If every one had left it the way it was, I would have had no opinion on it and wouldn't have had to even know it. But by Charlotte forcing everyones hand with an overbroad law, then yes, if there is an overbroad law then it needs to err on the side of caution.
Yes... it looks like just another implementation (outbreak) of an app store. An app store where "security" means secured against us (the owners of the devices and computers) more than against any bad actors. I hope to be proven wrong, but that is usually where these sandboxed environments end up.
Absolutely not this. I live in NC. I know my own wishes intimately and I've spoken to lots of other people about this. I'm talking about ordinary people, not the policy makers. Most of us in NC honestly had no idea that bathroom privacy issues weren't ALREADY protected with common sense law. Now keep in mind... in this particular strict usage of "common sense", I mean common sense from the point of view of the traditional/historical context. Charlotte forced peoples hands with an over broad ordinance, if Charlotte would have left well enough alone everyone would have been happy and moved on with their life and used the bathroom of their choice with nothing being said. But as written, the Charlotte ordinance gave anyone the ability to choose a sex as they see fit and use the bathroom of their choice with no legal protections if someone abused it. No one targeted legitimate LGBT people. Only the dipshits who would claim "attack helicopter" status on a whim to get thrills. The liberal media has spun this into the shit storm it has become. Basically we didn't know that you weren't ALREADY required to use the bathroom of your birth sex. Everyone used the bathroom of their choice and no one abused it. But by Charlotte trying to remove ANY protection requiring people to use a certain bathroom, they made people stand up and demand some sort of common sense protection against perverts. In THIS use of common sense, I define common sense as what I believe the majority of normal people in NC have reasoned out and that is this: Males in male bathrooms and females in female bathrooms and we really hate that transgender is a grey area, but since someone decided to make a law out of it, and since it is impossible to look into someones brain and tell if they are legitimate transgender or a "woman for the day" just to get thrills, then the law must err on the side of safety and protection.
Ridiculous. I'm talking even whitelist the sites that people should be going to as part of their work day and nothing else. Not opening 80 and 443 wide open to everything. That is part and parcel of the problem. I am saying whitelist EVERYTHING. Apps, ports, sites, everything. It works. It works for work, but it is not politically sensitive to the executive level because they are too good for that.
I see the single biggest threat to security is that decision makers in companies feel they should be able to do whatever the fuck they want and should never have to ask for anything. I work in security. Security is only made difficult by the fact that security people are forced to make security utterly transparent to the "entitled ones". Whitelist based security in layers is exceedingly easy to keep secure. When you configure layered systems so that only truly needed things work and everything else fails by default you protect yourself from almost all known vulnerabilities and even purposeful backdoors in any one layer. But Fuck no, executive level thinks its an attack on their manhood if they have to request something to be whitelisted because it isn't a documented and approved use of a system.
I'm not sure he is talking about what I think he is talking about with untrusted certs. Self signed certs are MORE secure as long as the party at both ends understands the process. You simply cannot have a true secret when there is a 3rd party. Certificate authorities are only there to make the process acceptably easy for those who don't know what is going on.
It is actually more (and older) than that. It is a war over who owns the device. This is a continuance of the war over who controls the operating system of the devices. Even in the current state, they can ship me the device in whatever state THEY want it in (they being either the gub'ment or the carrier or the device manufacturer) but the shit is still mine. Stop trying to control what I put on my own fucking devices. This is absolutely the wrong battle that is being fought. Separate the damn code from hardware in law and be done with it.
Where are the users when adblockers and advertisers duke it out? The adblockers only exist because we have a fundamental right to receive at our computers exactly what we ask for exactly where we ask for it from. I don't trust who CNN, slashdot or any company decides to trust to supply them with ads. I don't want content being pushed to my system from any server except the exact one I chose to receive info from. I reserve the right to use any program of my choice to make it so, whether it is "in-browser" adblockers, hostname blocking, blocking at the firewall, whitelists etc. Get over yourself advertisers, not a damn thing changed when we went from newspapers to web. You buy advertising at your own risk that people won't look at it.
You don't understand. I'm absolutely sure that Google will make it secure. It is THEM that is the security issue! Also, I DO think I can implement better security than Google. In my home solution I have a security footprint small enough that it is well within my grasp to control one port and one user account very very VERY securely. With Google, they have to worry about outside breaches and THOUSANDS of internal breaches either directo or indirect such as misuse of information that they shouldn't have about me or my home and my usage patterns in the first place.
