Or, having a CEO who was a gay man in Alabama in the 60's, they might, actually value privacy.
If they actually valued privacy, they wouldn't create a phone that they themselves can break into, because the obvious and natural consequence of that is that courts and spy agencies will order them to break into it.
I think it's disingenuous to describe Apple's code signing mechanism as a back door, as they have clearly taken a position that they don't want to use this in the way the government wants.
No, what is "disingenuous" is pretending that a phone that Apple can easily break into is in any way secure.
The idea that you can buy such a complex device from a vendor and not understand that doing so is an implied expression of trust in the vendor is bizzare.
It may be bizarre to you, but it isn't unreasonable. For closed source devices, legal cases and responses to subpoenas are the best way of ascertaining the security of a phone or PC, because that information is public and there are stiff penalties for lying. So, if a company consistently responds to a subpoena with "you can do to us whatever you like, it is technically impossible to get at the data", it's a pretty good bet the data is secure. If a company responds with "we could get at the data, we just don't want to", that's telling you that the phone is technically not secure. And that's the situation we have with Apple.
I think the best outcome for privacy would be for Apple and Tim Cook to be threatened with contempt of court and forced to comply with the court order, and subsequently be hit with a massive class action lawsuit for not implementing bullet-proof security on their phone. Maybe such a public relations and financial disaster would force Apple to change their ways.
No, the thing going on here is that Apple is being asked, or even forced, to compromise their own product using means available only to them
If Apple can unlock your phone, your phone is already compromised. And people must believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny if they think that Apple couldn't be forced into secret compliance by other parts of the government, and likely hasn't been forced already.
their argument is the government has no authority to compel them to use it, because although the user of the phone might have committed a crime with the phone, Apple didn't play any part in such crime and therefore are under no obligation to get involved
Courts subpoena witnesses and other forms of legal cooperation from people not involved in crimes all the time. It sucks, but there is no reason why Apple should be able to get away with ignoring such a court order.
Once Apple gives it up over this phone, Apple fears prosecutors everywhere will start hitting them up with thousands of break-this-iphone warrants, until Apple has to dedicate an entire skyscraper-full of engineers and lawyers to deal with it all.
Apple has an easy fix for that: build phones that they themselves can't break into. For phones that they can break into, they should just come right out and admit that those phones never were secure to begin with and perhaps get the issue off the table by just making the unlock tool publicly available to everybody.
Apple can unlock your phone and access your encrypted data with a home-grown tool, but they are telling your your data is secure because they aren't cooperating with the FBI and making a big fuss about it in the media. In the day and age of national security letters and gag orders, that's a joke. If some mechanism exists by which Apple can unlock your phone, your phone isn't secure, and none of this public posturing helps: Apple may already have been ordered to create the tool they say they don't want to create and been silenced by a gag order at the same time. In fact, public posturing over an FBI request would be a good way of covering up their cooperation with spy agencies.
Apple: if you want to make phones that people can actually trust their data to, not only is the only proper response to FBI orders to unlock phones that "it is technically impossible", you will have to make that believable by having it stick in court. In addition, should also be much more open about the security architecture and software of your phones. Legal posturing and going on 60 Minutes are not convincing.
I dont need either of both, its wasted money. Can they instead get direct communication to the ethernet port, not that shitty solution over USB?
Most users don't need the I/O headers either. Many people don't need the wired Ethernet. The Raspberry Pi is a compromise device, but it's a pretty good compromise. And the high volume keeps the price down more than saving on any single piece of hardware.
The primary design goal of the Raspberry Pi is still a cheap general purpose computer people can use for learning and education. That's why it has an HDMI port, and that's why Bluetooth (keyboard, mouse) and WiFi also make sense.
Yes, the race to the bottom would have us all living with as many roommates as it takes that we can legally (or, maybe not) squeeze into a residence somewhere so as to be able to divide up the living expenses. The days of being able to afford life on one's own seem to be gone for good.
Ah, yes, the good old days, when anybody with a high school degree could just move into a 1000 sq ft condo in San Francisco or Manhattan on their union-negotiated salary, when there was no racism, and when women could enjoy complete equality yet live in single income households with their husbands, while taking care of the kids! If only the evil Republicans hadn't destroyed that idyllic 1950's worker's paradise! That's what you evidently believe.
I have news for you: people entering the workforce have always had a tough time making ends meet, and they have always had to choose cheap living arrangements and often live with roommates.
