This is interesting news, I didn't know Russia demanded this, but I guess they wised up before, well, the US.
I do love the tongue-in-cheek from McAfee: they're blatantly trying to get the Kaspersky US market with the patriotic card by exiting the Russian one, and going backwards on the exact thing Kaspersky has stated they would allow from US!
Now, in all seriousness - does McAfee really think they are gonna catch any market with this? Does anyone with a 2 digit IQ still install McAfee?
So basically, commercial software, namely an antivirus, proceeded as intended (detected malicious/suspicious code). Nothing new.
Then the Russian gov., just like the US or the UK govs. pulled that software/information based on the principle of screwing anyone's privacy (especially foreigners) over national security concerns (which when you look at it from an impartial point of view, like me (someone who literally stands between both countries in western Europe), it's a contextually solid argument, even though I am completely opposed to this relegation of privacy to second place. This is also not new, and the US knows this happens frequently. They know it because they also do it. How many Sillicon Valley corps. are sueing the US gov. to prevent just that? (Well, Microsoft just dropped it because, well, the government had a bad case and decided to pull back).
At least they're not loading Linksys hardware with trojans for deployment to China and Russia's top tier installations.
Seems like a very plausible explanation from Kaspersky, clearly not at fault, and will be a clear case of hypocrisy by whichever government decides to slander private business of the company. Not only is the government at fault (that was bad BAD behavior from the employee, unless he was whistleblowing something, like Snowden), but they also do this.
Demand local servers, just like Brasil did to Facebook, if you are worried about your info being offshored to jurisidictions you can't control the full chain of behavior.
Well the argument kinda got out of hand but I admit to agreeing with you to a level. Not only because I am a (non-practising) Roman Catholic myself, but especially by contrast: you can, lightheartedly, indeed say Catholicism is "pro-science" when comparing to most other religions. Do note most of my rant was tongue in cheek - I am pragmatic above all and my initial comment was never meant to be about religion, but a mild attempt at attention with the Big J word.
And about the Inquisition, the feeling around here (Portugal I might add, a very close country to those events) is that it was an oppressive movement against different forms of thinking, including logic and creativity (what we now call STEAM fields), but also paganism (witches) and of course other religions. The curch wasn't really "against" anything specifically, it was simply too much "for" itself and that required muting everything else.
More recently though, religions (including Catholicism) prefer to go the charismatic and reverse psychology way by embracing different ideologies, since that's the only way they can accept AND inceitivize a STEAM-educated audience. It's not much different from politics, and that is both a good and a bad thing. I believe "faith", or belief, whatever you wanna call it has a place in human society much like democracy, education, equality, ethics... and I do believe they can be compatible in theory. But much like socialism/communism, there really hasn't been a scenario it thrived in the real world.
I love Xiaomi. Yet none of their cheap phones have bezel-less displays, and their Mix phones always have shortcomings. No uSD and jack come to mind, or waterproofing. OLED neither. They still don't have an available 8GB RAM device other than the non-existing Mix 2 Special Edition.
And all of their phones, with the mild exception of the Mi A1, have a horrible Android experience called MIUI and make it very VERY hard to unlock the bootloader, with antics involving VPNs to China, PC Connection shenanigans, asking pretty please in their site, meddling with variable phone settings, sometimes all of the above, sometimes even impossible to do (non-global versions).
Motorola and Nokia are out of the radar. They don't even compare to the specs or price ranges we are looking at in this discussion.
Fair point on that 2nd paragraph, especially to non-AV-savvy like me. But I'd like to point out that the Windows Defender (3rd paragraph) point doesn't make much sense after the grain of salt - nobody that cares for security (mostly sysadmins/or the "IT crowd") will ever consider stalling the OS support lifecycle (i.e. disable updates), but they will push them to non-office or downtime periods (weekends?), already posing a naive defense in itself from Microsoft's control.
