All Americans have the legal right to remain silent at all times, and guilt can never be inferred based on the execution of that right.
Not at all times. And in a criminal court, if you stop cooperating with the police at some point, that can be held against you. In a civil court, if you don't supply evidence that you are asked for, the court _will_ assume that this evidence would have been against you.
It's very hard to see how telling your password constitutes "being a witness".
It is in some exceptionally rare cases. If someone was killed by being hit with an iPhone that is found at the scene, covered in the victim's blood, and they don't know who is the owner of the phone, then telling the passcode to unlock it _is_ being a witness that you are the owner.
On the other hand, if it is clear that you are the owner, then it's not "being a witness". The question is: Would there be a difference if the police could somehow unlock the phone, or if you gave the passcode? 99.9% of the time, there would be no difference.
At least it is POSSIBLE. With closed source, it is absolutely impossible for the end user to know what the program is doing.
Double bullshit. For example, with Apple's iMessage it would be absolutely possible to detect if Apple was performing a MitM attack instead of just encrypting the sender's message with the receiver's public key.
Just so that everyone knows: "Tax avoidance" is anything that allows you to pay less taxes that is _legal_. "Tax evasion" is anything that allows you to pay less taxes that is _illegal_.
With tax avoidance, the worst that can happen is that the tax office changes what you have to pay. You cannot be prosecuted for tax avoidance. With tax evasion, you can go to jail. Here the claim is "tax evasion".
Well, that is assuming that whoever translated it from Italian got it right. There have been plenty of cases where things just get reported wrong.
... continuing the project, and paying $200 million for a space suit that nobody needs.
Here the NASA looks for a bunch of idiots for obviously wasting $80 million. Lots of people in management positions would have found a way so that nobody can claim it was _obviously_ wasteful, even if it costs more money. So have mercy on them, they could have wasted a lot lot more.
In case nobody has noticed: For everything that Apple sells online, the developer choses a "pricing tier", and Apple then picks all the prices for about 150 different countries. However, the price isn't actually picked per country - it is picked _per currency_. So every country charging in Euros will charge the same number of Euros.
The exception in the EU is the United Kingdom, which is shared in UK pound (which slashdot cannot display properly). But lots of Brits have expressed their strong opinion that they are quite willing to pay more for everything once the UK leaves the EU. Fuck frogface Farage and mini-Trump Boris Johnson.
This is what should have happened when Cook met with him.
Actually, what should have happened is that Cook said: Look, not only did you break our app store rules, but you actively added code to keep is from detecting it. So your app is rejected, will be removed from everyone's phone, your developer account is closed, and you won't be allowed to create a new one.
Then there's IDFA, the Identifier for Advertisers, which the user can reset at any time via system settings, and which Apple will reject your app for if they catch you using it for anything other than ad-tracking.
And every time I submit an app, they threaten me personally with all kinds of nastiness if the app does anything with the IDFA that it shouldn't. I'd say they take this seriously. And I'd say that if I worked for Uber (which I probably wouldn't), I would _not_ be the one submitting apps.
And for many years now, long before 2005, Apple removed the ability to request the UDID of a phone, and didn't allow anyone on the app store who would try to identify your iPhone. So very clearly against the app store rules. And they knew that, so this wouldn't happen if the app was run near Cupertino, where presumably the testers were located who checked for this.
There is a new thing - a device specific identifier for a vendor. That is a unique code identifying your phone _to one application_. And this identifier is destroyed when you delete the application. So various vendors cannot identify whether you used two or three of their applications, because the vender identifiers are different, and they can't keep track of anything when you delete the app.
Imagine if they got the wrong sperm AND egg; which is entirely possible since it was in-vitro. Using this theory, the clinic could be held 100% financially responsible for the child until age 18!
I won't discuss whether this is right or wrong. But let's assume the clinic is a business. When you run a business, you want to get paid for your cost, plus some profit, and if there is a risk that you make mistakes, you add the probability of a mistake times the cost of a mistake. if there's a one in thousand chance of a million dollar mistake, then the cost goes up by $1,000. If people don't want to pay the $1,000, then they can't get the goods.
If a device can be bricked simply by hooking it up to a network, but buyer is too lazy or ignorant to check before buying, then buyer deserves what he gets. If buyer does his/her homework (and finds device is vulnerable), but buys the product anyway, then buyer deserves what he gets.
If a hacker causes massive damage, and is too lazy or ignorant to check that he or she might be jailed for causing that damage, then the hacker deserves what he gets. If the hacker does his/her homework (and finds there's the risk of jail time) and causes the damage anyway, then the hacker deserves what he gets.
