I'm sure many have elaborated this point in this long-as-hell chain, but it's not about using secure data erasing tools that's the problem. It's when her team chose to use such tools. It was after she was already under investigation and subpoenaed for the emails.
Your comment is more of a play into the hands of bipartisan politics than you probably think.
Deaths have growth from 0 to 1! That's infinity %! We're all dead tomorrow!
People driving while playing on their phone is the fast-growing problem, not people dying because of it. Although that has no evidently happened, too. After the first death, comes the second one and so on.
Never been on a long trip with kids in the car, I see.
They already implemented a "speed limit" which, if exceeded, prompts you to confirm you are *not* driving. The solution to this obviously fast-growing problem is to simply not allow playing the game if the phone moves past that 15kph. It would likely be a lot more enjoyable for the drivers too who don't have to put up with spaced-out passengers...
then you only need a way to attach that database to that email with the excel file, too....
Well, not really. If you consider a spreadsheet as a view of a normal relational database, unlike database views, a spreadsheet is a permanent representation of the original data and can be for example emailed and viewed easily. In most circumstances the recipient would likely not need the database nor know how to use it.
This way the data is strongly typed in the database and data operations are a lot safer. Software often used in scientific studies, such as IBM's SPSS, are pretty much a database anyway, so it's not a big leap to use an actual relational database.
But I don't see this happening. Ever. So back to broken Exceling.:-(
I guess they haven't heard of smartcards and public key cryptography. Heck, this would even let voters check and verify the integrity of their past votes without anybody else being able to see them.
What if your service provider, out of their good will, provides the TLAs with all your communications data? Because you, after all, agreed to that when you voluntarily signed the contract. And before you say you'd switch the operator/provider, they all do the same. Will you start your own telco?
I've had country blocks (most of Asia, Africa and Russia) for some time now and have seen a dramatic drop in crap that's trying to crawl up the tubes from those countries. Mainly automated out-of-the-box spam bots and hacking scripts (I was shocked to discover e.g. that w00tw00t is still a thing). This takes off some of the unnecessary load in the backend, too, and these countries are the ones that usually spam the Internet with fresh exploits, so that's a better-than-nothing first line of defence also.
Your argument is correct, but the question was whether they knew it was possible to open phone model in question upon request. They most definitely knew it was possible because the Secure Enclave in 5S defeats this particular design flaw. They would not design something like Secure Enclave if they did not know what it was there for.
That doesn't really change anything, and the discussion isn't about newer phones. It's about what they knew and what they did. What they knew was that there is a problem with the design and what they did was greenlight it.
Tesla S's power-to-weight ratio is around 0.27 and the M3's power-to-weight ratio is equally around 0.27. We need another season of Initial D to find out which one is better.
Could we create a tool to unlock the phone? After a few days, we had determined yes, we could.
Now there's your problem. You should not be *able* to unlock it by any known means and this approach should be supported by both software and hardware design. Design a phone that you *can not* open even upon request and you've solved the problem in the best possible way.
I was talking about subsidizing the development of new technologies, not subsidizing the implementation of existing and proven technologies. Rail transport, for example, was an existing technology and not invented in the US.
But your comment made me dig up a bit about the history of airplanes and it was rather funny in this particular context (from Wikipedia):
The Flyer cost less than a thousand dollars, in contrast to more than $50,000 in government funds given to Samuel Langley for his man-carrying Great Aerodrome.
The Flyer was the first airplane made independently by the Wright brothers, and it cost them approximately $1000 to build. The Great Aerodome (name says it all) was a flop, and it received $50 000 in government funding.
Now I don't really understand why someone would think I'm a troll. These are/were my personal thoughts, which should be apparent in my original post, and they are stemming out of personal experiences in an org that dealt government funding to companies.
That pretty much means that soon we'll see 75 projects failing. Government subsidizing the development of new technologies has the universal effect of distorting competition and making any such projects fail. I've witnessed it countless of times in several European countries, and I have no doubt the same applies to the US, too.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure many have elaborated this point in this long-as-hell chain, but it's not about using secure data erasing tools that's the problem. It's when her team chose to use such tools. It was after she was already under investigation and subpoenaed for the emails.
Your comment is more of a play into the hands of bipartisan politics than you probably think.
Deaths have growth from 0 to 1! That's infinity %! We're all dead tomorrow!
Now they have risen from 1 to 2. A 100% rise in Pokémon GO related fatalities.
Like I said before:
After the first death, comes the second one and so on.
Deaths have growth from 0 to 1! That's infinity %! We're all dead tomorrow!
People driving while playing on their phone is the fast-growing problem, not people dying because of it. Although that has no evidently happened, too. After the first death, comes the second one and so on.
Never been on a long trip with kids in the car, I see.
I enjoy chatting with my kids.
