Unless the Court Order Demands that you Open your Eyes
The US Constitution prohibits only unreasonable searches. If a police department has shown probable cause to a judge and obtained a warrant to search a particular device with a particular owner, and this device is subject to a biometric lock, one might reasonably construe the warrant as a court order for the owner to authenticate to the device in good faith.
So the trick, if arrested, is to get the cops to beat up your face to the point of requiring reconstructive surgery, then FaceID would fail through no "bad faith" on your part...
People installing RDP and SSH generally know better than to use brute forceable passwords (or passwords at all). But this also attacked protocols for iCloud and other "helpful" services that are either on by default or enabled by the vast majority of Mac users.
They may be enabled by default; but they are still password-protected. It's up to the User to create a Robust password, though.
" The attack vector included the scanning and identification of externally facing services, to include the Apple Filing Protocol (AFP, port 548), RDP or other VNC, SSH (port 22), and Back to My Mac (BTMM), which would be targeted with weak passwords or passwords derived from third party data breaches." In other words, Durachinsky had used a technique know as port scanning to identify internet or network-connected Macs that were exposing remote access ports with weak or no passwords."
Believe it or not, the FBI would make you open your eyes and try again. I know, hard to believe! But you know, they have a signed warrant and stuff so they will make you try again. I know, again, hard to believe you can't defy a signed warrant by closing your eyes.
Unless the Court Order Demands that you Open your Eyes, I'm not sure that LEO can FORCE you to stare at something.
Total iPhone units sold between 2007 and 2017 worldwide is 216.76 million. So not literally a billion; in fact, the article is specifically about iOS, so we can leave out macs. An iPhone will stay in use for about 5 years so let's assume that half of those 216 million devices is still using Safari and will get the search provider pushed. That's 9 billion for 100 million users, or USD 90 per IOS user. Assume I made a mistake and it would only amount to a third of that per user. I would still be worried if Google would pay my phone manufacturer that for providing me ads.
So we then have to multiply the number of active iOS users by the number of web searches they do on average, since each search give Google another "impression" of their advertising, not to mention another bolus of user data to mine. So, if those 100 million (your estimate) active iOS users do an average of 1,000 Google searches per year (which is only about 3 searches per user per day), that's a cool 100 BILLION searches per year. So, that works out to $.09 per ad impression/data mining opportunity.
Sounds quite reasonable to me.
And if you add the number of active Mac users and their searches, the total cost per data mining opportunity/ad impression is lowered even further.
Because sure, Spotify, every family always all lives in the same domicile. Kids never leave for college.
What a fucking farce. If you don't want people sharing it with their FAMILY, don't call it a fucking family plan and then expect them to all live in the same domicile.
I'm pretty sure Apple Music doesn't pull that shit.
In fact, I don't even have an Apple Music Family Plan, and I use it on my Apple TV, my iPhone, my MacBook Pro, and my work Windows laptop, and have never ONCE been denied access or anything. I am using the same AppleID, and are never accessing it from more than one device at once; so maybe that's why it is working, even though the GPS location of my phone and laptops change, as does what network I am on; but FWIW, it DOES work...
IMHO, Spotify must be going broke to start trying to chase pennies like that...
Who the fuck cares about the watch? And if that's the only thing you can come up with to support your point, well, that says a lot really doesn't it. But ok, they still do some engineering, incremental phone updates, the occasional new product, fine but they are all designed with form in mind first and then marketed and priced well above their weight. Apple is way more interested in making money than a good product.
I didn't include anything else because I figured anything I said would be seen as simply "Incremental Improvement". Which, of course, everything after the invention of the WHEEL arguably also falls under that category.
Would you agree that the iMac Pro also took some Engineering? Because if not, then you simply have no grasp of what it takes to actually take a blank computer screen and end up with a workable, manufacture-able PRODUCT.
