That CLAIM to keep zero logs, how can you be sure? It certainly wouldn't be the first time a VPN that claimed not to log things was later found to log lots of things.
Thing is, speed is expected. We all know that devices get more powerful and faster every year. I can't congratulate a company for doing that because it's pretty much the baseline expectation.
On the other hand, there's no expectation that every year hardware features should vanish and that the phones should be able to do less with every release. Companies often lament that they have trouble differentiating themselves from their competitors, but then they make sure to do their best to make sure all phones have exactly the same features, and as close as possible to the same look. If you want to differentiate yourself, add a feature nobody else has, and then advertise it. I'll give some suggestions: - user replaceable battery - a back made of any material other than glass or polished metal (plastic can look fabulous if you texture it right, or go premium and do leather, or put a texture on your metal, or ANYTHING that allows someone to actually hold your phone! - HDMI output (over USB-C is fine if you're concerned about space) - IR transmitter - an actual large screen instead of one that's just marketed that way (today's 6+ inch displays are actually smaller than the previous 5.7" displays because they're all super tall and narrow, fewer square inches, smaller full screen videos (with black bars on the side!) - some new feature we haven't seen yet. Innovation was all the rage as recently as about 3 or 4 years ago, manufacturers would try new things and add new features. Stop trying to make your phone as boring a slab as possible, and start coming up with new and innovative things.
Why? to reward them for all the other horrible things they've done?
They've removed almost every feature they used to include on their devices (IR transmitters, HDMI output, SD card slots, user replaceable batteries, phones that weren't so slippery you couldn't hold them without a case, widest screens in the market) and instead given a slightly faster phone than their previous offerings, but because they didn't remove one more feature you think they deserve your loyalty?
My 4 year old phone had: - HDMI output (MHL) - IR transmitter - User replaceable battery - a wider screen than anything available on a smartphone today. - a headphone jack - SD card slot - a textured back that looked gorgeous, and meant no case was needed because the phone wasn't so slippery it would fly out of your hand every time you tried to hold it.
Now the SD card slot and headphone jack are still available on some phones these days (though only a small handful), but basically all of the others are simply impossible to get now.
So I'm supposed to "upgrade" to what exactly? the only advantage the newer devices have is a small amount of speed. None of the new phones have any features that that one didn't have, there hasn't been a new feature added in at least 4 years. The only thing they do is increase the speed slightly while removing actual features and capabilities.
I really really wish that some manufacturer would bring back HDMI support. Almost all phones used to have it through MHL just a couple of years ago, but as they transition to USB C they've all decided to drop support for HDMI (and it's a simple choice, not a requirement as USB-C easily supports HDMI output)
To all those who say "just cast to the TV", Some of us prefer a solution that is cheap, simple, and actually works with ALL apps, ALL TVs, ALL the time. I find casting works with some TVs, some apps, some of the time, hardly a replacement. Not to mention the latency issues that absolutely kill it as a possibility for many applications.
If laws were clear, simple, and unambiguous, there wouldn't be much need for the legal profession.
And as neither the employer, nor the employees, drafted this law, "the party that did not draft it" is equally true of both parties, so your claim of siding with them is demonstrably false.
If the rocket is designed to reach orbit with 20 engines, but has 31, then 11 can fail and it still works, but if it was designed to reach orbit with 31 engines, and has 31 engines, then even a single failure means no go. Meanwhile that rocket with 5 may only need 3 to reach orbit, in which case 2 could die and it would be fine, or it could need all 5, and then if even one goes it doesn't get there.
Now many companies and organizations would put in whatever the minimum number is to achieve the mission result. It's certainly cheaper that way, but has zero redundancy. SpaceX decided to add extras in for redundancy.
The number of engines a rocket has means absolutely nothing if you don't also know the minimum number required to achieve the goal.
You have to remember that the secret courts can be both designed specifically to support breaking the law and ignoring the constitution, AND still be doing the right thing in any particular case. It's not an either/or proposition.
The sole goal of the secret courts is to allow the government to do things that would never be allowed if the public knew about them. There's no other reason for it to exist. That said, just because it was designed with the explicit purpose of doing illegal things, does not mean that everything it does is in fact to support illegal activity.
