Or because someone insulted the delicate feelings of someone in law enforcement. Especially if the insult was by use of the simply truth. Plain unvarnished facts made public.
Even if the meter could use pricing information to show a cost total for the billing cycle, this is a non essential function.
It would seem like a meter could be designed securely enough to have an ultra simple protocol for receiving this, and simply fall back to ignoring it in the case of any failure.
In fact, even transmitting is a non essential function. The main function is to keep the power flowing. Secondarily to measure it.
If a microcontroller has the separate and only function of talking to the outside world, then this would seem to limit the damage that anyone could remotely do to the power meter. Assuming it were to be designed with security in mind FROM THE START, not bolted on later.
Of course a proper GOVERNMENT design would be: 1. The power meter smart features must use the customer's network. (Let's make it use the customers electrical power to just to add insult.) 2. The power meter can get remote updates from the government 3. The microcontroller has plenty of extra processor power and local flash. Useful for future updates which add 'features' that have little or nothing to do with a power meter's primary function.
Later: 4. The optional power meter smart features become mandatory.
The EULA clearly states that any information the power meter finds on your personal network, or as a result of injecting penetration code into other devices / systems on your local network is collected for the government. For your own good. Purely for statistical purposes only. Trust us. Your agreement acknowledges your assent and affirmation that the government is your friend and you trust the government.
Antitrust laws are a joke. It took forever to stop Microsoft which had a long history of deliberately forcing PC OEMs to pay for Microsoft's OS on ALL equipment they shipped -- even if the customer wanted a different OS. Antitrust was ineffective at stopping other Microsoft anticompetitve tactics.
It wasn't competition, but effective disruption with new innovations that finally, somewhat broke the stranglehold.
Now Linux and open source are everywhere. Microsoft tried and failed to play catch up on phones / tablets. Microsoft is trying to play catch up with embedded system boards such as Raspberry Pi. Microsoft has had to embrace open source because that's where the developers are. Chromebooks have been the top selling laptops on Amazon for years now. Microsoft has not succeeded at taking over your living room and TV. PCs and Laptops have been declining in sales for several years, which directly affects Microsoft.
I wouldn't mind if Microsoft could play nice. But being anticompetitive is in their DNA. I doubt they can easily get rid of it from their culture.
It's really like AT&T. After the AT&T monopoly breakup, AT&T found that, on long distance service, where it no longer had a monopoly, it couldn't compete its way out of a paper bag. And you'd think it could since it had equipment, experience, etc. But a monopoly mindset.
Like Microsoft, AT&T wouldn't know how to compete in an actual competitive market if its life depended on it.
Why didn't an early FORTRAN compiler offer arrays with more than 3 dimensions? Because very few programs need arrays with 4 or more dimensions. But if your compiler doesn't support 4-dimensional arrays (or more), then of course, you're not going to see any programs in your language that use that feature.
The penalty for not seeing the movie and depriving Hollywood income could be to force them to see, and pay for, the movie. Because they paid for being forced to see it, this would not be 'forcible confinement'.
If you're going to have poorly trained people watching the movie audience for use of a cell phone, then the whole process could be made more efficient by making them snipers. Their expanded duty would be to identify anyone suspicious in the audience, and then to carry out instant justice.
The rent-a-cops confiscated the rum at the door because the rum was obviously guilty. Later, the mysteriously intoxicated rent-a-cops seemed to believe that someone leaving the movie early must be a pirate.
Hollywood: If your crummy movie isn't streaming on Netflix, Amazon, Starz, HBO, Hulu, PBS, then IT DOESN'T EXIST as far as I am concerned. Never heard of it. Don't want to know about it. And I assure you that I won't learn of it via some mythical thing called 'advertising' that I've heard of, and apparently some other people seem to be afflicted with.
There is an explanation for the universal dumbness of rent-a-cops. The job itself selects for low intelligence, regardless of country. If they COULD do something else, then they would.
Similarly for police. The job specifically selects for: authority complex and bullying. If you find yourself graduating from high school and suddenly realize you have no useful skills or talent, and you don't want to go into marketing or management, you become a police officer. Failing that, you become a rent-a-cop. Or run for political office.
There is another irony to this. They left this violent movie to avoid the violence. Therefore they were violently assaulted for not staying in the movie and being exposed to the excessive violence. "Jean Telfer, says she actually decided to leave the film early because she found it too violent."
