It's really not that much different than bars that have lockers for smartphones, as long as people are warned about it beforehand.
Of course it'd be better if people were just polite and still have a little empathy left in them to keep their smartphones away in social occasions, but you know.
It's really sad that the whole fracas about Blackberry handing a single encryption key that opened up the doors to all non-corporate Blackberry users for the Canadian Mounted Police got burried and didn't get enough attention from costumers, but at least for me, the company is fucking dead regarding privacy and security.
It really shows how much the news was ignored when the same company dares to say they came up with the world's most secure phone after all that. John Chen (Blackberry's CEO) made his position extremely clear. It's still there for anyone who wants to read it: http://blogs.blackberry.com/20...
This was written after it was revealed that Blackberry was using a single encryption key for all users of non-corporate Blackberry accounts. Canadian Mounted Police was given access to it in a glarringly major security and privacy flaw. The company caved in on giving keys to conversations of all it's costumers because the Canadian Mounted Police wanted to have access to some criminal conversations. It's basically the same thing as if Apple decided to open backdoors for the FBI.
I can only imagine that the company didn't close after that due to common users' ignorance. People failed to understand how something like this puts the company as the worst among all regarding privacy and security. Luckly for all of us, Blackberry is already dying anyways.
I don't think there are many people out there saying that removing a choice is actually good for consumers, no matter what the justification is for all the phones that have already been released, and the ones that are coming. Problem is, people have to speak with their money, and I'm not sure they will.
I mean, if Apple released an iPhone 7 that demanded an obligatory rectal exam for usage, there would still be lines to buy it. That's the problem that has been plaguing the smartphone business lately. I'm not an Apple hater, but at some point, fandom turns against the capability of a company to really innovate and really design products with consumers in mind. It's financially great for companies to have a horde of mindless fans that will buy whatever you churn out while not understanding the changes that were done, but it's also very easy to see why they wouldn't bother to spend money in creating something unique anymore after a certain point.
I personally don't even use wired headphones anymore, but I still think this is problematic. At best, an awful decision to allow for something people don't really need (even thinner smartphones with paltry battery capacities to follow), and at worse, a move to force consumers to spend more on stuff they never asked for, like clunky adapters, headphones with proprietary cables or clunky bluetooth gear that needs pairing, inherently more unsecure and becoming just one more thing to charge and worry about.
Say what you will, but replacing microUSB to USB Type-C has advantages and is a move vouching for better standardization and more capabilities to come. Eliminating a regular audio port, even if lightning ports and USB Type-C ports did give a hugely improved audio quality (which they don't, not for the average consumer) is just bullshit. It's anti-consumer, no matter what shit justifications these companies are giving for the move. This is removing choice. Anyone who wanted either Bluetooth phones or "better quality" audio via USB Type-C or Lightining ports could still have it with the audio port still there. There's nothing to be gained. Removing audio ports also won't change devices price... there's probably nothing cheaper among components than an audio port. There's probably also nothing more universal than it.
Seems also to be a calculated move... I'll point fingers here, sue me. Why the heck wouldn't Moto Z phones include a goddamn headphone jack in any of their Moto Z Mods for instance? It just sounds like this is the new way these phone companies found out to screw us over to force us to spend more money. I wouldn't be surprised if at a later date we found out that several companies colluded to make this move to sell more overpriced headphones out there.
Added to all that, it's yet another port disappearing from devices. I understand that it's pretty great to have a standard that does it all, but if you keep taking ports out of devices, you end up with crap like the recent MacBook with it's obviously insufficient single USB Type-C port. Now, you can push someone to buy and carry around a dongle just because you couldn't put a couple more ports on your laptop (still think it's stupid and a design flaw), but to force smartphone owners to carry extra dongles, some bulky case, or anything extra like that just so that people can do what they already could do with previous versions - like charging a smartphone while still listening to stuff with a regular headphone. That's just backwards.
It's like releasing an entire new TV line that is 3D only. No, you can't watch things in regular 2D anymore because 3D is the new thing. We have the 3D glasses for you at "discount" prices, but if you are really cool we have expensive ones to match your coolness. If you are a poor lameass though, you can buy a 2D dongle and keep living in the past.
It's not like smartphones are already plateauing with less and less people buying new models because the ones they already have are "good enough", amirite? They also needed to make them less attractive
Well, on one hand, it's great that the beach is going back to the people... then again, it should never have been owned by the guy in the first place.
But I have no clue how New Zealand law works, so there's that.
Here in Brazil beaches are public, period. Of course, rich people always find a way to buy property right in front of beaches, built a walled residential area or something, and then make public access difficult... and they'll pay judges and politicians to keep things the way they are. It's still unlawful to do so though.
By law, and I've seen cases of very big fines being applied and complete reforms being made, it is forbidden not only to own beaches, but also to constrain public access with nearby private constructions of any sort. Brazilian law is very specific on this, if I'm not mistaken... it's not just some vague open access to the public thing. It's direct access. Like say, if you buy a plot of land right next to the beach and build a walled residential or commercial area there, you are obliged to build streets leading directly to the beach that are open to the public, even if for that you have to make streets going right throught the middle of your walled residential neighborhood, or over/under it.:P
It's like, yeah, you can make a huge walled residential area here, but if people have to go too far around it to make it to the beach, then you are gonna have to provide an alternative way to give them access.