If I'm doing things I'm worried other people will find out about, and I hide only the suspect activities, people will quickly realize that any time I'm hiding something it's an activity I don't want people to see. If instead I hide ALL my activities, people will have no way of knowing which ones are routine things that I should be doing, and which ones are things I should not. Same idea here. If the secret court is only used for unconstitutional activities, it becomes too obvious too quickly. If instead it's used for everything, it's seen as just the way things are.
As for the real risks. The real risk in any government is always that those in charge want more power. No politician ever seems to vote to limit their own authority. It does appear that the current situation is even more extreme in this regard than most, but the fact that the american people have ignored the accumulating power in the hands of a single person for an incredibly long time is the real problem here.
It's funny that the USA is so proud of not being a monarchy or dictatorship, but there is no single person anywhere in the world with more power than the president of the USA. Not to mention that the office of president tends to be revered even more so than any monarch. Concentrating so much power in one place is the real "YUGE" problem.
You're still thinking about this from the wrong angle. If you rely on the advertisements to be known ahead of time, or the advertisement to include its own special signal stating that it is such, you've lost the battle completely. The only appropriate way is to identify legitimate users as opposed to identifying all possible illegitimate users. The method proposed here is completely incapable of dealing with any bad actor, whether that be in advertisement from a company that does not want to play nice, or even just a friend in your house who decides to play a prank on you.
This would be like securing your laptop with a screen that says are you a criminal? yes/no and expecting that no criminal could possibly get in.
In security the right answer is never to try to identify all possible bad actors, because you're bound to miss some. The correct response is always to try to positively identify the authorized users instead, because it's a much smaller pool to choose from and will automatically exclude all the bad actors, even the ones you didn't think of.
So if this is truly the case, why would they need the features listed in the article?
Either it only listens to the right voices, and therefore the features aren't needed, or it doesn't, in which case the features in the article are addressing the wrong problem.
The problem isn't that a specific ad can trigger this thing, the problem is that ANYBODY can trigger this thing.
If they actually cared about privacy, security, or the end users, they'd work hard on voiceprinting technologies so that it only responds to it's owner and nobody else. That would simultaneously solve this problem, as well as that of other malicious advertisers, and that of random drunk friend thinking it's funny to order hundreds of things with it.
Not that I think voiceprints are particularly secure or reliable, but it's infinitely more secure than what they have now.
I suspect that points more to an overall design feature of this type of surveillance system.
Sorry, had to fix that for you. If the goal wasn't to ignore the rule of law and do inappropriate things, the secret courts would have zero need to be secret in the first place.
The MARKETING was revolutionary, the device, not so much.
iPhones have never been anywhere near the top of the curve for what they can do vs the competition of the time, they've always lagged behind. Same with all other apple products made in the past decade plus.
But they sure know how to market them! How else do you explain a 12% market share on a device that's several years behind the competition? Despite their lack of functionality they're still managing to hold on to 3rd place in sales, that takes a skilled marketing department!
Something has changed. Allowing non-playstore apps is now assigned as a permission specific to each app. So you can let F-Droid install these apps without letting any other app do so.
That said, the Play store has so much more content, of much better quality apps, that really the only use for f-droid is for apps that Google doesn't approve of, like ad-blockers (if you want one that actually works, you won't find it on the play store)
Because the alternative is running a stick on a chunk of rock. There is no such thing as a trustworthy computer at this point. Even if you trust every bit of software you've installed, we keep seeing more and more proof that the hardware isn't trustworthy, and there are really no viable alternatives when it comes to CPUs, motherboards, and graphics cards.
Given that, you have to chose between the risks of some software that isn't as trustworthy as you might want, or running nothing at all. Being that you posted to slashdot, it seems you made the same choice as everyone else here in deciding to accept untrustworthy vs living in a cave.
Slashdot Mirror
That CLAIM to keep zero logs, how can you be sure? It certainly wouldn't be the first time a VPN that claimed not to log things was later found to log lots of things.
Thing is, speed is expected. We all know that devices get more powerful and faster every year. I can't congratulate a company for doing that because it's pretty much the baseline expectation.
