he's specifically responding to someone who said amazon doesn't do this. he isn't addressing the morality of the activity, he's addressing the assertion that amazon isn't engaging in this activity.
Is it ethical for Apple or its customers to expect outsiders to spend hundreds or thousands of man hours finding bugs in their software for free? Apple is certainly rich enough to either pay bounties or to hire an army of security researchers to test their products.
apple didn't expect or require anything from him. he knew before he started that apple doesn't pay bounties for bugs and he still chose to spend his time and effort looking for a bug specifically so he could release it into the wild. he could have spent his time researching software from a company that does pay bounties for bugs.
the only way that would be feasible is if it were an international law and the entire world boycotted china as a market for those products. otherwise, a company boycotting china is just giving a market of 1 billion people to their competitors.
(if we're including scripting languages, can we also include markup languages)?
no. scripting languages are still programming languages. they are just interpreted on the fly rather than compiled or byte-compiled.
html is a layout language. if you need conditional statements, branching, or to control the flow of logic in any other way, you fall back to javascript precisely because html is not a programming language.
when i bought a new iphone, i went to the apple store, bought it and took it home. then i realized my old phone had a different size sim card so i went to the at&t store and asked for the newer size sim card for my number. I didn't take the new phone with me, so the guy just put his imei from his phone in and gave me the new card. i went home, popped it in the new phone and it worked. phone is not locked to the carrier, carrier doesn't have my imei, and (outside of actually paying for the phone) it cost me nothing. If i had already had the right size sim card, i wouldn't have needed to give them an imei for the new phone either. apparently it is only used to activate the sim and is not used at all afterward.
Back in the day when i first got at&t, i just picked up a sim from them and put it in my iphone i had then without any issues. i don't remember if i gave them its imei or not. i do know before that i was using a t-mobile sim when t-mobile wasn't officially supported by iphones (this was an original iphone 1) without any issues and without informing t-mobile of the new phone.
the agreement said that apple would pay a license fee to qualcomm and then qualcomm would rebate some of that money back to apple. both parties adhered to that until south korea subpoena'd apple for information on qualcomm's licensing practices during an investigation into qualcomm's licensing terms. apple cooperated and qualcomm responded by cutting off the rebates they were paying to apple. apple then stopped paying the license fee in response to qualcomm no longer paying the rebate.
under the agreement apple had with qualcomm, qualcomm gave apple rebates on those payments. however, qualcomm stopped giving the rebate as a punitive measure for apple cooperating in the korean fair trade commission's investigation into qualcomm's licensing practices. so, it sounds like qualcomm was in breach of that agreement first and apple stopping payments under the agreement was appropriate.
the korean fair trade commission ultimately fined qualcomm $853 million. the ftc has also sued qualcomm for the same practices.
it does have LTE on both sims. this problem only exists with verizon sims in the united states. at&t and t-mobile sims work with LTE in both primary and secondary positions. verizon sims work with LTE in the secondary position in europe.
why would i ignore the rural parts? the original comment started by saying he lived in rural denmark on a farm.
Developed land in the united states is about 3% of the total land, so 113,820 square miles. (6.8 times the total size of denmark)
75% of the population lives in that space. The U.S. population is about 317 million people, so about 237,750,000 people. denmark's population is about 5,607,000 people.
So if we just use the developed land in the United States, it's 6.8 times the size of denmark and has 42 times the number of people living in it. And it's broken up into separated pieces of developed space that exists in different regulatory and physical environments.
I still don't think they're comparable situations.
i never said i felt that way at all. I was providing an analogy that more correctly described the FSF's position, not mine. Do you disagree that the analogy represents the FSF position accurately?
My point is that if that is indeed an accurate representation of their point then they are advocating the position that you should not use anything that you don't own and control, because to do so would require you trust that the owner/maintainer has installed the locks properly and that they haven't been tampered with.
yeah. i'd say that is probably a fairly accurate description of the FSF position.
well, the only one you would have heard of would be apple.
And what exactly did you inspect and verify?
well, i worked at apple. i had servers in the data centers so i had to know and adhere to all of the security policies relating to the data centers.
If we cannot inspect the job you did and the lock you chose, there's no way for us to know if the house is actually secure to our satisfaction.
So do you feel the same way about say, Google?
i never said i felt that way at all. I was providing an analogy that more correctly described the FSF's position, not mine. Do you disagree that the analogy represents the FSF position accurately?
Have you inspected the locks on their infrastructure? Up until recently they weren't encrypting traffic between their datacenters at all. Actually I'd be interested to know which company's communications infrastructure you have inspected the security implementation of.
well, the only one you would have heard of would be apple.
well, the only way that microsoft could be doing that server-side would be to pass the key to the server from the client, which you could see in the source code. It doesn't tell you what they are doing with it on the server, but there's no reason to store the encrypted data and the key on the server unless you intend decrypt it without the involvement of the client, and that'd be a big red flag that something questionable was happening.