When I control the software and am responsible for punching the hole through my firewall, I have choices available that meet my security needs and my predilection for risk. The real estate agent is a very fair comparison. When I buy equipment that the creator or seller of the equipment retains control over, but yet insists that I authenticate to their servers and ask their servers to change something in my home, I'd say the analogy is dead on.
Your logic is severely flawed. In all of the cases that we are talking about there is absolutely zero difference in functionality and features that could be provided by devices and services completely under the owners control versus things NOT under our control. In fact, if you bring open source into the matter, it is the exact opposite. People could customize to meet their exact need, where corporate run software will be one size fits all. I think in every sense of the word, the local option is superior from the consumers point of view.
You completely misunderstand. Connected is not the issue. Control is. The owner should be the ONLY person in control of the device, regardless of the owner is. Hotel owns it? Fine! They should have complete and utter control of their device without HAVING to authenticate to anyone elses servers unless they choose to. Owner can mean, business, individual, anything as long as the owner has the control. That goes for any device in my home. DVR's, smart controllers, anything. It really does come down to the comparison of the real estate agent keeping the keys to your house.
Internet of things is not the problem. Connected things that we control directly.. i.e. punch a hole through our own firewall and access our stuff directly from our other stuff could be a great time saver and make things easier. I will NEVER authenticate to other peoples servers to ask permission to access something in my own home. Number 1, I'll control my own access, thank you very much, and the company I bought the equipment from will not be on the list of authorized users. To do otherwise is the equivalent of buying a house and the real estate agent never giving you the keys.. and insisting that he be the one that comes and unlocks the door every time you come home. Oh and he'll periodically repaint your house a color of his choosing. Fuck that. Internet of things = Good. Current tie to cloud implementations = Hell fucking no.
Oh there is everything wrong with the cloud for this. Why should anyone have smart devices that are under someone elses control? That is absolutely ludicrous. I would love something like a Nest, but only if I access it DIRECTLY through my firewall and have 100 control of the device and its data flow. Why in the purple fuck would anyone think it is OK to have to authenticate to someone elses servers to control something in your own home? Give us smart connected devices that we don't have to ask permission to use because they are ours. In every sense of the word.
Exactly. The USA has lost. I went to an NFL game and had to have all my shit searched. I protested as an American. Any idiot knows (which means most of America is BElOW idiot status) that it is just security theater. Any terrorist with bad intentions would get more victims detonating in the packed security line than they EVER would detonating inside the stadium. The stadium spreads everyone out and the traffic jam they create to finger our asses puts us way closer together just asking for it. It is just security theater designed to make the dumb ass public feel warm and fuzzy while we give up our constitutional rights to have our ass fingered. I though America was about doing the right thing not being scared little dumbasses who won't help Syrians in need because some of the are terrorists with bad intentions. Hell some of US are terrorists with bad intentions. Help people, don't give up your freedoms for the illusion of security have a damn spine like a real American. Get a spine and realize there are only 2 choices. Let the government be worse than the terrorists EVER could be or accept that not giving up your freedoms means we have to accept that an occasional terrorist is going to get through. It cannot be stopped 100% with ANY amount of loss of freedom so why give up any that our family lines fought and died to protect. Our government uses terror more than the terrorist do... just to a different end, and that is to control the sheeple who want warm fuzzies.
When is it going to finally be illegal for device creators to lock us out of our own shit? Hardware DOES NOT EQUAL software. Saying you want one does not automatically imply the other.
I'll never buy into the driverless car thing. #1 when the system reaches a tipping point, it will be a target for malware or just low tech systems/sensor spoofing by troublemakers. #2 an automated car will never be able to do all the things I do with a car/truck (off road driving, work needs that don't exactly fit into a programmers view of what a car should be doing) #3 I refuse to be second guessed by automation.. i.e. I do things that aren't exactly road legal and will continue to do so, such as occasionally crossing over medians or speeding to get somewhere I need to be, its my choice to do and I'm fully willing to pay an occasional ticket when I get caught doing it. Its the price of doing "business". I also choose my own level of risk tolerance. I refuse to mandated to me. i.e. I can choose to ride a motorcycle, but yet the damn nanny state gub'ment doesn't think I'm adult enough to make a decision to wear a seatbelt or not in an enclosed vehicle.