Oh, and it isn't that Apple cares for form OVER function; the reason it SEEMS that way is that almost NO ONE else seems to care about "form" AT ALL. Since these are the Tools by which many people make their living, just like a Hammer or Screwdriver; do you think those people would rather the hammer have a nice-comfortable, molded handle, or a piece of wood with splinters in it? So obviously, "form" ENHANCES "function"; or more correctly, "form" is an essential part of "function".
Apple began to staff up on mixed signal and RF ASIC designers with a list of job titles that looked like they were going after making a modem about 4-5 years ago, so yeah, they likely are ready to do their own by now. They already make their own CPU/GPU chips that leap frogged what Qualcomm offered in their SOC lineup.
Several years back I worked at a cellular amplifier supplier to a fruit themed cell phone maker (one with onerous secrecy BS in the contracts). On three ways calls with Qualcomm it was quite clear that even 5+ years ago there was a "frenemy" relationship with lots of frustration all around. Qualcomm's specifications for their envelope tracking technology was a real shit-show, and eventually when Qualcomm's 800 lb Gorilla tactics made it impossible for any of the suppliers to succeed the fruit themed company dropped it for 2 years in a semi-vindictive fashion. It was quite clear that Apple only tolerated Qualcomm so long as they had no viable alternative. When Intel got business it was clear they were willing to take a hit on performance just to have a second source.
In the end, it is hard to root for one 800 lb Gorilla over another when they are wrestling in the mud.
QUITE Insightful!!!
You don't think those hires were for the Bluetooth (W1,W2) chips?
My feeling is that they thought they were ready to cut both Intel and Qualcomm loose with the Xs/XR series; but perhaps didn't get Agency Approvals worldwide in time for Production, and so had to use the Intel chips.
But wasn't the use of Intel also tied to some RF-bands that Qualcomm didn't support? Or was that just a smokescreen?
And are there REALLY only just TWO Cell MODEM chip Designers (well, three, if you count that Apple sounds like they are doing it, too) on the PLANET?!?
Intel's not THAT stupid. If someone handed them those secrets, they have enough smart people to implement them. So, I submit that Qualcomm's allegations are as trumped-up as most of their Patents.
No Intel is not that stupid. If Apple delivered proprietary information to it - it would simply hand it over to Qualcomm with a pointer to where it came from. That way they are perfectly innocent. If they took and used proprietary information that they didn't have rights to, Qualcomm would simply sue the pants off of Intel as well.
Well, curiously enough, Qualcomm was stupid enough to NOT name Intel as a Co-Defendant!
I am pretty sure that they are not one of the "Does 1-25" listed in the caption of the case, as seen on MacRumors:
Personally, I would consider that a SERIOUS mistake on the part of Qualcomm. Generally, you sue everyone and their dog, and let THEM argue to be Discharged as a Party.
This tells me that Qualcomm is just trying to stir up bad press on Apple, and that they KNOW they don't have a leg to stand on, legally...
Qualcomm is one smarmy company. Glad to see they are too cheap to rent REAL attorneys!
Not that I believe Qualcomm but it Is possible that Apple stole some tech and gave it to Intel and that Intel's implementation is less than adequate. After all, it's not a guarantee that any tech was complete or that Intel can use the tech adequately. The capacitor plague problem of the early 2000s was caused by partially stolen IP.
I fully believe that the capacitor debacle was caused by INTENTIONALLY-INCORRECT formulas placed where they could be easily found.
For example, when Eli Lilly publishes a Patent for some drugmaking process, they INTENTIONALLY include unnecessary steps, JUST to make the process more EXPENSIVE for the competition to COPY.
But in this case, I think that Qualcomm is simply lying through their teeth, and want to try and force Apple to "prove a negative".
Unlikely. With NDA access to Qualcomm designs, the cleanroom requirements will be dire.
I understand what you are saying; but just because, for example, Intel shows Apple under NDA the internals for one of their x86 CPUs, doesan't mean that Apple can never create its own CPU. It just means that Intel could sue if they thought they were ripped-off.