But doing the exact opposite to avoid the penalty for your illegal act IS suspicious and therefore provides probable cause.
Three simple Examples:
0. In order to not be shot by a police officer for jaywalking, you decide to use the crosswalk to avoid the penalty.
1. In order to not be shot by a police officer for running a red light you decide to stop at the red light. That attempt to avoid contact with the police provides probable cause for contact with the police.
2. The MPAA / RIAA tears apart your home, seizes all your computers, and after an extensive two year search can find no copyright infringing files anywhere. The reason is because you must have hidden them in order to avoid prosecution and capital punishment for copyright infringement.
This is as much true of a "microsoft" (in the 1990s) as it is of music.
They DON'T WANT to focus on something actually productive. The ideal is that you create something once. People buy it. You keep stamping out cheap copies. (Or better yet, make OEMs preinstall it for you so you do nothing.) And collect a never ending stream of income while you do nothing.
The problem is, you must create new works sooner or later. That stream of income from copyright does have a definite end to it somewhere down the line.
If you're sending too many DMCA takedowns, maybe your asking price is too high?
If you're upset that someone can buy your product at full price and sell it at a higher price, then either they are constraining the available supply (like scalpers of a new video game), or you just don't like that people are willing to pay even more than you are charging. In the mind of the MPAA/RIAA this would mean that EVERYONE should now start paying the higher price. Of course, resulting in needing to send even more DMCA notices, because not everyone is willing to pay the higher price.
Can a president create a new form of press conference called the "You're Fired!" press conference? The purpose of calling one of these particular press conferences would be to make a public spectacle of someone who disagrees with an administration policy, or who failed to show deep enough submission and respect, or who has done the unthinkable and submitted a resignation.
This type of press conference would be held in a different press facility that has suitable lighting and pyrotechnic effects in order to give the proper reality tv show dignity that such a presidential function deserves.
On the post: UK Government Says Smart Meters Can Definitely Be Trusted Because GCHQ Designed Their Security
Re:
On the post: UK Government Says Smart Meters Can Definitely Be Trusted Because GCHQ Designed Their Security
Re:
Or because someone insulted the delicate feelings of someone in law enforcement. Especially if the insult was by use of the simply truth. Plain unvarnished facts made public.
On the post: UK Government Says Smart Meters Can Definitely Be Trusted Because GCHQ Designed Their Security
Re: Re: Power Meter Security
It would seem like a meter could be designed securely enough to have an ultra simple protocol for receiving this, and simply fall back to ignoring it in the case of any failure.
In fact, even transmitting is a non essential function. The main function is to keep the power flowing. Secondarily to measure it.
If a microcontroller has the separate and only function of talking to the outside world, then this would seem to limit the damage that anyone could remotely do to the power meter. Assuming it were to be designed with security in mind FROM THE START, not bolted on later.
Of course a proper GOVERNMENT design would be:
1. The power meter smart features must use the customer's network. (Let's make it use the customers electrical power to just to add insult.)
2. The power meter can get remote updates from the government
3. The microcontroller has plenty of extra processor power and local flash. Useful for future updates which add 'features' that have little or nothing to do with a power meter's primary function.
Later:
4. The optional power meter smart features become mandatory.
The EULA clearly states that any information the power meter finds on your personal network, or as a result of injecting penetration code into other devices / systems on your local network is collected for the government. For your own good. Purely for statistical purposes only. Trust us. Your agreement acknowledges your assent and affirmation that the government is your friend and you trust the government.
On the post: UK Government Says Smart Meters Can Definitely Be Trusted Because GCHQ Designed Their Security
Power Meter Security
Shouldn't a power meter be Transmit Only?
Sort of like an internet troll. But whatever.
On the post: UK Government Says Smart Meters Can Definitely Be Trusted Because GCHQ Designed Their Security
Re: Having GCHQ secure something is like putting...
...Microsoft in charge of technology vision and innovation.
On the post: AT&T Sues Nashville To Keep Google Fiber At Bay
Re: Re: eminent domain
It wasn't competition, but effective disruption with new innovations that finally, somewhat broke the stranglehold.