I would love to have an autonomous capable vehicle, but the only way I'll ever own one is if it can be COMPLETELY blinded/turned off (hard sensor disconnect, no "soft off" can be accepted) when I want it to be off.
I'm a conservative libertarian but this is still ridiculous. Why allow drug companies to spend millions (and pass that on to consumers) advertising something that consumers cannot get directly.
There are alot of things that need to change about our healthcare system but this is one. The only case where consumers should be allowed to override their doctors concerns about drugs and treatments is in cases where there is substantial loss of quality of life involved. When doctors invoke the "do no harm" clause to keep someone from accessing experimental treatments or drugs when that person is terminal or in severely degraded quality of life, its ridiculous. The doctor should be required to pass on knowledge of the risk involved, but should not be allowed to deny access.
Wrong question. Which one has many more failure points and more potential admins to go rogue. Inside jobs account many more security issues than outside hacks. With my stuff in my rack I can use open source and be relatively sure that it isn't pre-compromised from the day I install it like most hosted platforms and most big name software. I can encrypt using the encryption of my choice BEFORE it leaves my premises or touches any corporate client software that claims to encrypt it for me but still allows them to see it.
Yes, this. As much as I love Star Trek, I'll be forced to either pirate or unintentionally boycott. I don't live in an area with fast enough internet to stream and I also use linux, not Windows or Mac. So all the "controlled and approved" streaming sites like Netflix, Hulu etc that don't give you a "download in advance and watch in the app of your choice" option will never be able to get my business. Nevermind, I'll just download the torrent.
sup {
gimme fibo bitch
a be 1 bitch
b be 1 bitch
putou a bitch
putou b bitch
fibo be fibo widout 2 bitch
slongas (fibo bepimpin 0)
c be a an b bitch
a be b bitch
b be c bitch
putou b bitch
dissin fibo bitch
nomo }
You are fundamentally missing what I'm saying. If I own the PC or the device, I should have a window to all communications coming to or leaving that device as its owner before encryption is applied to the communication. That should be a "right" of anyone owning a device. As the owner of a private network and the devices on a network, I as administrator of that network or some delegate of my choosing should have the ability to use technology such as SSL inspection using a man in the middle device to inspect and filter what is going on our network. I agree that breaks in the SSL chain should only be possible when both of two pre-requisites are met... the "snooper" must own the private network, and the snooper must own at least 1 of the 2 parties in a communication stream such as is needed to load an SSL inspection certificate.
As for my Volkswagen comment, I have to say you are absolutely wrong on that one. If the protocol and the computer code were transparently viewable by the OWNERS of the car, someone would have picked up on the misdirection long before now... in fact it would have never happened to begin with because they KNEW they would have been caught. THINGS and code really need to be protected by a consumer bill of rights. Everyday normal people, not just a watchdog organization or government need to be able to see and review all computer code. I'm not saying it needs to be free as in beer, but if the everyday person actually knew how many lines of code were in common software to, at the best make their life harder, or at the worst actively work against them by divulging information or worse, there would riots in the streets.
You do own the machine and that is exactly what I was talking about. There should be consumer protections in place that enforce that software creators cannot use your devices against you. The owner of the device SHOULD be able to see all communications from that device whether it is phones, PC's tablets, cars, radios etc.
I work in network security, but I'm also highly sensitive to snooping and privacy issues. If you own it, you should be able to see the traffic. If you own the home or business network and home or business computer, then you should be able to see what is going on within that network and computer regardless of who is using it. I do need to draw a huge distinction between a privately owned systems and networks versus systems that qualify as service or carrier networks. If you sell or re-sell bandwidth then you should NOT have ability to view that traffic. On a similar note, encryption should be able to be used against the owner of devices. All encrypted traffic generated from apps/services on a device should be viewable clear-text by the owner of the device. Too often nowadays, encryption is used to the detriment of owners. Same goes for computer code. i.e. the Volkswagen scandel. Owners should have the option to see and review everything that occurs in their devices. That (transparency) is the *** ONLY *** way that companies will ever stop doing what they do.
Exactly. I love how they make it sound like they are OK'ing us to encrypt. Fuck you... thats like them OK'ing me to paint my living room a certain color. I'll encrypt (or paint) however the fuck I want to in my business or my personal dealings. If I have even the remotest reason to suspect I'm using backdoored software, I'll change the shit. They can't "allow" something they constitutionally don't have access to.. and they try to amend the laws they need to be fucking tried for treason.