Having standardized definitions is well and good, but marketing stunts aside, commercial AVs offer something that's not just a flavor of Defender - like the delivery system for definitions, or the scripts that clean viruses themselves which will never be standardized like, allow me the analogy, generic drugs (medication). Consumer choice is still a primary concern for anyone that even pretends to care about performance or security, and the consumer has to pick the right tool for his job. What the consumer doesn't need is state-sponsored "advice" that is nothing short of abuse of power for finantial or pollitical gain. Speculation (which without source code, it's all they got) is defamatory no matter who the source is.
Many around here would still prefer to pay full price if it brought them a headphone jack, replaceable battery, uSD support, IP67 or above, dual SIM and OLED tech, and maybe 2-4 extra GB of RAM. Hell, I bet they would even pay iPhone X 256GB numbers.
Now seriously, with all of the above, that would make this a perfect phone.Not just essential.
Very simple question really - and I am biased towards Kaspersky's side on this argument - what is the assurance that the user-facing builds will be based solely on the reviewed code?
I am all in for transparency, especially in scenarios where there are serious accusations and serious finantial/security/privacy implications. But transparency cannot be dust in the eyes (is this a right use for the idiom?).
I never hear of them singling out any specific teaching other than the fact they like to keep their churches very "patriotic" (not only Catholicism/Christianity but all their sanctioned religions), and they will go big lengths to make people renounce the authority of external Pontifs or whatever religious leaders are called for each religion. I guess the invasion of Tibet and/or the big Dalai Lama issue might be their most obvious attempt at that.
In any case, I bet the only second comings they would sanction would likely be from the 'ism boys (Marx, Lenin, Mao, et al).
Would he? Isn't science Chatolicism enemy no.1? Weren't his last words dedicated to putting up a good word with Big G because we didn't know what we were doing?
Granted, we are a bigger audience than back in 33 DC. I would love to share your opinion, but a real saviour would not have asked to neglect our ignorance, he would have requested for us to be illuminated universally. Yet the wisest man around himself admits the only thing larger than our universe is our own stupidity (a synonim for ignorance).
2 thousand years later with all this technology and we still fail to agree on core values, even when contained geographically or religiously. Free will and free speech don't seem to work that well when there is ubiquitous bullshitters.
You have the EU telling Facebook to do more to prevent terrorism-related propaganda.
You have paid entities flooding the web with news outlets that are biased, bespoke or even blind zealots working with ficticious or manipulated facts.
You have social web and big data companies getting dividends to publicize politicaly loaded interests or from selling unfair, unregulated demographic info, from every and any political wing.
You have state and corporate interests undermining individuality, basically nullifying democracy.
You have capitalism ethics that free and prioritize organizations (vs individuals) for societal development, and communist ethics that have to restrict individuals at scale in order to provide equality and prevent monopolies other than the state itself.
You have a speculation industry oligarch undermining democracy with ignorance, hate and nepotism, an intelligence service top-tier undermining democracy with extremism and despotism, and a single party president in a non-democracy going the cult of personality route, all of them making use of censorship, oppression and counter-information for consolidation of power.
Now, you telling me Google, who just happenned to recently decide would re-enter the chinese market again, doing chinese state a favor is newsworthy? Who da fck cares, it's business as usual.
I'm not even mad because in the long run, having Google in China might prove a lot more beneficial to any social improvement there than having a youtuber sham the state leader to foreigners who don't give two shits about what's going on in southeast Asia (at least not away from a keyboard).
So what would Jesus do here? Nobody has a clue, but everyone would have an opinion. And for any believers out there, have you ever stopped to consider the reason there wasn't a 2nd coming is because we would be too fucking judgemental on anything any so-called savior would do? I personally think he's looking down and thinking "they don't need another me, they already settled for mediocrity and the immediate satisfaction of ubiquitous attention-grabing. I am no match for the internet".
I guess that must be the reason why everybody that doesn't have corporate interests hates stuff like instant apps or the web version of stupid services like Spotify, Gmail and whatever on their phones. And I would argue Apple, Microsoft and everybody that doesn't rely entirely on the cloud for their core have a thing to say about that. But keep fooling yourself on that javascript-based future bubble you think everybody will be living in 10 years from now. I bet by then we will have performance to make javascript efficient for things that are effectively CPU-cheap these days...