The voters are not considered players, because they're part of the background
That's your analysis, and I'm pointing out that it is wrong. Voters are not just "part of the background" and don't just define payoffs, they are active, rational participants with their own payoff functions and that fundamentally changes the game that's being played. Therefore, ignoring them yields an incorrect analysis.
Google payed sales tax? Weird, sales tax is ultimately paid by consumers, not companies.
That's why I wrote:
Google's use of infrastructure is already accounted for through real estate, sales, and income tax.
I wrote that before you tried to hijack this discussion by turning it into an irrelevant semantic debate whether corporate tax is the equivalent of income tax or not. I repeat: Google's use of infrastructure is already accounted for through other taxes.
If we look at this objectively in terms of rights, duties, and responsibilities, the French government is taking money away from the people who actually paid for the infrastructure that allowed Google to make these profits, namely the American people and Google's investors. Don't try to dress up French greed, arrogance, and selfishness as anything other than what it is. France can get away with this, just like they could get away with raping their colonies, but that doesn't mean other people need to buy in to the fiction that it is morally justified.
Change is difficult and expensive, and what you wind up with after a major change can be worse than what you started with, even if it's on a path to a much better solution.
The public health care system is completely under the control of the president and Congress. By definition, making the public health care system more efficient should not be "expensive", it should immediately save money for the government. That is, if Bernie claims he can deliver a US public system at the per capita cost that a European public system can deliver health care at, he can and should demonstrate that by actually doing it, instead of starting by demanding more money.
Not really. The US health care system is horribly inefficient. If Bernie could grab a high-quality health care system from somewhere else and just plug it into the US, we'd be saving money right off,
Again, having experienced several of those other "high quality health care systems", I can tell you that that's nonsense. The reason "we can't just grab" those systems is because Americans wouldn't put up with the kind of wait times and limitations that those systems have. The fact that those systems produce similar outcomes to ours is irrelevant, because as far as patients are concerned, outcomes are only one of many important factors.
Setting up a decent public health system would make it much easier to attack those inefficiencies, and we'd wind up saving oodles long-term as well as having a healthier population. I think we'll have to spend more tax dollars on health care before we can spend fewer.
That's utterly ridiculous. It's the kind of financially irresponsible attitude that drives people and countries into bankruptcy. It is also not what those other "high quality health care systems" practice. If someone in German parliament stood up and suggested that the way to save money in the German health care system was to spend more in it, they'd be laughed at. Other countries control health care by rationing it and by rigidly controlling cost. It just turns out that cost controls don't actually affect health care outcomes (which is why other countries are as healthy as the US), although it makes going to the doctor a much bigger pain in those countries.
However when it comes to higher education, there is no disputing the fact that making it more accessible to people across the board (which requires investment) reaps dramatic rewards. People make more money,
There is a correlation between tertiary education, higher incomes, and lower crime, but you cannot conclude at all from that that tertiary education causes higher incomes and lower crime rates. (In fact, even the "people make more money" idea is misleading because while people may make more money, they often end up less wealthy.)
Not by dollar spent, it isn't. Most of the money is on the private side
Yes, by dollar spent! US per capita spending is $4197 (public), $1074 (out of pocket), and $3442 (private). Note that US per capita public spending alone is about the same as total per capita spending in France, Australia, or Canada.
Have you actually listened to anything Sanders has said? He has been calling for expansion of medicaid, which would be exactly that. Initially it would require more taxes
Have you listening to anything I said? The fact that Sanders say that this would "initially require more taxes" is what brands him as a bullshit artist. The fact is that the US public system alone already has more than enough money to cover every American at the same level as Australia, the UK, Japan, or France. It fails to cover every American because it is so horribly inefficient (it only covers one third of Americans). If Sanders claims he can fix the US public health care system, he should be able to do so without raising taxes. The fact that he says he needs to raise taxes shows that he is either incompetent or simply lying.
The very point of the process is that Google has avoided paying the equivalent of its income tax.
Google has already paid the equivalent of its income tax, namely in sales tax. In any case, you argued that Google "profits from French infrastructure", and you have failed to justify that assertion. All the infrastructure Google uses in France is more than paid off by other taxes besides corporate income tax.
In fact, Google's high profits are due to Google's software and innovation, and France has done nothing to contribute to that. Objectively, the French government is already stealing from Americans and Google's investors (and that means largely people's retirement funds).
He very plainly explains how college tuition will be paid for with taxes.