A somewhat better analogy might be "My neighbour's house was broken into because they had poor quality locks on the door, so I'm going to change my locks for better models." The quality of your silverware is unrelated to the actions being taken.
To go with your analogy, it'd be more like :
The company that built the houses in your subdivision put shitty locks on the houses and installed them improperly. Your neighbor's house just got broken into because of this. The construction company is now going through the subdivision and replacing all of the locks with a new, better lock.
The FSF's position is this : That's nice and all, but we don't trust you to pick a good lock and put it on correctly this time. If we cannot inspect the job you did and the lock you chose, there's no way for us to know if the house is actually secure to our satisfaction. How about you just give us the specifications for the door and frame and we'll just go buy whatever lock we feel comfortable with and install it ourselves?
In addition to your points, the option for people to look at your code makes your code better because it makes you more diligent when you write it.
I suspect everyone has had a conversation like this : Bob : check out my awesome-sauce application. it's bad ass Boss : cool. give Jeff access to the source code. i'd like him to integrate it into our Fabulosity suite. Bob : er, ok. just give me a couple of days to clean up the code so it is ready for integration. (translation, give me a couple days to fix all the fucked up hack shortcuts i took and add some comments so the code is remotely presentable/maintainable before i let someone else look at it)
The fear of someone else looking at your code makes you write cleaner, more readable code. It also makes you more diligent in checking for errors and exploits (nobody wants their code release to embarass them). It should also make people and companies hesitant to put back doors and other sketchy things in their applications.
Here's to hoping for the death of the "boy bands" and talentless whores who take off their clothes and call it a musical act.
In that case, we need to act quickly and decisively to protect the talentless whores who take off their clothes. As long as they are willing to do that, i'll do my part by loading up their music video, muting it, and listening to good music while i enjoy their best attributes.
Seriously though, i don't care if shitty music i don't like continues to exist. I'll do what i do now... which is not listen to it.
Neither May First/People Link or Riseup was not notified that the server was being replaced. It was never notified that the server was taken in the first place.
In order for a warrant to be "properly adjudicated," it is required that the law enforcement agency serve the warrant to the property owner. By not notifying the property owner of the warrant, they violated the 4th Amendment.
Well, if they were renting space on a server owned by the hosting provider, informing the hosting provider is probably sufficient as they are the property owner for the server that was taken. I don't know if that's the case, but it is possible that this particular item is not a 4th amendment violation.
The FBI has a long history of blatant violation of civil rights, as well as literally making criminals for the sake of "busting" them, thus justifying their existence (which, in government doublespeak, translates to "budget"). That said, it would be more surprising to me to find out that the legal rights of the property owner were honored.
I would say, even without a pretty well documented history of the FBI abusing its power, it is generally a good thing for people and organizations to watch and question the actions of any law enforcement organization; especially if something looks amiss. It keeps them from getting lazy and it keeps us from getting caught napping by those whom we give power.
Trespassing is illegal; any evidence gained illegally cannot be admitted in court; therefore, if the FBI did indeed trespass, then any case they may have had is now dead by their own hand.
Actually, I don't think this is entirely true. In 2009, in Herring v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held that illegally obtained evidence could be used in court as long as it wasn't deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct that led to the evidence being illegal. (that case was about a man who was arrested on a warrant that was left active by a clerical error. When arrested he was found to have drugs on him. The court ruled the drug evidence could still be used against him even though they had no proper cause to search him and find it in the first place.)
I expect you will argue that in this case it meets the deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct requirement; and that may be true. I am not saying their actions wouldn't invalidate any evidence they collected. I'm just saying that there is an avenue for them to argue to keep the evidence, even if it was determined they had violated the 4th amendment in collecting it.
This is trivial to get around. You incorporate, file the patent as owned by the incorporated entity, then sell the incorporated entity to the person who wants to buy the patent. The patent is still owned by the original owner, but the original owner is now owned by the megacorp.
well, technically Doohan is a has-been considering he's dead. That shouldn't take anything away from the quality of work he did when he was alive or the impact it had on anyone's life.
On topic though, I don't get why it would be a problem that a person who played an iconic character in popular culture that relates to space exploration did this. It would certainly make less sense for someone who is currently popular but has no relationship to the subject matter to have been selected.
Slashdot Mirror
he's specifically responding to someone who said amazon doesn't do this. he isn't addressing the morality of the activity, he's addressing the assertion that amazon isn't engaging in this activity.