Anyone remember when Osborne Computers made the mistake of announcing computers before they were ready and pretty much tanked the company?
That wasn't what tanked them. What tanked them was that some idiot quite high up in the company discovered that they had huge numbers of motherboards for the old model lying around that were useless for the new model, and since he hated to waste the money that these motherboards cost, he ordered their manufacturing to turn them into computers. Which were unsellable, because the new model _was_ released.
To run this in a browser, there are two possibilities: The code for MacPaint for example runs on the server, or it runs on the client, with a JavaScript application emulating the original assembly code. I suppose it's possible; you probably have a microsecond on average to emulate each instruction.
The problem is that there are people who have no idea what some idiot f***ing bastard somewhere in the western world thinks is "funny". The idea that someone would tell you that you are suffering from a most likely lethal disease and consider that a "prank" wouldn't occur to them.
I'd suggest that the author of this app travels to Africa and tells these people in person what was so funny. If he doesn't come back alive, all the better.
App development and hosting is in the millions, not billions.
There is also the development of self-driving cars, based on technology that Google claims has been stolen from them, and for which Uber paid many hundred million dollars.
This. We have devs in the US and in South America, Eastern Europe, NA, and Asia. That doesn't stop my boss from merging bad codel
Where I work, when I do a pull request for the develop branch, I _must_ specify a reviewer and a tester, and until the reviewer has marked the code as fine, and the tester has marked it as fine, and a merge can be done with no conflicts, nobody can merge the code, including any boss. You can quite easily set this up in JIRA, for example.
Stop guessing stuff. A "good chunk" is NOT on research and patents. Of the $2.8B loss, a bit over $2.6B went to drivers. Uber is trying to kill the competition by subsidizing their drivers with investors money.
People are obviously happy with Uber rides being cheap. And then they think that Uber has some excellent ideas and implements them well, and that's why they are cheap. WRONG. It's very easy to offer cheap rides if you just subsidize every ride with investors' money.
In China drivers were paid more than the customer paid at some point, so clever drivers let the whole family book rides, didn't drive anyone, paid back the ride fees, and kept the difference in their pocket. Free money, straight from the pocket of an investor into the pocket of a driver in China.
So now McDonald's does it, but not to themselves but to every other indie restaurant and small chain.
Typical slash dotter who thinks the world is filled with braindead idiots. How long do you think would it take Google to figure out? And how long until Google sends every company affected a nice letter explaining how the were the victim of tortuous interference with their business, and how long until McDonald's would be convicted in court? BTW. Tortuous interference with business is a tort. Not just a civil case.
How would you do that, exactly? The sound it hears will be different for every household due to the type and placement of speakers in relation to the Google Home device, the room tone, any ambient sounds from the people watching the TV, etc., etc.
I was told that Google itself has TV adverts where someone says "OK Google" to demonstrate the product, and because Google doesn't want to achieve the same effect that Burger King wants, they filter out the commands coming from Google TV adverts. So they _can_ do this filtering.
It would be impossible to argue that simply yelling "OK Google" constitutes "computer misuse" since intent can't be determined with that information alone. Your answer is incorrect.
A British judge has the power to determine intent, depending on the situation. How many people do you find in the street who call out "OK Google" ?
It's totally beyond me how someone votes up an old fart of a joke like that and calls it "interesting". I'd call it an example of pre-teen humour, and not a good one.
Does the ISP assume liability if someone uses your Wi-Fi for illegal purposes?
What do you mean by "your Wi-Fi"? Nobody is using your WiFi. Somebody is using a second network created by the router in your home, which uses a second connection to your ISP.
He's being sued instead of being subject to a criminal investigation. I think that's an indication that there is less going on here than was claimed. If you are going to accuse an ex-employee of a crime and you are confident that they actually did it surely it's time to call the police instead of suing them?
Depends on what you want. If you smashed my car and I had the choice between (a) you going to jail for a year, or (b) you paying for all the damage, I'd want to get paid for the damage (if for some reason no insurance would pay). They might say "it's $500,000 damage, the guy is 40 and can work for another 25 years and pay $20,000 a year for the damage".
Every single person who installed one of these listening devices authorized every random stranger with a voice to command it to do any damn thing they wanted because that's how the device works. You've made it clear anyone is welcome to control your home by installing it in the first place
Sounds like an autistic nerd who cannot distinguish between the ability to do something and the authorisation to do something.
Slashdot Mirror
All Americans have the legal right to remain silent at all times, and guilt can never be inferred based on the execution of that right.