Or maybe I'm just talking bs. Oh well.
This brings out a question I have for a while and discussed several times before: Can ToS even have such powers?
I mean, of course the research went an extra length to make things clear and exaggerated, but afaik, ToSs are not above the law, and they cannot force people who sign it to do stuff considered illegal, or just put too much burden into whoever signed it.
I'm not sure where US law stands on this matter, but I think there are provisions for abusive/unfair/unconscionable contracts.
Of course, people still have to be careful on what they are signing, and the study still makes it's point on how no one really reads or care about ToSs... but this particular ToS among some others would never be able to be enforced, right?
The problem I always had with biometrics, specially in articles saying they should completely replace passwords and whatnot, is exactly that: they are uniquelly identifiable and non-exchangeable.
We all know well enough that biometrics are far from being as secure as their evangelists will tell you, plenty of fingerprint scanners have been cracked, yet every now and then I'll read once again in some superficial, when not sponsored, article how biometrics are going to replace everything because they are impossible to replicate and whatnot.
Yes, it's definitely harder for an attacker to get your fingerprint rather than guess your stupid "password" or "1234" password. And yes, there has been advances to prevent the most common types of attacks against fingerprint scanners.
Here's the major flaw with biometrics though: if attackers ever finds a way to replicate it, that's it. You can't change your fingerprint, you can't change your iris, you can't change your voice speech pattern.... well, ok, you might be able to after some painful procedures, but you get what I mean.
Do you own your fingerprints? Does it even matter anymore? At the very least, the government already has it, and last I heard, their security practices are not all that much reliable. It wouldn't surprise me the least to find out there are already leaks available for purchase on some darknet website for less than a bitcoin. It's easier to steal then than most people think.
I mean, if people were really interested in compiling a fingerprint database with personal information, I can't imagine it'd be very hard to surreptiously install door handles in a bunch of public places with cameras that will take your fingerprints, a shot of your face, and then easily find who you are using some image/gps search.
The only thing fingerprints are good for are convenient locks (having in mind that no lock is absolutely secure). For good security, you'll always need extra independent steps. It's always about making it hard enough for attackers that they will end up not bothering, going for the next easier target...
Slashdot Mirror
It's really not that much different than bars that have lockers for smartphones, as long as people are warned about it beforehand.
Of course it'd be better if people were just polite and still have a little empathy left in them to keep their smartphones away in social occasions, but you know.
It's really sad that the whole fracas about Blackberry handing a single encryption key that opened up the doors to all non-corporate Blackberry users for the Canadian Mounted Police got burried and didn't get enough attention from costumers, but at least for me, the company is fucking dead regarding privacy and security.
It really shows how much the news was ignored when the same company dares to say they came up with the world's most secure phone after all that. John Chen (Blackberry's CEO) made his position extremely clear. It's still there for anyone who wants to read it: http://blogs.blackberry.com/20...
This was written after it was revealed that Blackberry was using a single encryption key for all users of non-corporate Blackberry accounts. Canadian Mounted Police was given access to it in a glarringly major security and privacy flaw. The company caved in on giving keys to conversations of all it's costumers because the Canadian Mounted Police wanted to have access to some criminal conversations. It's basically the same thing as if Apple decided to open backdoors for the FBI.
I can only imagine that the company didn't close after that due to common users' ignorance. People failed to understand how something like this puts the company as the worst among all regarding privacy and security. Luckly for all of us, Blackberry is already dying anyways.
I don't think there are many people out there saying that removing a choice is actually good for consumers, no matter what the justification is for all the phones that have already been released, and the ones that are coming.
Problem is, people have to speak with their money, and I'm not sure they will.
I mean, if Apple released an iPhone 7 that demanded an obligatory rectal exam for usage, there would still be lines to buy it. That's the problem that has been plaguing the smartphone business lately. I'm not an Apple hater, but at some point, fandom turns against the capability of a company to really innovate and really design products with consumers in mind. It's financially great for companies to have a horde of mindless fans that will buy whatever you churn out while not understanding the changes that were done, but it's also very easy to see why they wouldn't bother to spend money in creating something unique anymore after a certain point.
I personally don't even use wired headphones anymore, but I still think this is problematic. At best, an awful decision to allow for something people don't really need (even thinner smartphones with paltry battery capacities to follow), and at worse, a move to force consumers to spend more on stuff they never asked for, like clunky adapters, headphones with proprietary cables or clunky bluetooth gear that needs pairing, inherently more unsecure and becoming just one more thing to charge and worry about.
