Terrorists don't need to know which plane they shoot down. Just pick a big one.
Assassins don't want to kill hundreds of people as collateral damage because they don't want to motivate law enfocement more than absolutely necessary.
There is no reason to use this app for targeting planes.
This law isn't to prevent you from taking pictures. Its to make it harder to take pictures with a very specific class of devices without being noticed.
The problem with this approach is that cell phone cameras are improving in quality. In a few years they will be good enough that many people will want to use them as their only camera.
Now imagine a wedding ceremony with 200 beeping cameras.
I used to look forward to reading what he had to say - in the 1990's. Now when I see these articles about what the almightly Bruce Schneier says I cringe.
You cringe because he keeps saying the same things over and over again.
He keeps saying the same things over and over again because people keep making the same dumb mistakes over and over again.
If your computer is really full of files from "random sources," then I guess you have no reasonable expectation of privacy for the data on your computer?
Why not?
Outgoing data might breach my privacy.
Incoming data does not breach my privacy.
My inbox contains lots of attachments I have never looked at (spam). Some of them might be encrypted.
My browser cache contains lots of images I have never looked at. They might contain steganographic and encrypted data.
$EVILGUY operates a website with wallpapers/porn/other interesting stuff and uses steganography to hide data encrypted with a random key in every download...
Now, we need to understand that listening to music on your computer is an extra privilege. Normally, people listen to music on their car or through their home stereos. If you are a Linux or Mac user, you should consider purchasing a regular CD player.
If I listen to iTunes for 6 hours per day I can enjoy the music I like and not hear a song twice in a week.
It is a privilege to sell music to me.
If you want me to buy your music it has to work with my current equipment and with my future equipment.
No, I don't know what my future equipment will be.
What will they say about Safari and its "Private Browsing" feature?
From Apples site:
Using Safari's new Private Browsing feature, no information about where you visit on the Web, personal information you enter or pages you visit are saved or cached. It's as if you were never there.
Apple doesn't have to do much to prevent people from cracking the protection...
They can just create a kernel that runs on their boards only.
Then they overwrite the kernel with each update.
Result: Running OSX on generic hardware is easy enough for the hacker community, but inconvenient enough to make generic users swithch to Apple hardware sooner or later.
... will it take until someone just removes the check?
Here is a variant I find more plausible:
MacOS X comes with a variant of Darwin that supports Apple hardware only.
Every software update overwrites the critical Darwin components.
You can not easily update your system because updating would reinstall the hardware-limited version of Darwin.
Whenever Apple publishes an update you will have to wait for someone to provide a patched version of the update.
Soon evil[tm] hackers will write patches with spyware...
abandoning the few remaining 'Mac' technologies (like the PowerPC and OpenTransport) left to the platform.
OT has died with classic. NeXTSTEP already ran on multiple platforms years ago (including Intel). It is just coming back to Intel. Apple will probably keep PPC-Support "just in case".
With the high likelihood that these new Macs will offer a full speed version of Virtual PC
Or WINE. But that won't make an application "Mac-like". There will be demand for a replacement. See below.
the almost assurance that some clever hacker will make 'X for x86' run on commodity hardware,
It will happen. But Apple will not make a version of MacOS X that installs on Non-Apple hardware out of the box. It may break on the next update. Not an option for average users. And it probably violates the license. Unacceptable for business.
I'm doubting the willingness of most IT and development houses to even give the Carbon and Cocoa APIs a first glance.
Carbon was designed to help porting Classic apps to MacOS X (and to allow them to work with MacOS 9). It should not be used for new software!
Can anybody with a more optimistic view think of a scenario where a modern development house will do Mac development in an age where the help desk will just say either 'switch boot to Windows/Linux' or 'run Virtual PC?'"
You asked for it!:-)
Imagine you develop software for Windows.
Mac users use it with VPC/WINE.
They are annoyed because it doesn't feel right.
Someone decides to solve the problem and writes a native opensource replacement.
DLWormwood wonders: "As a long time Mac developer, originally as a hobbyist and then a professional, I'm feeling pessimistic about the future of the platform now that Apple is embracing Intel and abandoning the few remaining 'Mac' technologies (like the PowerPC and OpenTransport) left to the platform.
With the high likelihood that these new Macs will offer a full speed version of Virtual PC and (what I think is) the almost assurance that some clever hacker will make 'X for x86' run on commodity hardware, I'm doubting the willingness of most IT and development houses to even give the Carbon and Cocoa APIs a first glance.
(If it wasn't for the poor past performance of VPC, I would not have gotten my first Mac programming job.) Can anybody with a more optimistic view think of a scenario where a modern development house will do Mac development in an age where the help desk will just say either 'switch boot to Windows/Linux' or 'run Virtual PC?'"
for me is not the speeds, or the difficulty in implementing it... it's the child porn.
Are you sure that hindering the distribution is an effective way of reducing the production?
