Having lived most of my life without it, easily. I'd miss it, but I'd survive. I still remember how to do business via telephone and snail-mail. I still have most of my old reference books and the magazine publishers would spring back to life and bombard me with subscription offers. Bookstores would make a comeback. (And we'd revive the old dialup UUCP-based Usenet, of course.)
Television, record stores, and movies would be revitalized, but that doesn't matter to me.
A much more serious problem would be the reason that someone could and would do such a thing.
...10 TB drives will be $10? More likely, 100TB drives will be $100 but you won't be able to get anything smaller. And they'll still crap out after a couple of years.
While this may lead to suboptimal decisions in individual cases it is rational behavior for animals with finite intelligence and limited and unreliable information (i.e., us). This behavior has evolved because, in the general case, it works.
I think most organizations would run into similar problems if ordered to prove that they had destroyed all copies of some specific data. This is much harder than rendering it inaccessible by normal methods.
> What brainless clod would leave a laptop with sensitive data on it lying > around in a hotel room anyway, encrypted disk or not?
Any "C-level" executive. After all, he played golf with a senior marketing executive of the encryption system vendor just last week and was assured that it was absolutely secure. And he knows that's true because he is such a fine judge of character. Besides, the guy let him win.
There are many possible solutions, but they all involve actually thinking through the the problem rather than blindly purchasing an off-the-shelf "solution" from the vendor with the smoothest salesman.
> No calls recorded before that time would be admissible in court...
Recordings of lawyer-client conversations are already inadmissible. The problem is that there are plenty of ways for the prosecution to use them that do not involve producing them in court or even admitting that they exist.
Yes. Knowing that the prosecution might be listening, the defendant will be afraid to speak frankly to his lawyer. This will result in inadequate defense and consequently to the conviction of innocent people.
> If the individual countries in Europe decided to keep their sovereignty...
"Sovereignty"? Didn't I recently read about discussions in Brussels of how to remove a certain head of state because he had the effrontry not to do as he was told and sign the Lisbon treaty?
Convenience and incompetence. They want to be able to run scripts to update/reconfigure all the modems and this is the first method that occured to them. Being stupid, they didn't think it through.
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent plan. Trouble is, no plan ever survives contact with the enemy.
> All it would take is one really bad Windows Update to turn off 70% of the
> Internet.
Yes but we're discussing the part that would actually be missed.
> I doubt I'd actually be in a foxhole (that sort of implies you're fighting by
> the other side's rules)...
Having dirt between you and the bullets is good.
Having lived most of my life without it, easily. I'd miss it, but I'd survive. I still remember how to do business via telephone and snail-mail. I still have most of my old reference books and the magazine publishers would spring back to life and bombard me with subscription offers. Bookstores would make a comeback.
(And we'd revive the old dialup UUCP-based Usenet, of course.)
Television, record stores, and movies would be revitalized, but that doesn't matter to me.
A much more serious problem would be the reason that someone could and would do such a thing.
Trouble is, at most places the "Security Empowerment Bat" is made out of marshmellow.
...10 TB drives will be $10? More likely, 100TB drives will be $100 but you won't be able to get anything smaller. And they'll still crap out after a couple of years.
...about computer security? Those work so well.
How about not putting sensitive data on laptops at all?
It makes little sense to speak of "agreeing" with a scientific study.
While this may lead to suboptimal decisions in individual cases it is rational behavior for animals with finite intelligence and limited and unreliable information (i.e., us). This behavior has evolved because, in the general case, it works.
Doesn't that violate EU "data privacy" laws?
After all, why would we want engineers designing bridges to be conservative about safety margins?
Where did you get the idea that these guys are libertatians?
I think most organizations would run into similar problems if ordered to prove that they had destroyed all copies of some specific data. This is much harder than rendering it inaccessible by normal methods.
> What brainless clod would leave a laptop with sensitive data on it lying
> around in a hotel room anyway, encrypted disk or not?
Any "C-level" executive. After all, he played golf with a senior marketing executive of the encryption system vendor just last week and was assured that it was absolutely secure. And he knows that's true because he is such a fine judge of character. Besides, the guy let him win.
There are many possible solutions, but they all involve actually thinking through the the problem rather than blindly purchasing an off-the-shelf "solution" from the vendor with the smoothest salesman.
> No calls recorded before that time would be admissible in court...
Recordings of lawyer-client conversations are already inadmissible. The problem is that there are plenty of ways for the prosecution to use them that do not involve producing them in court or even admitting that they exist.
Yes. Knowing that the prosecution might be listening, the defendant will be afraid to speak frankly to his lawyer. This will result in inadequate defense and consequently to the conviction of innocent people.
The actual press release does not claim that they "made a chip". That's a fabrication of the ComputerWorld reporter.
> When will the so called international companies really view the world as one
> big market and 'do the right thing'.
Perhaps when governments do likewise?
> If the individual countries in Europe decided to keep their sovereignty...
"Sovereignty"? Didn't I recently read about discussions in Brussels of how to remove a certain head of state because he had the effrontry not to do as he was told and sign the Lisbon treaty?
Why not a boycott of those actually enacting these laws?
So when are you filing your lawsuit?
Or just wait for the new firmware and hack that: it will be just as bad.
Convenience and incompetence. They want to be able to run scripts to update/reconfigure all the modems and this is the first method that occured to them. Being stupid, they didn't think it through.