Of course Sanders does: taxes on (and I'm quoting) "the wealthy and large corporations", and the money they pay is supposed to go to helping everybody else.
The problem is that if you tax corporations, it mostly comes out of people's retirement funds, not very smart. And what he calls "the wealthy" includes a large part of the US population, in particular, older workers.
There is no better investment a government can make than in education; the ROI is usually around 6:1 or better.
There is actual data on this, and the ROI on education spending in the US is nil. That is, increased educational spending does not lead to better educational outcomes in the US. That's true both historically and in international comparisons.The easiest way to see that is just to look at US per student spending and outcomes in international comparisons: we spend much more (in $PPP) than most other countries, yet achieve fairly mediocre results. And the biggest failure in the US is "single payer education", that is, the public educational system.
Single payer healthcare is also a proven economic winner as the increased efficiencies, reduction in disgusting payouts to CEOs, and uniform accessibility improve things across the board.
Half the US health care system is already public, and it spends more per capita than many European health care systems spend for public and private health care combined. So, if Sanders wanted to bring European style health care to the US, he could already do that without any new taxes or expenses, simply by covering everybody under the existing public health care system and making it work efficiently.
Sanders's economic ideas and plans don't stand up to scrutiny, and he would get torn apart in a general election. I'd love to see him get the Democratic nomination just to see this happen.
If we only followed Chicago's example of progressive government for the people and by the people, we would have eliminated inequality, police violence, high homicide rates, failing schools, and corruption across the nation long ago! Why can't people see that???
The infrastructure is already paid for through sales taxes, real estate taxes, and income taxes, all of which Google pays. The remaining profits are derived from Google's software and inventions, which France contributed nothing to. It's amazing that this needs to be explained to you.
And France is already falling apart. French civilization? Don't make me laugh.
Sanders had no chance once his economic ideas are vetted and analyzed by the main stream press in a general election. Fact is that a lot of people who think they would be getting free stuff under Sanders would get badly hurt economically.
The argument that this is a classic game theory dilemma assumes that only the actions of candidates matter and that voters don't think and aren't aware of this situation. But the situation is a lot more complicated because there are more than a hundred million game players.
Google is paying plenty of local taxes, including sales tax. That pays for the infrastructure and essential services that Google actually relies on. That is, France already gets billions in taxes from Google. Their remaining profit, however, is largely derived from stuff that France has no part in creating, namely the software and inventions that actually run Google. France is trying to take money that doesn't belong to them, and they are lying to do so.
"Leeching money out of France" makes no sense. Foreign companies provide valuable and useful services to France, services that the French obviously want and are willing to pay money for. If those services become unavailable, France will be worse off, not better off.
France has serious economic problems This kind of stupidity on the part of the French government will only discourage investment in the country further and hurt them even more.
More recent iPhones and Android phones are a lot more secure. In addition, any app that runs directly on the SIM card is more secure (that kind of secure app has been around for more than a couple of decades).
Apple signs OS upgrades because it's good security practice, not because Apple is control freaks.
Well you're entitled to your opinion. In any case, as I was saying, it is not necessary to make the cryptosystem work, and the cryptographic security of the phone should not depend on signing updates.
You don't get it do you? If someone think they should mention that they are heterosexual in a case where it doesn't matter I would react the same.
I wasn't saying "I deserve to live in San Francisco because I am gay". I was saying "You say you deserve to live in San Francisco because (personal reason). Geez, other people have personal reasons too, for example (my personal reason), yet we don't demand that society/employers/whatever deliver us what we want on a silver platter." In different words, I agree that sexuality is irrelevant to whether an employer should accommodate my choice of domicile.
Getting it? Guess not. Marked you as a friend in the hope that irritates you.:P
I just use the red dot to mark fools. I don't care what fools think of me.
Apple engineers have already begun developing new security measures that would make it impossible for the government to break into a locked iPhone using methods similar to those now at the center of a court fight in California
This is how Apple should have designed these phones from the start. We've only had the necessary technology widely and cheaply available for, oh, about, 25 years?
Slashdot Mirror
If they actually valued privacy, they wouldn't create a phone that they themselves can break into, because the obvious and natural consequence of that is that courts and spy agencies will order them to break into it.
No, what is "disingenuous" is pretending that a phone that Apple can easily break into is in any way secure.
