Yea that caught my attention. I'm sure the question is about intent.
IF you are trying to fix something that's broken, but not modify the way the overall item works, then you are allowed to reverse engineer DRM protections. So, in the case of a motor vehicle, you can modify the drive train controller to use a non-manufacturer specified sensor as long as you don't change how the vehicle operates. So no emissions changes, no changes in performance, just swapping out sensors or parts to repair the overall device? Have at it. Replacing parts with cheaper non-manufacturer specific parts? You are free to do this.
What isn't as clear is reverse engineering a router's boot loader and firmware so you can run your own private firmware that does something different, has a different user interface or allows you to modify the radio power output outside of manufacturer specs. That may not be allowed.
Modify your I-phone's firmware so that third party digitizer works (allowed).
Modify your VW's Engine Controls so it passes emissions testing, but reverts to better economy higher emissions settings when driven.. (Not allowed)
Reverse Engineer your car's CAN buss data to add a new entertainment device that can interact with the rest of the vehicle? (Not allowed)
Bypass DRM controls on your consumer entertainment device so you can repair it with cheaper readily available parts? (Allowed)
Bypass DRM controls on the device to get the HDMI to connect but allow you access to the raw unencrypted data? (Not allowed)
"it's plain to see that the part of this that makes it a story is not actually in evidence but implied. This journalist crafted this story to imply things are happening but we don't actually have any evidence for it."
The fact that Trump is using an unsecured communications device is in and of itself newsworthy; it's extremely irresponsible of him to do so.
So, where did you stand on Obama's similar use of an unprotected cell phone? Was it irresponsible for Obama too?
This is also opinion by the way, irresponsible? How so? Discussing the weather with a friend or BS'ing about your latest golf handicap is somehow useful to the Chinese? We have no idea what conversations Trump has on this private device or how often he has them if at all. (and that's exactly what the sources clearly say) For all we know he only uses it to get phone numbers out of his contact list and never turns on the radios... We simply don't know and you presumption that it's irresponsible is opinion without facts to back up your concerns.
"The reality here is all we can truly assert is that there is the OPPERTUNITY for the Chinese monitoring to skim sensitive information, not that it's actually happening."
Other than the intelligence agencies reporting that the Chines have been monitoring his communications.
But seriously, how in good faith can you make the argument that reporting that Trump is using an insecure communications device isn't news? It's absolutely baffling.
How in good faith can you make that claim about me?
I'm asserting that we don't know that Trump isn't careful enough to avoid discussing sensitive information on unsecure phone calls. That's the only part of this that makes it a news story and the part that's made up..
Case in point... Do you recall discussing Obama's unencrypted insecure cell phone? He had one, we even debated it here on Slashdot. Where were you on that?
... are you honestly too stupid to tell the difference?
Are you? Confirmation Bias is a strong force if you are not careful. The thing that makes this a story is the Chinese getting classified information by monitoring Trump's phone calls, but that part is made up, presumed and strongly implied by the writers of the story.
We both agree, we DON'T know that this is actually happening that the facts to support that assumption are not in evidence in the story. That makes this the a tabloid story at the same level as "Elvis is alive, living in some small town in the deep south" because we have pictures of a guy who looks like Elvis, eating a banana and peanut butter sandwiches and while gyrating his hips in back woods Mississippi. Which, in case you cannot figure it out, is FAKE news. Now if you what a real story, get the guy's DNA and prove it, otherwise it's off to the back page of the National Enquirer for this story. Unless of course you already believe Elvis is alive, in which case your confirmation bias may just convince you this fat guy in Mississippi is him.
REAL "News" is not opinion, it is not made up, it is not built on presumptions or assumptions, it is based on all the applicable facts and doesn't stray beyond what can be proven by the evidence given. Unless you don't care about what's real or what's fake. So the story about the guy in Mississippi may be valid, but only if it claims to have found a guy that looks and acts like Elvis but clearly says we are not sure yet as the DNA test results are not back yet. If the headline is "Elvis Found Alive!" they are lying while "Possible Elvis sighting in Mississippi" is marginal and "Proof being sought for Guy being Elvis" is actually news, stupid but news.
So go re-read that story from the NYT and tell me what they can prove with the evidence they cite. It's well short of what makes this story interesting and is totally misrepresenting what they and their sources actually claim to actually know. This is tabloid journalism from the NYT. But I'm not surprised anymore by this total lack of journalistic ethics, even from previously trustworthy sources. Why this is happening will have to await another story....
It's not that hard to imagine POTUS doing the same kind of thing. Yet... We are regaled by this garbage journalist's implications, without a shred of actual evidence..
It's called extrapolation.
Based on his past behaviour, it is VERY hard to imagine Trump doing the responsible, sensible thing. Just because there is no explicit smoking gun IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE, is not a reason to dismiss the fact that he is not capable of spilling secrets. He's already done it on twitter. He's shoved both feet into his mouth so often that it's not even a question anymore.
That means even without specifics, the story is completely and entirely plausable.
A story being plausible, is the hallmark of tabloid news. NYT is now publishing stories based on if they are plausible? I mean, to heck with the truth or backing up one's assertions with facts, oh no, just make the story sound plausible and we are good and have fulfilled our commitments to journalistic ethics.... Is the NYT a tabloid now? I hope not.