Slashdot Mirror
If every one had left it the way it was, I would have had no opinion on it and wouldn't have had to even know it. But by Charlotte forcing everyones hand with an overbroad law, then yes, if there is an overbroad law then it needs to err on the side of caution.
Yes... it looks like just another implementation (outbreak) of an app store. An app store where "security" means secured against us (the owners of the devices and computers) more than against any bad actors. I hope to be proven wrong, but that is usually where these sandboxed environments end up.
Absolutely not this. I live in NC. I know my own wishes intimately and I've spoken to lots of other people about this. I'm talking about ordinary people, not the policy makers. Most of us in NC honestly had no idea that bathroom privacy issues weren't ALREADY protected with common sense law. Now keep in mind... in this particular strict usage of "common sense", I mean common sense from the point of view of the traditional/historical context. Charlotte forced peoples hands with an over broad ordinance, if Charlotte would have left well enough alone everyone would have been happy and moved on with their life and used the bathroom of their choice with nothing being said. But as written, the Charlotte ordinance gave anyone the ability to choose a sex as they see fit and use the bathroom of their choice with no legal protections if someone abused it. No one targeted legitimate LGBT people. Only the dipshits who would claim "attack helicopter" status on a whim to get thrills. The liberal media has spun this into the shit storm it has become. Basically we didn't know that you weren't ALREADY required to use the bathroom of your birth sex. Everyone used the bathroom of their choice and no one abused it. But by Charlotte trying to remove ANY protection requiring people to use a certain bathroom, they made people stand up and demand some sort of common sense protection against perverts. In THIS use of common sense, I define common sense as what I believe the majority of normal people in NC have reasoned out and that is this: Males in male bathrooms and females in female bathrooms and we really hate that transgender is a grey area, but since someone decided to make a law out of it, and since it is impossible to look into someones brain and tell if they are legitimate transgender or a "woman for the day" just to get thrills, then the law must err on the side of safety and protection.
Ridiculous. I'm talking even whitelist the sites that people should be going to as part of their work day and nothing else. Not opening 80 and 443 wide open to everything. That is part and parcel of the problem. I am saying whitelist EVERYTHING. Apps, ports, sites, everything. It works. It works for work, but it is not politically sensitive to the executive level because they are too good for that.
I see the single biggest threat to security is that decision makers in companies feel they should be able to do whatever the fuck they want and should never have to ask for anything. I work in security. Security is only made difficult by the fact that security people are forced to make security utterly transparent to the "entitled ones". Whitelist based security in layers is exceedingly easy to keep secure. When you configure layered systems so that only truly needed things work and everything else fails by default you protect yourself from almost all known vulnerabilities and even purposeful backdoors in any one layer. But Fuck no, executive level thinks its an attack on their manhood if they have to request something to be whitelisted because it isn't a documented and approved use of a system.
I'm not sure he is talking about what I think he is talking about with untrusted certs. Self signed certs are MORE secure as long as the party at both ends understands the process. You simply cannot have a true secret when there is a 3rd party. Certificate authorities are only there to make the process acceptably easy for those who don't know what is going on.
It is actually more (and older) than that. It is a war over who owns the device. This is a continuance of the war over who controls the operating system of the devices. Even in the current state, they can ship me the device in whatever state THEY want it in (they being either the gub'ment or the carrier or the device manufacturer) but the shit is still mine. Stop trying to control what I put on my own fucking devices. This is absolutely the wrong battle that is being fought. Separate the damn code from hardware in law and be done with it.
Where are the users when adblockers and advertisers duke it out? The adblockers only exist because we have a fundamental right to receive at our computers exactly what we ask for exactly where we ask for it from. I don't trust who CNN, slashdot or any company decides to trust to supply them with ads. I don't want content being pushed to my system from any server except the exact one I chose to receive info from. I reserve the right to use any program of my choice to make it so, whether it is "in-browser" adblockers, hostname blocking, blocking at the firewall, whitelists etc. Get over yourself advertisers, not a damn thing changed when we went from newspapers to web. You buy advertising at your own risk that people won't look at it.
You don't understand. I'm absolutely sure that Google will make it secure. It is THEM that is the security issue! Also, I DO think I can implement better security than Google. In my home solution I have a security footprint small enough that it is well within my grasp to control one port and one user account very very VERY securely. With Google, they have to worry about outside breaches and THOUSANDS of internal breaches either directo or indirect such as misuse of information that they shouldn't have about me or my home and my usage patterns in the first place.
