Ack, I forgot quote marks around "trivial". I'm talking about changes that look trivial from the outside. What they look like does not always correlate with what they are.
Trivial changes can be very problematic even for extremely well-designed code. My point is that there is no way to know if this is the case or not from the outside.
"considering this isn't "write an OS" but rather "remove or disable a 10 counter" it's likely that the work could be done by a junior"
Maybe. But it's also true that there is literally no way we can reasonably speculate on the odds that this is true. Ask literally any software engineer how often it happens that a seemingly trivial change to a piece of software actually requires a substantial amount of engineering effort.
They probably can. I don't know about Apple's policies, but with most security software companies who sell to large corporations and governments, they do exactly this. The entities send engineers to the company's premises and spend a few days looking at the source code. The only data that leaves the premises is what stays in the engineer's heads.
It's pretty much a dog-and-pony show, though, because with complex software, if there were some sort of issue then there is almost zero chance that the issue will be spotted by someone spending a few days reading source code. Companies only do it because it makes their customers feel better.
This. I have quit two excellent jobs in my time because I was not ethically OK with what I was being asked to do. It had little affect on my employability. Most employers simply don't care, and a couple commented that it made me more desirable.
It's an interesting question for sure. Lots of variables and unknowns in there. For example, I assume that most people who highly value security are already avoiding commercial services as much as possible. Even things like CyanogenMod have become less trustworthy with a lot of people since Microsoft became an investor.
I also suspect that most criminals above the petty variety would not be impacted by this sort of action as they would already be using platforms out of the reach of governmental power.
The ability to use whatever is on the phone in a court of law is irrelevant to the particular case with Apple. The perpetrators are dead. There is no court case to use any evidence in.
Technically, it's more than 8 bits to a byte over the wire because there are additional bits added for error correction, etc. Also, you have to allow for protocol overhead (IP headers, etc.).
Computing throughput as if all bits are payload bits will be pretty far off.
And it's also a major improvement that T-Mobile's letting video service providers opt out
I would say this is a minor improvement, not a major one. According to the document from T-Mobile, you have to modify your service in order to do this. Primarily, you have to provide a method for T-Mobile to track your video feed (even if you're using HTTPS!), so this also involves selling your users out by giving T-Mobile a way to track which customers are watching what.
It's not like you can just tell T-Mobile that you don't want your service to participate and be done with it.
I know that every time I've worked for a publicly traded company, all of my work-related communications have been required to take place on company equipment and services, for just this reason. And I'm an engineer, not a suit.
Why should government be held to a lesser standard?
There exist companies whose business is to write music that is as similar as possible to existing music while remaining noninfringing. That's been going on for a while.
But it's not limited to Apple. If they can make Apple do it, they can make anyone else do it too. Further, they could probably do it while requiring everyone involved to keep it a secret.
It means that you could never trust commercial platforms of any sort at all. Commercial platforms aren't terribly trustworthy as it is, but this would ensure that a trustworthy one is impossible to create.
Not to mention that the ad was for the Macintosh, which represented a 180 degree about-face for Apple, from a free-as-in-speech platform that was friendly to hobbyist hardware and software people to a closed, tightly controlled one that was unfriendly.
In the day, that ad seemed more a case of projection on the part of Apple than anything else, and even more so in hindsight.
Well, in all fairness to conservatives it depends on what kind. One of my closest friends is hard-right (politically opposite of me), but he understands what Adam Smith was talking about and agrees. Our points of disagreement tend to be around what is appropriate regulation, not whether there should be regulation.
But he's an old-school conservative. The sort that you can completely respect even if you don't agree. They are distressingly rare these days.
As Adam Smith spent a fair number of words explaining, only to be ignored by the people who shout his name the loudest, capitalism naturally tends toward monopoly. If we want something approximating a functioning free market, then careful and constant regulation is required.
On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Doesn't work out
On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Doesn't work out
On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department
Re: Re: Re: Doesn't work out
Maybe. But it's also true that there is literally no way we can reasonably speculate on the odds that this is true. Ask literally any software engineer how often it happens that a seemingly trivial change to a piece of software actually requires a substantial amount of engineering effort.
On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department
Re: Re:
It's pretty much a dog-and-pony show, though, because with complex software, if there were some sort of issue then there is almost zero chance that the issue will be spotted by someone spending a few days reading source code. Companies only do it because it makes their customers feel better.
On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department
Re: Re: Doesn't work out
On the post: How Apple Could Lose By Winning: The DOJ's Next Move Could Be Worse
Re: Re: Re:
I also suspect that most criminals above the petty variety would not be impacted by this sort of action as they would already be using platforms out of the reach of governmental power.
On the post: Former Presidential Cybersecurity 'Czar' Slams DOJ/FBI For Its Position On Apple Encryption
Re: no!
On the post: Comcast Battles Google Fiber In Atlanta -- With Threat Of Usage Caps Unless You Sign 3-Year Contract
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Comcast Battles Google Fiber In Atlanta -- With Threat Of Usage Caps Unless You Sign 3-Year Contract
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Computing throughput as if all bits are payload bits will be pretty far off.
On the post: YouTube Flips, Now Thinks T-Mobile's Abuse Of Net Neutrality Is Ok, Following A Few Small Changes
Not major
I would say this is a minor improvement, not a major one. According to the document from T-Mobile, you have to modify your service in order to do this. Primarily, you have to provide a method for T-Mobile to track your video feed (even if you're using HTTPS!), so this also involves selling your users out by giving T-Mobile a way to track which customers are watching what.
It's not like you can just tell T-Mobile that you don't want your service to participate and be done with it.
On the post: San Francisco Legislators Dodging Public Records Requests With Self-Destructing Text Messages
Re: And Private Business
Why should government be held to a lesser standard?
On the post: Canadian Cable Companies Make A Mockery Of Government's Push For Cheaper TV
Re: ESPN Pricing
And that sort of thing was one of the reasons I ditched cable TV a decade or so ago.
On the post: Powerman5000 Takes To Facebook To Complain About Similar Sounding Final Fantasy Song, Fans Rebut Them
Re:
On the post: How Apple Could Lose By Winning: The DOJ's Next Move Could Be Worse
Re:
It means that you could never trust commercial platforms of any sort at all. Commercial platforms aren't terribly trustworthy as it is, but this would ensure that a trustworthy one is impossible to create.
On the post: Yankees' Dumb Ticket Policy Turns Soccer Match At Yankee Stadium Into A Ghost Town
Re: Re:
Those are also the same teams the use Ticketmaster in the first place, so what do you expect?
I learned years ago to never do business with Ticketmaster. They are the worst.
On the post: Apple Tells Court That The DOJ Is Lying About It Advertising The Fact That Encryption Keeps Out Law Enforcement
Re: Re: 1984
In the day, that ad seemed more a case of projection on the part of Apple than anything else, and even more so in hindsight.
On the post: Despite Gigabit Hype, U.S. Broadband's Actually Getting Less Competitive Than Ever
Re: Re: Re:
But he's an old-school conservative. The sort that you can completely respect even if you don't agree. They are distressingly rare these days.
On the post: Despite Gigabit Hype, U.S. Broadband's Actually Getting Less Competitive Than Ever
Re:
On the post: Senator Lindsey Graham Finally Talks To Tech Experts, Switches Side In FBI V. Apple Fight
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Conspiracy Theories Over Steam Game Suddenly Crashing Wrong; Just More Broken Anti-Piracy Code
Re: Re: Re: Re: DRM is not a recent invention
Next >>