So YES, such assertions require a bit more than just opportunity, this kind of thing requires some evidence it's happening, or it's no more than ginned up supposition based on assumptions. Journalism ethics requires that a reporter step back from their bias and report all the relevant facts and let the reader draw the conclusions. In this case, the NYT only has facts that establish that there is the opportunity, there is zero evidence that it's happening.
It's like a claiming a guy observed in an expensive sports car is obviously out speeding and driving recklessly though school zones running over kids. Not that you observed that behavior nor are there any injured kids or any dents in the car. All you have is evidence he drives the car so it's plausible that he's doing this, if not yet, he will soon. (This amounts to slander and tabloid level news.)
Trump cannot be trusted to know what he ejects from his mouth is sensitive or not.
FULL STOP
And here we hit the crux of my argument... That, is an opinion, not a fact. The truth here is neither of us know if Trump is having sensitive conversations on his private cell or not. There are no witnesses attesting to this, no evidence it's happened, nothing but your assumption. Reporters who willingly report such opinions and assumptions as if they are credible are not being ethical.
Your argument that the NYT is more reliable is again another opinion, without basis in fact. In this specific case, they are making assertions which are not directly supported by any real evidence.
The reality here is all we can truly assert is that there is the OPPERTUNITY for the Chinese monitoring to skim sensitive information, not that it's actually happening. Also this is NOT a new thing. The last occupant of the Oval Office had similar stories written about HIS use of an unsecured cell phone too. Do you assume the big O was leaking stuff too? No? Why the difference here?
I'm contending that YOUR issue is with your bias in this case. You are willing to believe the worst about Trump because that's your perspective of him. And because you want to believe he's bad, you are willing to accept an unfounded assertion in a "news" story even in the absence of facts to support the assertion.
Be honest, you don't know, this reporter doesn't know and the sources quoted don't know either. Your belief in this case is not supported by facts. You don't have to admit it to me, but you should at least admit it to yourself.
Why wouldn't you rather he use a hardened phone at all times, so that it's not even a question/concern?
You do understand that a "hardened phone" does not allow secure conversations with other phones which are not also hardened? If the person you wish to call doesn't have a hardened phone too, you cannot call them and have a secured conversation.
The rule is that you use the hardened line whenever possible, regardless of the topics being discussed. However, if the other party doesn't have a secure phone, you use the unsecure line and you don't discuss any restricted information. This is SOP for this sort of thing.
What amazes me is this is EXACTLY what the sources being quoted are describing, yet the "journalist" implies this is somehow a problem, that POTUS is too stupid and ignorant to understand the security issues in play. You can believe what you want, but what the article is implying is simply not in evidence given the quotes provided. The "journalist" is making assumptions and logical leaps for which there is no hard evidence, only supposition. We simply do not have any evidence that POTUS is unwittingly leaking classified information, all we have is a supposition that he might be.
My complaint here is about the journalists' ethical breach of standards and tabloid level work passing itself off as hard news. Trump is right in his complaints about this kind of reporting, it's fake news, manufactured controversies and treating it like hard news is unjustified. It's tabloid rumor and hype, unworthy of publication at any reputable news source. Such stories should be objectively reviewed and treated with all the respect they are due, which is none. The authors of such stories should also be eschewed and if they persist in writing such drivel, should be forced to find a different line of work by those who pay them. But we all know that profits and click bait are what drives the "news" industry, which really has turned into another form of entertainment, with all the fiction, staging, acting and special effects of Hollywood.
It's Trump so the worst possible implications are obviously true to you, regardless of the evidence.
This story is a prime example of FAKE NEWS and I ask you to carefully think though why I say that. Confirmation bias is hard to overcome, but if you actually look at the verifiable facts being cited here, it's plain to see that the part of this that makes it a story is not actually in evidence but implied. This journalist crafted this story to imply things are happening but we don't actually have any evidence for it.
Now if you want to take your abrupt left turn in your analysis, realize you are being a partisan hack.
How so? He's not allowed to call a friend and wish them happy birthday or express he condolences for a death in the family? He cannot call his friends and joke around or discuss the weather's effect on their arthritis?
Look, the problem here with this story is we DON'T KNOW what he's talking about on that unclassified line. The sources being quoted don't know, the reporter doesn't know and nobody being quoted can point to specific classified information that was leaked. This is a manufactured controversy, assembled by the journalist, i.e. it's FAKE NEWS.
I've worked in classified environments in the past. We had two phones on our desks, one classified, one not. Where I didn't use the unclassified phone very much, I did talk to my wife and kids occasionally. Was I leaking classified information doing this? I sure hope not, and I certainly didn't have overtly classified discussions over the black phone... Ever... It's not that hard to imagine POTUS doing the same kind of thing. Yet... We are regaled by this garbage journalist's implications, without a shred of actual evidence..
I would rather he use the hardened phone strictly for classified or official communications and his regular phone for casual stuff.
You know, IF you read the original story and the "sources" statements.... What you would like, is likely already going on. Classified conversations go on NSA provided equipment, private personal conversations on his private I-Phone.
