I don't think that the stupidity of some of the suggestions made should blind us to the fact that there are things we can do about this. We need to remember two things.
1: The vast majority of passengers are NOT any kind of threat even if they happen to be carrying liquids or Victorinox Knives- so maybe subjecting everyone to time consuming searches is simply creating an extra target for attack.
2: There is no security system that is 100% watertight so if an attack succeeds it doesn't necessarily mean that security was inadequate - it may just mean that we were unlucky. Sometime the correct response might be no response.
There are other agencies at work around airports who understand these two principles very well. I am referring to customs (Who seem to be able to operate happily while most people simply walk through the green channel) and the air-accident investigators (CAA/FAA) who know well that effective safety is always a compromise between conflicting pressures.
I seem to remember seeing somewhere an experiment in airport security where randomised checking was used - and proved to be more effective, cheaper and less disruptive than the previous systems.
Or do you REALLY think that I, as the author, only get my druthers up in a twist when members of the Islamic faith are treated poorly?
No - you responded to the story that was available via the BBC and other places.
However my point was that - given the large number of nominally similar incidents that don't get reported we don't know the criteria by which such things reach the level of coverage where you would even be aware of them.
Now it may be that the simple stupidity of it is enough but we have no evidence that that is true and victimhood is such a big prize in the modern world that there must always be some doubt.
but you may want to reconsider your understanding of the law. and you may want to reconsider your understanding of the real world. When the law tries do something impossible it loses.
the precedent will be there whether the engineers refuse to do it or not.
But the engineers' refusal to do the work - and whatever happens next - is also - de facto - part of the precedent. In the end the courts can huff and puff all they like but they cannot compel an uninvolved 3rd party to do something against their will.
Apple will feel enough pressure that they will have to act, and that could include having to let people go who are blocking the project from completion.
Letting people go isn't the problem. Finding people who are willing AND able to do the work is the problem.
No they should set aside a room with the code accessible via a terminal.
Then the FBI should be allowed to go in and view it - but not be allowed to take in any recording devices and should not be allowed to take in any notes. The room should be open for just 2hrs per day.
In addition they should allow in only senior FBI managers who have no coding experience.
After all that was deemed enough for cetain trade agreements!
Probaly better to agree to do it on a cost plus basis - then let it drag on and on and never get anywhere - after all most government IT projects end up like that - so why not this one?
Just suppose that the company pushing strong encryption as its unique selling proposition was NOT a US company. Further supposing it hailed from a country that has one of those "free trade deals" with the US.
Now that company could haul the DOJ up against one of those tribunals that is "above" all the US courts. They would likely win...and there would benothing that the US government could do about it!
Finally! An analogy that works, and doesn't involve a car engine.
Oh dear - I'd better make up for that one!
It's a bit like the seat belt argument. Most of the time it is safer to wear a seat belt - however - very occasionally the seat belt is a liability - for example when there is a fire and you can't get out!
On the post: Former DHS Secretary Says We Can Make Airports Safer From Terrorists By Rearranging Security Checkpoints
Re:
including the pilots?
Yeah that should work...
On the post: Former DHS Secretary Says We Can Make Airports Safer From Terrorists By Rearranging Security Checkpoints
What really works
1: The vast majority of passengers are NOT any kind of threat even if they happen to be carrying liquids or Victorinox Knives- so maybe subjecting everyone to time consuming searches is simply creating an extra target for attack.
2: There is no security system that is 100% watertight so if an attack succeeds it doesn't necessarily mean that security was inadequate - it may just mean that we were unlucky. Sometime the correct response might be no response.
There are other agencies at work around airports who understand these two principles very well. I am referring to customs (Who seem to be able to operate happily while most people simply walk through the green channel) and the air-accident investigators (CAA/FAA) who know well that effective safety is always a compromise between conflicting pressures.
I seem to remember seeing somewhere an experiment in airport security where randomised checking was used - and proved to be more effective, cheaper and less disruptive than the previous systems.
