You never mentioned the dumbest thing in the whole article. In his mind, not only is Google a monopoly, it's a natural monopoly. How a search provider could possibly be a natural monopoly, akin to a utility, escapes me completely.
The other thing that bugs me about this piece is he makes the same mistake a lot of other people make when talking about the tech world. He talks about how different the landscape is from just ten years ago and then immediately turns around and assumes the companies dominating now will continue to dominate in the future.
If you assume Google (or Amazon, etc) as a natural monopoly and regulate it as such, you enshrine its current dominance in law. When it begins its inevitable slide into irrelevance, that regulatory framework ends up causing much more damage than the fall of Google (or Amazon, etc) would've on it's own.
"and doesn't agree with anyone who doesn't follow her line of thinking"
You are correct. As it turns out, that's pretty much how everyone operates. If you agree with something, it probably follows your line of thinking, yah?
Just another troll. Nothing to see here, move along.
This is what Google does. They're like the corporate version of that guy who has a dozen half-finished projects in his garage. They start something and do well with it until it gets too tough/boring and then they quietly abandon it. I fully expect that to happen to Gmail some day.
Looks like both headers and body is actually signed with this. But this does bring up another good question. We have no idea how they got a hold of these emails. For all we know, they could've had root access to the server. If they did, and managed to get the server's private key for DKIM, would they be able to modify the emails after the fact and then just re-sign them? If yes, then validating with DKIM doesn't do much for verification. Not saying this is what's happening, just an interesting question.
There's a reason it's a fallacy. It doesn't say on any level that things are related.
I'll give you an example. Penguins are black and white Zebras are black and white Therefore: Penguins are Zebras
Clearly, that's wrong and that's why association fallacy is so bad. It can be used to relate any two completely unrelated things by simply taking a single quality that the two things happen to share and plugging it in to that formula. It's the same way that you could say:
Theft = Bad Murder = Bad So: Theft = Murder
Yeah, let's leave association fallacy out of this.
Which is why the lawyer said that. If you automatically assume every case of imitation is infringing and don't investigate that idea further before filing, it's always in good faith because you assumed it was infringing.
It's wrongheaded for the NSA not to disclose vulnerabilities it finds. Even if their only job was "keeping Uncle Sam secure, not Wal-Mart," which would be a really stupid objective, keeping vulnerabilities secret in security products would mean the government itself is more vulnerable. Kind of stupid all around, if you ask me.
There's a reference for you. Basically, it's Portuguese barbecue, which is kind of big in Brazil. It would be like suing for the use of BBQ here in the US. It's not a tagline, it's simply telling you what it is. There's no way this lawsuit is going to stand.
You make a good point. I hadn't even thought about that aspect of what the FBI was asking for. I would like, however, to argue for my use of the word backdoor. To my way of thinking, a backdoor is a vulnerability that the creator knows about and can exploit for their own reasons. Would you agree with this definition? If so, I think this firmware upgrade process fits that definition.
Traditionally, that's how it's supposed to work. Go up and look at my earlier comment. Apple apparently has a way to bypass this. So, Apple already has a backdoor and the FBI just wants to use it.
But that's just the thing. Apple isn't crippling the encryption here. It isn't installing a backdoor. The backdoor is already there. That is the real story here. Everybody is concentrating on the FBI angle and completely ignoring the fact that Apple already has the ability to do what they want to your phone, passcode be damned. And now that we know about this ability, you can bet the legality is just an afterthought. The mere knowledge of it is enough that somebody (NSA) is already working on a way to exploit it.
I don't want to think about it. I would hope that Apple has the clamps on their little backdoor, but that seems too much to hope for and now that it's been talked about, several organizations, including the NSA are already working on exploiting it. Hopefully Apple does the smart thing and closes it in later iPhones.
I'm terrified to admit this, but I think what the FBI is asking for is surprisingly restrained and limited. Asking them to remove the passcode limits so they can more efficiently brute-force the thing is almost admirable compared to what they've been asking for. At least they're going to do some work in this thing.
That being said, terrifies me that Apple can do this at all. Note that I didn't say they were willing to do this, only that they can. This means that Apple isn't building a backdoor, so much as they already have one that they will use to accomplish this. If you can perform firmware/OS updates that remove security features with the device supposedly unlockable/uncrackable, that's a backdoor. It already exists and Apple just tipped their hand.
Let's make one thing perfectly clear. The FBI already had the means to crack this iPhone. All this backdoor does is make is slightly easier to do. There are software/hardware out there that can crack a 4-6 digit PIN, even with the lockouts/erase enabled. It just takes longer. That's really what this is about. The FBI didn't want to take the amount of time it would take to brute force the PIN without Apple's help, so they used the courts to force Apple to backdoor the lockout/secure erase functions, shaving quite a bit of time off the brute force attempt. So, while this is terrible, it's not quite as bad as it seems.