YET, the journalist is clearly trying to lead you to believe the opposite, even though they do not have a source that says "The Chinese are getting classified information by monitoring POTUS's I-Phone calls." The sources are saying that they don't know the content of these conversations and the implication made by the journalist is Trump is stupid so he's obviously leaking classified information by his insistence on using that I-phone for unofficial personal calls.
This is irresponsible journalism, making a story out of flimsy evidence by implying stuff you cannot prove and making up stuff for which you have no evidence. This is the kind of thing Trump is talking about when he mentions "fake news". It is shameful, unethical and all to common.
ANYTIME you use a cell phone you are subject to monitoring. The only difference here is that Trump is of high interest and is thus a big target.
Then there is the whole "We don't know if he's discussing classified stuff because he's not very clued in, but we warned him about this" quote... Really? Is this was passes for journalism these days? These are obviously opinions and not facts. Follow that up with "he's not reading his briefings" and I'm supposed to be aghast at his incompetence? Um, doesn't he have a cabinet and staff to keep tabs on the nitty gritty details and call the important stuff to his attention? A good manager hires folks he can trust and his direct reports, well, report do they not? Are they not doing this?
The person quoted doesn't know for sure what POTUS has been reading or what he is discussing on his personal cell phone. The article obviously states the POTUS has other secure options available for "sensitive" discussions, I'm going to guess he actually uses them.
So where I'm sure the Chinese eagerly await their next Trump cell phone intercept, I seriously doubt they get much specific intelligence from them. But if we are honest, nobody but the Chinese know for sure. Certainly the reporter doesn't know anything for sure as his source(s) are not able to say anything except that POTUS has an unprotected I-Phone that he uses and cannot vouch for even one conversation he's had on it.
Journalism and journalistic standards have long ago ceased to be... Replaced by Tabloid stories and rumors... How far we have fallen.
It says that their highest ethical responsibility is to 'Enhance shareholder value"
Shareholder value is NOT enhanced by unethical or immoral behavior by a company or it's employees. Both Civil and Criminal penalties are expensive. Civil damages can cost many times more than the ill gotten gains and Criminal fines can seriously hurt a companies profitability.
Do some get away with such things? For awhile perhaps... Emron was such a company, but eventually they got caught and now where are they? Their share holder value is ZERO now and many of their principles have served time.
It's a step in the right direction, but not long enough. Many people use the same phone for more than two years. Buying a new phone is expensive. It's wasteful to throw out older devices that are still more than capable of meeting the needs of their users. This should be more like five years rather than two.
I fully agree, plus they need to make vendors support user's right to repair by providing commonly used replacement parts such as screens, buttons, batteries and instructions to replace these things. I suppose an open boot loader is a bit much, but that would be a nice option too.
If Google wants to help device users, let's help them.
Personally, I'd shell out quite a bit of extra dough on a phone if I knew I could count of having repair options for longer than the warranty gives me.
You act as if that's a bad thing. I mean, how do you think the Linux Kernel has made it this far? Talk about a cabal of zealots... Yet good things have come from that.
Most software programmers I know are coding to make money. Making humankind better is not on there agenda.
The implication being that making money is contrary to helping mankind better?
I don't think these two are logically related. You can make money and be out to make humankind better. You can make money by cheating the next guy out of his, making human kind less well off. Further, You can make money and not care. The two concepts are not related.
Now if you are arguing that a lot of folks don't give a flip about others in today's self absorbed world, I'm going to say welcome to reality. History is rife with examples of such bad behavior.
Yep, they even deliver on SUNDAY using the USPS around here. My friend hates it and thinks it is a mistake. I don't know if I agree, but I sure hope the USPS is able to cover it's costs for doing this.
Seriously, NOBODY here on earth can do the world peace thing, at least not right now, including Trump. There are way too many groups out there intent on killing or die trying to make that possible, and despite their rapid removal from the gene pool, they are multiplying faster than they die. I don't care who you are or what power you have on earth, world peace isn't something within your grasp. Certainly not in my earthly lifetime.
But this truth has nothing to do with Trump, his abilities or desires. Not even the exalted Obama could do this in his 8 years. Although he got a peace prize (on the come) it was before actually achieving anything. He had done nothing he promised including making good on his "I'll leave Iraq" promise, which is widely viewed as the primary reason for the rise of ISIS, nor had he closed Gitmo. Yet, he cashed the check...
It's a popular submarine route. I am sure we have accurate maps.
I'm guessing we have REALLY accurate maps but we don't freely share them because of the strategic importance of these areas. It's a really neat place to hide a couple of nuclear subs, and up north these are places that allow a few of subs to bottle up one navy or the other in a small portion of the world's oceans or force surface ships into really LONG voyages to get where they need to go.
I expect there are many things that hamstring the Post Office that the public doesn't know about.
One of my best friends has worked for the Post Office since he was 18 as a letter carrier. I can assure you that you are exactly correct.
The economics of the Post Office operations is hamstrung by arcane ancient regulations at all levels. The 6 days a week delivery schedule is among the most stupid and costly ones I can thing of. Then, when you cannot control what you charge without a literal act of congress, it's ridiculous to expect the Post Office to run as a zero cost entity.