It may be bizarre to you, but it isn't unreasonable. For closed source devices, legal cases and responses to subpoenas are the best way of ascertaining the security of a phone or PC, because that information is public and there are stiff penalties for lying. So, if a company consistently responds to a subpoena with "you can do to us whatever you like, it is technically impossible to get at the data", it's a pretty good bet the data is secure. If a company responds with "we could get at the data, we just don't want to", that's telling you that the phone is technically not secure. And that's the situation we have with Apple. I think the best outcome for privacy would be for Apple and Tim Cook to be threatened with contempt of court and forced to comply with the court order, and subsequently be hit with a massive class action lawsuit for not implementing bullet-proof security on their phone. Maybe such a public relations and financial disaster would force Apple to change their ways.
If Apple can unlock your phone, your phone is already compromised. And people must believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny if they think that Apple couldn't be forced into secret compliance by other parts of the government, and likely hasn't been forced already.
Courts subpoena witnesses and other forms of legal cooperation from people not involved in crimes all the time. It sucks, but there is no reason why Apple should be able to get away with ignoring such a court order.
Apple has an easy fix for that: build phones that they themselves can't break into. For phones that they can break into, they should just come right out and admit that those phones never were secure to begin with and perhaps get the issue off the table by just making the unlock tool publicly available to everybody.
Apple: if you want to make phones that people can actually trust their data to, not only is the only proper response to FBI orders to unlock phones that "it is technically impossible", you will have to make that believable by having it stick in court. In addition, should also be much more open about the security architecture and software of your phones. Legal posturing and going on 60 Minutes are not convincing.
Most users don't need the I/O headers either. Many people don't need the wired Ethernet. The Raspberry Pi is a compromise device, but it's a pretty good compromise. And the high volume keeps the price down more than saving on any single piece of hardware.
The primary design goal of the Raspberry Pi is still a cheap general purpose computer people can use for learning and education. That's why it has an HDMI port, and that's why Bluetooth (keyboard, mouse) and WiFi also make sense.
Ah, yes, the good old days, when anybody with a high school degree could just move into a 1000 sq ft condo in San Francisco or Manhattan on their union-negotiated salary, when there was no racism, and when women could enjoy complete equality yet live in single income households with their husbands, while taking care of the kids! If only the evil Republicans hadn't destroyed that idyllic 1950's worker's paradise! That's what you evidently believe.
I have news for you: people entering the workforce have always had a tough time making ends meet, and they have always had to choose cheap living arrangements and often live with roommates.
That's your analysis, and I'm pointing out that it is wrong. Voters are not just "part of the background" and don't just define payoffs, they are active, rational participants with their own payoff functions and that fundamentally changes the game that's being played. Therefore, ignoring them yields an incorrect analysis.
That's why I wrote:
I wrote that before you tried to hijack this discussion by turning it into an irrelevant semantic debate whether corporate tax is the equivalent of income tax or not. I repeat: Google's use of infrastructure is already accounted for through other taxes.
If we look at this objectively in terms of rights, duties, and responsibilities, the French government is taking money away from the people who actually paid for the infrastructure that allowed Google to make these profits, namely the American people and Google's investors. Don't try to dress up French greed, arrogance, and selfishness as anything other than what it is. France can get away with this, just like they could get away with raping their colonies, but that doesn't mean other people need to buy in to the fiction that it is morally justified.
The public health care system is completely under the control of the president and Congress. By definition, making the public health care system more efficient should not be "expensive", it should immediately save money for the government. That is, if Bernie claims he can deliver a US public system at the per capita cost that a European public system can deliver health care at, he can and should demonstrate that by actually doing it, instead of starting by demanding more money.
Again, having experienced several of those other "high quality health care systems", I can tell you that that's nonsense. The reason "we can't just grab" those systems is because Americans wouldn't put up with the kind of wait times and limitations that those systems have. The fact that those systems produce similar outcomes to ours is irrelevant, because as far as patients are concerned, outcomes are only one of many important factors.
That's utterly ridiculous. It's the kind of financially irresponsible attitude that drives people and countries into bankruptcy. It is also not what those other "high quality health care systems" practice. If someone in German parliament stood up and suggested that the way to save money in the German health care system was to spend more in it, they'd be laughed at. Other countries control health care by rationing it and by rigidly controlling cost. It just turns out that cost controls don't actually affect health care outcomes (which is why other countries are as healthy as the US), although it makes going to the doctor a much bigger pain in those countries.
There is a correlation between tertiary education, higher incomes, and lower crime, but you cannot conclude at all from that that tertiary education causes higher incomes and lower crime rates. (In fact, even the "people make more money" idea is misleading because while people may make more money, they often end up less wealthy.)
