I hold the patent for a business process that involves firing employees to help the company recover. IBM has chosen to use that process and they are not paying me any royalty fees.
It sounds like the miners in a cartel are gaining unfair advantage to receive reward for mining blocks.
Can this be used to reverse transactions or double spent bitcoins?
The only problem is that companies will not support security patches over the device lifetime. Maybe the companies with Big names and reputations at stake. There are going to be a lot more unoatched devices out there in the near future.
Trump supporters have brought shame and embarrassment upon the entire United States of America. Two cycles ago Howard Dean did a goofy yell and his campaign collapsed. Trump has said so many bad things it is a wonder he still is standing.
Companies make decisions primarily based upon the impact to profits and shareholders. Given this fact it is quite easy to understand how Apple is supporting two contradictory positions with regard to privacy.
It would be nice if this issue would generate additional discussion and action to fix the failure of technology companies as a whole for delivering secure products. It is clear that computer science departments in the United States have failed. It is also clear that many companies are failing. Computer scientists should have a mandatory requirement to take a class in cryptography. Students need to learn concepts about securing communications, data on devices, and creating solutions to authenticate users and commands passed to software. They should also be required to take a senior level elective on ethics and be made to study case studies on the impact to society and economies due to poor design and implementation of software systems.
There have been several stories on Slashdot about the total failure of IoT devices. Reading about the failures in design of the software solution made me think that 'software hacks' made the systems and not professionals. There is a lot of energy and passion being spent by technical folks on both sides of the Apple and FBI/DoJ issue. I for one would love folks on Slashdot who are in product development to turn this passion into improving security of products as a whole at their companies.
Thanks for that background from a friend on how that all played out. I remember seeing a lot of Atari games at Toy stores in the 80's being sold for way below the release price of the games.
Also, they clearly say in the Documentary that it really wasn't ET that killed the 2600. It was just the arrival of better consoles and computers.
One of the computer game documentaries on Netflix, don't remember which one, also said that the high volume of bad games killed the video game industry all together for a number of years. It was not until the Nintendo came out that the revival happened.
Same engineers who are busy throwing together the IoT without a second thought on security?
I can tell you the Google Brillo (Google's Android-derived IoT OS) team is definitely focused on security. Most of them came from the ChromeOS team, which is extraordinarily secure, and they brought that focus with them (plus Google in general is pretty good about taking security seriously).
There are far more players in the IoT space who are not taking security seriously. Google can afford to spend lots of money to secure software. A run of the mill IoT device manufacture will not be able to spend that level of money and all of us will be less secure.
What is it that is on this phone that is worth setting a precedent of the government having unfettered access to everyone's phone as a matter of principle or legal precedent or some future backdoor mechanism?
The government is required to obtain a warrant and present it to the company to obtain the information. If the government cannot demonstrate probable cause to convince a judge then they do not get the warrant and cannot perform a search and seizure of the device.
Does that sound unreasonable? Are there checks and balances to prevent 'unfettered' access?
There is a major need for standards and best practices when it comes to security for IoT devices. It seems like there are multiple articles a week on a device that has major security vulnerabilities.
I download a number of mods for a popular open source game for members of the family. The mods are hosted on adfly and this site does a very poor job getting ride of malicious ads. There are literally four or five 'Download' buttons that try to trick users into clicking on them to download the hosted file. A person in the family accidentally did this once and it resulted in installing four malvertizing programs. I wold highly recommend using an ad blocker.
That is a great example of how we all should work. We work to live and not live to work. No one should make others feel guilty or shame them into putting in more time than they should.
Slashdot Mirror
I hold the patent for a business process that involves firing employees to help the company recover. IBM has chosen to use that process and they are not paying me any royalty fees.
It sounds like the miners in a cartel are gaining unfair advantage to receive reward for mining blocks. Can this be used to reverse transactions or double spent bitcoins?
Why not hand over the data? You received a court order.
Power glove coming back?