In the face of rising employment rates, the Post Office simply cannot hire and train enough carriers to deliver to every address everyday but Sunday so my friend has been working 6 day weeks for almost two years now, getting paid overtime for every hour over 40, which turns out to be about 20 hours a week. He's a senior carrier with 20+ years of seniority so he's maxed out what he gets paid and the ONLY thing that keeps him walking the streets is the generous retirement that keeps accruing. Once he maxes out the retirement payments, in about 18 months, he's going to retire, collect his government pension and take an easier job. I fully understand why the younger carriers are leaving in droves, I'd give a job like that the heave ho too and go work for Amazon or UPS where at least the hours would be better.
No, fraud is a crime. However making a big deal out of "investigating fraud" by a DA in a press release, when the "fraud" is as inconsequential as this is obviously a political move. But of course you cannot admit that because it might betray your political and ideological left leaning bias.
So if you want to waste time and money, have at it. I'm just laughing at the petty pointless waste that will produce no results legally or politically. The investigation will waste resources, end up charging nobody, it won't change that NN is dead, and it won't even change any votes in the upcoming election. It is truly pointless, much like building a sand castle below the tide line at low tide hoping to have a beachfront home for the weekend. There will be nothing left by this time tomorrow and it's only Wednesday. Shovel all the sand you want...
This is just civil litigation running though it's age old process of discovery and how one protects intellectual property. I'm not sure how one would do this differently and still be fair.
How this has anything to do with some authoritarian feudal model is not obvious to me. I just looks like every other civil legal proceeding to me, which is anything but feudal or authoritarian, even in Australia.
Ah yes, Civil litigation and disclosure is a pain in the A...
Depending on what the lawsuit is about, this search may be well within bounds, legally anyway. I suspect that the making of money off of another's copyrighted software and selling customers "features" that where not generally available may have depressed the revenue of the game developer.
I figure that there are two questions that justify this discovery... 1. We need to know if they developed their "hack" using any copyrighted information or did they just reverse engineer it? 2. How many customers did they actually have and how much money did they collect from them?
Do note, that this is just discovery and both litigants are afforded large latitude in deciding what they want to obtain. As long as there is a plausible legal reason the search may turn up relevant information it will be allowed. Yes, this is a fishing expedition and yes it seems a bit draconian at times, but in the Civil Litigation world, it's how the rules are written.
So this ruling doesn't mean the "hackers" are somehow being unfairly treated by the courts. It's just civil law doing it's thing.
Container ships are NOT a huge polluter or source of CO2 even. As far as shipping goes, they are hugely efficient forms of transportation in terms of tonnes of cargo per mile. Trains are really efficient too. I point this out to put some context to your claim that shipping good is responsible for a lot of pollution. You are correct, but it's not ships that are the problem, but TRUCKS.
The "time is money" argument is WHY we use trucks and why sailing ships fell by the wayside in favor of steamers and on to what we have today. If a shipper didn't care how long it took to get their cargo delivered, we could and would have a totally different system for moving goods, where fuel prices and labor costs would be minimized with time to delivery allowed to increase. Indeed FedEx wouldn't exist because nobody would pay $50 to get an envelope across the country overnight.
But we DO care about transport times so we pay more money to have it done quicker.. Time is money. For container ship operators, this is very true. They schedule their ships' movements months in advance down to the hour, they know when their ships will arrive at the dock, how long it will sit there loading and unloading, and when it will leave and there is very little slack in their schedules for things like weather or mechanical delays. Why? Because the customer want's their stuff delivered on time ideally exactly when they need it. If it's early they have to store it, if it's late they hold up production and both have associated costs. On time (or "just in time") delivery is the most efficient. Time is Money, it really is.
Battery operated ships are a horrible idea, at least for long distance shipping. Batteries are expensive, heavy and bulky, and having enough of them on a ship for a weeks worth of generating 100,000 horse power is going to be impacting cargo capacity in both weight and volume for a ship. Unlike a car, where it's at least possible to put charging stations where you need them, ships will have to leave port with every bit of energy it needs to get to the next port. Submarines used to carry a huge portion of their weight and volume in batteries and they could only run on battery power for maybe a day, you want to try and use them to power a 9 day voyage for a large container ship? I'm not sure you have enough space on one of these ships for that sized battery pack which begs the question, where are you going to put the cargo? You know The thing that you make money moving?
Batteries are environmentally dirty things, especially when used on industrial scales. They consume huge amounts of resources to build, are usually messy to dispose of when they wear out and operationally they don't necessarily reduce emissions depending on how you generate the power to charge them. Given the "time is money" bit above, you will want to charge them at the docks while cargo is being loaded and unloaded, so it's not like you can just use a windmill or solar farm as a power source, at least not reliably.
So batteries don't necessarily solve the emissions problem, carry environmental costs of their own and don't help shippers to be more cost and time efficient. So I don't think they will find wide spread use, nor should they. I think there are other, better ways to power ships. Right now, that's fossil fuel.
Slashdot Mirror
Notice the phrase "original specifications".
Yea that caught my attention. I'm sure the question is about intent.
