Yes, I got it the first time, and I wrote that some kind of "secure facility" . . . oh, wait, sorry, I wrote a lot more in another posting separately. Yes, a search warrant has limits (though police are frequently known to go beyond them). OTOH it's not quite as specific as one would like to think, especially if written properly (like any sneaky contract). If they get a warrant to search your home for evidence of a particular crime, say a particular kind of weapon, they CAN go through every room and every item because you might have hidden it anywhere. There was an interesting article in the NY Times pointing out that Apple changed policy about a year ago; they used to work with law enforcement more easily, and then started insisting on specific paperwork at around the same time that they started emphasizing security. They're right. You and I are in violent agreement. Next time, don't be a jerk by assuming that the other person is a jerk.
They HAVE a court order. Apple is arguing that the court order is like a military draft, forcing Apple to become an agent of the security agencies, and incidentally costing them something at the same time. I'm betting this will go all the way up to the Supreme Court, by which time some kind of "secure facility" compromise (and remuneration agreement) will have been prepared in the background.
I suggest that the law enforcement personnel ARE aware of the issue. Even as NYC police had a press conference pointing out how many cases were blocked because of inaccessible information on smartphones, and the commissioner was blasting Apple's current policy, a subsequent speaker (a prosecutor?) was careful to point out that Apple had formerly cooperated in such cases, and that a narrow set of conditions including a properly-executed court order to work on a single phone at a time for a single case is VERY DIFFERENT from a generic backdoor. I'm betting that something along these lines will become the court-ordered compromise: isolated workspace, isolated cases, some kind of open oversight (like normal search warrants and court orders, not the NSA secret rubberstamp court). Practical side: DoJ doesn't want to be blamed for killing the biggest tech company or crashing the stock market.
Dave Ross, commentator on CBS Radio, proposed: Our vaunted security agencies state, loudly and publicly, that they are incapable of reading an iPhone. Apple refuses, loudly and publicly, to do anything to help, and points to our own constitution for protection. One can easily imagine a rush of bad guys to get iPhones so they can harm us with our own technology. And in the meantime . . . . are the security agencies REALLY incapable of reading it, and is Apple REALLY unwilling to help them, or is it all a honeypot meant to steer those bad guys towards a particular product?
We already have "TSA luggage locks" that have a second keyhole (or additional keyhole for combination locks) so a TSA master key can unlock them for luggage inspection. Ask the average person whether they would put a lock like that on the doors to their home. Ask the heads of the companies that make locks, especially the higher-security locks like Medeco and ASSA Abloy, if they would make them (or even bother designing them).
Perhaps where you live, you get a choice on what cable box to install; I had either the recording or non-recording box from the cable company. I think there's another hot/. story about the FCC finally wondering why, in an era of standards, every cable company and box is "incompatible" . . . just like the phone company used to be.
I get the feeling you didn't read what I said at all. I said that I feel one does NOT need to monitor, because I trust that the mere possibility will help add weight to conscience, in a secular equivalent to religious person behaving because they believe that their deity is always watching. The fact that some people are stupid enough to post selfies of themselves doing stupid and even illegal activites, and are then surprised when they face consequences for having done those activites, points out that those people are stupid, and is unconnected to the legitimate concerns about a surveillance state. Your final comment I discount as a troll, and refrain from answering in kind; though I do wonder what your experience has been in this area, either as parent or child, because I'm tempted to pity you in advance.
You don't need to actively monitor. Just the knowledge that the monitoring exists will (hopefully) affect the risk/reward calculations just enough to keep the stupidity to a dull roar.
So many aspects of technology have good applications . . . and all are so easily abused. But then, one could say the same about the earliest flint chipped into a knife.
This particular phone's owner deserves no mercy. But that's not the point, or at least not the whole point. If Apple can do this to one phone, they can do it to any phone; and if the government can make Apple do it to the phone of a dead murderer who doesn't deserve legal protection, then the government can make Apple do it do it to the phone of a live whistleblower who DOES deserve legal protection. My title comes from an era of free speech rights debates inspired by porn cases; the fact that a particular image is disgusting, like the fact that a particular case involves a murderer, does not justify changing our checks and balances for "just this case", because the precedent will be used to justify many more cases.
Parts cost is NOTHING. Design is MINIMAL. It's a freakin' Cron task. Wake up every 0:25/0:55, check the schedule, go back to sleep for another half hour.
