I think the fact that lawyers customarily argue cases in person (at trial) and that doctors can't operate over the Internet do more to protect them from overseas outsourcing than do their professional organizations:).
Do a search on Google; there is plenty of software around.
If it requires software, it isn't whole disk encryption that encrypts the whole drive and allows booting from it, unless there's a boot stub that can load the OS. Point me to one, or retract that "do a search" crack. I doubt you'll find one (other than in hardware, as you've mentioned.)
But if the use of the system could be denied to begin with, there could just be a disk with innocuous data and no "rubberhose" container to start spelunking in to begin with (as far as the adversary knows). Of course, there's then the issue of how that 16 GB of uncompressable text got there to begin with . . .
As for Harddisk encryption... that's just stupid. Of the 250,000 files on my disk, 100 of them are private. Why should I waste time/space to secure encrypt the rest of my disk when I could careless if you can read my files [when you break into my house and use my computer no less].
Perhaps because you'd rather have your adversary spending time trying to decrypt the innocuous stuff, instead of being able to home in on your 100 private files?
Unfortunately, unless that system were modified to make it's very use deniable, the name would become all too apt as the target of the investigation is beaten to near death until something sufficiently incriminating is found--and maybe after, since there could always be something worse in the free space.
What product for current versions of Windows are you referring to that offers disk at a time encryption. Note that that means being able to operate from an encrypted boot drive, not just being able to take a big file, call it a volume, and have it be encrypted.
Yeah, we've done our research, all right. The difference in prices you cite, besides being complete bull, because MS upgrades don't break apps the way Apple's do, is still less than the "style premium" paid by Apple users for hardware over the price of the eqivalent PC.
Nothing wrong with Macs or Mac users, for the most part--it's just the amusement provided by the Apple apologists who believe Jobs and crew can do no wrong. I agree that $100/year can be much better spent elsewhere, particularly in the case of a student.
Amazing what a monopoly can accomplish with respect to standards setting, isn't it? I understand the Romans did great things for standardizing land transportation, too:).
The bandwidth is already limited, so the "unlimited" must refer to time. But those who received the letters couldn't have used more than the cable modem was capped at, so they must have violated the contract with respect to time. If you got one, I'd say sue.
No, they're advertising "unlimited" service, and then individually cutting off people who exceed some undisclosed limit. That may be good for them, but it's hardly "forthright and honest." In fact, it sounds to me exactly like something a "pig-fucker" would do.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the fact that lawyers customarily argue cases in person (at trial) and that doctors can't operate over the Internet do more to protect them from overseas outsourcing than do their professional organizations :).
~~~
You mean it's as good as Netmeeting?
First thing I do after each new drivers license. Gosh, must have set it on one of those security desensitization thingies at Wal Mart.
Or most computer users, for that matter, given that BSD is . . . oh, never mind :).
Damn you! You beat me to that :)!
If it requires software, it isn't whole disk encryption that encrypts the whole drive and allows booting from it, unless there's a boot stub that can load the OS. Point me to one, or retract that "do a search" crack. I doubt you'll find one (other than in hardware, as you've mentioned.)
Good point--that, too!
But if the use of the system could be denied to begin with, there could just be a disk with innocuous data and no "rubberhose" container to start spelunking in to begin with (as far as the adversary knows). Of course, there's then the issue of how that 16 GB of uncompressable text got there to begin with . . .
Sounds like the voice of experience to me.
~~~
Oh, so Mac users like subscription software, rather than just paying once. And I thought PC users were dumb!
Perhaps because you'd rather have your adversary spending time trying to decrypt the innocuous stuff, instead of being able to home in on your 100 private files?
Unfortunately, unless that system were modified to make it's very use deniable, the name would become all too apt as the target of the investigation is beaten to near death until something sufficiently incriminating is found--and maybe after, since there could always be something worse in the free space.
What product for current versions of Windows are you referring to that offers disk at a time encryption. Note that that means being able to operate from an encrypted boot drive, not just being able to take a big file, call it a volume, and have it be encrypted.
Yeah, we've done our research, all right. The difference in prices you cite, besides being complete bull, because MS upgrades don't break apps the way Apple's do, is still less than the "style premium" paid by Apple users for hardware over the price of the eqivalent PC.
~~~
Whoops--.com is up; .org is indeed down.
As of 4:01 PT, the site is up from where I sit.
They've provided a fine model of government--panem et circensem, anyone?
The second "they" in that post should refer to the cable company, of course--sorry for the ambiguity.
Amazing what a monopoly can accomplish with respect to standards setting, isn't it? I understand the Romans did great things for standardizing land transportation, too :).
The bandwidth is already limited, so the "unlimited" must refer to time. But those who received the letters couldn't have used more than the cable modem was capped at, so they must have violated the contract with respect to time. If you got one, I'd say sue.
Then they should cease advertising unlimited service. Or does your "Consumer Law 101" course not address false and misleading advertising?
No, they're advertising "unlimited" service, and then individually cutting off people who exceed some undisclosed limit. That may be good for them, but it's hardly "forthright and honest." In fact, it sounds to me exactly like something a "pig-fucker" would do.
There's no pre-set bandwidth limit! (IOW, we'll let you know when you've hit the limit.)