Probably not documents marked "top secret, property of Qualcomm", but having had a close relationship for years and probably designed certain aspects of the iPhone around Qualcomm parts when it came to getting Intel to provide a suitable modem some of that built up knowledge leaked out.
"We did it this way with Qualcomm, it worked better..." and the NDA was just violated. Which is why NDAs are generally a bad idea but you can't avoid them when designing stuff like this.
I would think that the "knowledge" would have to be SOLELY QUALCOMM's to begin with for it to be considered a "Trade Secret". No NDA can keep Apple from revealing knowledge that IT has generated, or that was developed in concert by Apple and Qualcoimm.
For example, If Apple engineers take Qualcomm's part and then find out ON THEIR OWN that it works better when they adjust the antenna-impedance by a certain amount that isn't suggested in Qualcomm's documentation, THAT knowledge does not magically transmogrify into Qualcomm's, and is CERTAINLY not Qualcomm's "Trade Secret". So no, that sort of thing would NOT apply to Qualcomm's claims. At least not if the Judge is listening...
And you're right: NDAs aren't favored, precisely because of all these sticky corner-cases.
No, I mean the lyrics are in English and I'm a native English speaker. I just can't always understand what the hell they are saying.
You're not the only one. There are countless songs where I have no idea what the hell they are saying without a transcript. A lot of singers don't enunciate very clearly and since the words are basically poetry they don't tend to have an easy to follow thread or context to figure out what is being said. Now I can still enjoy a piece of music even if I don't understand the lyrics but it is frustrating all the same sometimes. I'm always impressed by people who can follow the lyrics to songs that I find to be incomprehensible gibberish.
And there's even a long-standing website dedicated to "misheard lyrics":
...is that Apple has no hesitation in dumping Intel as a supplier.
Apple announced that Intel modems would not be used after the current generation of iPhones.
Apple will also move away from x86 towards their own desktop/laptop ARM processors.
Is Apple dumping Intel because they broke Qualcomm's NDA? Or is it the 10nm debacle? Or both?
Or because they have perfected their own MODEM.
Remember, they now have produced in-house Bluetooth chips (at least 2 generations thereof); so they obviously have enough in-house RF Engineering talent to take on a WiFi MODEM.
Current evidence is that the modem in the Xs and Xs MAX is indeed a ripoff of a Qualcomm design, but what Apple fucked up is the antenna. The only way to fix the phones is going to be a redesign and a massive recall: they're physically defective.
Prove it.
Remember, Apple has a dedicated RF lab, and after AntennaGate, is pretty unlikely to repeat that particular design-snafu.
Apple, if you're listening, you need to get rid of pencil pusher Tim Cook and bring in somebody with a clue. That is, if you don't want your chargers to keep melting.
Yeah, because Tim Cook PERSONALLY designed the Charger, riiiiight.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless the Court Order Demands that you Open your Eyes
The US Constitution prohibits only unreasonable searches. If a police department has shown probable cause to a judge and obtained a warrant to search a particular device with a particular owner, and this device is subject to a biometric lock, one might reasonably construe the warrant as a court order for the owner to authenticate to the device in good faith.
So the trick, if arrested, is to get the cops to beat up your face to the point of requiring reconstructive surgery, then FaceID would fail through no "bad faith" on your part...
15 year old fruit flies like 14 year olds' bananas
Now excuse me while I get back to my Mac. Oh wait I don't have one. I have this peculiar aversion against proprietary stuff.
Right.
Because Open Source NEVER has longstanding vulnerabilities...
**Cough** Heartbleed **Cough**
People installing RDP and SSH generally know better than to use brute forceable passwords (or passwords at all). But this also attacked protocols for iCloud and other "helpful" services that are either on by default or enabled by the vast majority of Mac users.
They may be enabled by default; but they are still password-protected. It's up to the User to create a Robust password, though.
Weak Passwords make for Weak Security.
