Like it or not, BitCoin may be anonymous, but it is 100% tracked. What's generally unknown is who owns which wallet, but EVERY transaction is tracked FOREVER in the coin's block chain so every transaction is tracked. Once you put a wallet to a person, the whole transaction history for that wallet is available.
Those who fear having their finances known need to seriously consider that BitCoin may be anonymous, but as soon as somebody figures out your wallet id which you need to share with anybody you transfer a coin from or to, they can go get your entire history. I'm not so sure I'd be considering this currency anonymous...
Fair enough, but their attempts to play this in the court of public opinion isn't going to play well for their case. Eventually the judge can/will invoke sanctions in order to force compliance.
Doesn't have a third party firmware option available. End of Rant..
Personally, I use a couple of Linksys offerings that have excellent OpenWRT support. I have a fleet of WRT4300's and a 1900ac that actually come with a variant of OpenWRT and are well supported. They all have Layer 2 capable switch hardware (so you can do VLAN stuff) which is nice. The WRT4300's are about $40 used on E-,Bay and the 1900AC retail at about $135 new and $120 used. Running OpenWRT gives you a lot of capability.
That story is about florescent lighting, which DOES cause some folks issues, especially in Europe where the frequency of the current is lower and more people can detect the fact that the lighting is really just flashing 50 or 100 times a second. This can be a big problem if the florescent tube is partially warn out and one of the electrodes is not emitting well, which leads to a 50 cycle flash rate. It's less common here in the states where our frequency is about 20% higher.
However, I was talking about the folks who claim to be allergic to WiFi signals.... Who claim they suffer illness when exposed to common RF emitting devices.
I want to know how they convert a rotten apple into "hard carbon" beyond just dehydrating them. Do they just make charcoal out of them or something? Which if true, why don't they do the same thing to the solids AFTER they are pressed to get the juice out of them?
The principle everybody needs to understand is that all encryption techniques in common use today, except for one, are subject to being broken by brute force, the only question is how long will it take. (Only the single use pad cipher being the exception). If you have access to the device, it can be disassembled and the data retrieved and subject to the brute force attack.
EVENTUALLY all encrypted data can be viewed by the people you where hiding it from by encrypting it. Encryption just hides the information from your adversaries for a period of time. The trick is to make it take longer to find the key and decrypt than the information you are protecting is going to be useful.
I'm not sure about the device they are talking about here, but for the I-Phone 5c you can flash a new iOS version without knowing the owner's pin or password. There is a process to "recover" the phone and flash a new operating system without disrupting the user's data. I actually did this on my daughter's phone just yesterday.
However, if you have physical access to the device, chances are you can recover any data on board if you are careful and try hard enough. Some devices are build to erase data when physically disassembled, but an I-Phone is not one of those things.
I'm not arguing one way or the other on the question what Apple SHOULD do. I'm arguing that they clearly have the technical ability to do what's being suggested.
Personally, I'm not taking sides here. I'm worried about the precedent, but I'm also loathed to up and ignore a judge's order. My guess is that Apple will be forced to do this, but I'm not sure this is a good idea. The legal process will decide and it's going to be interesting to watch.
Oh please. Apple can easily produce an iOS version that doesn't erase the phone's content after a specific number of tries to enter a pin and take away the mandatory wait times required between failed tries. They likely can do this in about an hour, including flashing the new iOS version into the phone.
As I understand this, that is all the FBI is really asking that they do.
No, a good lawyer plays ALL his cards UPFRONT. This Matlock style last second cropping up of evidence to get your client off you see on TV is not how these things work.
If you are making a motion or responding to something you put ALL of your arguments into your filings because each of these arguments must be individually dealt with by the court and you won't have the chance to go back and amend your response without a good reason. Your best chance at prevailing is at the first strike, going back later and trying to add additional arguments when your previous ones have failed is usually not allowed.
I'm not making a determination on if Apple should or shouldn't do what the FBI wants and what the judge has ordered. I'm just trying to explain what they've been asked to do.
You may have a point, but given that Apple isn't objecting on these grounds I'm driven to believe that their corporate lawyers don't consider that a strong argument. Not to mention that "It would cost us money!" wouldn't play well in the press. This is Apple, they have money to burn...
You don't think China doesn't already have the capacity? Something tells me that they fully understand how to do this. Remember they BUILD these things nearly exclusively and can easily obtain or reverse engineer these devices sufficiently to do anything they want.
What makes you think Apple cannot crack their own hardware/software?
I'm no Apple zealot, but it's obvious to me they *could* do what the FBI wants, write a version of iOS that allows the FBI to brute force the phone quickly. This is NOT an issue of security and doesn't really require that Apple find a vulnerability to exploit. What the FBI wants is an iOS version with a set of vulnerabilities purposely built in so they can more easily brute force the phone in question.
Slashdot Mirror
Your Goose is cooked man... The heat is on!
At least until the battery dies...
Oh, I don't know.. I think civil courts could be effective to motivate them. No need to make it a crime persay, just let customer's sue.
Why would you have a remote control feature on a car enabled at ALL?
If Google is successful, it will soon also support the command "go pick up the pizza I ordered."
How? Sit in the parking lot flashing lights and honking horn until somebody notices and drops the pie in the driver's seat?
Bitcoin should not be anonymous.