The only problem is that companies will not support security patches over the device lifetime. Maybe the companies with Big names and reputations at stake. There are going to be a lot more unoatched devices out there in the near future.
Trump supporters have brought shame and embarrassment upon the entire United States of America. Two cycles ago Howard Dean did a goofy yell and his campaign collapsed. Trump has said so many bad things it is a wonder he still is standing.
Companies make decisions primarily based upon the impact to profits and shareholders. Given this fact it is quite easy to understand how Apple is supporting two contradictory positions with regard to privacy.
It would be nice if this issue would generate additional discussion and action to fix the failure of technology companies as a whole for delivering secure products. It is clear that computer science departments in the United States have failed. It is also clear that many companies are failing. Computer scientists should have a mandatory requirement to take a class in cryptography. Students need to learn concepts about securing communications, data on devices, and creating solutions to authenticate users and commands passed to software. They should also be required to take a senior level elective on ethics and be made to study case studies on the impact to society and economies due to poor design and implementation of software systems.
There have been several stories on Slashdot about the total failure of IoT devices. Reading about the failures in design of the software solution made me think that 'software hacks' made the systems and not professionals. There is a lot of energy and passion being spent by technical folks on both sides of the Apple and FBI/DoJ issue. I for one would love folks on Slashdot who are in product development to turn this passion into improving security of products as a whole at their companies.
Thanks for that background from a friend on how that all played out. I remember seeing a lot of Atari games at Toy stores in the 80's being sold for way below the release price of the games.
Thanks for that link. Very interesting story
How does something like this slip through testing?
Also, they clearly say in the Documentary that it really wasn't ET that killed the 2600. It was just the arrival of better consoles and computers.
One of the computer game documentaries on Netflix, don't remember which one, also said that the high volume of bad games killed the video game industry all together for a number of years. It was not until the Nintendo came out that the revival happened.
Thanks for the clarification on the term warrant and court order.
I have a friend who uses Blender on a Linux system for editing. She likes it and says it does a good job.
Same engineers who are busy throwing together the IoT without a second thought on security?
I can tell you the Google Brillo (Google's Android-derived IoT OS) team is definitely focused on security. Most of them came from the ChromeOS team, which is extraordinarily secure, and they brought that focus with them (plus Google in general is pretty good about taking security seriously).
There are far more players in the IoT space who are not taking security seriously. Google can afford to spend lots of money to secure software. A run of the mill IoT device manufacture will not be able to spend that level of money and all of us will be less secure.
What is it that is on this phone that is worth setting a precedent of the government having unfettered access to everyone's phone as a matter of principle or legal precedent or some future backdoor mechanism?
The government is required to obtain a warrant and present it to the company to obtain the information. If the government cannot demonstrate probable cause to convince a judge then they do not get the warrant and cannot perform a search and seizure of the device. Does that sound unreasonable? Are there checks and balances to prevent 'unfettered' access?
There is a major need for standards and best practices when it comes to security for IoT devices. It seems like there are multiple articles a week on a device that has major security vulnerabilities.
Good to see a number of folks on this thread are having a discussion about how laws and the constitution help in light of this topic.
I download a number of mods for a popular open source game for members of the family. The mods are hosted on adfly and this site does a very poor job getting ride of malicious ads. There are literally four or five 'Download' buttons that try to trick users into clicking on them to download the hosted file. A person in the family accidentally did this once and it resulted in installing four malvertizing programs. I wold highly recommend using an ad blocker.
Government and companies will wake up when law firms bring litigation for damages due to their poor security and design practices.
That is a great example of how we all should work. We work to live and not live to work. No one should make others feel guilty or shame them into putting in more time than they should.
Workers need a right to disconnect to give them downtime to recover.
It is unbelievable that my comment was moderated as troll and yours was up voted so many times Goes to show the anti-government bias here on Slashdot.
It is really unbelievable that someone moderated my comment to "Troll".
There is a lot being made about SpaceX re-using the rocket for future launches. Hasn't NASA been re-using solid rocket booster for decades?