On the post: Ted Cruz Doubles Down On Being Wrong: Pushes Yet Another Net Neutrality Killing Bill
> Being Wrong
There's no need to be redundant.
On the post: Here Comes The Attempt To Reframe Silicon Valley As Modern Robber Barons
You never mentioned the dumbest thing in the whole article. In his mind, not only is Google a monopoly, it's a natural monopoly. How a search provider could possibly be a natural monopoly, akin to a utility, escapes me completely.
The other thing that bugs me about this piece is he makes the same mistake a lot of other people make when talking about the tech world. He talks about how different the landscape is from just ten years ago and then immediately turns around and assumes the companies dominating now will continue to dominate in the future.
If you assume Google (or Amazon, etc) as a natural monopoly and regulate it as such, you enshrine its current dominance in law. When it begins its inevitable slide into irrelevance, that regulatory framework ends up causing much more damage than the fall of Google (or Amazon, etc) would've on it's own.
On the post: GOP Senate Streisands Elizabeth Warren And Coretta King In Attempt To Silence Her
Re:
You are correct. As it turns out, that's pretty much how everyone operates. If you agree with something, it probably follows your line of thinking, yah?
Just another troll. Nothing to see here, move along.
On the post: Google's Larry Page Got Bored Of Disrupting The Telecom Sector With Google Fiber
Re: The Rise And ...
On the post: The Clinton Campaign Should Stop Denying That The Wikileaks Emails Are Valid; They Are And They're Real
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who sent those emails?
On the post: The Clinton Campaign Should Stop Denying That The Wikileaks Emails Are Valid; They Are And They're Real
Re: Re: Re: Who sent those emails?
On the post: 'Nice Internet You've Got There... You Wouldn't Want Something To Happen To It...'
Re:
On the post: Our 'Copying Is Not Theft' T-Shirt Seems To REALLY Upset Some People
Re:
I'll give you an example.
Penguins are black and white
Zebras are black and white
Therefore: Penguins are Zebras
Clearly, that's wrong and that's why association fallacy is so bad. It can be used to relate any two completely unrelated things by simply taking a single quality that the two things happen to share and plugging it in to that formula. It's the same way that you could say:
Theft = Bad
Murder = Bad
So: Theft = Murder
Yeah, let's leave association fallacy out of this.
On the post: Louis Vuitton's Inability To Take A Joke Opens Up A Chance To Fix Our Broken Trademark Laws
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: To The NSA, The Word 'Security' Is Synonymous With 'Gaping, Unpatched Holes In US Developers' Software'
Wrongheaded
On the post: Two Brazilian Restaurants Battle Over Trademark For Logos Because Both Include Fire
Re: Won't get decalaratory judgement
There's a reference for you. Basically, it's Portuguese barbecue, which is kind of big in Brazil. It would be like suing for the use of BBQ here in the US. It's not a tagline, it's simply telling you what it is. There's no way this lawsuit is going to stand.
On the post: San Bernardino DA Tells Judge To Side With FBI Over Apple Because iPhone May Have Mythical Cyber Weapon
Re: Also possibly on the phone:
-The key to interstellar travel
-Elvis
-A "Cyber Drug" that makes the San Bernardino DA actually make sense
On the post: FBI Director: We're Only Forcing Apple To Undermine Security Because We Chase Down Every Lead
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: FBI Director: We're Only Forcing Apple To Undermine Security Because We Chase Down Every Lead
Re:
On the post: FBI Director: We're Only Forcing Apple To Undermine Security Because We Chase Down Every Lead
Re: Re:
On the post: FBI Director: We're Only Forcing Apple To Undermine Security Because We Chase Down Every Lead
Re: Re:
On the post: FBI Director: We're Only Forcing Apple To Undermine Security Because We Chase Down Every Lead
Re: Re:
On the post: FBI Director: We're Only Forcing Apple To Undermine Security Because We Chase Down Every Lead
That being said, terrifies me that Apple can do this at all. Note that I didn't say they were willing to do this, only that they can. This means that Apple isn't building a backdoor, so much as they already have one that they will use to accomplish this. If you can perform firmware/OS updates that remove security features with the device supposedly unlockable/uncrackable, that's a backdoor. It already exists and Apple just tipped their hand.
On the post: Yes, The Backdoor That The FBI Is Requesting Can Work On Modern iPhones Too
So, while this is terrible, it's not quite as bad as it seems.
On the post: FBI Turns 18-Year-Old With An IQ Of 51 Into A Terrorist; Dumps Case Into Laps Of Local Prosecutors
Next >>