When I control the software and am responsible for punching the hole through my firewall, I have choices available that meet my security needs and my predilection for risk. The real estate agent is a very fair comparison. When I buy equipment that the creator or seller of the equipment retains control over, but yet insists that I authenticate to their servers and ask their servers to change something in my home, I'd say the analogy is dead on.
Your logic is severely flawed. In all of the cases that we are talking about there is absolutely zero difference in functionality and features that could be provided by devices and services completely under the owners control versus things NOT under our control. In fact, if you bring open source into the matter, it is the exact opposite. People could customize to meet their exact need, where corporate run software will be one size fits all. I think in every sense of the word, the local option is superior from the consumers point of view.
You completely misunderstand. Connected is not the issue. Control is. The owner should be the ONLY person in control of the device, regardless of the owner is. Hotel owns it? Fine! They should have complete and utter control of their device without HAVING to authenticate to anyone elses servers unless they choose to. Owner can mean, business, individual, anything as long as the owner has the control. That goes for any device in my home. DVR's, smart controllers, anything. It really does come down to the comparison of the real estate agent keeping the keys to your house.
Internet of things is not the problem. Connected things that we control directly.. i.e. punch a hole through our own firewall and access our stuff directly from our other stuff could be a great time saver and make things easier. I will NEVER authenticate to other peoples servers to ask permission to access something in my own home. Number 1, I'll control my own access, thank you very much, and the company I bought the equipment from will not be on the list of authorized users. To do otherwise is the equivalent of buying a house and the real estate agent never giving you the keys.. and insisting that he be the one that comes and unlocks the door every time you come home. Oh and he'll periodically repaint your house a color of his choosing. Fuck that. Internet of things = Good. Current tie to cloud implementations = Hell fucking no.
Oh there is everything wrong with the cloud for this. Why should anyone have smart devices that are under someone elses control? That is absolutely ludicrous. I would love something like a Nest, but only if I access it DIRECTLY through my firewall and have 100 control of the device and its data flow. Why in the purple fuck would anyone think it is OK to have to authenticate to someone elses servers to control something in your own home? Give us smart connected devices that we don't have to ask permission to use because they are ours. In every sense of the word.
Exactly. The USA has lost. I went to an NFL game and had to have all my shit searched. I protested as an American. Any idiot knows (which means most of America is BElOW idiot status) that it is just security theater. Any terrorist with bad intentions would get more victims detonating in the packed security line than they EVER would detonating inside the stadium. The stadium spreads everyone out and the traffic jam they create to finger our asses puts us way closer together just asking for it. It is just security theater designed to make the dumb ass public feel warm and fuzzy while we give up our constitutional rights to have our ass fingered. I though America was about doing the right thing not being scared little dumbasses who won't help Syrians in need because some of the are terrorists with bad intentions. Hell some of US are terrorists with bad intentions. Help people, don't give up your freedoms for the illusion of security have a damn spine like a real American. Get a spine and realize there are only 2 choices. Let the government be worse than the terrorists EVER could be or accept that not giving up your freedoms means we have to accept that an occasional terrorist is going to get through. It cannot be stopped 100% with ANY amount of loss of freedom so why give up any that our family lines fought and died to protect. Our government uses terror more than the terrorist do... just to a different end, and that is to control the sheeple who want warm fuzzies.
When is it going to finally be illegal for device creators to lock us out of our own shit? Hardware DOES NOT EQUAL software. Saying you want one does not automatically imply the other.
I'll never buy into the driverless car thing. #1 when the system reaches a tipping point, it will be a target for malware or just low tech systems/sensor spoofing by troublemakers. #2 an automated car will never be able to do all the things I do with a car/truck (off road driving, work needs that don't exactly fit into a programmers view of what a car should be doing) #3 I refuse to be second guessed by automation.. i.e. I do things that aren't exactly road legal and will continue to do so, such as occasionally crossing over medians or speeding to get somewhere I need to be, its my choice to do and I'm fully willing to pay an occasional ticket when I get caught doing it. Its the price of doing "business". I also choose my own level of risk tolerance. I refuse to mandated to me. i.e. I can choose to ride a motorcycle, but yet the damn nanny state gub'ment doesn't think I'm adult enough to make a decision to wear a seatbelt or not in an enclosed vehicle.