Is it ethical for Apple or its customers to expect outsiders to spend hundreds or thousands of man hours finding bugs in their software for free? Apple is certainly rich enough to either pay bounties or to hire an army of security researchers to test their products.
apple didn't expect or require anything from him. he knew before he started that apple doesn't pay bounties for bugs and he still chose to spend his time and effort looking for a bug specifically so he could release it into the wild. he could have spent his time researching software from a company that does pay bounties for bugs.
he's a dick.
the only way that would be feasible is if it were an international law and the entire world boycotted china as a market for those products. otherwise, a company boycotting china is just giving a market of 1 billion people to their competitors.
(if we're including scripting languages, can we also include markup languages)?
no. scripting languages are still programming languages. they are just interpreted on the fly rather than compiled or byte-compiled.
html is a layout language. if you need conditional statements, branching, or to control the flow of logic in any other way, you fall back to javascript precisely because html is not a programming language.
Trump is the only one cutting his shitty steaks with a spoon.
in his defense, all of the forks and knives were dirty because he used them to eat a pizza.
when i bought a new iphone, i went to the apple store, bought it and took it home. then i realized my old phone had a different size sim card so i went to the at&t store and asked for the newer size sim card for my number. I didn't take the new phone with me, so the guy just put his imei from his phone in and gave me the new card. i went home, popped it in the new phone and it worked. phone is not locked to the carrier, carrier doesn't have my imei, and (outside of actually paying for the phone) it cost me nothing. If i had already had the right size sim card, i wouldn't have needed to give them an imei for the new phone either. apparently it is only used to activate the sim and is not used at all afterward.
Back in the day when i first got at&t, i just picked up a sim from them and put it in my iphone i had then without any issues. i don't remember if i gave them its imei or not. i do know before that i was using a t-mobile sim when t-mobile wasn't officially supported by iphones (this was an original iphone 1) without any issues and without informing t-mobile of the new phone.
the agreement said that apple would pay a license fee to qualcomm and then qualcomm would rebate some of that money back to apple. both parties adhered to that until south korea subpoena'd apple for information on qualcomm's licensing practices during an investigation into qualcomm's licensing terms. apple cooperated and qualcomm responded by cutting off the rebates they were paying to apple. apple then stopped paying the license fee in response to qualcomm no longer paying the rebate.
if you do a search for summit, there are photos of the data center it is in. looks pretty clean to me.
https://www.olcf.ornl.gov/summ...
> By the time this article posts, Apple will probably be back on top.
a quick check on google shows apple is up by $6 billion right now.
under the agreement apple had with qualcomm, qualcomm gave apple rebates on those payments. however, qualcomm stopped giving the rebate as a punitive measure for apple cooperating in the korean fair trade commission's investigation into qualcomm's licensing practices. so, it sounds like qualcomm was in breach of that agreement first and apple stopping payments under the agreement was appropriate.
the korean fair trade commission ultimately fined qualcomm $853 million. the ftc has also sued qualcomm for the same practices.
it does have LTE on both sims. this problem only exists with verizon sims in the united states. at&t and t-mobile sims work with LTE in both primary and secondary positions. verizon sims work with LTE in the secondary position in europe.
from the article :
"AT&T's and T-Mobile's systems work fine in either the primary or secondary positions, supporting those carriers' voice-over-LTE networks."
so, explain to me how this is because of apple's hardware, but is only broken for verizon.
why would i ignore the rural parts? the original comment started by saying he lived in rural denmark on a farm.
Developed land in the united states is about 3% of the total land, so 113,820 square miles. (6.8 times the total size of denmark)
75% of the population lives in that space. The U.S. population is about 317 million people, so about 237,750,000 people.
denmark's population is about 5,607,000 people.
So if we just use the developed land in the United States, it's 6.8 times the size of denmark and has 42 times the number of people living in it. And it's broken up into separated pieces of developed space that exists in different regulatory and physical environments.
I still don't think they're comparable situations.
well, denmark covers 16,639 square miles. the united states covers 3.794 million square miles.
do you think maybe these two situations are not comparable?
i never said i felt that way at all. I was providing an analogy that more correctly described the FSF's position, not mine. Do you disagree that the analogy represents the FSF position accurately?
My point is that if that is indeed an accurate representation of their point then they are advocating the position that you should not use anything that you don't own and control, because to do so would require you trust that the owner/maintainer has installed the locks properly and that they haven't been tampered with.
yeah. i'd say that is probably a fairly accurate description of the FSF position.
well, the only one you would have heard of would be apple.
And what exactly did you inspect and verify?
well, i worked at apple. i had servers in the data centers so i had to know and adhere to all of the security policies relating to the data centers.
If we cannot inspect the job you did and the lock you chose, there's no way for us to know if the house is actually secure to our satisfaction.
So do you feel the same way about say, Google?
i never said i felt that way at all. I was providing an analogy that more correctly described the FSF's position, not mine. Do you disagree that the analogy represents the FSF position accurately?
