Block set-top competition and speed up cable demise!
By not allowing "set-top competition", the cable industry is actually hastening the day of their own demise; as more people become dis-enchanted with the overbearing attitudes and price scamming, they will "cut the cord" and drop cable service that much sooner. Allowing a little competition to creep in could be spun (by the cable companies) as "giving people what they want" in a very positive PR campaign that could, potentially, allow them to survive longer (they're doomed anyway, it's a question of when).
The first question should be "did they actually crack the phone? They would have known from metadata whether or not there would be anything "of interest" on it.
Naruto saw people aiming cameras (at others or at themselves) probably thousands of time per day. He saw that, when this happened, people "smiled" and - whoever had the camera - pushed the button. This he saw and this he could do too. That, in no way, means that he understood that doing so would make a photograph. What you have is not an act of creativity, it's just "monkey see, monkey do". I don't believe that PETA cares if they win ... or loose (in court); they've already "won" with the incredible PR.
If the postponement is granted, just watch .. in a few weeks, there will be an announcment that, with additional research, based "in part" on the new vunerability, the FBI was able to determine that there is no useful data on the phone and, for this reason, they have no further interest in persuing their suit against Apple. This is a ploy to save face while backing out of a situation that exploded in their faces beyond their worst PR nightmares.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want knee-jerk reactions you need a more recent attack
The don't need to get into the phone to find out "who he talked to" - that information is available from the service provider (which, I'm sure, they already have). This was a work phone; he also had a personal phone (which was distroyed); the odds of there being anything of any significance on this phone are pretty much zero. Any "serious" communication he'd had would have been on his personsal phone (which he controled), not on a work phone (which was not his).
Please allow me to illustrate what you're saying: The tech/security people say: "1 + 1 = 2" LEO and the alphabet agencies demand: "make 1 + 1 = 4!" Mr Obama says: "Lets compromise - make 1 + 1 = 3"
As a side note, I stopped using "air travel" over a decade ago because of TSA. It's not that I'm a criminal or a terrorist, it's that the "terrorist risk" (very tiny) did not warrent the response (I.E. being treated as a criminal at the airport).
Remember what they were doing to Aaron Swartz .... This is what they DO. Catching actual criminals is too difficult for them, so they get anyone in a vaguely "grey" area (or, failing at that, simply make stuff up) and do a pile on with charges.
In my opinion, I think you should still link to them with a note that it refuses ad-blocking, just as you note articles that behind a paywall (I don't see a whole lot of difference), and then, perhaps, also list an alternate source? While I don't bother with an adblocker program or plugin, I do have most ad servers themselves blocked (redirected) in other ways. This does sometimes get captured as an ad-blocker; when that happens, I just go somewhere else.
Any LEO that is filling out the survey honestly will be stopped right there. When they find they cannot continue without lying, they'll shrug, say "oh, well" and give up. This means that - when it's analysed - 100% of (ligitimate) respondants will report having had problems involving encryption!
“Taxpayers should not be subsidizing a company that refuses to cooperate in a terror investigation that left 14 Americans dead on American soil,”
They just want everyone to know just how serious they are about this investigation: co-operate, "or else"! Or perhaps they've used the CIA's "interrigation" techniques (which, I've heard, sometimes had this effect too)?
Two years ago, it was fantastic PR to be "so concerned about the publics best interest". It's only a problem now because, hey, they didn't really expect the public to do it!
As I understand it, the order is to Apple, not to individual engeneers. If that is true, the individual engeneers could walk away and there is nothing anyone could do about it; they [the engeneers] aren't ignorning the order - it's not directed at them.
[...] just be targeted towards this one phone [...]
Only an idiot would actually believe that. This is about whether or not Apple is capable of compromising their devices and whether or not they can be compelled to do so on demand. Once it's proven that they can do it and can be compelled to do so, this door is forever open for abuse. It also proves that it can be done - so how long before some ingenious hacker figures out how to do it in the wild?