On the other hand, there's no expectation that every year hardware features should vanish and that the phones should be able to do less with every release. Companies often lament that they have trouble differentiating themselves from their competitors, but then they make sure to do their best to make sure all phones have exactly the same features, and as close as possible to the same look. If you want to differentiate yourself, add a feature nobody else has, and then advertise it. I'll give some suggestions:
- user replaceable battery
- a back made of any material other than glass or polished metal (plastic can look fabulous if you texture it right, or go premium and do leather, or put a texture on your metal, or ANYTHING that allows someone to actually hold your phone!
- HDMI output (over USB-C is fine if you're concerned about space)
- IR transmitter
- an actual large screen instead of one that's just marketed that way (today's 6+ inch displays are actually smaller than the previous 5.7" displays because they're all super tall and narrow, fewer square inches, smaller full screen videos (with black bars on the side!)
- some new feature we haven't seen yet. Innovation was all the rage as recently as about 3 or 4 years ago, manufacturers would try new things and add new features. Stop trying to make your phone as boring a slab as possible, and start coming up with new and innovative things.
Why? to reward them for all the other horrible things they've done?
They've removed almost every feature they used to include on their devices (IR transmitters, HDMI output, SD card slots, user replaceable batteries, phones that weren't so slippery you couldn't hold them without a case, widest screens in the market) and instead given a slightly faster phone than their previous offerings, but because they didn't remove one more feature you think they deserve your loyalty?
Wow we've set the bar low these days!
My 4 year old phone had:
- HDMI output (MHL)
- IR transmitter
- User replaceable battery
- a wider screen than anything available on a smartphone today.
- a headphone jack
- SD card slot
- a textured back that looked gorgeous, and meant no case was needed because the phone wasn't so slippery it would fly out of your hand every time you tried to hold it.
Now the SD card slot and headphone jack are still available on some phones these days (though only a small handful), but basically all of the others are simply impossible to get now.
So I'm supposed to "upgrade" to what exactly? the only advantage the newer devices have is a small amount of speed. None of the new phones have any features that that one didn't have, there hasn't been a new feature added in at least 4 years. The only thing they do is increase the speed slightly while removing actual features and capabilities.
I really really wish that some manufacturer would bring back HDMI support. Almost all phones used to have it through MHL just a couple of years ago, but as they transition to USB C they've all decided to drop support for HDMI (and it's a simple choice, not a requirement as USB-C easily supports HDMI output)
To all those who say "just cast to the TV", Some of us prefer a solution that is cheap, simple, and actually works with ALL apps, ALL TVs, ALL the time. I find casting works with some TVs, some apps, some of the time, hardly a replacement. Not to mention the latency issues that absolutely kill it as a possibility for many applications.
If laws were clear, simple, and unambiguous, there wouldn't be much need for the legal profession.
And as neither the employer, nor the employees, drafted this law, "the party that did not draft it" is equally true of both parties, so your claim of siding with them is demonstrably false.
You assume that clarity was desired. Laws are written mostly by lawyers, if they are easy to understand, who will need the lawyers?
depends how over-engineered it was.
If the rocket is designed to reach orbit with 20 engines, but has 31, then 11 can fail and it still works, but if it was designed to reach orbit with 31 engines, and has 31 engines, then even a single failure means no go. Meanwhile that rocket with 5 may only need 3 to reach orbit, in which case 2 could die and it would be fine, or it could need all 5, and then if even one goes it doesn't get there.
Now many companies and organizations would put in whatever the minimum number is to achieve the mission result. It's certainly cheaper that way, but has zero redundancy. SpaceX decided to add extras in for redundancy.
The number of engines a rocket has means absolutely nothing if you don't also know the minimum number required to achieve the goal.
You have to remember that the secret courts can be both designed specifically to support breaking the law and ignoring the constitution, AND still be doing the right thing in any particular case. It's not an either/or proposition.
The sole goal of the secret courts is to allow the government to do things that would never be allowed if the public knew about them. There's no other reason for it to exist. That said, just because it was designed with the explicit purpose of doing illegal things, does not mean that everything it does is in fact to support illegal activity.
If I'm doing things I'm worried other people will find out about, and I hide only the suspect activities, people will quickly realize that any time I'm hiding something it's an activity I don't want people to see. If instead I hide ALL my activities, people will have no way of knowing which ones are routine things that I should be doing, and which ones are things I should not. Same idea here. If the secret court is only used for unconstitutional activities, it becomes too obvious too quickly. If instead it's used for everything, it's seen as just the way things are.