Not at all times. And in a criminal court, if you stop cooperating with the police at some point, that can be held against you. In a civil court, if you don't supply evidence that you are asked for, the court _will_ assume that this evidence would have been against you.
It's very hard to see how telling your password constitutes "being a witness".
It is in some exceptionally rare cases. If someone was killed by being hit with an iPhone that is found at the scene, covered in the victim's blood, and they don't know who is the owner of the phone, then telling the passcode to unlock it _is_ being a witness that you are the owner.
On the other hand, if it is clear that you are the owner, then it's not "being a witness". The question is: Would there be a difference if the police could somehow unlock the phone, or if you gave the passcode? 99.9% of the time, there would be no difference.
At least it is POSSIBLE. With closed source, it is absolutely impossible for the end user to know what the program is doing.
Double bullshit. For example, with Apple's iMessage it would be absolutely possible to detect if Apple was performing a MitM attack instead of just encrypting the sender's message with the receiver's public key.
Just so that everyone knows: "Tax avoidance" is anything that allows you to pay less taxes that is _legal_. "Tax evasion" is anything that allows you to pay less taxes that is _illegal_.
With tax avoidance, the worst that can happen is that the tax office changes what you have to pay. You cannot be prosecuted for tax avoidance. With tax evasion, you can go to jail. Here the claim is "tax evasion".
Well, that is assuming that whoever translated it from Italian got it right. There have been plenty of cases where things just get reported wrong.
... continuing the project, and paying $200 million for a space suit that nobody needs.
Here the NASA looks for a bunch of idiots for obviously wasting $80 million. Lots of people in management positions would have found a way so that nobody can claim it was _obviously_ wasteful, even if it costs more money. So have mercy on them, they could have wasted a lot lot more.
In case nobody has noticed: For everything that Apple sells online, the developer choses a "pricing tier", and Apple then picks all the prices for about 150 different countries. However, the price isn't actually picked per country - it is picked _per currency_. So every country charging in Euros will charge the same number of Euros.
The exception in the EU is the United Kingdom, which is shared in UK pound (which slashdot cannot display properly). But lots of Brits have expressed their strong opinion that they are quite willing to pay more for everything once the UK leaves the EU. Fuck frogface Farage and mini-Trump Boris Johnson.
This is what should have happened when Cook met with him.
Actually, what should have happened is that Cook said: Look, not only did you break our app store rules, but you actively added code to keep is from detecting it. So your app is rejected, will be removed from everyone's phone, your developer account is closed, and you won't be allowed to create a new one.
Then there's IDFA, the Identifier for Advertisers, which the user can reset at any time via system settings, and which Apple will reject your app for if they catch you using it for anything other than ad-tracking.
And every time I submit an app, they threaten me personally with all kinds of nastiness if the app does anything with the IDFA that it shouldn't. I'd say they take this seriously. And I'd say that if I worked for Uber (which I probably wouldn't), I would _not_ be the one submitting apps.
And for many years now, long before 2005, Apple removed the ability to request the UDID of a phone, and didn't allow anyone on the app store who would try to identify your iPhone. So very clearly against the app store rules. And they knew that, so this wouldn't happen if the app was run near Cupertino, where presumably the testers were located who checked for this.
There is a new thing - a device specific identifier for a vendor. That is a unique code identifying your phone _to one application_. And this identifier is destroyed when you delete the application. So various vendors cannot identify whether you used two or three of their applications, because the vender identifiers are different, and they can't keep track of anything when you delete the app.
Imagine if they got the wrong sperm AND egg; which is entirely possible since it was in-vitro. Using this theory, the clinic could be held 100% financially responsible for the child until age 18!
I won't discuss whether this is right or wrong. But let's assume the clinic is a business. When you run a business, you want to get paid for your cost, plus some profit, and if there is a risk that you make mistakes, you add the probability of a mistake times the cost of a mistake. if there's a one in thousand chance of a million dollar mistake, then the cost goes up by $1,000. If people don't want to pay the $1,000, then they can't get the goods.
If a device can be bricked simply by hooking it up to a network, but buyer is too lazy or ignorant to check before buying, then buyer deserves what he gets. If buyer does his/her homework (and finds device is vulnerable), but buys the product anyway, then buyer deserves what he gets.
If a hacker causes massive damage, and is too lazy or ignorant to check that he or she might be jailed for causing that damage, then the hacker deserves what he gets. If the hacker does his/her homework (and finds there's the risk of jail time) and causes the damage anyway, then the hacker deserves what he gets.
Anyone remember when Osborne Computers made the mistake of announcing computers before they were ready and pretty much tanked the company?