They already implemented a "speed limit" which, if exceeded, prompts you to confirm you are *not* driving. The solution to this obviously fast-growing problem is to simply not allow playing the game if the phone moves past that 15kph. It would likely be a lot more enjoyable for the drivers too who don't have to put up with spaced-out passengers...
then you only need a way to attach that database to that email with the excel file, too....
Well, not really. If you consider a spreadsheet as a view of a normal relational database, unlike database views, a spreadsheet is a permanent representation of the original data and can be for example emailed and viewed easily. In most circumstances the recipient would likely not need the database nor know how to use it.
This way the data is strongly typed in the database and data operations are a lot safer. Software often used in scientific studies, such as IBM's SPSS, are pretty much a database anyway, so it's not a big leap to use an actual relational database.
But I don't see this happening. Ever. So back to broken Exceling. :-(
Spreadsheets should be used to present data in the form of a view. Use databases to store data and spreadsheets to create views and statistics of it.
I don't think you read his post. He said:
Just don't tap my phone or hack into my e-mail/messaging without a warrant and we're all good.
I'm sure you can piece the puzzle together with that in mind and in relation to his privacy-in-public statement.
I guess they haven't heard of smartcards and public key cryptography. Heck, this would even let voters check and verify the integrity of their past votes without anybody else being able to see them.
What if your service provider, out of their good will, provides the TLAs with all your communications data? Because you, after all, agreed to that when you voluntarily signed the contract. And before you say you'd switch the operator/provider, they all do the same. Will you start your own telco?
Hehe, shit indeed. Headlines with question marks underestimate the intelligence of their readers, especially on a site like this.
You really should get a place in Slashdot Hall of Fame.
You can answer with no, but that doesn't mean it's the right answer.
Being obtuse about a humorous law is not the right answer either.
Nonetheless, all the below silly headlines on Slashdot's front page can be answered "no":
Has WikiLeaks Morphed Into A Malware Hub?
No.
Ask Slashdot: Is KDE Dying?
No.
Can Cow Backpacks Reduce Global Methane Emissions?
No.
They're equally hated by everyone, which means they are obviously on the right track and doing something good.
AKP is awfully close to APK.
I've had country blocks (most of Asia, Africa and Russia) for some time now and have seen a dramatic drop in crap that's trying to crawl up the tubes from those countries. Mainly automated out-of-the-box spam bots and hacking scripts (I was shocked to discover e.g. that w00tw00t is still a thing). This takes off some of the unnecessary load in the backend, too, and these countries are the ones that usually spam the Internet with fresh exploits, so that's a better-than-nothing first line of defence also.
No, the phone is flawed. :-)
Your argument is correct, but the question was whether they knew it was possible to open phone model in question upon request. They most definitely knew it was possible because the Secure Enclave in 5S defeats this particular design flaw. They would not design something like Secure Enclave if they did not know what it was there for.
In most European countries favoring someone for the color of their skin would be be illegal, even if it was 'positive discrimination'.
People who think this is a good idea should watch the Equal Opportunities episode of Yes Minister.
We do not know (and in fact have no indication) that they knew back then when the decision to go productive was made.
Umm, what? iPhone 5S and 5C were both released Sep 20 2013. One had secure enclave and the other one didn't.
I think that's pretty much "they knew".
That doesn't really change anything, and the discussion isn't about newer phones. It's about what they knew and what they did. What they knew was that there is a problem with the design and what they did was greenlight it.
Tesla S's power-to-weight ratio is around 0.27 and the M3's power-to-weight ratio is equally around 0.27. We need another season of Initial D to find out which one is better.
Could we create a tool to unlock the phone? After a few days, we had determined yes, we could.
Now there's your problem. You should not be *able* to unlock it by any known means and this approach should be supported by both software and hardware design. Design a phone that you *can not* open even upon request and you've solved the problem in the best possible way.
Well, I got to give the Nazis that one. Their war effort advanced rocket technology quite a bit among other things.
Are you saying I'm completely wrong, or just partially wrong?
I was talking about subsidizing the development of new technologies, not subsidizing the implementation of existing and proven technologies. Rail transport, for example, was an existing technology and not invented in the US.
But your comment made me dig up a bit about the history of airplanes and it was rather funny in this particular context (from Wikipedia):
The Flyer cost less than a thousand dollars, in contrast to more than $50,000 in government funds given to Samuel Langley for his man-carrying Great Aerodrome.
The Flyer was the first airplane made independently by the Wright brothers, and it cost them approximately $1000 to build. The Great Aerodome (name says it all) was a flop, and it received $50 000 in government funding.
Now I don't really understand why someone would think I'm a troll. These are/were my personal thoughts, which should be apparent in my original post, and they are stemming out of personal experiences in an org that dealt government funding to companies.
The US Energy Department is funding 75 projects
That pretty much means that soon we'll see 75 projects failing. Government subsidizing the development of new technologies has the universal effect of distorting competition and making any such projects fail. I've witnessed it countless of times in several European countries, and I have no doubt the same applies to the US, too.