Yes, by dollar spent! US per capita spending is $4197 (public), $1074 (out of pocket), and $3442 (private). Note that US per capita public spending alone is about the same as total per capita spending in France, Australia, or Canada.
Have you listening to anything I said? The fact that Sanders say that this would "initially require more taxes" is what brands him as a bullshit artist. The fact is that the US public system alone already has more than enough money to cover every American at the same level as Australia, the UK, Japan, or France. It fails to cover every American because it is so horribly inefficient (it only covers one third of Americans). If Sanders claims he can fix the US public health care system, he should be able to do so without raising taxes. The fact that he says he needs to raise taxes shows that he is either incompetent or simply lying.
Google has already paid the equivalent of its income tax, namely in sales tax. In any case, you argued that Google "profits from French infrastructure", and you have failed to justify that assertion. All the infrastructure Google uses in France is more than paid off by other taxes besides corporate income tax.
In fact, Google's high profits are due to Google's software and innovation, and France has done nothing to contribute to that. Objectively, the French government is already stealing from Americans and Google's investors (and that means largely people's retirement funds).
Let's hope future "worst disasters" are as benign as that.
Of course Sanders does: taxes on (and I'm quoting) "the wealthy and large corporations", and the money they pay is supposed to go to helping everybody else.
The problem is that if you tax corporations, it mostly comes out of people's retirement funds, not very smart. And what he calls "the wealthy" includes a large part of the US population, in particular, older workers.
There is actual data on this, and the ROI on education spending in the US is nil. That is, increased educational spending does not lead to better educational outcomes in the US. That's true both historically and in international comparisons.The easiest way to see that is just to look at US per student spending and outcomes in international comparisons: we spend much more (in $PPP) than most other countries, yet achieve fairly mediocre results. And the biggest failure in the US is "single payer education", that is, the public educational system.
Half the US health care system is already public, and it spends more per capita than many European health care systems spend for public and private health care combined. So, if Sanders wanted to bring European style health care to the US, he could already do that without any new taxes or expenses, simply by covering everybody under the existing public health care system and making it work efficiently.
Sanders's economic ideas and plans don't stand up to scrutiny, and he would get torn apart in a general election. I'd love to see him get the Democratic nomination just to see this happen.
If we only followed Chicago's example of progressive government for the people and by the people, we would have eliminated inequality, police violence, high homicide rates, failing schools, and corruption across the nation long ago! Why can't people see that???
And France is already falling apart. French civilization? Don't make me laugh.
Sanders had no chance once his economic ideas are vetted and analyzed by the main stream press in a general election. Fact is that a lot of people who think they would be getting free stuff under Sanders would get badly hurt economically.
The argument that this is a classic game theory dilemma assumes that only the actions of candidates matter and that voters don't think and aren't aware of this situation. But the situation is a lot more complicated because there are more than a hundred million game players.
Google is paying plenty of local taxes, including sales tax. That pays for the infrastructure and essential services that Google actually relies on. That is, France already gets billions in taxes from Google. Their remaining profit, however, is largely derived from stuff that France has no part in creating, namely the software and inventions that actually run Google. France is trying to take money that doesn't belong to them, and they are lying to do so.
Google's use of infrastructure is already accounted for through real estate, sales, and income tax.
France has serious economic problems This kind of stupidity on the part of the French government will only discourage investment in the country further and hurt them even more.
More recent iPhones and Android phones are a lot more secure. In addition, any app that runs directly on the SIM card is more secure (that kind of secure app has been around for more than a couple of decades).
Yes, that is so. These extra protections are secure computing elements. They have been around for decades. Every SIM card has one.
You know, I grew up on Europe and spent most of my life there, and almost your entire posting is nonsense, both in regards to the US and Europe.
Well you're entitled to your opinion. In any case, as I was saying, it is not necessary to make the cryptosystem work, and the cryptographic security of the phone should not depend on signing updates.
I wasn't saying "I deserve to live in San Francisco because I am gay". I was saying "You say you deserve to live in San Francisco because (personal reason). Geez, other people have personal reasons too, for example (my personal reason), yet we don't demand that society/employers/whatever deliver us what we want on a silver platter." In different words, I agree that sexuality is irrelevant to whether an employer should accommodate my choice of domicile.
I just use the red dot to mark fools. I don't care what fools think of me.
This is how Apple should have designed these phones from the start. We've only had the necessary technology widely and cheaply available for, oh, about, 25 years?