You're thinking much the same way some people still believe the JVM can ever become efficient. Interoperability and platform-agnosticism comes at a cost. There will always be a place for custom MCUs, embedded software, native OS code and library-dependant apps. Running a browser in any platform was from inception a way to get information to people in human-readable form. The fact it evolved to including client-side-running clutter is not only a design flaw, it is also whishfull thinking by people that don't want to mold themselves to the benefits of different platforms.
Chrome is a browser. We live in an age where some people (notoriously Google) think browsers needs to run full fledged apps in a sense they must take advantage of modern processing power. That is just wrong - websites are nowadays supposed to be much more technically sophisticated, and yet, consequentially much LESS demanding with things like the quai-extinction of flash and the advent of HTML5. In any case, 100%, or even 20% is not uncommon on "harmless" websites and this would induce in many false positives, many more than can be tolerable by any non-savvy user and this egregious, overzealous measure would still fire back.
I would also argue that there are more idely available paramters than CPU/GPU load to infer activity on tab X as distributed processing - frequent/constant outbound communication for instance, packet sniffing (you know, like ISPs do for traffic shapping) or identifying very specific calculation traits going on the local logical units. There are ways that, much like an antivirus, can detect suspicious behavior, patterns of processing other than raw usage, and it doesn't take a genius to figure those out.
Given this, don't be egregious from the start, but be incisive. I bet there are capable enough minds at Google that can easily discern many more and much less abstract ways for doing this than I described.
Yes but that is intrinsic to encryption itself and has nothing to do with what I propose to help encrypted mail services interop.
In any case, we all know, for decades now, that there is no 100% trade-off-less encryption, even fingerprints, facial expressions, voice, can either be altered, faked or even lost (!!!). People even forget passwords, especially the more secure they try to make them increasing cognitive difficulty in memorizing them.
"Dodging Russian Spies..." not only sounds like "Dodgy Russian Spies", but it also presents a reason before an actual fact on a news/article/post header. This is a perfect example of psychologically loaded news, more even so than clickbait but it actually also is clickbait as they go for the "cold-warish" juicy part of the topic first.
Now seriously, stop doing titles like this, and don't enable them by allowing such stuff verbatim on slashdot from the original biased, flawed source.
I would argue that E2Email can, in the future, allow users to dynamically interact with email recipients that both use and don't use E2Email themselves (obviously, with those who don't use it, communication will not be encrypted). It just needs access to a service that, when queried with a recipient, will state if recipient is using it or not. Something like Signal or Whatsapp do with phone numbers.
Of course this brings other problems to the table, being a centralized service, like impersonating the service, or worse, impersonating recipients to that service in order to flag them as encryption-using thus preventing data decription of messages on their end. But I believe most of these should be easily solvable.
Yes, my super expensive (10 bucks) multicolor, dimmable led lamp, which can (emphasis "can", on/off still on the wall) be controlled by my phone and will even play music that I stream to it. As opposed to having a hundreds of bucks installation of dimmers, and I won't even go to the cost of wall control panels for color. Welcome to 2017. BAM!
Nevertheless, that's your phone, that's your needs. No argument there. Now assistants? I never mentioned those. Those will take years before they become useful AND usable.
Last I heard, Amazon Echo or was it Google Home was used to dial 911 automatically and saved a life. That happenned because someone agreed for anonymous usage data which, like psychologists, can also be enforced to break privacy for the greater good. I'm not saying I agree, I'm saying there is a collective argument ongoing, just like the dangers of incoming AI singularity, and your opinion or mine aren't the the only ones worth caring for.
Bu once again, I don't have to bother on privacy or security. I simply decide not to because I do things willing and knowingly. It's a perk from: 1. having an education and living in a half decent society, not to call it nation because I don't really put that much thought into nationalism and shit like people with flagpoles on their porches do; and 2. I don't consider myself that important, nor am I so stupid as to not read the fucking manual of whatever banking app or payment system my phone happens to support. Just imagine if the day the first guy got a credit card, deciding it was dangerous to take it outside he just left it home whenever he wouldn't feel to use it. Then his kid, who just happened to want a BRAND NEW CAMARO picked it up. Or his gardener, I think you get the point.