IF you are trying to fix something that's broken, but not modify the way the overall item works, then you are allowed to reverse engineer DRM protections. So, in the case of a motor vehicle, you can modify the drive train controller to use a non-manufacturer specified sensor as long as you don't change how the vehicle operates. So no emissions changes, no changes in performance, just swapping out sensors or parts to repair the overall device? Have at it. Replacing parts with cheaper non-manufacturer specific parts? You are free to do this.
What isn't as clear is reverse engineering a router's boot loader and firmware so you can run your own private firmware that does something different, has a different user interface or allows you to modify the radio power output outside of manufacturer specs. That may not be allowed.
Modify your I-phone's firmware so that third party digitizer works (allowed).
Modify your VW's Engine Controls so it passes emissions testing, but reverts to better economy higher emissions settings when driven.. (Not allowed)
Reverse Engineer your car's CAN buss data to add a new entertainment device that can interact with the rest of the vehicle? (Not allowed)
Bypass DRM controls on your consumer entertainment device so you can repair it with cheaper readily available parts? (Allowed)
Bypass DRM controls on the device to get the HDMI to connect but allow you access to the raw unencrypted data? (Not allowed)
"it's plain to see that the part of this that makes it a story is not actually in evidence but implied. This journalist crafted this story to imply things are happening but we don't actually have any evidence for it."
The fact that Trump is using an unsecured communications device is in and of itself newsworthy; it's extremely irresponsible of him to do so.
So, where did you stand on Obama's similar use of an unprotected cell phone? Was it irresponsible for Obama too?
This is also opinion by the way, irresponsible? How so? Discussing the weather with a friend or BS'ing about your latest golf handicap is somehow useful to the Chinese? We have no idea what conversations Trump has on this private device or how often he has them if at all. (and that's exactly what the sources clearly say) For all we know he only uses it to get phone numbers out of his contact list and never turns on the radios... We simply don't know and you presumption that it's irresponsible is opinion without facts to back up your concerns.
"The reality here is all we can truly assert is that there is the OPPERTUNITY for the Chinese monitoring to skim sensitive information, not that it's actually happening."
Other than the intelligence agencies reporting that the Chines have been monitoring his communications.
But seriously, how in good faith can you make the argument that reporting that Trump is using an insecure communications device isn't news? It's absolutely baffling.
How in good faith can you make that claim about me?
I'm asserting that we don't know that Trump isn't careful enough to avoid discussing sensitive information on unsecure phone calls. That's the only part of this that makes it a news story and the part that's made up..
Case in point... Do you recall discussing Obama's unencrypted insecure cell phone? He had one, we even debated it here on Slashdot. Where were you on that?
... are you honestly too stupid to tell the difference?
Are you? Confirmation Bias is a strong force if you are not careful. The thing that makes this a story is the Chinese getting classified information by monitoring Trump's phone calls, but that part is made up, presumed and strongly implied by the writers of the story.
We both agree, we DON'T know that this is actually happening that the facts to support that assumption are not in evidence in the story. That makes this the a tabloid story at the same level as "Elvis is alive, living in some small town in the deep south" because we have pictures of a guy who looks like Elvis, eating a banana and peanut butter sandwiches and while gyrating his hips in back woods Mississippi. Which, in case you cannot figure it out, is FAKE news. Now if you what a real story, get the guy's DNA and prove it, otherwise it's off to the back page of the National Enquirer for this story. Unless of course you already believe Elvis is alive, in which case your confirmation bias may just convince you this fat guy in Mississippi is him.
REAL "News" is not opinion, it is not made up, it is not built on presumptions or assumptions, it is based on all the applicable facts and doesn't stray beyond what can be proven by the evidence given. Unless you don't care about what's real or what's fake. So the story about the guy in Mississippi may be valid, but only if it claims to have found a guy that looks and acts like Elvis but clearly says we are not sure yet as the DNA test results are not back yet. If the headline is "Elvis Found Alive!" they are lying while "Possible Elvis sighting in Mississippi" is marginal and "Proof being sought for Guy being Elvis" is actually news, stupid but news.
So go re-read that story from the NYT and tell me what they can prove with the evidence they cite. It's well short of what makes this story interesting and is totally misrepresenting what they and their sources actually claim to actually know. This is tabloid journalism from the NYT. But I'm not surprised anymore by this total lack of journalistic ethics, even from previously trustworthy sources. Why this is happening will have to await another story....
It's not that hard to imagine POTUS doing the same kind of thing. Yet... We are regaled by this garbage journalist's implications, without a shred of actual evidence..
It's called extrapolation.
Based on his past behaviour, it is VERY hard to imagine Trump doing the responsible, sensible thing. Just because there is no explicit smoking gun IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE, is not a reason to dismiss the fact that he is not capable of spilling secrets. He's already done it on twitter. He's shoved both feet into his mouth so often that it's not even a question anymore.
That means even without specifics, the story is completely and entirely plausable.
A story being plausible, is the hallmark of tabloid news. NYT is now publishing stories based on if they are plausible? I mean, to heck with the truth or backing up one's assertions with facts, oh no, just make the story sound plausible and we are good and have fulfilled our commitments to journalistic ethics.... Is the NYT a tabloid now? I hope not.
So YES, such assertions require a bit more than just opportunity, this kind of thing requires some evidence it's happening, or it's no more than ginned up supposition based on assumptions. Journalism ethics requires that a reporter step back from their bias and report all the relevant facts and let the reader draw the conclusions. In this case, the NYT only has facts that establish that there is the opportunity, there is zero evidence that it's happening.