" The attack vector included the scanning and identification of externally facing services, to include the Apple Filing Protocol (AFP, port 548), RDP or other VNC, SSH (port 22), and Back to My Mac (BTMM), which would be targeted with weak passwords or passwords derived from third party data breaches." In other words, Durachinsky had used a technique know as port scanning to identify internet or network-connected Macs that were exposing remote access ports with weak or no passwords."
Film at 11.
Nothing to see here, move along...
Does it not eventually lock for ever longer periods of time if you keep deliberately messing it up?
Yep. But some of that stuff has to be enabled by the User.
Believe it or not, the FBI would make you open your eyes and try again. I know, hard to believe! But you know, they have a signed warrant and stuff so they will make you try again. I know, again, hard to believe you can't defy a signed warrant by closing your eyes.
Unless the Court Order Demands that you Open your Eyes, I'm not sure that LEO can FORCE you to stare at something.
For number 2, it shouldn't unlock if you close your eyes, which is a facial expression, so the answer is actually yes.
You have to have the "Require Attention" Setting set to "On", or else it doesn't require you to "pay attention" to achieve an Unlock.
And, short of the Ludvico Technique, I don't know if a Court can ORDER you to "Stare at Something".
Total iPhone units sold between 2007 and 2017 worldwide is 216.76 million. So not literally a billion; in fact, the article is specifically about iOS, so we can leave out macs. An iPhone will stay in use for about 5 years so let's assume that half of those 216 million devices is still using Safari and will get the search provider pushed. That's 9 billion for 100 million users, or USD 90 per IOS user. Assume I made a mistake and it would only amount to a third of that per user. I would still be worried if Google would pay my phone manufacturer that for providing me ads.
So we then have to multiply the number of active iOS users by the number of web searches they do on average, since each search give Google another "impression" of their advertising, not to mention another bolus of user data to mine. So, if those 100 million (your estimate) active iOS users do an average of 1,000 Google searches per year (which is only about 3 searches per user per day), that's a cool 100 BILLION searches per year. So, that works out to $.09 per ad impression/data mining opportunity.
Sounds quite reasonable to me.
And if you add the number of active Mac users and their searches, the total cost per data mining opportunity/ad impression is lowered even further.
Because sure, Spotify, every family always all lives in the same domicile. Kids never leave for college.
What a fucking farce. If you don't want people sharing it with their FAMILY, don't call it a fucking family plan and then expect them to all live in the same domicile.
I'm pretty sure Apple Music doesn't pull that shit.
In fact, I don't even have an Apple Music Family Plan, and I use it on my Apple TV, my iPhone, my MacBook Pro, and my work Windows laptop, and have never ONCE been denied access or anything. I am using the same AppleID, and are never accessing it from more than one device at once; so maybe that's why it is working, even though the GPS location of my phone and laptops change, as does what network I am on; but FWIW, it DOES work...
IMHO, Spotify must be going broke to start trying to chase pennies like that...
Who the fuck cares about the watch? And if that's the only thing you can come up with to support your point, well, that says a lot really doesn't it. But ok, they still do some engineering, incremental phone updates, the occasional new product, fine but they are all designed with form in mind first and then marketed and priced well above their weight. Apple is way more interested in making money than a good product.
I didn't include anything else because I figured anything I said would be seen as simply "Incremental Improvement". Which, of course, everything after the invention of the WHEEL arguably also falls under that category.
Would you agree that the iMac Pro also took some Engineering? Because if not, then you simply have no grasp of what it takes to actually take a blank computer screen and end up with a workable, manufacture-able PRODUCT.
Oh, and it isn't that Apple cares for form OVER function; the reason it SEEMS that way is that almost NO ONE else seems to care about "form" AT ALL. Since these are the Tools by which many people make their living, just like a Hammer or Screwdriver; do you think those people would rather the hammer have a nice-comfortable, molded handle, or a piece of wood with splinters in it? So obviously, "form" ENHANCES "function"; or more correctly, "form" is an essential part of "function".