I use to think trendy stuff wasn't worth the overhead too. Then I removed my head from my ass, and remembered my life is actually this well right now because I had a time in my life where I gave a fuck about trying new things. I bet you had that too, or else a camera on a phone wouldn't be important. Nor wifi. Nor audio jack
so I'm guessing you hunt all your food too. And you dug your own well for fresh water, or got lucky enough to live near drinkable water. Oh all the fuzzes of societal evolution keeping us from the joys of the past...
In contrast: you already breath automatically; and baths were much less frequent some decades ago; and you didn't even brush your teeth (which you now can chose to use electrical brushes too); taking children to school? You must mean pre-school right? Because if you have to work on location all day, it must be that you can't have meetings or multi-task through a smart(er) phone? By 1st grade they'll likely be picked up by buses; do I even need to mention the amount of jobs that didn't disappear but morphed since the industrial revolution? According to most specialists, evolution isn't trivializing jobs, it is simply making the physically and psychologically strenuous ones better, and getting people where it matters instead of where they feel accustomed. But of course, old dog can't learn new tricks. Or can they?
The fact I don't see apps tells me 2 things: someone hasn't used a phone this decade, and that sums up the multitude of essential things that are on the bottom list, like the first 3 and Bluetooth.
There is a reason the GPS market is down, and that's because of smartphone navigation now being better than single-purpose devices. Miles better. There's a reason the non-slr digital camera market has been obliterated, and that's the ubiquitous High Quality cameraphone. "The best camera is the camera you have with you all the time" - random professional photographer blog I can't recall the name.
There's a reason the radio market is also going down the drain, and that's because Spotify or whatever music service running on your phone connects to your car using bluetooth, while also providing you hands-free calls and navigation audio cues. Have you ever used a smart bracelet/watch/band? Bluetooth. Have you ever used wireless headphones? Bluetooth. Have you ever used any smart sensors/devices like HRMs, scales, sphygmomanometers, oximeters, cadence counters, power meters, foot pods, bicycle computers, lamps, speakers, KEYBOARDS, MOUSES, VAPING MODS, AUDIO ROUTERS?....... (breathing deeply).... Bluetooth (and very rarely Wifi)
Oh, and fingerprint scanning. We don't use phones for paying things much this side of the pond, but even here we appreciate something better than a pin or pattern, and avoiding a power button click for screen-on. Then again, we don't have a Big Brother government (that we know of) and have to constantly think about conspiracy theories. Anyway, now I can say people like my grandparents CAN use a locked phone, through fingerprint scanners, but would never think about a pin or password. Due to this, both me and them, and even the couple among themselves exchange emails and whatsapp chats, with sensitive information such as home bills, bank stuff, family photos much easier, and with confidence of its safety. You are probably less old than they are, yet you are still stuck in the past. Once upon a time, Slashdot was a place for forward-thinkers, but now, despite still loving it, it starts to feel a bit like the "geriatric programmers club" or "70's born geekden" - IT-centric guys who are past mid-life and no longer care for any type of comfort zone violation. And I bet they're gonna blame it all on their kids providing too much fuss or the cheesy they think of new generation trends.
Back to the list, most of what you list as "need" is definitely essential. Although I've learned to live without an sd card (that cable argument you used pretty much sums it, I also prefer cable, because I have terabytes on my many PCs) or even though I rarely ever need battery mid-day, I long lost the weird sense of comfort that replaceable batteries once provided. Brands won't charge much more for replacement service than the risk's worth of going through self-repair, and by the time I need a new battery I'll probably already want the latest chipset and RAM anyway - I'm now using my phone more than all of my PCs combined, so it matters, and it's still less than I spend on ANY PC. Likely everyone else that bothered to give modern smartphones will agree on that.
Slashdot Mirror
Another fair point indeed.
If that is true it makes me cringe a bit. But then again Kaspersky use induced in stolen info so I digress...
Yeah you have a fair point!
This is interesting news, I didn't know Russia demanded this, but I guess they wised up before, well, the US.
