It does actually - what happens when you suddenly lose cabin pressure because, say, a cockpit window blows out at 15,000ft?
Your paper manuals will be all over the place, while the iPad will still be usable.
And before you dispute it, it's happened - British Airways Flight 5390 had the pilots front window (the main windscreen) blow out due to faulty bolts used to secure it, the pilot was sucked out and the crew flight manuals spread themselves all over south England. The co-pilot had to land at an unfamiliar airfield with no orientation maps.
Well, whats the answer then? The company is entitled to have their failed item back if they are replacing it - otherwise the solution would be that its not a replacement, but all warranty failures are dealt with by repair, which will raise costs considerably. Guess who will bear those costs?
If you are at all concerned about your data, you should not RMA a failed disk.
Now, I'm not entirely sure what the answer is to "my hard disk failed after 3 months - I want a new one under the warranty" for consumers, but when I was buying corporate stuff from Dell they had a service where I could pay a small additional fee per drive (something like £10 GBP) and get to keep the failed unit when they replaced it.
The problem is, none of those Google services currently syncs files between systems - I have things locally which will never be part of the Google services provided, and yet Dropbox allows me to sync them between systems practically seamlessly. Thats the hole in the services provided by Google, and thats what any new Google Drive service will fill - syncing of files.
And if you look at Dropbox, there is a huge demand for such a service - especially if it has Google Docs integration (a often requested feature for Dropbox) etc.
You could try using client-side encryption, but I have read that Dropbox either prohibit client-side encryption in their terms or drop customers that use it extensively, as it breaks their file de-duplicating model and they therefore have to provide many times more disk space and bandwidth for these customers.
Nope, nothing in Dropboxes T&C's to limit you from using client-side encryption, and no instances reported of users being dropped from the service for anything other than blatant copyright infringement or illegal activities (virus or spam dissemination from the public folder for example).
I use TrueCrypt extensively with my Dropbox, have done for several years now - its a 40GB container which gets regularly altered as I do a lot of stuff inside of it. It has never earned me any contact from the Dropbox team, and indeed the team do recommend using such tools on the forums from time to time.
Your concerns with Dropbox are very wide of the mark, currently.
I've used Dropbox since day one, and I've been a huge advocate for them over the years, but if Google offer better features for a similar cost, I'd certainly look into it.
Dropbox has essentially stagnated over the past two years, with few relevant features being offered for either the desktop or mobile clients, and the most recent feature (after nearly a year of nothing) has been something that no one was asking for and makes little sense for the desktop client.
They've also made other mistakes over the past two years which has gradually made me ambivalent to them - currently I use the service because the alternatives are worse in various ways, but switching isn't out of the question (and I have a paid 100GB account).
Yes. Because if you are in a MITM position to inject your own compromised cert for site Y, then you are also in the perfect position to deny access to the cert validation servers to stop the validation happening.
The solution is more resilient servers and services, not eliminating the checking.
But what the court asks for doesn't matter in this guys case, because he is still going to claim to provide X when the court wants Y.
Whether the court asks for the password, or for a decrypted copy of the files, the answer "here is how I created the password, good luck" will not cut it.
B. By providing a plain-text-file with a clear description of where I got the parts of the passwords from, I am, legally speaking, not withholding anything.
Producing information on how you derived the original password to encrypt the file is not the same as producing the password. The judge is asking you for the password, not for how you derived the password - by playing stupid games like that you are likely to end up in jail for contempt pretty quickly.
Your premise is ridiculous, as the court can reasonably assume that you intended to use said encrypted file, and thus pointing to random password generators for the password doesn't cut it because *you* need the password set to use it. Your solution doesn't accomplish anything other than looking stupid here and probably getting your arse handed to you by a judge.
If you are willing to take the legal ramifications for your "honeypot", then go for it, but don't expect a judge to accept your claim as true and leave you alone.
You have a point when talking about security at airports as a whole topic, but we were discussing the merits of limiting the required security measures to specific individual gates for use by just those flights that require the additional security measures and that is the context in which I replied.
To the airport, their job is to get you on and off the plane as quickly as possible, so they can free the facilities up for the next aircraft - they have also been given the job of administering security measures, and to be frank they don't care if its done one way or the other, but it does cause them less hassles to implement the more stringent scans at all gates because they can then use more gates in airport operation planning, and in reality whether the passenger passes through a metal detector or a full body scanner, the time element is largely the same for both and thus the operational cost to the airport is the same.