It's like a claiming a guy observed in an expensive sports car is obviously out speeding and driving recklessly though school zones running over kids. Not that you observed that behavior nor are there any injured kids or any dents in the car. All you have is evidence he drives the car so it's plausible that he's doing this, if not yet, he will soon. (This amounts to slander and tabloid level news.)
See what I'm saying here?
Trump cannot be trusted to know what he ejects from his mouth is sensitive or not.
FULL STOP
And here we hit the crux of my argument... That, is an opinion, not a fact. The truth here is neither of us know if Trump is having sensitive conversations on his private cell or not. There are no witnesses attesting to this, no evidence it's happened, nothing but your assumption. Reporters who willingly report such opinions and assumptions as if they are credible are not being ethical.
Your argument that the NYT is more reliable is again another opinion, without basis in fact. In this specific case, they are making assertions which are not directly supported by any real evidence.
The reality here is all we can truly assert is that there is the OPPERTUNITY for the Chinese monitoring to skim sensitive information, not that it's actually happening. Also this is NOT a new thing. The last occupant of the Oval Office had similar stories written about HIS use of an unsecured cell phone too. Do you assume the big O was leaking stuff too? No? Why the difference here?
I'm contending that YOUR issue is with your bias in this case. You are willing to believe the worst about Trump because that's your perspective of him. And because you want to believe he's bad, you are willing to accept an unfounded assertion in a "news" story even in the absence of facts to support the assertion.
Be honest, you don't know, this reporter doesn't know and the sources quoted don't know either. Your belief in this case is not supported by facts. You don't have to admit it to me, but you should at least admit it to yourself.
Why wouldn't you rather he use a hardened phone at all times, so that it's not even a question/concern?
You do understand that a "hardened phone" does not allow secure conversations with other phones which are not also hardened? If the person you wish to call doesn't have a hardened phone too, you cannot call them and have a secured conversation.
The rule is that you use the hardened line whenever possible, regardless of the topics being discussed. However, if the other party doesn't have a secure phone, you use the unsecure line and you don't discuss any restricted information. This is SOP for this sort of thing.
What amazes me is this is EXACTLY what the sources being quoted are describing, yet the "journalist" implies this is somehow a problem, that POTUS is too stupid and ignorant to understand the security issues in play. You can believe what you want, but what the article is implying is simply not in evidence given the quotes provided. The "journalist" is making assumptions and logical leaps for which there is no hard evidence, only supposition. We simply do not have any evidence that POTUS is unwittingly leaking classified information, all we have is a supposition that he might be.
My complaint here is about the journalists' ethical breach of standards and tabloid level work passing itself off as hard news. Trump is right in his complaints about this kind of reporting, it's fake news, manufactured controversies and treating it like hard news is unjustified. It's tabloid rumor and hype, unworthy of publication at any reputable news source. Such stories should be objectively reviewed and treated with all the respect they are due, which is none. The authors of such stories should also be eschewed and if they persist in writing such drivel, should be forced to find a different line of work by those who pay them. But we all know that profits and click bait are what drives the "news" industry, which really has turned into another form of entertainment, with all the fiction, staging, acting and special effects of Hollywood.
Triggered eh?
It's Trump so the worst possible implications are obviously true to you, regardless of the evidence.
This story is a prime example of FAKE NEWS and I ask you to carefully think though why I say that. Confirmation bias is hard to overcome, but if you actually look at the verifiable facts being cited here, it's plain to see that the part of this that makes it a story is not actually in evidence but implied. This journalist crafted this story to imply things are happening but we don't actually have any evidence for it.
Now if you want to take your abrupt left turn in your analysis, realize you are being a partisan hack.
He is POTUS. There are no personal things.
How so? He's not allowed to call a friend and wish them happy birthday or express he condolences for a death in the family? He cannot call his friends and joke around or discuss the weather's effect on their arthritis?
Look, the problem here with this story is we DON'T KNOW what he's talking about on that unclassified line. The sources being quoted don't know, the reporter doesn't know and nobody being quoted can point to specific classified information that was leaked. This is a manufactured controversy, assembled by the journalist, i.e. it's FAKE NEWS.
I've worked in classified environments in the past. We had two phones on our desks, one classified, one not. Where I didn't use the unclassified phone very much, I did talk to my wife and kids occasionally. Was I leaking classified information doing this? I sure hope not, and I certainly didn't have overtly classified discussions over the black phone... Ever... It's not that hard to imagine POTUS doing the same kind of thing. Yet... We are regaled by this garbage journalist's implications, without a shred of actual evidence..
I would rather he use the hardened phone strictly for classified or official communications and his regular phone for casual stuff.
You know, IF you read the original story and the "sources" statements.... What you would like, is likely already going on. Classified conversations go on NSA provided equipment, private personal conversations on his private I-Phone.
YET, the journalist is clearly trying to lead you to believe the opposite, even though they do not have a source that says "The Chinese are getting classified information by monitoring POTUS's I-Phone calls." The sources are saying that they don't know the content of these conversations and the implication made by the journalist is Trump is stupid so he's obviously leaking classified information by his insistence on using that I-phone for unofficial personal calls.