Say what you will, but replacing microUSB to USB Type-C has advantages and is a move vouching for better standardization and more capabilities to come. Eliminating a regular audio port, even if lightning ports and USB Type-C ports did give a hugely improved audio quality (which they don't, not for the average consumer) is just bullshit. It's anti-consumer, no matter what shit justifications these companies are giving for the move. This is removing choice. Anyone who wanted either Bluetooth phones or "better quality" audio via USB Type-C or Lightining ports could still have it with the audio port still there. There's nothing to be gained. Removing audio ports also won't change devices price... there's probably nothing cheaper among components than an audio port. There's probably also nothing more universal than it.
Seems also to be a calculated move... I'll point fingers here, sue me. Why the heck wouldn't Moto Z phones include a goddamn headphone jack in any of their Moto Z Mods for instance? It just sounds like this is the new way these phone companies found out to screw us over to force us to spend more money. I wouldn't be surprised if at a later date we found out that several companies colluded to make this move to sell more overpriced headphones out there.
Added to all that, it's yet another port disappearing from devices. I understand that it's pretty great to have a standard that does it all, but if you keep taking ports out of devices, you end up with crap like the recent MacBook with it's obviously insufficient single USB Type-C port.
Now, you can push someone to buy and carry around a dongle just because you couldn't put a couple more ports on your laptop (still think it's stupid and a design flaw), but to force smartphone owners to carry extra dongles, some bulky case, or anything extra like that just so that people can do what they already could do with previous versions - like charging a smartphone while still listening to stuff with a regular headphone. That's just backwards.
It's like releasing an entire new TV line that is 3D only. No, you can't watch things in regular 2D anymore because 3D is the new thing. We have the 3D glasses for you at "discount" prices, but if you are really cool we have expensive ones to match your coolness. If you are a poor lameass though, you can buy a 2D dongle and keep living in the past.
It's not like smartphones are already plateauing with less and less people buying new models because the ones they already have are "good enough", amirite? They also needed to make them less attractive
You can't "fix" a piece of turd by vomiting on top of it.
Well, on one hand, it's great that the beach is going back to the people... then again, it should never have been owned by the guy in the first place. But I have no clue how New Zealand law works, so there's that. Here in Brazil beaches are public, period. Of course, rich people always find a way to buy property right in front of beaches, built a walled residential area or something, and then make public access difficult... and they'll pay judges and politicians to keep things the way they are. It's still unlawful to do so though. By law, and I've seen cases of very big fines being applied and complete reforms being made, it is forbidden not only to own beaches, but also to constrain public access with nearby private constructions of any sort. Brazilian law is very specific on this, if I'm not mistaken... it's not just some vague open access to the public thing. It's direct access. Like say, if you buy a plot of land right next to the beach and build a walled residential or commercial area there, you are obliged to build streets leading directly to the beach that are open to the public, even if for that you have to make streets going right throught the middle of your walled residential neighborhood, or over/under it. :P
It's like, yeah, you can make a huge walled residential area here, but if people have to go too far around it to make it to the beach, then you are gonna have to provide an alternative way to give them access.
Or maybe I'm just talking bs. Oh well.
This brings out a question I have for a while and discussed several times before: Can ToS even have such powers? I mean, of course the research went an extra length to make things clear and exaggerated, but afaik, ToSs are not above the law, and they cannot force people who sign it to do stuff considered illegal, or just put too much burden into whoever signed it. I'm not sure where US law stands on this matter, but I think there are provisions for abusive/unfair/unconscionable contracts. Of course, people still have to be careful on what they are signing, and the study still makes it's point on how no one really reads or care about ToSs... but this particular ToS among some others would never be able to be enforced, right?
The problem I always had with biometrics, specially in articles saying they should completely replace passwords and whatnot, is exactly that: they are uniquelly identifiable and non-exchangeable. We all know well enough that biometrics are far from being as secure as their evangelists will tell you, plenty of fingerprint scanners have been cracked, yet every now and then I'll read once again in some superficial, when not sponsored, article how biometrics are going to replace everything because they are impossible to replicate and whatnot. Yes, it's definitely harder for an attacker to get your fingerprint rather than guess your stupid "password" or "1234" password. And yes, there has been advances to prevent the most common types of attacks against fingerprint scanners. Here's the major flaw with biometrics though: if attackers ever finds a way to replicate it, that's it. You can't change your fingerprint, you can't change your iris, you can't change your voice speech pattern.... well, ok, you might be able to after some painful procedures, but you get what I mean. Do you own your fingerprints? Does it even matter anymore? At the very least, the government already has it, and last I heard, their security practices are not all that much reliable. It wouldn't surprise me the least to find out there are already leaks available for purchase on some darknet website for less than a bitcoin. It's easier to steal then than most people think. I mean, if people were really interested in compiling a fingerprint database with personal information, I can't imagine it'd be very hard to surreptiously install door handles in a bunch of public places with cameras that will take your fingerprints, a shot of your face, and then easily find who you are using some image/gps search. The only thing fingerprints are good for are convenient locks (having in mind that no lock is absolutely secure). For good security, you'll always need extra independent steps. It's always about making it hard enough for attackers that they will end up not bothering, going for the next easier target...
Age ratings for all the pages? Sure, the Internet is just a black box with a red led on top, amirite?