You are correct about english common law and privacy, but you miss the fact that its also been ruled in the UK that travel through an airport is a privilege and not a right (an airport is a private business and not a public entity - therefor the airport has the right to refuse you entry if you refuse their security measures, just as an airline has the right to refuse you passage).
There's "no point" only if you set the value of privacy and liberty to zero. Sometimes freedom isn't free, and when you place convenience above all else, you lose the principles that are of long-term importance.
Im sorry, but a business doesn't give the slightest toss that you think something is invading your "freedoms" - you are more than welcome to fly to another airport or use another travel method.
Lets remember here, it is *you* that has the issue, not the airport - the airport will have one form of security or another, to them its neither here nor there (full body scanners probably cost more, but will certainly have come down in cost in recent years - plus most airports get grants for security usage from governments).
So my point stands - to the airport, there is no point in having a flight wait for a "suitable" gate to become available, when the one next to it is completely unused. Airports are in the business of making money, and the more they delay that flights operations the less money they make from that flight - good luck making an airport board consider your perceived freedom above the tens of thousands of dollars they make from getting you on and off that plane as quickly as possible.
So these aren't shoes-off, no metal objects, remove your nipple rings and artificial-hips detectors?
Seems to be dependent on the operator at the time - I usually go through with my belt off but shoes on, but I have been asked to take my shoes off on a few occassions and also have forgotten to remove the belt and not had an issue.
So, you assign US-bound aircraft to particular gates.
Not as easy as you think - if you restrict certain aircraft to certain gates then you can very quickly find yourself with a flight that doesn't have a gate to go to on arrival, or you have to start repositioning aircraft between deboarding one set of passengers and boarding the next.
Lots of things to go wrong, you need to keep the maximum amount of flexibility in your gates at airports as you can - take Friday for instance, heavy snow shut Schipol for a couple of hours, and even when it was reopened they still had to plough each gate. There is no point in having a flight waiting for their gate to be ploughed when there is another gate next to it which has already been ploughed and vacated.
What about the hassle to the people indeed? Really, there isn't any more hassle than there is going through a metal detector, so thats a moot point.
And no, it wouldn't mean a reduction in the number of machines, because you either have them at entry to the secure terminal area, or (more increasingly, like at Schipol, Jo'Burg, Heathrow T5, Entebbe and Nairobi - all the airports I visited in the past 10 days) at each gate - and any aircraft can be assigned to any gate, so you need one per gate.
They certainly could do, but Im willing to bet that its not worth the hassle to the staff to have two queues and have to check tickets for destinations etc before going through security.
As I posted further up in the comments, this is due to requirements laid down by the US for all flights to the US or that go via US airspace - Australia are just making it easy for themselves and setting it as a standard for all flights.
As an aside, Im not sure why Australia are getting all the attention - I flew back from Uganda on Friday and hit Schipol just as the snows started. In Schipol they have full body scanners at all gates, and also between the Schengen zone countries and non-Schengen zone countries terminals - as my flight was cancelled, I ended up going through about 20 of them in a 24 hour period, several times asking for a patdown instead (when they were having problems with the scanner) and being refused.
I have a mismatched parenthesis in my last post (one less closing bracket than I should have), so for those of you who get driven insane by that, here you go - ).
The problem that it solves is the ability to fly aircraft to the USA - the US lays down the requirements for the security of flights that are flying to a US airport or over their airspace, and if the flights do not meet the requirements, tehy do not fly direct (see the issue of the Pakistan International Airlines issues where for a long long time after they bought their brand new Boeing 777s, they had to do a stop over in Manchester, UK on all Pakistan-USA flights, deboard the aircraft and everyone was put through UK security before the plane could depart for the US (the plane was also subject to search while the passengers were offloaded).
If the security measures do not match up to what the US wants, you have problems flying to the US...
Sure, its a self made problem, but its a problem none-the-less.
That 5% includes Africa and Asia, most of which isn't covered by aviation authorities with the same power as the EASA or FAA - places like Singapore etc are, but you need to start including all the smaller airlines that own Boeing 737-200s or 727s, which have been around for over 4 decades and are available very cheaply. They won't fly to Europe or the US, so they get to operate under very relaxed rules - check out the list of airlines banned from flying to EU airports sometime, it's quite enlightening.
Also, corruption is rife in many African countries, which even by itself is a big blocker to reform.
Slashdot Mirror
It does actually - what happens when you suddenly lose cabin pressure because, say, a cockpit window blows out at 15,000ft?
Your paper manuals will be all over the place, while the iPad will still be usable.