On the post: Former DHS Secretary Says We Can Make Airports Safer From Terrorists By Rearranging Security Checkpoints
Re: Rearranging deck chairs
Could be true!
After all the deck chairs may have been blocking the route to the lifeboats!
On the post: UK Teachers Report 4 Year Old Boy To The Terrorism Police For Drawing A Cucumber
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm
No - you responded to the story that was available via the BBC and other places.
However my point was that - given the large number of nominally similar incidents that don't get reported we don't know the criteria by which such things reach the level of coverage where you would even be aware of them.
Now it may be that the simple stupidity of it is enough but we have no evidence that that is true and victimhood is such a big prize in the modern world that there must always be some doubt.
On the post: UK Teachers Report 4 Year Old Boy To The Terrorism Police For Drawing A Cucumber
Re: Re: Hmm
Wrong!
According to the linked story:
"Just under 2,000 under-15s were referred between January 2012 and December 2015. "
I don't remember an average of ~2 news stories on this topic per day between 2012 and 2015 so clearly it isn't always newsworthy.
On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department
Re: Apple should hand over the source code....
Hand over the wrong version. BY the time the FBI realise what has happened it will be to late - and the original "mistake" will be deniable.
On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department
Re: Re: Seems to me
On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Doesn't work out
and you may want to reconsider your understanding of the real world.
When the law tries do something impossible it loses.
On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department
Re: This is a side issue...
But the engineers' refusal to do the work - and whatever happens next - is also - de facto - part of the precedent. In the end the courts can huff and puff all they like but they cannot compel an uninvolved 3rd party to do something against their will.
On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department
Seems to me
There is "Emperor's new Clothes"
There is "Mandy Rice-Davies" (Google it if you don't know).
There is also "King Cnut".
THis case seems to fall into the latter category.
On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department
Re: Re: Re: Re: Doesn't work out
That may be so - BUT ITS STILL DOESN'T MAKE THE JOB "DOABLE BY A JUNIOR".
On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department
Re: Re: Re: Doesn't work out
Letting people go isn't the problem. Finding people who are willing AND able to do the work is the problem.
On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department
Re:
Then the FBI should be allowed to go in and view it - but not be allowed to take in any recording devices and should not be allowed to take in any notes. The room should be open for just 2hrs per day.
In addition they should allow in only senior FBI managers who have no coding experience.
After all that was deemed enough for cetain trade agreements!
On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department
Re: Price as discouragement
On the post: DOJ Officials Hint WhatsApp Likely Next In Line For The Apple Treatment
Re: Re: Meanwhile, on the other side...
On the post: DOJ Officials Hint WhatsApp Likely Next In Line For The Apple Treatment
Its an ill wind...
Now that company could haul the DOJ up against one of those tribunals that is "above" all the US courts. They would likely win...and there would benothing that the US government could do about it!
Just wondering...
On the post: Of Cockpits And Phone Encryption: Tradeoffs And Probabilities
Re:
Oh dear - I'd better make up for that one!
It's a bit like the seat belt argument. Most of the time it is safer to wear a seat belt - however - very occasionally the seat belt is a liability - for example when there is a fire and you can't get out!
On the post: DRM Is Evil, Part 8,492: Nook Pulls Out Of UK, Exploring Options To Let People Retain Access To At Least Some Books
Re:
On the post: Full Brief From San Bernardino District Attorney Even More Insane Than Application About 'Dormant Cyber Pathogen'
Re: Re: Proving A Negative
Well then, how would you prove you've never killed anyone?
YOu can prove certain kinds of negative.
eg There are no classical glueballs but not others.
Usually the method is by reductio ad absurdum.
Actually - come to think of it I think Ramos may have done just that - his rant is sufficiently absurd.
On the post: Yes, Donald Trump Can Create Problems For Free Speech & The First Amendment
Re: Re: Whatever else
Trump is like old age, pretty crap but then consider the (republican) alternatives.
Next >>