That wasn't what tanked them. What tanked them was that some idiot quite high up in the company discovered that they had huge numbers of motherboards for the old model lying around that were useless for the new model, and since he hated to waste the money that these motherboards cost, he ordered their manufacturing to turn them into computers. Which were unsellable, because the new model _was_ released.
Cue Apple Lawsuit in 3.. 2.. 1.. Gotta keep those liars err lawyers in work, doncha know??
Idiot. All MacOS updates up to 7.5.3 where freely available for download.
To run this in a browser, there are two possibilities: The code for MacPaint for example runs on the server, or it runs on the client, with a JavaScript application emulating the original assembly code. I suppose it's possible; you probably have a microsecond on average to emulate each instruction.
The problem is that there are people who have no idea what some idiot f***ing bastard somewhere in the western world thinks is "funny". The idea that someone would tell you that you are suffering from a most likely lethal disease and consider that a "prank" wouldn't occur to them.
I'd suggest that the author of this app travels to Africa and tells these people in person what was so funny. If he doesn't come back alive, all the better.
App development and hosting is in the millions, not billions.
There is also the development of self-driving cars, based on technology that Google claims has been stolen from them, and for which Uber paid many hundred million dollars.
This. We have devs in the US and in South America, Eastern Europe, NA, and Asia. That doesn't stop my boss from merging bad codel
Where I work, when I do a pull request for the develop branch, I _must_ specify a reviewer and a tester, and until the reviewer has marked the code as fine, and the tester has marked it as fine, and a merge can be done with no conflicts, nobody can merge the code, including any boss. You can quite easily set this up in JIRA, for example.
Stop guessing stuff. A "good chunk" is NOT on research and patents. Of the $2.8B loss, a bit over $2.6B went to drivers. Uber is trying to kill the competition by subsidizing their drivers with investors money.
People are obviously happy with Uber rides being cheap. And then they think that Uber has some excellent ideas and implements them well, and that's why they are cheap. WRONG. It's very easy to offer cheap rides if you just subsidize every ride with investors' money.
In China drivers were paid more than the customer paid at some point, so clever drivers let the whole family book rides, didn't drive anyone, paid back the ride fees, and kept the difference in their pocket. Free money, straight from the pocket of an investor into the pocket of a driver in China.
So now McDonald's does it, but not to themselves but to every other indie restaurant and small chain.
Typical slash dotter who thinks the world is filled with braindead idiots. How long do you think would it take Google to figure out? And how long until Google sends every company affected a nice letter explaining how the were the victim of tortuous interference with their business, and how long until McDonald's would be convicted in court? BTW. Tortuous interference with business is a tort. Not just a civil case.
How would you do that, exactly? The sound it hears will be different for every household due to the type and placement of speakers in relation to the Google Home device, the room tone, any ambient sounds from the people watching the TV, etc., etc.
I was told that Google itself has TV adverts where someone says "OK Google" to demonstrate the product, and because Google doesn't want to achieve the same effect that Burger King wants, they filter out the commands coming from Google TV adverts. So they _can_ do this filtering.
It would be impossible to argue that simply yelling "OK Google" constitutes "computer misuse" since intent can't be determined with that information alone. Your answer is incorrect.
A British judge has the power to determine intent, depending on the situation. How many people do you find in the street who call out "OK Google" ?
Or do they require their own proprietary iRoads?
It's totally beyond me how someone votes up an old fart of a joke like that and calls it "interesting". I'd call it an example of pre-teen humour, and not a good one.
Does the ISP assume liability if someone uses your Wi-Fi for illegal purposes?
What do you mean by "your Wi-Fi"? Nobody is using your WiFi. Somebody is using a second network created by the router in your home, which uses a second connection to your ISP.
He's being sued instead of being subject to a criminal investigation. I think that's an indication that there is less going on here than was claimed. If you are going to accuse an ex-employee of a crime and you are confident that they actually did it surely it's time to call the police instead of suing them?
Depends on what you want. If you smashed my car and I had the choice between (a) you going to jail for a year, or (b) you paying for all the damage, I'd want to get paid for the damage (if for some reason no insurance would pay). They might say "it's $500,000 damage, the guy is 40 and can work for another 25 years and pay $20,000 a year for the damage".
Every single person who installed one of these listening devices authorized every random stranger with a voice to command it to do any damn thing they wanted because that's how the device works. You've made it clear anyone is welcome to control your home by installing it in the first place
Sounds like an autistic nerd who cannot distinguish between the ability to do something and the authorisation to do something.