If you have to cast the situation in such binary terms, then it's easy: you're always completely unsecured in everything you do. Not just with smartphones.
Except that we've had modern smart phones for 10-years
And the vast majority of those smartphones have let you replace the battery, which mitigates the issue. Last year, my Android phone battery reach the end of its life. I knew it because it started to randomly shut down even though I made no changes to settings and installed no new applications.
I just replaced the battery, and it's like new. Nobody heard me complain because it was a nonissue.
I would say the threshold is that if any random person can do it without special training and/or special tools, it's user-replaceable. An ordinary screwdriver? Sure, pretty much everybody has one of those.
Blu-Ray isn't encrypted - the key is well known to everyone now.
Huh? Of course it's encrypted. That the key is widely available doesn't change the mathematical fact.
The insidious thing is that, legally speaking, it doesn't have to be encrypted in order for it to be illegal to bypass. All that has to exist is some form of access control. The type (or effectiveness) doesn't matter.
What about placing a disk on the Blu-Ray player, hitting play, then pointing a camera to a 4K TV and filming the video on there?
Not only is that perfectly legal, the copyright industry even specifically cited it as the reason why it wasn't a terrible thing that the anti-circumvention clause prevented legal uses of copyrighted materials.
Unless you are not a very technically competent user.
There are a lot of decent defenses for getting rid of user-replaceable batteries (I disagree with them all, but they are reasonable arguments).
This, however, is just a stupid thing to say. The only reason I'm replying to it now is that I'm seeing it more and more often, and someone has to pipe up about it.
Everyone (including you) knows what people mean by "user replaceable battery": a battery than an ordinary user can replace. If you need spudgers, soldering irons, and skill to do it, then it's not user replaceable.
people are still suggesting disabling Windows Update as a viable solution to anything at all?!
It's a bad solution, but it's the only solution available.
If your lack of trust or Microsoft is that deep, then how can you trust your operating system at all?
You can't.
or switch to an alternative OS that you do trust.
I generally do, but unfortunately it's not possible in every circumstance.
If you have the Pro version of Windows 10, you can trivially delay the installation of major updates for up to six months
You can? My Windows installation begs to differ. Sure, you can tell it to, but it will ignore you.
which is plenty of time for MS to get the bugs ironed out.
What Microsoft considers to be a bug and what I consider to be a bug are very often different things.
either you're in and constantly-updated, or you're left behind and unsecured.
Which is a problem Microsoft made (intentionally) all by themselves by combining security updates with other sorts of updates. If the result of that is that people dodge security updates in order to avoid the other updates, the blame falls on Microsoft, not on the users.
A simple notice telling users that their battery was tired and the phone is being slowed to prevent unexpected shutoffs would have avoided the entire issue.
Anything and everything you do and own that interacts with the outside world is a security risk. There is no such thing as "secure" in an absolute sense. So, everything involves a tradeoff between utility and security, and what balance between the two is acceptable is a very subjective thing that can only be decided for yourself.
If your comfort level is such that smart phones aren't acceptable, that's fine. But it's also fine for those of us who are comfortable striking a different balance. My "rules" are subjective as well, but (in part) define where my security comfort level is.
The important thing, in my view, is that you make that decision in an informed manner.
First rule: don't install any apps that you don't have a strong need to install, and particularly avoid games.
Second rule: don't install games.
Third rule: install and use a firewall to prevent any app from communicating to the internet, unless internet access is needed for the app's primary purpose and you really can't live without it.
Fourth rule: marketers are evil scum, and are getting more evil and scummier as time goes on.
I don't know about that. In my view, a "filmmaker" is someone who makes video, period. It doesn't speak to whether or not they ever publish the video, or are talented, or are recognized.
seek permission from the copyright owner of the film that they want to use.
Because the issue they're addressing isn't the rights to use the clips, it's the ability to legally break the DRM.
Remember, it's illegal to break the DRM even when your use of the material is otherwise 100% legal and/or authorized. That's why the anti-circumvention clause is bad joke.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have to cast the situation in such binary terms, then it's easy: you're always completely unsecured in everything you do. Not just with smartphones.
Making a copy of the video for the use you describe is perfectly legal.
Breaking the DVD encryption to do it is a violation of the anti-circumvention law.
That's a wonderful example of how ludicrous the law has become.
The copyright holder can always grant permission for anyone and everyone to crack DRM on their own works.
And what if you want to use the work in a way that is completely legal, but which the copyright holder doesn't want to give you permission for?
Permission of the copyright holder is not necessary for all kinds of uses.
Except that we've had modern smart phones for 10-years
And the vast majority of those smartphones have let you replace the battery, which mitigates the issue. Last year, my Android phone battery reach the end of its life. I knew it because it started to randomly shut down even though I made no changes to settings and installed no new applications.
I just replaced the battery, and it's like new. Nobody heard me complain because it was a nonissue.
I would say the threshold is that if any random person can do it without special training and/or special tools, it's user-replaceable. An ordinary screwdriver? Sure, pretty much everybody has one of those.