Now Linux and open source are everywhere. Microsoft tried and failed to play catch up on phones / tablets. Microsoft is trying to play catch up with embedded system boards such as Raspberry Pi. Microsoft has had to embrace open source because that's where the developers are. Chromebooks have been the top selling laptops on Amazon for years now. Microsoft has not succeeded at taking over your living room and TV. PCs and Laptops have been declining in sales for several years, which directly affects Microsoft.
I wouldn't mind if Microsoft could play nice. But being anticompetitive is in their DNA. I doubt they can easily get rid of it from their culture.
It's really like AT&T. After the AT&T monopoly breakup, AT&T found that, on long distance service, where it no longer had a monopoly, it couldn't compete its way out of a paper bag. And you'd think it could since it had equipment, experience, etc. But a monopoly mindset.
Like Microsoft, AT&T wouldn't know how to compete in an actual competitive market if its life depended on it.
On the post: EFF White Paper Hopes To Educate Cops On The Difference Between An IP Address And A Person
Re:
So transitively, an IP address is also a Corporation.
On the post: EFF White Paper Hopes To Educate Cops On The Difference Between An IP Address And A Person
Re:
On the post: Verizon Claims Nobody Wants Unlimited Data, Wouldn't Be Profitable Anyway
They don't need what we don't offer
Why didn't an early FORTRAN compiler offer arrays with more than 3 dimensions? Because very few programs need arrays with 4 or more dimensions. But if your compiler doesn't support 4-dimensional arrays (or more), then of course, you're not going to see any programs in your language that use that feature.
On the post: Movie Theater Security Guards Assault Women, Claim They Were Pirating Movie
Re: I see the obvious next step...
On the post: Movie Theater Security Guards Assault Women, Claim They Were Pirating Movie
Re:
News flash: I can stay at home and NOT have to be subjected to a Hollywood movie!
On the post: Movie Theater Security Guards Assault Women, Claim They Were Pirating Movie
Re:
On the post: Movie Theater Security Guards Assault Women, Claim They Were Pirating Movie
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Movie Theater Security Guards Assault Women, Claim They Were Pirating Movie
Re: Another Drive-By
On the post: Movie Theater Security Guards Assault Women, Claim They Were Pirating Movie
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Movie Theater Security Guards Assault Women, Claim They Were Pirating Movie
Re:
Similarly for police. The job specifically selects for: authority complex and bullying. If you find yourself graduating from high school and suddenly realize you have no useful skills or talent, and you don't want to go into marketing or management, you become a police officer. Failing that, you become a rent-a-cop. Or run for political office.
On the post: Movie Theater Security Guards Assault Women, Claim They Were Pirating Movie
Re: The irony for this film is delicious
On the post: Movie Theater Security Guards Assault Women, Claim They Were Pirating Movie
Re:
Three simple Examples:
0. In order to not be shot by a police officer for jaywalking, you decide to use the crosswalk to avoid the penalty.
1. In order to not be shot by a police officer for running a red light you decide to stop at the red light. That attempt to avoid contact with the police provides probable cause for contact with the police.
2. The MPAA / RIAA tears apart your home, seizes all your computers, and after an extensive two year search can find no copyright infringing files anywhere. The reason is because you must have hidden them in order to avoid prosecution and capital punishment for copyright infringement.
On the post: The Weird Psychology Of People Fighting Those Who Resell Their Products
The (dream) business case of Copyright
They DON'T WANT to focus on something actually productive. The ideal is that you create something once. People buy it. You keep stamping out cheap copies. (Or better yet, make OEMs preinstall it for you so you do nothing.) And collect a never ending stream of income while you do nothing.
The problem is, you must create new works sooner or later. That stream of income from copyright does have a definite end to it somewhere down the line.
If you're sending too many DMCA takedowns, maybe your asking price is too high?
If you're upset that someone can buy your product at full price and sell it at a higher price, then either they are constraining the available supply (like scalpers of a new video game), or you just don't like that people are willing to pay even more than you are charging. In the mind of the MPAA/RIAA this would mean that EVERYONE should now start paying the higher price. Of course, resulting in needing to send even more DMCA notices, because not everyone is willing to pay the higher price.
On the post: NSA Zero Day Tools Likely Left Behind By Careless Operative
Re:
This type of press conference would be held in a different press facility that has suitable lighting and pyrotechnic effects in order to give the proper reality tv show dignity that such a presidential function deserves.
Next >>