It's not a vulnerability, but you can hide it completely from displayed inventory (vCenter) by taking away access from vpxuser. Or from root on a standalone ESXi instance.
one of the numerous (also draft) Codes of Practice attached to the complex bill – in this case, the one concerning 'equipment interference' – stipulates that CSPs (communication service providers) must "provide a technical capability to give effect to interception, equipment interference, bulk acquisition warrants or communications data acquisition authorisations."
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not. pay attention to the thread.
It's not a vulnerability, but you can hide it completely from displayed inventory (vCenter) by taking away access from vpxuser. Or from root on a standalone ESXi instance.
Can you tell anyone if you get a secret FISA order? No. So how could that be revealing?
Adding security is now removing features?
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
Bank transfers that are $10k or greater are logged.
Several transactions close to that are flagged as suspicious.
No, per Apple's legal brief yesterday. submitted to a federal court, they explicitly said they have never done that.
But can they sell phones that have FaceTime/iMessage in the UK? Even if the services aren't available (via geoIP fencing or something like that).
Otherwise, it's still make a UKOS and a restOfWorldOS.
Or just don't sell in the UK.
proper link.
http://www.techradar.com/news/...
No, they're saying the government isn't above the law. As the constitution & bill of rights intended.
You might have read that. But only ignorant trolls have actually said it.
Uh, Apple admitted in their briefs to the court that they can be hacked, especially older OSes.
But they've also said they're working toward encryption that even they cannot access. ie a warrant-proof phone.
http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/...
Yes, I know. I was arguing that point against Amiga3D.
Not supposition.
Google "Investigatory Powers Bill" which is under discussion in England.
Here's one hit:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
one of the numerous (also draft) Codes of Practice attached to the complex bill – in this case, the one concerning 'equipment interference' – stipulates that CSPs (communication service providers) must "provide a technical capability to give effect to interception, equipment interference, bulk acquisition warrants or communications data acquisition authorisations."
Note the word MUST.
Then why would they make this massive fight against a backdoor in the US?
I've already asked about what happens to Apple if England passes its bill requiring a backdoor (currently under discussion?)
Will Apple stop selling hardware in England? or will they give the government the required backdoor? The government is really making it an either/or.
Good point. I'm sure both companies will change their policies based on your ever so insightful observation.
And guess which store is actually making billions of dollars, and which one is in the red?
indeed.com location:remote
Yes, that's they point of TFA.
The FBI threatened, in federal court, to take the source code from Apple by force.
If it were the mafia, they would be threatening knee caps. But really, potato/potahto.
If *commerce* is your first concern over privacy, you're doing it very, very wrong.
Skill level is rarely the same. In fact, I've never seen it come close.
I'll give you Carly (she needed body guards for INTERNAL meetings), but how many CEOs have split a company into two Fortune 50 companies like Meg has?
Most people don't want to move up the ladder. Just get paid better.
Remote jobs let you work more than one at a time...
$360k buys you a hell of a house in most of the US.
Get a remote job.
Holy shit, you mean we're not allowed to advance technology & then require it because it provides better services?
TURN OFF YOUR ELECTRICITY!