And before you dispute it, it's happened - British Airways Flight 5390 had the pilots front window (the main windscreen) blow out due to faulty bolts used to secure it, the pilot was sucked out and the crew flight manuals spread themselves all over south England. The co-pilot had to land at an unfamiliar airfield with no orientation maps.
Not sure what you mean about the UK having a nuclear phobia - we just approved a new generation of power plants.
Well, whats the answer then? The company is entitled to have their failed item back if they are replacing it - otherwise the solution would be that its not a replacement, but all warranty failures are dealt with by repair, which will raise costs considerably. Guess who will bear those costs?
If you are at all concerned about your data, you should not RMA a failed disk.
Now, I'm not entirely sure what the answer is to "my hard disk failed after 3 months - I want a new one under the warranty" for consumers, but when I was buying corporate stuff from Dell they had a service where I could pay a small additional fee per drive (something like £10 GBP) and get to keep the failed unit when they replaced it.
The problem is, none of those Google services currently syncs files between systems - I have things locally which will never be part of the Google services provided, and yet Dropbox allows me to sync them between systems practically seamlessly. Thats the hole in the services provided by Google, and thats what any new Google Drive service will fill - syncing of files.
And if you look at Dropbox, there is a huge demand for such a service - especially if it has Google Docs integration (a often requested feature for Dropbox) etc.
You could try using client-side encryption, but I have read that Dropbox either prohibit client-side encryption in their terms or drop customers that use it extensively, as it breaks their file de-duplicating model and they therefore have to provide many times more disk space and bandwidth for these customers.
Nope, nothing in Dropboxes T&C's to limit you from using client-side encryption, and no instances reported of users being dropped from the service for anything other than blatant copyright infringement or illegal activities (virus or spam dissemination from the public folder for example).
I use TrueCrypt extensively with my Dropbox, have done for several years now - its a 40GB container which gets regularly altered as I do a lot of stuff inside of it. It has never earned me any contact from the Dropbox team, and indeed the team do recommend using such tools on the forums from time to time.
Your concerns with Dropbox are very wide of the mark, currently.
I've used Dropbox since day one, and I've been a huge advocate for them over the years, but if Google offer better features for a similar cost, I'd certainly look into it.
Dropbox has essentially stagnated over the past two years, with few relevant features being offered for either the desktop or mobile clients, and the most recent feature (after nearly a year of nothing) has been something that no one was asking for and makes little sense for the desktop client.
They've also made other mistakes over the past two years which has gradually made me ambivalent to them - currently I use the service because the alternatives are worse in various ways, but switching isn't out of the question (and I have a paid 100GB account).
Yes. Because if you are in a MITM position to inject your own compromised cert for site Y, then you are also in the perfect position to deny access to the cert validation servers to stop the validation happening.
The solution is more resilient servers and services, not eliminating the checking.
But what the court asks for doesn't matter in this guys case, because he is still going to claim to provide X when the court wants Y.
Whether the court asks for the password, or for a decrypted copy of the files, the answer "here is how I created the password, good luck" will not cut it.
Which still makes the poster an idiot.
B. By providing a plain-text-file with a clear description of where I got the parts of the passwords from, I am, legally speaking, not withholding anything.
Producing information on how you derived the original password to encrypt the file is not the same as producing the password. The judge is asking you for the password, not for how you derived the password - by playing stupid games like that you are likely to end up in jail for contempt pretty quickly.
You are, quite simply, an idiot.
Your premise is ridiculous, as the court can reasonably assume that you intended to use said encrypted file, and thus pointing to random password generators for the password doesn't cut it because *you* need the password set to use it. Your solution doesn't accomplish anything other than looking stupid here and probably getting your arse handed to you by a judge.
If you are willing to take the legal ramifications for your "honeypot", then go for it, but don't expect a judge to accept your claim as true and leave you alone.
You have a point when talking about security at airports as a whole topic, but we were discussing the merits of limiting the required security measures to specific individual gates for use by just those flights that require the additional security measures and that is the context in which I replied.
To the airport, their job is to get you on and off the plane as quickly as possible, so they can free the facilities up for the next aircraft - they have also been given the job of administering security measures, and to be frank they don't care if its done one way or the other, but it does cause them less hassles to implement the more stringent scans at all gates because they can then use more gates in airport operation planning, and in reality whether the passenger passes through a metal detector or a full body scanner, the time element is largely the same for both and thus the operational cost to the airport is the same.
You are correct about english common law and privacy, but you miss the fact that its also been ruled in the UK that travel through an airport is a privilege and not a right (an airport is a private business and not a public entity - therefor the airport has the right to refuse you entry if you refuse their security measures, just as an airline has the right to refuse you passage).
