place... it's just putting a whole lot of energy into making a brilliant fusion reaction that is going entirely to waste.
I'd very much like to see the so-called proof of that.
Of course, I'd like even more if you said what so-called "firm" this is that you represent, because I find your claims to be a bit dubious. Given the existence of support groups for all kinds of things on Facebook, you might even be running afoul of discriminating against a protected class if you happened to offer a job to a person who utilized such groups.
This.
Seriously.... I have no qualms whatsoever with employers not allowing people to check Facebook while at work (not even on their own devices, let alone using work equipment to do so), but this policy runs afoul of trying to tell employees what sort of people they are allowed to have as friends or family, because for some people, it really is a primary mode of communication.
Honestly, as another AC suggested, I'm skeptical that this "firm" even exists.
No, what would have been petty would be to make the iOS version of their app paid, and keep the android version free, and then eventually deprecate the free version of the iOS app so that it no longer works.
The reason for the change was uniformity. There were two definitions o words like billion and trillion for decades. This was causing confusion, so we settled on just one of the definitions, and that is now being used by everybody.
My point is not that I would expect a fusion experiment to instantly produce viable energy output... if they haven't gotten it to self-sustaining levels yet, that's to be expected. I would, however, think that would still be the entire initial goal, and I would have expected that right out of the starting gate they'd be siphoning off as much power as they could into keeping the reaction going until they were able to get enough to keep the reaction going, and anything over and above that, if and when they get there, would be useful generated power. If they weren't generating enough power yet to do so, again.... that's okay. It's still progress, and the amount of time they are able to sustain it would still be a measure of how long they were able to keep feeding it enough power over and above what it generated to keep going, and a real measurement of how close they are actually getting to having a sustained fusion reaction.
If, however, they weren't ever intending on trying to do that right away, then I honestly don't see what the point of talking about "maintaining" a reaction was in the first place, if they didn't actually have anything in place to even *try* to maintain it?