I would love to have an autonomous capable vehicle, but the only way I'll ever own one is if it can be COMPLETELY blinded/turned off (hard sensor disconnect, no "soft off" can be accepted) when I want it to be off.
I'm a conservative libertarian but this is still ridiculous. Why allow drug companies to spend millions (and pass that on to consumers) advertising something that consumers cannot get directly.
There are alot of things that need to change about our healthcare system but this is one. The only case where consumers should be allowed to override their doctors concerns about drugs and treatments is in cases where there is substantial loss of quality of life involved. When doctors invoke the "do no harm" clause to keep someone from accessing experimental treatments or drugs when that person is terminal or in severely degraded quality of life, its ridiculous. The doctor should be required to pass on knowledge of the risk involved, but should not be allowed to deny access.
Wrong question. Which one has many more failure points and more potential admins to go rogue. Inside jobs account many more security issues than outside hacks. With my stuff in my rack I can use open source and be relatively sure that it isn't pre-compromised from the day I install it like most hosted platforms and most big name software. I can encrypt using the encryption of my choice BEFORE it leaves my premises or touches any corporate client software that claims to encrypt it for me but still allows them to see it.
Yes, this. As much as I love Star Trek, I'll be forced to either pirate or unintentionally boycott. I don't live in an area with fast enough internet to stream and I also use linux, not Windows or Mac. So all the "controlled and approved" streaming sites like Netflix, Hulu etc that don't give you a "download in advance and watch in the app of your choice" option will never be able to get my business. Nevermind, I'll just download the torrent.
Not mine, copied from a forum...
sup
{
gimme fibo bitch
a be 1 bitch
b be 1 bitch
putou a bitch
putou b bitch
fibo be fibo widout 2 bitch
slongas (fibo bepimpin 0)
c be a an b bitch
a be b bitch
b be c bitch
putou b bitch
dissin fibo bitch
nomo
}
You are fundamentally missing what I'm saying. If I own the PC or the device, I should have a window to all communications coming to or leaving that device as its owner before encryption is applied to the communication. That should be a "right" of anyone owning a device. As the owner of a private network and the devices on a network, I as administrator of that network or some delegate of my choosing should have the ability to use technology such as SSL inspection using a man in the middle device to inspect and filter what is going on our network. I agree that breaks in the SSL chain should only be possible when both of two pre-requisites are met... the "snooper" must own the private network, and the snooper must own at least 1 of the 2 parties in a communication stream such as is needed to load an SSL inspection certificate.
As for my Volkswagen comment, I have to say you are absolutely wrong on that one. If the protocol and the computer code were transparently viewable by the OWNERS of the car, someone would have picked up on the misdirection long before now... in fact it would have never happened to begin with because they KNEW they would have been caught. THINGS and code really need to be protected by a consumer bill of rights. Everyday normal people, not just a watchdog organization or government need to be able to see and review all computer code. I'm not saying it needs to be free as in beer, but if the everyday person actually knew how many lines of code were in common software to, at the best make their life harder, or at the worst actively work against them by divulging information or worse, there would riots in the streets.
You do own the machine and that is exactly what I was talking about. There should be consumer protections in place that enforce that software creators cannot use your devices against you. The owner of the device SHOULD be able to see all communications from that device whether it is phones, PC's tablets, cars, radios etc.
I work in network security, but I'm also highly sensitive to snooping and privacy issues. If you own it, you should be able to see the traffic. If you own the home or business network and home or business computer, then you should be able to see what is going on within that network and computer regardless of who is using it. I do need to draw a huge distinction between a privately owned systems and networks versus systems that qualify as service or carrier networks. If you sell or re-sell bandwidth then you should NOT have ability to view that traffic. On a similar note, encryption should be able to be used against the owner of devices. All encrypted traffic generated from apps/services on a device should be viewable clear-text by the owner of the device. Too often nowadays, encryption is used to the detriment of owners. Same goes for computer code. i.e. the Volkswagen scandel. Owners should have the option to see and review everything that occurs in their devices. That (transparency) is the *** ONLY *** way that companies will ever stop doing what they do.
Exactly. I love how they make it sound like they are OK'ing us to encrypt. Fuck you... thats like them OK'ing me to paint my living room a certain color. I'll encrypt (or paint) however the fuck I want to in my business or my personal dealings. If I have even the remotest reason to suspect I'm using backdoored software, I'll change the shit. They can't "allow" something they constitutionally don't have access to.. and they try to amend the laws they need to be fucking tried for treason.