I do love the tongue-in-cheek from McAfee: they're blatantly trying to get the Kaspersky US market with the patriotic card by exiting the Russian one, and going backwards on the exact thing Kaspersky has stated they would allow from US!
Now, in all seriousness - does McAfee really think they are gonna catch any market with this? Does anyone with a 2 digit IQ still install McAfee?
So basically, commercial software, namely an antivirus, proceeded as intended (detected malicious/suspicious code). Nothing new.
Then the Russian gov., just like the US or the UK govs. pulled that software/information based on the principle of screwing anyone's privacy (especially foreigners) over national security concerns (which when you look at it from an impartial point of view, like me (someone who literally stands between both countries in western Europe), it's a contextually solid argument, even though I am completely opposed to this relegation of privacy to second place. This is also not new, and the US knows this happens frequently. They know it because they also do it. How many Sillicon Valley corps. are sueing the US gov. to prevent just that? (Well, Microsoft just dropped it because, well, the government had a bad case and decided to pull back).
At least they're not loading Linksys hardware with trojans for deployment to China and Russia's top tier installations.
Seems like a very plausible explanation from Kaspersky, clearly not at fault, and will be a clear case of hypocrisy by whichever government decides to slander private business of the company. Not only is the government at fault (that was bad BAD behavior from the employee, unless he was whistleblowing something, like Snowden), but they also do this.
Demand local servers, just like Brasil did to Facebook, if you are worried about your info being offshored to jurisidictions you can't control the full chain of behavior.
You sound like the type of person who would "defend" his rights from the top of a hotel room in Las Vegas.
Well the argument kinda got out of hand but I admit to agreeing with you to a level. Not only because I am a (non-practising) Roman Catholic myself, but especially by contrast: you can, lightheartedly, indeed say Catholicism is "pro-science" when comparing to most other religions. Do note most of my rant was tongue in cheek - I am pragmatic above all and my initial comment was never meant to be about religion, but a mild attempt at attention with the Big J word.
And about the Inquisition, the feeling around here (Portugal I might add, a very close country to those events) is that it was an oppressive movement against different forms of thinking, including logic and creativity (what we now call STEAM fields), but also paganism (witches) and of course other religions. The curch wasn't really "against" anything specifically, it was simply too much "for" itself and that required muting everything else.
More recently though, religions (including Catholicism) prefer to go the charismatic and reverse psychology way by embracing different ideologies, since that's the only way they can accept AND inceitivize a STEAM-educated audience. It's not much different from politics, and that is both a good and a bad thing. I believe "faith", or belief, whatever you wanna call it has a place in human society much like democracy, education, equality, ethics... and I do believe they can be compatible in theory. But much like socialism/communism, there really hasn't been a scenario it thrived in the real world.
Let's just forget the inquisition ever took place. Should I even mention Galileo? Creationism?
The church has "embraced" science so as to cope with it, since, you know, killing people is no longer that easy.
I love Xiaomi. Yet none of their cheap phones have bezel-less displays, and their Mix phones always have shortcomings. No uSD and jack come to mind, or waterproofing. OLED neither. They still don't have an available 8GB RAM device other than the non-existing Mix 2 Special Edition.
And all of their phones, with the mild exception of the Mi A1, have a horrible Android experience called MIUI and make it very VERY hard to unlock the bootloader, with antics involving VPNs to China, PC Connection shenanigans, asking pretty please in their site, meddling with variable phone settings, sometimes all of the above, sometimes even impossible to do (non-global versions).
Motorola and Nokia are out of the radar. They don't even compare to the specs or price ranges we are looking at in this discussion.
Fair point on that 2nd paragraph, especially to non-AV-savvy like me. But I'd like to point out that the Windows Defender (3rd paragraph) point doesn't make much sense after the grain of salt - nobody that cares for security (mostly sysadmins/or the "IT crowd") will ever consider stalling the OS support lifecycle (i.e. disable updates), but they will push them to non-office or downtime periods (weekends?), already posing a naive defense in itself from Microsoft's control.