[...] ESPN's faced with the fact that 56% of cable users no longer want to watch the channel [...]
I have to ask: what percentage of cable users are - or were - never interested in their product at all and never viewed it at all, but got counted as "subscribers" because they had no choice if they wanted any cable TV? I know that's the boat I was in before I finally cut the cord a few years ago.
I'm puzzled by the discussion around Elon's licensing his patents. As I understand it, a license (as applied to software and/or patents) is an agreement about the conditions underwhich that product can be utilized. In this case, there is no agreement involved; Elon has simply said that anyone that wants to use this patent can do so without fear of repercussion (read "litigation"). Does that qualify as a "license"?
While this comment is totally off topic (and I apologize for that), you've made such a good point that I think it needs mentioned. There should be a way that the "public at large" can force a law to be repealed if the majority believe it's unjust or just plain wrong.
There are so many things wrong with their arguements that it's hard to know where to start .... The only data I "voluntarily" share with the phone company is the number of the person I want to call. I am aware that there is more data sent from my phone, but I was never given a choice about that, so the term "voluntary" doesn't apply. Even so, why should I **not** have an expectation that the phone company will respect my privacy? Phone meta-data is not "shared with the world" ... I'd have a difficult time even getting my OWN from the phone company (other than call info), let alone anyone elses. So much for "sharing with the world"! Next, we have "who do I (in)voluntarily share data with?" Easy - the phone company, via their towers. At no point do I agree to connect to any other transceiver (such as a Stingray). Those are not cell towers, and there is absolutely NO agreement to connect to them. Even the "pen register" stuff - I have less issue with pen-register searches if they were done as originally intended. They only returned data on when and what number was called - absolutely NOTHING else.
I think that the IP would be more the equivelent of the license plate of a car - a person's drivers license would be more or less the equivelent of a MAC address ... which can be spoofed, just as a license number can be forged.
On the post: Under Cable Lobbying Assault, FCC Commissioners Waffling On Cable Box Competition Plan
Block set-top competition and speed up cable demise!
Allowing a little competition to creep in could be spun (by the cable companies) as "giving people what they want" in a very positive PR campaign that could, potentially, allow them to survive longer (they're doomed anyway, it's a question of when).
On the post: Gene Kelly's Widow Claims Copyright In Interviews Done By Gene Kelly, Sues Over Academic Book
Correction
Should read "... copyright to take a ton of money from people that actually do things, because I don't want to [do things] myself"
On the post: FBI Plays It Coy Regarding Their iPhone Exploit
The First Question(s)
On the post: PETA, Pretending It Can Represent A Photogenic, Selfie-Snapping Monkey In Indonesia, Has Appealed Its Copyright Loss
That, in no way, means that he understood that doing so would make a photograph. What you have is not an act of creativity, it's just "monkey see, monkey do".
I don't believe that PETA cares if they win ... or loose (in court); they've already "won" with the incredible PR.
On the post: DOJ To Court: Hey, Can We Postpone Tomorrow's Hearing? We Want To See If We Can Use This New Hole To Hack In
This is a ploy to save face while backing out of a situation that exploded in their faces beyond their worst PR nightmares.
On the post: White House Begins To Realize It May Have Made A Huge Mistake In Going After Apple Over iPhone Encryption
Re: Re:
On the post: White House Begins To Realize It May Have Made A Huge Mistake In Going After Apple Over iPhone Encryption
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want knee-jerk reactions you need a more recent attack
This was a work phone; he also had a personal phone (which was distroyed); the odds of there being anything of any significance on this phone are pretty much zero. Any "serious" communication he'd had would have been on his personsal phone (which he controled), not on a work phone (which was not his).
On the post: President Obama Is Wrong On Encryption; Claims The Realist View Is 'Absolutist'
Dear Mr Obama ....