That's what you apparently don't understand.
Apple began to staff up on mixed signal and RF ASIC designers with a list of job titles that looked like they were going after making a modem about 4-5 years ago, so yeah, they likely are ready to do their own by now. They already make their own CPU/GPU chips that leap frogged what Qualcomm offered in their SOC lineup.
Several years back I worked at a cellular amplifier supplier to a fruit themed cell phone maker (one with onerous secrecy BS in the contracts). On three ways calls with Qualcomm it was quite clear that even 5+ years ago there was a "frenemy" relationship with lots of frustration all around. Qualcomm's specifications for their envelope tracking technology was a real shit-show, and eventually when Qualcomm's 800 lb Gorilla tactics made it impossible for any of the suppliers to succeed the fruit themed company dropped it for 2 years in a semi-vindictive fashion. It was quite clear that Apple only tolerated Qualcomm so long as they had no viable alternative. When Intel got business it was clear they were willing to take a hit on performance just to have a second source.
In the end, it is hard to root for one 800 lb Gorilla over another when they are wrestling in the mud.
QUITE Insightful!!!
You don't think those hires were for the Bluetooth (W1,W2) chips?
My feeling is that they thought they were ready to cut both Intel and Qualcomm loose with the Xs/XR series; but perhaps didn't get Agency Approvals worldwide in time for Production, and so had to use the Intel chips.
But wasn't the use of Intel also tied to some RF-bands that Qualcomm didn't support? Or was that just a smokescreen?
And are there REALLY only just TWO Cell MODEM chip Designers (well, three, if you count that Apple sounds like they are doing it, too) on the PLANET?!?
Intel's not THAT stupid. If someone handed them those secrets, they have enough smart people to implement them. So, I submit that Qualcomm's allegations are as trumped-up as most of their Patents.
No Intel is not that stupid. If Apple delivered proprietary information to it - it would simply hand it over to Qualcomm with a pointer to where it came from. That way they are perfectly innocent. If they took and used proprietary information that they didn't have rights to, Qualcomm would simply sue the pants off of Intel as well.
Well, curiously enough, Qualcomm was stupid enough to NOT name Intel as a Co-Defendant!
I am pretty sure that they are not one of the "Does 1-25" listed in the caption of the case, as seen on MacRumors:
https://www.macrumors.com/2018...
Personally, I would consider that a SERIOUS mistake on the part of Qualcomm. Generally, you sue everyone and their dog, and let THEM argue to be Discharged as a Party.
This tells me that Qualcomm is just trying to stir up bad press on Apple, and that they KNOW they don't have a leg to stand on, legally...
Qualcomm is one smarmy company. Glad to see they are too cheap to rent REAL attorneys!
Next iPhone will have an APPLE-Designed MODEM
Is it going to work as well as the Apple chargers that overheat and the Apple phones that explode?
Show me an Apple RELEASED Wireless Charger that overheats, AND an EXPLODING iPhone (that means not just smoking or bulging; but a VERIFIED EXPLOSION.
So you're ok with broken, overpriced Apple products.
Of course not. And when I see one, I will be the first to "out" it.
Not that I believe Qualcomm but it Is possible that Apple stole some tech and gave it to Intel and that Intel's implementation is less than adequate. After all, it's not a guarantee that any tech was complete or that Intel can use the tech adequately. The capacitor plague problem of the early 2000s was caused by partially stolen IP.
I fully believe that the capacitor debacle was caused by INTENTIONALLY-INCORRECT formulas placed where they could be easily found.
For example, when Eli Lilly publishes a Patent for some drugmaking process, they INTENTIONALLY include unnecessary steps, JUST to make the process more EXPENSIVE for the competition to COPY.
But in this case, I think that Qualcomm is simply lying through their teeth, and want to try and force Apple to "prove a negative".
Tim Cook knows how to push a pencil, not how to lead product development. Result: phone that can't phone; charger that can't charge.
Tim Cook isn't the head of New Product Development. He has minions for that.