Having standardized definitions is well and good, but marketing stunts aside, commercial AVs offer something that's not just a flavor of Defender - like the delivery system for definitions, or the scripts that clean viruses themselves which will never be standardized like, allow me the analogy, generic drugs (medication). Consumer choice is still a primary concern for anyone that even pretends to care about performance or security, and the consumer has to pick the right tool for his job. What the consumer doesn't need is state-sponsored "advice" that is nothing short of abuse of power for finantial or pollitical gain. Speculation (which without source code, it's all they got) is defamatory no matter who the source is.
Many around here would still prefer to pay full price if it brought them a headphone jack, replaceable battery, uSD support, IP67 or above, dual SIM and OLED tech, and maybe 2-4 extra GB of RAM. Hell, I bet they would even pay iPhone X 256GB numbers.
Now seriously, with all of the above, that would make this a perfect phone.Not just essential.
Very simple question really - and I am biased towards Kaspersky's side on this argument - what is the assurance that the user-facing builds will be based solely on the reviewed code?
I am all in for transparency, especially in scenarios where there are serious accusations and serious finantial/security/privacy implications. But transparency cannot be dust in the eyes (is this a right use for the idiom?).
Someone get some papyrus. This needs to be made to scripture, stat.
Damn right!
I have to admit I laughed hard on "jesus years".
I never hear of them singling out any specific teaching other than the fact they like to keep their churches very "patriotic" (not only Catholicism/Christianity but all their sanctioned religions), and they will go big lengths to make people renounce the authority of external Pontifs or whatever religious leaders are called for each religion. I guess the invasion of Tibet and/or the big Dalai Lama issue might be their most obvious attempt at that.
In any case, I bet the only second comings they would sanction would likely be from the 'ism boys (Marx, Lenin, Mao, et al).
Would he? Isn't science Chatolicism enemy no.1? Weren't his last words dedicated to putting up a good word with Big G because we didn't know what we were doing?
Granted, we are a bigger audience than back in 33 DC. I would love to share your opinion, but a real saviour would not have asked to neglect our ignorance, he would have requested for us to be illuminated universally. Yet the wisest man around himself admits the only thing larger than our universe is our own stupidity (a synonim for ignorance).
2 thousand years later with all this technology and we still fail to agree on core values, even when contained geographically or religiously. Free will and free speech don't seem to work that well when there is ubiquitous bullshitters.
You have the EU telling Facebook to do more to prevent terrorism-related propaganda.
You have paid entities flooding the web with news outlets that are biased, bespoke or even blind zealots working with ficticious or manipulated facts.
You have social web and big data companies getting dividends to publicize politicaly loaded interests or from selling unfair, unregulated demographic info, from every and any political wing.
You have state and corporate interests undermining individuality, basically nullifying democracy.
You have capitalism ethics that free and prioritize organizations (vs individuals) for societal development, and communist ethics that have to restrict individuals at scale in order to provide equality and prevent monopolies other than the state itself.
You have a speculation industry oligarch undermining democracy with ignorance, hate and nepotism, an intelligence service top-tier undermining democracy with extremism and despotism, and a single party president in a non-democracy going the cult of personality route, all of them making use of censorship, oppression and counter-information for consolidation of power.
Now, you telling me Google, who just happenned to recently decide would re-enter the chinese market again, doing chinese state a favor is newsworthy? Who da fck cares, it's business as usual.
I'm not even mad because in the long run, having Google in China might prove a lot more beneficial to any social improvement there than having a youtuber sham the state leader to foreigners who don't give two shits about what's going on in southeast Asia (at least not away from a keyboard).
So what would Jesus do here? Nobody has a clue, but everyone would have an opinion. And for any believers out there, have you ever stopped to consider the reason there wasn't a 2nd coming is because we would be too fucking judgemental on anything any so-called savior would do? I personally think he's looking down and thinking "they don't need another me, they already settled for mediocrity and the immediate satisfaction of ubiquitous attention-grabing. I am no match for the internet".