The tech/security people say: "1 + 1 = 2"
LEO and the alphabet agencies demand: "make 1 + 1 = 4!"
Mr Obama says: "Lets compromise - make 1 + 1 = 3"
(This is known as the "Door In The Face" technique)
As a side note, I stopped using "air travel" over a decade ago because of TSA. It's not that I'm a criminal or a terrorist, it's that the "terrorist risk" (very tiny) did not warrent the response (I.E. being treated as a criminal at the airport).
On the post: Feds Ask For 5 Years In Jail For Matthew Keys Giving Up Tribune Account Password; Still Don't Care About Actual Hacker
Different Day, Same Shit
This is what they DO. Catching actual criminals is too difficult for them, so they get anyone in a vaguely "grey" area (or, failing at that, simply make stuff up) and do a pile on with charges.
On the post: What Should We Do About Linking To Sites That Block People Using Ad Blockers?
While I don't bother with an adblocker program or plugin, I do have most ad servers themselves blocked (redirected) in other ways. This does sometimes get captured as an ad-blocker; when that happens, I just go somewhere else.
On the post: NY DA Cy Vance Asks Law Enforcement About Problems With Encryption; Won't Take 'No Problems' For An Answer
It's not an error
This means that - when it's analysed - 100% of (ligitimate) respondants will report having had problems involving encryption!
On the post: Congressman Proposes Law Banning Government From Purchasing Apple Devices
Or perhaps they've used the CIA's "interrigation" techniques (which, I've heard, sometimes had this effect too)?
On the post: Remember When The FBI & NYPD Told People To Upgrade Their iPhones To Enable Stronger Security?
They didn't really change their minds....
It's only a problem now because, hey, they didn't really expect the public to do it!
On the post: White House Is Either Lying About Apple Order Or Doesn't Understand What A Backdoor Is
Re: Re: Can the engineers refuse?
On the post: White House Is Either Lying About Apple Order Or Doesn't Understand What A Backdoor Is
It also proves that it can be done - so how long before some ingenious hacker figures out how to do it in the wild?
On the post: Disney's Iger On ESPN: We'll Disrupt When We Damn Well Feel Like It
Clarification required
I know that's the boat I was in before I finally cut the cord a few years ago.
On the post: Elon Musk Clarifies That Tesla's Patents Really Are Free; Investor Absolutely Freaks Out
Puzzled
As I understand it, a license (as applied to software and/or patents) is an agreement about the conditions underwhich that product can be utilized. In this case, there is no agreement involved; Elon has simply said that anyone that wants to use this patent can do so without fear of repercussion (read "litigation").
Does that qualify as a "license"?
On the post: Elon Musk Clarifies That Tesla's Patents Really Are Free; Investor Absolutely Freaks Out
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There should be a way that the "public at large" can force a law to be repealed if the majority believe it's unjust or just plain wrong.
On the post: Prosecutors Argue Cell Site Location Data Is Something Every User Shares With 'The Rest Of The World'
Where to start?
The only data I "voluntarily" share with the phone company is the number of the person I want to call. I am aware that there is more data sent from my phone, but I was never given a choice about that, so the term "voluntary" doesn't apply. Even so, why should I **not** have an expectation that the phone company will respect my privacy?
Phone meta-data is not "shared with the world" ... I'd have a difficult time even getting my OWN from the phone company (other than call info), let alone anyone elses. So much for "sharing with the world"!
Next, we have "who do I (in)voluntarily share data with?" Easy - the phone company, via their towers. At no point do I agree to connect to any other transceiver (such as a Stingray). Those are not cell towers, and there is absolutely NO agreement to connect to them.
Even the "pen register" stuff - I have less issue with pen-register searches if they were done as originally intended. They only returned data on when and what number was called - absolutely NOTHING else.
On the post: DHS Official Thinks People Should Have To Give Up Their Anonymity To Use The Internet
Re: Plates do not identify the driver
Next >>