Yes, I understand.
Clearly, you don't understand, since you wrote a lot of words that didn't address my comment at all.
No, the fundamental problem with the two party system is that it usually results in two completely unacceptable candidates.
If there's nobody who can represent you in the offing, then your voice isn't heard.
Blu-Ray isn't encrypted - the key is well known to everyone now.
Huh? Of course it's encrypted. That the key is widely available doesn't change the mathematical fact.
The insidious thing is that, legally speaking, it doesn't have to be encrypted in order for it to be illegal to bypass. All that has to exist is some form of access control. The type (or effectiveness) doesn't matter.
What about placing a disk on the Blu-Ray player, hitting play, then pointing a camera to a 4K TV and filming the video on there?
Not only is that perfectly legal, the copyright industry even specifically cited it as the reason why it wasn't a terrible thing that the anti-circumvention clause prevented legal uses of copyrighted materials.
They are.
Unless you are not a very technically competent user.
There are a lot of decent defenses for getting rid of user-replaceable batteries (I disagree with them all, but they are reasonable arguments).
This, however, is just a stupid thing to say. The only reason I'm replying to it now is that I'm seeing it more and more often, and someone has to pipe up about it.
Everyone (including you) knows what people mean by "user replaceable battery": a battery than an ordinary user can replace. If you need spudgers, soldering irons, and skill to do it, then it's not user replaceable.
people are still suggesting disabling Windows Update as a viable solution to anything at all?!
It's a bad solution, but it's the only solution available.
If your lack of trust or Microsoft is that deep, then how can you trust your operating system at all?
You can't.
or switch to an alternative OS that you do trust.
I generally do, but unfortunately it's not possible in every circumstance.
If you have the Pro version of Windows 10, you can trivially delay the installation of major updates for up to six months
You can? My Windows installation begs to differ. Sure, you can tell it to, but it will ignore you.
which is plenty of time for MS to get the bugs ironed out.
What Microsoft considers to be a bug and what I consider to be a bug are very often different things.
either you're in and constantly-updated, or you're left behind and unsecured.
Which is a problem Microsoft made (intentionally) all by themselves by combining security updates with other sorts of updates. If the result of that is that people dodge security updates in order to avoid the other updates, the blame falls on Microsoft, not on the users.
A simple notice telling users that their battery was tired and the phone is being slowed to prevent unexpected shutoffs would have avoided the entire issue.
we are diverting further and further away from the bright future depicted in Star Trek
Hell, even the modern crop of Star Trek movies have diverted away from that.
Think back to when you first saw computers that were made to directly work against the interests of their owners.
For me, the introduction of the Macintosh was the first time I noticed the problem.
There's still fun to be had with computers, if you know where to look -- like in the microcontroller scene, for instance.
It's mostly just when machines get exposed to the internet that all joy is sucked out of them.
An upgraded battery for a Samsung is $9 on Amazon
Have you used those? I have. They tend to last less than a year before needing to be replaced again.
But hey, we got cheaper Batt replacements so not a bad outcome! ;)
I suppose, in the sense that someone telling you "I'm going to temporarily stop assaulting you" is a "good outcome".
I don't know about iPhones, but you're correct about Android. Which is one of the many reasons why I wouldn't use an a smartphone that wasn't rooted.
Anything and everything you do and own that interacts with the outside world is a security risk. There is no such thing as "secure" in an absolute sense. So, everything involves a tradeoff between utility and security, and what balance between the two is acceptable is a very subjective thing that can only be decided for yourself.
If your comfort level is such that smart phones aren't acceptable, that's fine. But it's also fine for those of us who are comfortable striking a different balance. My "rules" are subjective as well, but (in part) define where my security comfort level is.
The important thing, in my view, is that you make that decision in an informed manner.
The law disagrees. It specifically says that it doesn't matter how weak the access controls are, it's still illegal to bypass them.
First rule: don't install any apps that you don't have a strong need to install, and particularly avoid games.
Second rule: don't install games.
Third rule: install and use a firewall to prevent any app from communicating to the internet, unless internet access is needed for the app's primary purpose and you really can't live without it.
Fourth rule: marketers are evil scum, and are getting more evil and scummier as time goes on.
Fifth rule: don't install games
I don't know about that. In my view, a "filmmaker" is someone who makes video, period. It doesn't speak to whether or not they ever publish the video, or are talented, or are recognized.
That is just something poor people say to feel better.
No, it's an aspirational statement about what we need to be working to achieve. It's not a delusional one misrepresenting "the way things are".
seek permission from the copyright owner of the film that they want to use.
Because the issue they're addressing isn't the rights to use the clips, it's the ability to legally break the DRM.
Remember, it's illegal to break the DRM even when your use of the material is otherwise 100% legal and/or authorized. That's why the anti-circumvention clause is bad joke.
Since the anti-circumvention clause does nothing but make a mockery of the law on every level, let's just get rid of it entirely.