It's a freakin' Linux system. Everything is already built in. And the problem is both simple and active: Verizon seems to think all of their CUSTOMERS are such morons that they won't be able to tell whether their TV is on or off; so when you supposedly turn the box "off", and the little "power" LED is off, it's still generating a full HD video display reminding you to turn off your TV. And it NEVER STOPS. I can turn the TV on with the button the next morning (no controller, no signal to the Verizon box), and the stupid video display is still on.
And unfortunately I can't just switch to a PC, for multiple reasons, including the fact that I already HAVE a PC attached for watching online material.
BTW the tendency for responses to "I want to do X better" to include "Why would you want to do X?" is unhelpful at best,
I think I'll go with the "retarded, barbarian, draconian, authoritarian, and evil" assessment. Especially if they're not even bothering to claim she seduced him, just that her mere unprotected existence was provocation.
The usage goes back at least to 2005. The biggest annoyance is that so often they are made so that, when plugged in, they block adjacent outlets on standard wall outlets or power strips.
“No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.” - H. L. Mencken
"Stop government regulation! It's so much easier to design without worrying about electrocuting people, or outgassing volatile compounds, or irradiating people!" . . . . No thanks. Safety regulations and "truth in labeling" are some of the few places where government actually belongs. And since wasting energy is directly connected to a smokestack in most parts of the country, saving energy promotes safety.
this++. The mere presence of the app is automatic self-incrimination. Like using encryption leads to automatic assumption that you're hiding something illicit - except here you're less likely to get body parts cut off with a sword.
All too often, a designer's idea of "improvement" is a user's case of "devolution". "Cleaner Interface" == "Where the hell did they put the options I used to know how to use, and why is it randomly doing stuff because I touched it differently?" Or, Slashdot Beta. Even suboptimal interfaces become the standard that everyone is used to, like the QWERTY keyboard; just imagine an update "improving" everyone to Dvorak.
Slashdot Mirror
... and pointing out how it made the users' Windows experience more consistent. Yeah, that sounds about right.
Yes, I got it the first time, and I wrote that some kind of "secure facility" . . . oh, wait, sorry, I wrote a lot more in another posting separately. Yes, a search warrant has limits (though police are frequently known to go beyond them). OTOH it's not quite as specific as one would like to think, especially if written properly (like any sneaky contract). If they get a warrant to search your home for evidence of a particular crime, say a particular kind of weapon, they CAN go through every room and every item because you might have hidden it anywhere. There was an interesting article in the NY Times pointing out that Apple changed policy about a year ago; they used to work with law enforcement more easily, and then started insisting on specific paperwork at around the same time that they started emphasizing security. They're right. You and I are in violent agreement. Next time, don't be a jerk by assuming that the other person is a jerk.
They HAVE a court order. Apple is arguing that the court order is like a military draft, forcing Apple to become an agent of the security agencies, and incidentally costing them something at the same time. I'm betting this will go all the way up to the Supreme Court, by which time some kind of "secure facility" compromise (and remuneration agreement) will have been prepared in the background.
I suggest that the law enforcement personnel ARE aware of the issue. Even as NYC police had a press conference pointing out how many cases were blocked because of inaccessible information on smartphones, and the commissioner was blasting Apple's current policy, a subsequent speaker (a prosecutor?) was careful to point out that Apple had formerly cooperated in such cases, and that a narrow set of conditions including a properly-executed court order to work on a single phone at a time for a single case is VERY DIFFERENT from a generic backdoor. I'm betting that something along these lines will become the court-ordered compromise: isolated workspace, isolated cases, some kind of open oversight (like normal search warrants and court orders, not the NSA secret rubberstamp court). Practical side: DoJ doesn't want to be blamed for killing the biggest tech company or crashing the stock market.
Dave Ross, commentator on CBS Radio, proposed: Our vaunted security agencies state, loudly and publicly, that they are incapable of reading an iPhone. Apple refuses, loudly and publicly, to do anything to help, and points to our own constitution for protection. One can easily imagine a rush of bad guys to get iPhones so they can harm us with our own technology. And in the meantime . . . . are the security agencies REALLY incapable of reading it, and is Apple REALLY unwilling to help them, or is it all a honeypot meant to steer those bad guys towards a particular product?