As for the real risks. The real risk in any government is always that those in charge want more power. No politician ever seems to vote to limit their own authority. It does appear that the current situation is even more extreme in this regard than most, but the fact that the american people have ignored the accumulating power in the hands of a single person for an incredibly long time is the real problem here.
It's funny that the USA is so proud of not being a monarchy or dictatorship, but there is no single person anywhere in the world with more power than the president of the USA. Not to mention that the office of president tends to be revered even more so than any monarch. Concentrating so much power in one place is the real "YUGE" problem.
So if they already do, then the method stated in the original article is 100% pointless. right?
You're still thinking about this from the wrong angle. If you rely on the advertisements to be known ahead of time, or the advertisement to include its own special signal stating that it is such, you've lost the battle completely. The only appropriate way is to identify legitimate users as opposed to identifying all possible illegitimate users. The method proposed here is completely incapable of dealing with any bad actor, whether that be in advertisement from a company that does not want to play nice, or even just a friend in your house who decides to play a prank on you.
This would be like securing your laptop with a screen that says are you a criminal? yes/no and expecting that no criminal could possibly get in.
In security the right answer is never to try to identify all possible bad actors, because you're bound to miss some. The correct response is always to try to positively identify the authorized users instead, because it's a much smaller pool to choose from and will automatically exclude all the bad actors, even the ones you didn't think of.
Please show me where I said Obama was not having power.
You're so rabidly in support of your team that you don't stop to think that they're ALL bad.
So if this is truly the case, why would they need the features listed in the article?
Either it only listens to the right voices, and therefore the features aren't needed, or it doesn't, in which case the features in the article are addressing the wrong problem.
The problem isn't that a specific ad can trigger this thing, the problem is that ANYBODY can trigger this thing.
If they actually cared about privacy, security, or the end users, they'd work hard on voiceprinting technologies so that it only responds to it's owner and nobody else. That would simultaneously solve this problem, as well as that of other malicious advertisers, and that of random drunk friend thinking it's funny to order hundreds of things with it.
Not that I think voiceprints are particularly secure or reliable, but it's infinitely more secure than what they have now.
And yet he hasn't done a thing to limit the power of his own office. Why's that?
This isn't a "Trump" thing, it's a "politician" thing, or even more broadly, a "human" thing. Nobody wants to curtail their own power.
How much of that limits HIS power?
He's curtailing other areas, not his own.
You see, abuse of power is bad when the other side is doing it, but it's great when you get to do it to others.
I've never met a politician that wanted LESS power.
I suspect that points more to an overall design feature of this type of surveillance system.
Sorry, had to fix that for you. If the goal wasn't to ignore the rule of law and do inappropriate things, the secret courts would have zero need to be secret in the first place.
Making data impossible to steal is easy. Being able to access it again once you've done so, that's the hard part!
What idiot would build a cash machine with a USB port on the OUTSIDE?????
Powerful means nothing if the features simply aren't there.
The MARKETING was revolutionary, the device, not so much.
iPhones have never been anywhere near the top of the curve for what they can do vs the competition of the time, they've always lagged behind. Same with all other apple products made in the past decade plus.
But they sure know how to market them! How else do you explain a 12% market share on a device that's several years behind the competition? Despite their lack of functionality they're still managing to hold on to 3rd place in sales, that takes a skilled marketing department!
Something has changed. Allowing non-playstore apps is now assigned as a permission specific to each app. So you can let F-Droid install these apps without letting any other app do so.
That said, the Play store has so much more content, of much better quality apps, that really the only use for f-droid is for apps that Google doesn't approve of, like ad-blockers (if you want one that actually works, you won't find it on the play store)
Because the alternative is running a stick on a chunk of rock. There is no such thing as a trustworthy computer at this point. Even if you trust every bit of software you've installed, we keep seeing more and more proof that the hardware isn't trustworthy, and there are really no viable alternatives when it comes to CPUs, motherboards, and graphics cards.
Given that, you have to chose between the risks of some software that isn't as trustworthy as you might want, or running nothing at all. Being that you posted to slashdot, it seems you made the same choice as everyone else here in deciding to accept untrustworthy vs living in a cave.
what will be left after you're done?
The rest of the world will be left.