I guess that must be the reason why everybody that doesn't have corporate interests hates stuff like instant apps or the web version of stupid services like Spotify, Gmail and whatever on their phones. And I would argue Apple, Microsoft and everybody that doesn't rely entirely on the cloud for their core have a thing to say about that. But keep fooling yourself on that javascript-based future bubble you think everybody will be living in 10 years from now. I bet by then we will have performance to make javascript efficient for things that are effectively CPU-cheap these days...
You're thinking much the same way some people still believe the JVM can ever become efficient. Interoperability and platform-agnosticism comes at a cost. There will always be a place for custom MCUs, embedded software, native OS code and library-dependant apps. Running a browser in any platform was from inception a way to get information to people in human-readable form. The fact it evolved to including client-side-running clutter is not only a design flaw, it is also whishfull thinking by people that don't want to mold themselves to the benefits of different platforms.
Chrome is a browser. We live in an age where some people (notoriously Google) think browsers needs to run full fledged apps in a sense they must take advantage of modern processing power. That is just wrong - websites are nowadays supposed to be much more technically sophisticated, and yet, consequentially much LESS demanding with things like the quai-extinction of flash and the advent of HTML5. In any case, 100%, or even 20% is not uncommon on "harmless" websites and this would induce in many false positives, many more than can be tolerable by any non-savvy user and this egregious, overzealous measure would still fire back.
I would also argue that there are more idely available paramters than CPU/GPU load to infer activity on tab X as distributed processing - frequent/constant outbound communication for instance, packet sniffing (you know, like ISPs do for traffic shapping) or identifying very specific calculation traits going on the local logical units. There are ways that, much like an antivirus, can detect suspicious behavior, patterns of processing other than raw usage, and it doesn't take a genius to figure those out.
Given this, don't be egregious from the start, but be incisive. I bet there are capable enough minds at Google that can easily discern many more and much less abstract ways for doing this than I described.
Yes but that is intrinsic to encryption itself and has nothing to do with what I propose to help encrypted mail services interop.
In any case, we all know, for decades now, that there is no 100% trade-off-less encryption, even fingerprints, facial expressions, voice, can either be altered, faked or even lost (!!!). People even forget passwords, especially the more secure they try to make them increasing cognitive difficulty in memorizing them.
"Dodging Russian Spies..." not only sounds like "Dodgy Russian Spies", but it also presents a reason before an actual fact on a news/article/post header. This is a perfect example of psychologically loaded news, more even so than clickbait but it actually also is clickbait as they go for the "cold-warish" juicy part of the topic first.
Now seriously, stop doing titles like this, and don't enable them by allowing such stuff verbatim on slashdot from the original biased, flawed source.
Very nice comment!
I would argue that E2Email can, in the future, allow users to dynamically interact with email recipients that both use and don't use E2Email themselves (obviously, with those who don't use it, communication will not be encrypted). It just needs access to a service that, when queried with a recipient, will state if recipient is using it or not. Something like Signal or Whatsapp do with phone numbers.
Of course this brings other problems to the table, being a centralized service, like impersonating the service, or worse, impersonating recipients to that service in order to flag them as encryption-using thus preventing data decription of messages on their end. But I believe most of these should be easily solvable.
Yes, my super expensive (10 bucks) multicolor, dimmable led lamp, which can (emphasis "can", on/off still on the wall) be controlled by my phone and will even play music that I stream to it. As opposed to having a hundreds of bucks installation of dimmers, and I won't even go to the cost of wall control panels for color. Welcome to 2017. BAM!
Nevertheless, that's your phone, that's your needs. No argument there. Now assistants? I never mentioned those. Those will take years before they become useful AND usable.
Last I heard, Amazon Echo or was it Google Home was used to dial 911 automatically and saved a life. That happenned because someone agreed for anonymous usage data which, like psychologists, can also be enforced to break privacy for the greater good. I'm not saying I agree, I'm saying there is a collective argument ongoing, just like the dangers of incoming AI singularity, and your opinion or mine aren't the the only ones worth caring for.