Have you inspected the locks on their infrastructure? Up until recently they weren't encrypting traffic between their datacenters at all. Actually I'd be interested to know which company's communications infrastructure you have inspected the security implementation of.
well, the only one you would have heard of would be apple.
well, the only way that microsoft could be doing that server-side would be to pass the key to the server from the client, which you could see in the source code. It doesn't tell you what they are doing with it on the server, but there's no reason to store the encrypted data and the key on the server unless you intend decrypt it without the involvement of the client, and that'd be a big red flag that something questionable was happening.
A somewhat better analogy might be "My neighbour's house was broken into because they had poor quality locks on the door, so I'm going to change my locks for better models." The quality of your silverware is unrelated to the actions being taken.
To go with your analogy, it'd be more like :
The company that built the houses in your subdivision put shitty locks on the houses and installed them improperly.
Your neighbor's house just got broken into because of this.
The construction company is now going through the subdivision and replacing all of the locks with a new, better lock.
The FSF's position is this :
That's nice and all, but we don't trust you to pick a good lock and put it on correctly this time.
If we cannot inspect the job you did and the lock you chose, there's no way for us to know if the house is actually secure to our satisfaction.
How about you just give us the specifications for the door and frame and we'll just go buy whatever lock we feel comfortable with and install it ourselves?
In addition to your points, the option for people to look at your code makes your code better because it makes you more diligent when you write it.
I suspect everyone has had a conversation like this :
Bob : check out my awesome-sauce application. it's bad ass
Boss : cool. give Jeff access to the source code. i'd like him to integrate it into our Fabulosity suite.
Bob : er, ok. just give me a couple of days to clean up the code so it is ready for integration.
(translation, give me a couple days to fix all the fucked up hack shortcuts i took and add some comments so the code is remotely presentable/maintainable before i let someone else look at it)
The fear of someone else looking at your code makes you write cleaner, more readable code. It also makes you more diligent in checking for errors and exploits (nobody wants their code release to embarass them).
It should also make people and companies hesitant to put back doors and other sketchy things in their applications.
Here's to hoping for the death of the "boy bands" and talentless whores who take off their clothes and call it a musical act.
In that case, we need to act quickly and decisively to protect the talentless whores who take off their clothes. As long as they are willing to do that, i'll do my part by loading up their music video, muting it, and listening to good music while i enjoy their best attributes.
Seriously though, i don't care if shitty music i don't like continues to exist. I'll do what i do now... which is not listen to it.
First, according to TFA:
In order for a warrant to be "properly adjudicated," it is required that the law enforcement agency serve the warrant to the property owner. By not notifying the property owner of the warrant, they violated the 4th Amendment.
Well, if they were renting space on a server owned by the hosting provider, informing the hosting provider is probably sufficient as they are the property owner for the server that was taken. I don't know if that's the case, but it is possible that this particular item is not a 4th amendment violation.
The FBI has a long history of blatant violation of civil rights, as well as literally making criminals for the sake of "busting" them, thus justifying their existence (which, in government doublespeak, translates to "budget"). That said, it would be more surprising to me to find out that the legal rights of the property owner were honored.
I would say, even without a pretty well documented history of the FBI abusing its power, it is generally a good thing for people and organizations to watch and question the actions of any law enforcement organization; especially if something looks amiss. It keeps them from getting lazy and it keeps us from getting caught napping by those whom we give power.
Trespassing is illegal; any evidence gained illegally cannot be admitted in court; therefore, if the FBI did indeed trespass, then any case they may have had is now dead by their own hand.
Actually, I don't think this is entirely true. In 2009, in Herring v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held that illegally obtained evidence could be used in court as long as it wasn't deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct that led to the evidence being illegal. (that case was about a man who was arrested on a warrant that was left active by a clerical error. When arrested he was found to have drugs on him. The court ruled the drug evidence could still be used against him even though they had no proper cause to search him and find it in the first place.)
I expect you will argue that in this case it meets the deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct requirement; and that may be true. I am not saying their actions wouldn't invalidate any evidence they collected. I'm just saying that there is an avenue for them to argue to keep the evidence, even if it was determined they had violated the 4th amendment in collecting it.
Encrypt my email?!? Hell, I encrypt my slashdot posts.
this one is encrypted with a simple rot-26 algorithm.
This is trivial to get around. You incorporate, file the patent as owned by the incorporated entity, then sell the incorporated entity to the person who wants to buy the patent. The patent is still owned by the original owner, but the original owner is now owned by the megacorp.
what makes you think the engineer would do it for free?
well, technically Doohan is a has-been considering he's dead. That shouldn't take anything away from the quality of work he did when he was alive or the impact it had on anyone's life.
On topic though, I don't get why it would be a problem that a person who played an iconic character in popular culture that relates to space exploration did this. It would certainly make less sense for someone who is currently popular but has no relationship to the subject matter to have been selected.