Try again.
Here, get edumacated on how it REALLY works:
https://www.interaction-design...
Unlikely. With NDA access to Qualcomm designs, the cleanroom requirements will be dire.
I understand what you are saying; but just because, for example, Intel shows Apple under NDA the internals for one of their x86 CPUs, doesan't mean that Apple can never create its own CPU. It just means that Intel could sue if they thought they were ripped-off.
Probably not documents marked "top secret, property of Qualcomm", but having had a close relationship for years and probably designed certain aspects of the iPhone around Qualcomm parts when it came to getting Intel to provide a suitable modem some of that built up knowledge leaked out.
"We did it this way with Qualcomm, it worked better..." and the NDA was just violated. Which is why NDAs are generally a bad idea but you can't avoid them when designing stuff like this.
I would think that the "knowledge" would have to be SOLELY QUALCOMM's to begin with for it to be considered a "Trade Secret". No NDA can keep Apple from revealing knowledge that IT has generated, or that was developed in concert by Apple and Qualcoimm.
For example, If Apple engineers take Qualcomm's part and then find out ON THEIR OWN that it works better when they adjust the antenna-impedance by a certain amount that isn't suggested in Qualcomm's documentation, THAT knowledge does not magically transmogrify into Qualcomm's, and is CERTAINLY not Qualcomm's "Trade Secret". So no, that sort of thing would NOT apply to Qualcomm's claims. At least not if the Judge is listening...
And you're right: NDAs aren't favored, precisely because of all these sticky corner-cases.
https://www.wiwavelength.com/
Sites are starting to link to this guy
That is an interesting link, thanks!
I agree that Apple probably needs to add/adjust an RF amp for higher-gain; but that may be wishful thinking at this point.
It doesn't make sense that Apple would have settled for a lower EIRP than the previous model unless they HAD to for some reason.
Shazam uninstalled do not trust Apple
And yet you apparently trust Google?!?
Well, alrighty, then!
Will they keep supporting their biggest competitor? Why would they? I expect they'll shut down the android version as fast as they can.
Why? They already have an Android version of Apple Music.
Haters gotta Hate, I guess...
No, I mean the lyrics are in English and I'm a native English speaker. I just can't always understand what the hell they are saying.
You're not the only one. There are countless songs where I have no idea what the hell they are saying without a transcript. A lot of singers don't enunciate very clearly and since the words are basically poetry they don't tend to have an easy to follow thread or context to figure out what is being said. Now I can still enjoy a piece of music even if I don't understand the lyrics but it is frustrating all the same sometimes. I'm always impressed by people who can follow the lyrics to songs that I find to be incomprehensible gibberish.
And there's even a long-standing website dedicated to "misheard lyrics":
http://www.kissthisguy.com/
...is that Apple has no hesitation in dumping Intel as a supplier.
Apple announced that Intel modems would not be used after the current generation of iPhones.
Apple will also move away from x86 towards their own desktop/laptop ARM processors.
Is Apple dumping Intel because they broke Qualcomm's NDA? Or is it the 10nm debacle? Or both?
Or because they have perfected their own MODEM.
Remember, they now have produced in-house Bluetooth chips (at least 2 generations thereof); so they obviously have enough in-house RF Engineering talent to take on a WiFi MODEM.
Intel and Qualcomm are both just stopgaps.
Current evidence is that the modem in the Xs and Xs MAX is indeed a ripoff of a Qualcomm design, but what Apple fucked up is the antenna. The only way to fix the phones is going to be a redesign and a massive recall: they're physically defective.
Prove it.
Remember, Apple has a dedicated RF lab, and after AntennaGate, is pretty unlikely to repeat that particular design-snafu.
Apple, if you're listening, you need to get rid of pencil pusher Tim Cook and bring in somebody with a clue. That is, if you don't want your chargers to keep melting.
Yeah, because Tim Cook PERSONALLY designed the Charger, riiiiight.