If it is difficult to find material for free there will be a huge potential for profit that just waits for organized crime to turn it into real profit.
If you want to avoid this you have to reduce the potential profit and increase the risk.
So it might be more effective to allow unhindered distribution (reduce profit) and to put up high rewards for identifying participants (increase risk).
We just need to pretend we are the police and start with the assumption that Kevin is indeed a powerful hacker-terrorist committed to causing death and destruction. Now what would a hacker-terrorist do for a contingency plan? He would set up his most devastating hacking scripts and make them activatable by a modem listening on a dedicated phone line. And all you need to launch the attack is a phone call to a specific number.
You almost got it right.
He would use a "dead man switch". Not calling the number for a day or two would trigger the attack.
Slashdot Mirror
RssRunner or xFeed might work for you.
So what font should you choose on your web site ?
Your user's preferred font in their preferred size and with their preferred colors.
A few of those might accidentally shake loose when you pass well known tourist locations...
Terrorists don't need to know which plane they shoot down. Just pick a big one.
Assassins don't want to kill hundreds of people as collateral damage because they don't want to motivate law enfocement more than absolutely necessary.
There is no reason to use this app for targeting planes.
Simple solution:
Use one time pad encryption.
Hand out the key that produces the desired plaintext.
The problem with this approach is that cell phone cameras are improving in quality. In a few years they will be good enough that many people will want to use them as their only camera.
Now imagine a wedding ceremony with 200 beeping cameras.
I'd say dumbed down interfaces. A good newsreader is much friendlier than a webforum. The problem is that you have to install it first.
You cringe because he keeps saying the same things over and over again.
He keeps saying the same things over and over again because people keep making the same dumb mistakes over and over again.
If a robot is cheaper than a dead/wounded soldier the robot might be a better option.
Also consider that robots need no training and (almost?) no supplies when they are in storage.
Outgoing data might breach my privacy.
Incoming data does not breach my privacy.
My inbox contains lots of attachments I have never looked at (spam). Some of them might be encrypted.
My browser cache contains lots of images I have never looked at. They might contain steganographic and encrypted data.
$EVILGUY operates a website with wallpapers/porn/other interesting stuff and uses steganography to hide data encrypted with a random key in every download...
Just make it legal to crack other people's computers and use their resources.
Evolution is the only thing that will work!
If I listen to iTunes for 6 hours per day I can enjoy the music I like and not hear a song twice in a week.
It is a privilege to sell music to me.
If you want me to buy your music it has to work with my current equipment and with my future equipment.
No, I don't know what my future equipment will be.
It will "just work".
Which means people will have to "just work", too.
Which is the reason why people don't like it.
What will they say about Safari and its "Private Browsing" feature?
From Apples site:
Who cares...
M$ didn't invent windows...
Apple doesn't have to do much to prevent people from cracking the protection...
They can just create a kernel that runs on their boards only.
Then they overwrite the kernel with each update.
Result: Running OSX on generic hardware is easy enough for the hacker community, but inconvenient enough to make generic users swithch to Apple hardware sooner or later.
... will it take until someone just removes the check?
Here is a variant I find more plausible:
MacOS X comes with a variant of Darwin that supports Apple hardware only.
Every software update overwrites the critical Darwin components.
You can not easily update your system because updating would reinstall the hardware-limited version of Darwin.
Whenever Apple publishes an update you will have to wait for someone to provide a patched version of the update.
Soon evil[tm] hackers will write patches with spyware...
n/t
OT has died with classic. NeXTSTEP already ran on multiple platforms years ago (including Intel). It is just coming back to Intel. Apple will probably keep PPC-Support "just in case".
Or WINE. But that won't make an application "Mac-like". There will be demand for a replacement. See below.
It will happen. But Apple will not make a version of MacOS X that installs on Non-Apple hardware out of the box. It may break on the next update. Not an option for average users. And it probably violates the license. Unacceptable for business.
Carbon was designed to help porting Classic apps to MacOS X (and to allow them to work with MacOS 9). It should not be used for new software!
You asked for it! :-)
Imagine you develop software for Windows.
- Mac users use it with VPC/WINE.
- They are annoyed because it doesn't feel right.
- Someone decides to solve the problem and writes a native opensource replacement.
- Someone else uses GNUSTEP to port it to Windows.
- You are out of business
Better switch now!Are you sure that hindering the distribution is an effective way of reducing the production?
If it is difficult to find material for free there will be a huge potential for profit that just waits for organized crime to turn it into real profit.
If you want to avoid this you have to reduce the potential profit and increase the risk.
So it might be more effective to allow unhindered distribution (reduce profit) and to put up high rewards for identifying participants (increase risk).
You almost got it right.
He would use a "dead man switch". Not calling the number for a day or two would trigger the attack.
Just legalize hacking other people's computers and crashing them.
Result: insecure systems gone