We already have "TSA luggage locks" that have a second keyhole (or additional keyhole for combination locks) so a TSA master key can unlock them for luggage inspection. Ask the average person whether they would put a lock like that on the doors to their home. Ask the heads of the companies that make locks, especially the higher-security locks like Medeco and ASSA Abloy, if they would make them (or even bother designing them).
Perhaps where you live, you get a choice on what cable box to install; I had either the recording or non-recording box from the cable company. I think there's another hot /. story about the FCC finally wondering why, in an era of standards, every cable company and box is "incompatible" . . . just like the phone company used to be.
I get the feeling you didn't read what I said at all. I said that I feel one does NOT need to monitor, because I trust that the mere possibility will help add weight to conscience, in a secular equivalent to religious person behaving because they believe that their deity is always watching. The fact that some people are stupid enough to post selfies of themselves doing stupid and even illegal activites, and are then surprised when they face consequences for having done those activites, points out that those people are stupid, and is unconnected to the legitimate concerns about a surveillance state. Your final comment I discount as a troll, and refrain from answering in kind; though I do wonder what your experience has been in this area, either as parent or child, because I'm tempted to pity you in advance.
You don't need to actively monitor. Just the knowledge that the monitoring exists will (hopefully) affect the risk/reward calculations just enough to keep the stupidity to a dull roar.
So many aspects of technology have good applications . . . and all are so easily abused. But then, one could say the same about the earliest flint chipped into a knife.
This particular phone's owner deserves no mercy. But that's not the point, or at least not the whole point. If Apple can do this to one phone, they can do it to any phone; and if the government can make Apple do it to the phone of a dead murderer who doesn't deserve legal protection, then the government can make Apple do it do it to the phone of a live whistleblower who DOES deserve legal protection. My title comes from an era of free speech rights debates inspired by porn cases; the fact that a particular image is disgusting, like the fact that a particular case involves a murderer, does not justify changing our checks and balances for "just this case", because the precedent will be used to justify many more cases.
Good point. Let's stick to truth in labeling, then: "These scissors are dangerous, don't run with them." :-)
Thank you for this confirmation.
It has an off button. I turn it off. It has an LED that pretends to be a power LED. The LED goes off. But the unit doesn't.
The cable box has an off switch, and an LED that pretends to be a power indicator. I turn it off. But it doesn't go off.
Parts cost is NOTHING. Design is MINIMAL. It's a freakin' Cron task. Wake up every 0:25/0:55, check the schedule, go back to sleep for another half hour.
It's a freakin' Linux system. Everything is already built in. And the problem is both simple and active: Verizon seems to think all of their CUSTOMERS are such morons that they won't be able to tell whether their TV is on or off; so when you supposedly turn the box "off", and the little "power" LED is off, it's still generating a full HD video display reminding you to turn off your TV. And it NEVER STOPS. I can turn the TV on with the button the next morning (no controller, no signal to the Verizon box), and the stupid video display is still on.
And unfortunately I can't just switch to a PC, for multiple reasons, including the fact that I already HAVE a PC attached for watching online material.
BTW the tendency for responses to "I want to do X better" to include "Why would you want to do X?" is unhelpful at best,
I think I'll go with the "retarded, barbarian, draconian, authoritarian, and evil" assessment. Especially if they're not even bothering to claim she seduced him, just that her mere unprotected existence was provocation.
The usage goes back at least to 2005. The biggest annoyance is that so often they are made so that, when plugged in, they block adjacent outlets on standard wall outlets or power strips.
“No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.” - H. L. Mencken
"Stop government regulation! It's so much easier to design without worrying about electrocuting people, or outgassing volatile compounds, or irradiating people!" . . . . No thanks. Safety regulations and "truth in labeling" are some of the few places where government actually belongs. And since wasting energy is directly connected to a smokestack in most parts of the country, saving energy promotes safety.
My PC goes into sleep mode, except it wakes up around 3AM and does a backup. One would think that the cable box could do the same.
So her crime was . . . existing? Or more specifically existing while female?
this++. The mere presence of the app is automatic self-incrimination. Like using encryption leads to automatic assumption that you're hiding something illicit - except here you're less likely to get body parts cut off with a sword.
All too often, a designer's idea of "improvement" is a user's case of "devolution". "Cleaner Interface" == "Where the hell did they put the options I used to know how to use, and why is it randomly doing stuff because I touched it differently?" Or, Slashdot Beta. Even suboptimal interfaces become the standard that everyone is used to, like the QWERTY keyboard; just imagine an update "improving" everyone to Dvorak.