There's "no point" only if you set the value of privacy and liberty to zero. Sometimes freedom isn't free, and when you place convenience above all else, you lose the principles that are of long-term importance.
Im sorry, but a business doesn't give the slightest toss that you think something is invading your "freedoms" - you are more than welcome to fly to another airport or use another travel method.
Lets remember here, it is *you* that has the issue, not the airport - the airport will have one form of security or another, to them its neither here nor there (full body scanners probably cost more, but will certainly have come down in cost in recent years - plus most airports get grants for security usage from governments).
So my point stands - to the airport, there is no point in having a flight wait for a "suitable" gate to become available, when the one next to it is completely unused. Airports are in the business of making money, and the more they delay that flights operations the less money they make from that flight - good luck making an airport board consider your perceived freedom above the tens of thousands of dollars they make from getting you on and off that plane as quickly as possible.
So these aren't shoes-off, no metal objects, remove your nipple rings and artificial-hips detectors?
Seems to be dependent on the operator at the time - I usually go through with my belt off but shoes on, but I have been asked to take my shoes off on a few occassions and also have forgotten to remove the belt and not had an issue.
So, you assign US-bound aircraft to particular gates.
Not as easy as you think - if you restrict certain aircraft to certain gates then you can very quickly find yourself with a flight that doesn't have a gate to go to on arrival, or you have to start repositioning aircraft between deboarding one set of passengers and boarding the next.
Lots of things to go wrong, you need to keep the maximum amount of flexibility in your gates at airports as you can - take Friday for instance, heavy snow shut Schipol for a couple of hours, and even when it was reopened they still had to plough each gate. There is no point in having a flight waiting for their gate to be ploughed when there is another gate next to it which has already been ploughed and vacated.
"Everywhere" in my comment being within Schipols terminals and gates, not everywhere in the world.
What about the hassle to the people indeed? Really, there isn't any more hassle than there is going through a metal detector, so thats a moot point.
And no, it wouldn't mean a reduction in the number of machines, because you either have them at entry to the secure terminal area, or (more increasingly, like at Schipol, Jo'Burg, Heathrow T5, Entebbe and Nairobi - all the airports I visited in the past 10 days) at each gate - and any aircraft can be assigned to any gate, so you need one per gate.
They certainly could do, but Im willing to bet that its not worth the hassle to the staff to have two queues and have to check tickets for destinations etc before going through security.
Australia certainly would lose tourists as it would eliminate US tourists...
Not sure, they weren't there when I flew last January, but they were everywhere this time.
Tourism and business is a big part of travel between the US and Australia... they wouldn't want to lose that income.
As I posted further up in the comments, this is due to requirements laid down by the US for all flights to the US or that go via US airspace - Australia are just making it easy for themselves and setting it as a standard for all flights.
As an aside, Im not sure why Australia are getting all the attention - I flew back from Uganda on Friday and hit Schipol just as the snows started. In Schipol they have full body scanners at all gates, and also between the Schengen zone countries and non-Schengen zone countries terminals - as my flight was cancelled, I ended up going through about 20 of them in a 24 hour period, several times asking for a patdown instead (when they were having problems with the scanner) and being refused.
I have a mismatched parenthesis in my last post (one less closing bracket than I should have), so for those of you who get driven insane by that, here you go - ).
The problem that it solves is the ability to fly aircraft to the USA - the US lays down the requirements for the security of flights that are flying to a US airport or over their airspace, and if the flights do not meet the requirements, tehy do not fly direct (see the issue of the Pakistan International Airlines issues where for a long long time after they bought their brand new Boeing 777s, they had to do a stop over in Manchester, UK on all Pakistan-USA flights, deboard the aircraft and everyone was put through UK security before the plane could depart for the US (the plane was also subject to search while the passengers were offloaded).
If the security measures do not match up to what the US wants, you have problems flying to the US...
Sure, its a self made problem, but its a problem none-the-less.
That 5% includes Africa and Asia, most of which isn't covered by aviation authorities with the same power as the EASA or FAA - places like Singapore etc are, but you need to start including all the smaller airlines that own Boeing 737-200s or 727s, which have been around for over 4 decades and are available very cheaply. They won't fly to Europe or the US, so they get to operate under very relaxed rules - check out the list of airlines banned from flying to EU airports sometime, it's quite enlightening.
Also, corruption is rife in many African countries, which even by itself is a big blocker to reform.
War planes are made to be shot at, but they are not made to be hit - there is no aircraft in which I would like to be hit by even a .22.