This is irresponsible journalism, making a story out of flimsy evidence by implying stuff you cannot prove and making up stuff for which you have no evidence. This is the kind of thing Trump is talking about when he mentions "fake news". It is shameful, unethical and all to common.
ANYTIME you use a cell phone you are subject to monitoring. The only difference here is that Trump is of high interest and is thus a big target.
Then there is the whole "We don't know if he's discussing classified stuff because he's not very clued in, but we warned him about this" quote... Really? Is this was passes for journalism these days? These are obviously opinions and not facts. Follow that up with "he's not reading his briefings" and I'm supposed to be aghast at his incompetence? Um, doesn't he have a cabinet and staff to keep tabs on the nitty gritty details and call the important stuff to his attention? A good manager hires folks he can trust and his direct reports, well, report do they not? Are they not doing this?
The person quoted doesn't know for sure what POTUS has been reading or what he is discussing on his personal cell phone. The article obviously states the POTUS has other secure options available for "sensitive" discussions, I'm going to guess he actually uses them.
So where I'm sure the Chinese eagerly await their next Trump cell phone intercept, I seriously doubt they get much specific intelligence from them. But if we are honest, nobody but the Chinese know for sure. Certainly the reporter doesn't know anything for sure as his source(s) are not able to say anything except that POTUS has an unprotected I-Phone that he uses and cannot vouch for even one conversation he's had on it.
Journalism and journalistic standards have long ago ceased to be... Replaced by Tabloid stories and rumors... How far we have fallen.
It says that their highest ethical responsibility is to 'Enhance shareholder value"
Shareholder value is NOT enhanced by unethical or immoral behavior by a company or it's employees. Both Civil and Criminal penalties are expensive. Civil damages can cost many times more than the ill gotten gains and Criminal fines can seriously hurt a companies profitability.
Do some get away with such things? For awhile perhaps... Emron was such a company, but eventually they got caught and now where are they? Their share holder value is ZERO now and many of their principles have served time.
It's a step in the right direction, but not long enough. Many people use the same phone for more than two years. Buying a new phone is expensive. It's wasteful to throw out older devices that are still more than capable of meeting the needs of their users. This should be more like five years rather than two.
I fully agree, plus they need to make vendors support user's right to repair by providing commonly used replacement parts such as screens, buttons, batteries and instructions to replace these things. I suppose an open boot loader is a bit much, but that would be a nice option too.
If Google wants to help device users, let's help them.
Personally, I'd shell out quite a bit of extra dough on a phone if I knew I could count of having repair options for longer than the warranty gives me.
You act as if that's a bad thing. I mean, how do you think the Linux Kernel has made it this far? Talk about a cabal of zealots... Yet good things have come from that.
Most software programmers I know are coding to make money. Making humankind better is not on there agenda.
The implication being that making money is contrary to helping mankind better?
I don't think these two are logically related. You can make money and be out to make humankind better. You can make money by cheating the next guy out of his, making human kind less well off. Further, You can make money and not care. The two concepts are not related.
Now if you are arguing that a lot of folks don't give a flip about others in today's self absorbed world, I'm going to say welcome to reality. History is rife with examples of such bad behavior.
Yep, they even deliver on SUNDAY using the USPS around here. My friend hates it and thinks it is a mistake. I don't know if I agree, but I sure hope the USPS is able to cover it's costs for doing this.
Seriously, NOBODY here on earth can do the world peace thing, at least not right now, including Trump. There are way too many groups out there intent on killing or die trying to make that possible, and despite their rapid removal from the gene pool, they are multiplying faster than they die. I don't care who you are or what power you have on earth, world peace isn't something within your grasp. Certainly not in my earthly lifetime.
But this truth has nothing to do with Trump, his abilities or desires. Not even the exalted Obama could do this in his 8 years. Although he got a peace prize (on the come) it was before actually achieving anything. He had done nothing he promised including making good on his "I'll leave Iraq" promise, which is widely viewed as the primary reason for the rise of ISIS, nor had he closed Gitmo. Yet, he cashed the check...
Oh sure, we can just invent a way to violate the rules of physics and remote sense the ocean bottom from space..
Using radar? Doesn't penetrate water too well.
Using light? Again, doesn't go though water very far.
Hearing a sonar signal from space isn't going to happen....
What else do we have here?
It's a popular submarine route. I am sure we have accurate maps.
I'm guessing we have REALLY accurate maps but we don't freely share them because of the strategic importance of these areas. It's a really neat place to hide a couple of nuclear subs, and up north these are places that allow a few of subs to bottle up one navy or the other in a small portion of the world's oceans or force surface ships into really LONG voyages to get where they need to go.
He could achieve permanent world peace
Frankly, he couldn't. He has neither the competence nor the desire to try.
And there you go, proving the original poster's point that some people wont' be satisfied no mater what he does... Way to go Jeremi...
I expect there are many things that hamstring the Post Office that the public doesn't know about.
One of my best friends has worked for the Post Office since he was 18 as a letter carrier. I can assure you that you are exactly correct.