Like it or not, BitCoin may be anonymous, but it is 100% tracked. What's generally unknown is who owns which wallet, but EVERY transaction is tracked FOREVER in the coin's block chain so every transaction is tracked. Once you put a wallet to a person, the whole transaction history for that wallet is available.
Those who fear having their finances known need to seriously consider that BitCoin may be anonymous, but as soon as somebody figures out your wallet id which you need to share with anybody you transfer a coin from or to, they can go get your entire history. I'm not so sure I'd be considering this currency anonymous...
Fair enough, but their attempts to play this in the court of public opinion isn't going to play well for their case. Eventually the judge can/will invoke sanctions in order to force compliance.
Doesn't have a third party firmware option available. End of Rant..
Personally, I use a couple of Linksys offerings that have excellent OpenWRT support. I have a fleet of WRT4300's and a 1900ac that actually come with a variant of OpenWRT and are well supported. They all have Layer 2 capable switch hardware (so you can do VLAN stuff) which is nice. The WRT4300's are about $40 used on E-,Bay and the 1900AC retail at about $135 new and $120 used. Running OpenWRT gives you a lot of capability.
That story is about florescent lighting, which DOES cause some folks issues, especially in Europe where the frequency of the current is lower and more people can detect the fact that the lighting is really just flashing 50 or 100 times a second. This can be a big problem if the florescent tube is partially warn out and one of the electrodes is not emitting well, which leads to a 50 cycle flash rate. It's less common here in the states where our frequency is about 20% higher.
However, I was talking about the folks who claim to be allergic to WiFi signals.... Who claim they suffer illness when exposed to common RF emitting devices.
Whoosh!
You must be allergic to that WiFi signal... Dangerous stuff known as "radiation" you know...
Man, now I know why I kept that POE enabled switch...
What hardware are they focusing on? Vax11? IBM 360?
Is it just me or is there something serious missing here?
I always thought they made good movie props... I guess they can squeeze them into other forms now.
I want to know how they convert a rotten apple into "hard carbon" beyond just dehydrating them. Do they just make charcoal out of them or something? Which if true, why don't they do the same thing to the solids AFTER they are pressed to get the juice out of them?
Inquiring minds want to know....
Apparently they don't like them apples, which is why they get made into carbon....
The principle everybody needs to understand is that all encryption techniques in common use today, except for one, are subject to being broken by brute force, the only question is how long will it take. (Only the single use pad cipher being the exception). If you have access to the device, it can be disassembled and the data retrieved and subject to the brute force attack.
EVENTUALLY all encrypted data can be viewed by the people you where hiding it from by encrypting it. Encryption just hides the information from your adversaries for a period of time. The trick is to make it take longer to find the key and decrypt than the information you are protecting is going to be useful.
I'm not sure about the device they are talking about here, but for the I-Phone 5c you can flash a new iOS version without knowing the owner's pin or password. There is a process to "recover" the phone and flash a new operating system without disrupting the user's data. I actually did this on my daughter's phone just yesterday.
However, if you have physical access to the device, chances are you can recover any data on board if you are careful and try hard enough. Some devices are build to erase data when physically disassembled, but an I-Phone is not one of those things.
I will sell you.... .oh wait.
How many millions of years before it reaches Arizona at 8 cm a century.
I'm not arguing one way or the other on the question what Apple SHOULD do. I'm arguing that they clearly have the technical ability to do what's being suggested.
Personally, I'm not taking sides here. I'm worried about the precedent, but I'm also loathed to up and ignore a judge's order. My guess is that Apple will be forced to do this, but I'm not sure this is a good idea. The legal process will decide and it's going to be interesting to watch.
Oh please. Apple can easily produce an iOS version that doesn't erase the phone's content after a specific number of tries to enter a pin and take away the mandatory wait times required between failed tries. They likely can do this in about an hour, including flashing the new iOS version into the phone.
As I understand this, that is all the FBI is really asking that they do.
No, a good lawyer plays ALL his cards UPFRONT. This Matlock style last second cropping up of evidence to get your client off you see on TV is not how these things work.
If you are making a motion or responding to something you put ALL of your arguments into your filings because each of these arguments must be individually dealt with by the court and you won't have the chance to go back and amend your response without a good reason. Your best chance at prevailing is at the first strike, going back later and trying to add additional arguments when your previous ones have failed is usually not allowed.
I'm not making a determination on if Apple should or shouldn't do what the FBI wants and what the judge has ordered. I'm just trying to explain what they've been asked to do.
You may have a point, but given that Apple isn't objecting on these grounds I'm driven to believe that their corporate lawyers don't consider that a strong argument. Not to mention that "It would cost us money!" wouldn't play well in the press. This is Apple, they have money to burn...
You don't think China doesn't already have the capacity? Something tells me that they fully understand how to do this. Remember they BUILD these things nearly exclusively and can easily obtain or reverse engineer these devices sufficiently to do anything they want.
What makes you think Apple cannot crack their own hardware/software?
I'm no Apple zealot, but it's obvious to me they *could* do what the FBI wants, write a version of iOS that allows the FBI to brute force the phone quickly. This is NOT an issue of security and doesn't really require that Apple find a vulnerability to exploit. What the FBI wants is an iOS version with a set of vulnerabilities purposely built in so they can more easily brute force the phone in question.
Just say "NO!" .... To Windows....
Unless you insist on running Windows 10, then just say "No" to the dialog during the setup..
Just in case it's lost on somebody, I'm making a joke....