From now on, when you are recording police activity, be sure to loudly announce some expressive political purpose for doing so. Like the hunters in South Park: "It's coming right at us!"
In general in life, there is no such thing as 100% security. With almost all crypto, this is even more true. To take a binary "secure/insecure" viewpoint is, itself, a security problem because it prevents you from accurately evaluating your security situation.
"Solicited traffic can go through the firewall on all ports."
This is another problem. Firewall configurations tend to assume that any traffic coming from inside the firewall is trustworthy -- and it's not. Automatically allowing solicited traffic through is a security problem.
In my home LAN, this is not automatically true. All traffic is blocked, solicited or otherwise, unless I specifically tell the firewall it's permitted.
"The FBI never was nor intended to be an intelligence service."
That's not really true. The FBI has operated as a domestic intelligence service from day 1. It's part of their mandate. The NSA and CIA are not legally allowed to operate domestically -- that's the FBI's jurisdiction.
If a law enforcement agency is telling me to upgrade or install any particular piece of software, my inclination would be to avoid that software. Law enforcement agencies cannot be trusted.
I love that flier. Not a single bullet point in there makes a persuasive point, given the end users can cheaply and easily get all the same benefits regardless of who their ISP is.
But it's the "fastest Wifi" that made me laugh the loudest.
The company that owns the phone had Apple reset the cloud password and they recovered the backup data. However, the phone hadn't been backed up during the period of time of interest. That's why the FBI is so keen on unlocking the physical phone.
"So would you buy a product if you found out it does not protect your data and that had false advertisement on its protection capabilities? I wouldn't."
I already do. I literally cannot think of a commercial network-connected product that I trust to protect my data, even though most claim they do. Not iThings, not Android, not my car, nothing. So pretty much every connected device I buy fits your category.
This does mean that I buy less things, because I only buy things that I am confident that I can adequately secure or operate without a net connection.
Oh, and if you're in a rural, but not middle-of-nowhere, the odds are good that there exists at least one smaller local company that will provide a microwave feed to you. These things are more common than many people think.
There's almost certainly a provider no matter where you are. The trick is that you have to have line of sight to their tower (which can be miles away, no problem), or be able to relay to their tower.
When I helped my friend (who lives in the middle of nowhere) set his up, he had a choice of two providers, and went with AT&T iirc.
The downside of going this route is that it's more expensive, both with initial costs (equipment, licensing, etc.) and as the monthly fee. The upside is that you get much better bandwidth than you'd get through cable or DSL. That's why it's mostly only economical when you have a couple of houses chipping in together and you're going to be using it for a long time (to amortize the initial investment).
I think their fantasy is that there is a benevolent system that can not only ensure everyone's total safety, but can be trusted to be fair and honorable and only harrass "the bad guys".
They forget it's a fantasy until something that's only supposed to happen to "the bad guys" happens to them.
On the post: Federal Judge Says Recording Police Not Protected By The First Amendment
The lesson of the "South Park Rule"
On the post: Remember When The FBI & NYPD Told People To Upgrade Their iPhones To Enable Stronger Security?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In general in life, there is no such thing as 100% security. With almost all crypto, this is even more true. To take a binary "secure/insecure" viewpoint is, itself, a security problem because it prevents you from accurately evaluating your security situation.
On the post: Apple Hires Former Solicitor General, Who Lost Wife In 9/11, To Defend It Against FBI
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Google Fiber Expanding Faster, Further -- And Making Comcast Very Nervous
Re: Re: Comcast Gouging
On the post: FBI Insists It's Not Trying To Set A Precedent, But Law Enforcement Is Drooling Over Exactly That Possibility
Re: Re: Re: TPMs
On the post: DOJ Reached Out To San Bernardino Victims For Legal Support Before Going To Court Against Apple
Re:
And it can get you 20 years in the state pen.
On the post: FTC Dings ASUS For Selling 'Secure' Routers That Shipped With Default Admin/Admin Login (And Other Flaws)
Re: Re: Responsible Rounter Configuration
This is another problem. Firewall configurations tend to assume that any traffic coming from inside the firewall is trustworthy -- and it's not. Automatically allowing solicited traffic through is a security problem.
In my home LAN, this is not automatically true. All traffic is blocked, solicited or otherwise, unless I specifically tell the firewall it's permitted.
On the post: FTC Dings ASUS For Selling 'Secure' Routers That Shipped With Default Admin/Admin Login (And Other Flaws)
Re: "Cloud"
On the post: FBI Director: We're Only Forcing Apple To Undermine Security Because We Chase Down Every Lead
Re: Re: What about the elephant?
That's not really true. The FBI has operated as a domestic intelligence service from day 1. It's part of their mandate. The NSA and CIA are not legally allowed to operate domestically -- that's the FBI's jurisdiction.
On the post: Remember When The FBI & NYPD Told People To Upgrade Their iPhones To Enable Stronger Security?
Ironically
On the post: No, The FBI Does Not 'Need' The Info On Farook's iPhone; This Is Entirely About The Precedent
Re: Re: Not Quite the Only Reason
Which is why I no longer read Wired.
On the post: Google Fiber Expanding Faster, Further -- And Making Comcast Very Nervous
Don't fall for the hype, indeed
But it's the "fastest Wifi" that made me laugh the loudest.
On the post: FBI's Own Actions Likely Made Farook's iPhone Data Inaccessible
Re:
On the post: Dissecting And Dismantling The Myths Of The DOJ's Motion To Compel Apple To Build A Backdoor
Re: Re:
I already do. I literally cannot think of a commercial network-connected product that I trust to protect my data, even though most claim they do. Not iThings, not Android, not my car, nothing. So pretty much every connected device I buy fits your category.
This does mean that I buy less things, because I only buy things that I am confident that I can adequately secure or operate without a net connection.
On the post: DailyDirt: Adulteration Of Foods May Not Be What You Expect
Re: Yum.
On the post: AT&T Makes It Clear: It Bought DirecTV So It Doesn't Have To Upgrade Its Lagging Networks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wireless broadband
On the post: AT&T Makes It Clear: It Bought DirecTV So It Doesn't Have To Upgrade Its Lagging Networks
Re: Re: Re: Wireless broadband
When I helped my friend (who lives in the middle of nowhere) set his up, he had a choice of two providers, and went with AT&T iirc.
The downside of going this route is that it's more expensive, both with initial costs (equipment, licensing, etc.) and as the monthly fee. The upside is that you get much better bandwidth than you'd get through cable or DSL. That's why it's mostly only economical when you have a couple of houses chipping in together and you're going to be using it for a long time (to amortize the initial investment).
On the post: Guardian Tech Reporter: Apple Should Help FBI Break Into iPhone Because I Don't Consider Privacy All That Important
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Somehow I think even she has limits.....
On the post: Guardian Tech Reporter: Apple Should Help FBI Break Into iPhone Because I Don't Consider Privacy All That Important
Re:
They forget it's a fantasy until something that's only supposed to happen to "the bad guys" happens to them.
On the post: Our Further Response To Australian Lawyer Stuart Gibson, Who Continues To Threaten Us
Re: Re: Re: Drivel vs Dribble
Next >>