The economics of the Post Office operations is hamstrung by arcane ancient regulations at all levels. The 6 days a week delivery schedule is among the most stupid and costly ones I can thing of. Then, when you cannot control what you charge without a literal act of congress, it's ridiculous to expect the Post Office to run as a zero cost entity.
In the face of rising employment rates, the Post Office simply cannot hire and train enough carriers to deliver to every address everyday but Sunday so my friend has been working 6 day weeks for almost two years now, getting paid overtime for every hour over 40, which turns out to be about 20 hours a week. He's a senior carrier with 20+ years of seniority so he's maxed out what he gets paid and the ONLY thing that keeps him walking the streets is the generous retirement that keeps accruing. Once he maxes out the retirement payments, in about 18 months, he's going to retire, collect his government pension and take an easier job. I fully understand why the younger carriers are leaving in droves, I'd give a job like that the heave ho too and go work for Amazon or UPS where at least the hours would be better.
Oh. Fraud is a partisan political thing now?
No, fraud is a crime. However making a big deal out of "investigating fraud" by a DA in a press release, when the "fraud" is as inconsequential as this is obviously a political move. But of course you cannot admit that because it might betray your political and ideological left leaning bias.
So if you want to waste time and money, have at it. I'm just laughing at the petty pointless waste that will produce no results legally or politically. The investigation will waste resources, end up charging nobody, it won't change that NN is dead, and it won't even change any votes in the upcoming election. It is truly pointless, much like building a sand castle below the tide line at low tide hoping to have a beachfront home for the weekend. There will be nothing left by this time tomorrow and it's only Wednesday. Shovel all the sand you want...
This is just civil litigation running though it's age old process of discovery and how one protects intellectual property. I'm not sure how one would do this differently and still be fair.
How this has anything to do with some authoritarian feudal model is not obvious to me. I just looks like every other civil legal proceeding to me, which is anything but feudal or authoritarian, even in Australia.
Ah yes, Civil litigation and disclosure is a pain in the A...
Depending on what the lawsuit is about, this search may be well within bounds, legally anyway. I suspect that the making of money off of another's copyrighted software and selling customers "features" that where not generally available may have depressed the revenue of the game developer.
I figure that there are two questions that justify this discovery... 1. We need to know if they developed their "hack" using any copyrighted information or did they just reverse engineer it? 2. How many customers did they actually have and how much money did they collect from them?
Do note, that this is just discovery and both litigants are afforded large latitude in deciding what they want to obtain. As long as there is a plausible legal reason the search may turn up relevant information it will be allowed. Yes, this is a fishing expedition and yes it seems a bit draconian at times, but in the Civil Litigation world, it's how the rules are written.
So this ruling doesn't mean the "hackers" are somehow being unfairly treated by the courts. It's just civil law doing it's thing.
Container ships are NOT a huge polluter or source of CO2 even. As far as shipping goes, they are hugely efficient forms of transportation in terms of tonnes of cargo per mile. Trains are really efficient too. I point this out to put some context to your claim that shipping good is responsible for a lot of pollution. You are correct, but it's not ships that are the problem, but TRUCKS.
The "time is money" argument is WHY we use trucks and why sailing ships fell by the wayside in favor of steamers and on to what we have today. If a shipper didn't care how long it took to get their cargo delivered, we could and would have a totally different system for moving goods, where fuel prices and labor costs would be minimized with time to delivery allowed to increase. Indeed FedEx wouldn't exist because nobody would pay $50 to get an envelope across the country overnight.
But we DO care about transport times so we pay more money to have it done quicker.. Time is money. For container ship operators, this is very true. They schedule their ships' movements months in advance down to the hour, they know when their ships will arrive at the dock, how long it will sit there loading and unloading, and when it will leave and there is very little slack in their schedules for things like weather or mechanical delays. Why? Because the customer want's their stuff delivered on time ideally exactly when they need it. If it's early they have to store it, if it's late they hold up production and both have associated costs. On time (or "just in time") delivery is the most efficient. Time is Money, it really is.
Battery operated ships are a horrible idea, at least for long distance shipping. Batteries are expensive, heavy and bulky, and having enough of them on a ship for a weeks worth of generating 100,000 horse power is going to be impacting cargo capacity in both weight and volume for a ship. Unlike a car, where it's at least possible to put charging stations where you need them, ships will have to leave port with every bit of energy it needs to get to the next port. Submarines used to carry a huge portion of their weight and volume in batteries and they could only run on battery power for maybe a day, you want to try and use them to power a 9 day voyage for a large container ship? I'm not sure you have enough space on one of these ships for that sized battery pack which begs the question, where are you going to put the cargo? You know The thing that you make money moving?
Batteries are environmentally dirty things, especially when used on industrial scales. They consume huge amounts of resources to build, are usually messy to dispose of when they wear out and operationally they don't necessarily reduce emissions depending on how you generate the power to charge them. Given the "time is money" bit above, you will want to charge them at the docks while cargo is being loaded and unloaded, so it's not like you can just use a windmill or solar farm as a power source, at least not reliably.
So batteries don't necessarily solve the emissions problem, carry environmental costs of their own and don't help shippers to be more cost and time efficient. So I don't think they will find wide spread use, nor should they. I think there are other, better ways to power ships. Right now, that's fossil fuel.