Bu once again, I don't have to bother on privacy or security. I simply decide not to because I do things willing and knowingly. It's a perk from: 1. having an education and living in a half decent society, not to call it nation because I don't really put that much thought into nationalism and shit like people with flagpoles on their porches do; and 2. I don't consider myself that important, nor am I so stupid as to not read the fucking manual of whatever banking app or payment system my phone happens to support. Just imagine if the day the first guy got a credit card, deciding it was dangerous to take it outside he just left it home whenever he wouldn't feel to use it. Then his kid, who just happened to want a BRAND NEW CAMARO picked it up. Or his gardener, I think you get the point.
I use to think trendy stuff wasn't worth the overhead too. Then I removed my head from my ass, and remembered my life is actually this well right now because I had a time in my life where I gave a fuck about trying new things. I bet you had that too, or else a camera on a phone wouldn't be important. Nor wifi. Nor audio jack
so I'm guessing you hunt all your food too. And you dug your own well for fresh water, or got lucky enough to live near drinkable water. Oh all the fuzzes of societal evolution keeping us from the joys of the past...
In contrast: you already breath automatically; and baths were much less frequent some decades ago; and you didn't even brush your teeth (which you now can chose to use electrical brushes too); taking children to school? You must mean pre-school right? Because if you have to work on location all day, it must be that you can't have meetings or multi-task through a smart(er) phone? By 1st grade they'll likely be picked up by buses; do I even need to mention the amount of jobs that didn't disappear but morphed since the industrial revolution? According to most specialists, evolution isn't trivializing jobs, it is simply making the physically and psychologically strenuous ones better, and getting people where it matters instead of where they feel accustomed. But of course, old dog can't learn new tricks. Or can they?
The fact I don't see apps tells me 2 things: someone hasn't used a phone this decade, and that sums up the multitude of essential things that are on the bottom list, like the first 3 and Bluetooth.
There is a reason the GPS market is down, and that's because of smartphone navigation now being better than single-purpose devices. Miles better.
There's a reason the non-slr digital camera market has been obliterated, and that's the ubiquitous High Quality cameraphone. "The best camera is the camera you have with you all the time" - random professional photographer blog I can't recall the name.
There's a reason the radio market is also going down the drain, and that's because Spotify or whatever music service running on your phone
connects to your car using bluetooth, while also providing you hands-free calls and navigation audio cues.
Have you ever used a smart bracelet/watch/band? Bluetooth. Have you ever used wireless headphones? Bluetooth. Have you ever used any smart sensors/devices like HRMs, scales, sphygmomanometers, oximeters, cadence counters, power meters, foot pods, bicycle computers, lamps, speakers, KEYBOARDS, MOUSES, VAPING MODS, AUDIO ROUTERS?....... (breathing deeply).... Bluetooth (and very rarely Wifi)
Oh, and fingerprint scanning. We don't use phones for paying things much this side of the pond, but even here we appreciate something better than a pin or pattern, and avoiding a power button click for screen-on. Then again, we don't have a Big Brother government (that we know of) and have to constantly think about conspiracy theories. Anyway, now I can say people like my grandparents CAN use a locked phone, through fingerprint scanners, but would never think about a pin or password. Due to this, both me and them, and even the couple among themselves exchange emails and whatsapp chats, with sensitive information such as home bills, bank stuff, family photos much easier, and with confidence of its safety. You are probably less old than they are, yet you are still stuck in the past. Once upon a time, Slashdot was a place for forward-thinkers, but now, despite still loving it, it starts to feel a bit like the "geriatric programmers club" or "70's born geekden" - IT-centric guys who are past mid-life and no longer care for any type of comfort zone violation. And I bet they're gonna blame it all on their kids providing too much fuss or the cheesy they think of new generation trends.
Back to the list, most of what you list as "need" is definitely essential. Although I've learned to live without an sd card (that cable argument you used pretty much sums it, I also prefer cable, because I have terabytes on my many PCs) or even though I rarely ever need battery mid-day, I long lost the weird sense of comfort that replaceable batteries once provided. Brands won't charge much more for replacement service than the risk's worth of going through self-repair, and by the time I need a new battery I'll probably already want the latest chipset and RAM anyway - I'm now using my phone more than all of my PCs combined, so it matters, and it's still less than I spend on ANY PC. Likely everyone else that bothered to give modern smartphones will agree on that.