I agree, I didn't think the ending was unsatisfactory. It's true that the endings tend to be the weakest part of Stephenson's books, but they've never really left me wanting.
Blackberry's security problems were revealed a number of years ago. By coincidence(?), their domination of the smartphone industry ended within a year of that.
Re: Re: Toll Free / Zero Rated Data Apps = Likely 1st Amendment Free Speech
I dunno. This seems like a gray area to me, honestly, but your argument is ignoring the fact that you can engage in First Amendment violations without targeting specific types of speech.
For example, you can say that only specific people are allowed to speak and no others, regardless of what they have to say. Zero rating is discriminating based on who is doing the speaking.
But cell phones are a weird space. The First Amendment only relates to government activities, not private entities. Cell companies use the public airwaves and are licensed by the government, so you could argue that the First Amendment is in full force. But it's also undeniable that there are private entities in the mix as well, where the First Amendment is not.
Presumably, the employee had some sort of badge that is used to gain access to the building. It's a solid bet that the badge was promptly deactivated. There have been cases where that didn't happen, but companies tend to be careful about that nowadays.
It should be an automatic part of the badge deactivation process that all logins (and phone system access codes, etc.) are disabled as well.
True, this problem runs smack into the fact that security and convenience are natural enemies.
But for those of us who are very conscious of these things, the existing model is of minimal use. If it were improved -- even along the lines of what CyanogenMod used to do in allowing you to revoke individual fine-grained permissions of already installed apps -- that can only help.
Re: Toll Free / Zero Rated Data Apps = Likely 1st Amendment Free Speech
"where large players seeking to engage with end-users (Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, etc) compete with each other "
And that's the fundamental problem that your scheme doesn't address: it tilts the entire playing field severely in favor of the large players. The result will be the further entrenchment of these companies. Even if you don't personally mind that, the effects on the industry would be pretty bad, because the large players is not where innovation comes from. Disenfranchising smaller players harms everyone.
"how many of you can actually do that yourself without depending on someone else's expert opinion?"
I do.
But crypto is a bit unique in that you can look at compromised crypto code all day long and not be able to see the compromise. Back doors are rarely explicitly coded, but usually take the form of a slight weakness introduced into the computations to make later cracking easier.
Those computations are arcane and VERY easy to get wrong without noticing. Especially by people who are not experts in the mathematics of cryptography.
Re: Re: Re: Re: "almost certainly has put millions of people at risk "
"if they do hear about something like this that there is a vulnerability in something then some of them will absolutely go in search of it"
They almost never have to, because the vast majority of the time it was already known to them. Particularly in this case. The Feds bought the exploit from gray-hat hackers, and if the gray hats know it, you can be pretty sure that the black hats do as well.
This is a fantastic book. Fun and exciting and, even though its fiction, it is incredibly well-researched and does a wonderful job of illustrating various hard-to-understand issues.
using reputation management companies, paying them thousands of dollars, is the least effective way to respond to a bad PR incident.
Personally, whenever I see that someone has hired a reputation management company -- especially an online one -- the message that I get is that they have done something truly horrible that they are trying to cover up.
So the mere involvement of such companies is not just ineffective, it's counterproductive.
"An app will crash if it tries to use a protected feature it hasn't asked permission for."
Only if the app is badly engineered. What actually happens is that if an app tries to use a system service it hasn't the proper permissions for, then that system service won't work for it. The only way this will cause an app to crash is if it assumed that the service always succeeds.
But this problem does hit on the main problem with Android app security: the granularity of the permissions is far, far too coarse. Apps that want to use a very specific facility often have to ask for permissions that grant them far more access than what they want.
This means that users can't really tell what an app is intending to do or to prevent it from doing nasty things while allowing it to do only what it claims it wants to do.
Re: Toll Free / Zero Rated Data Apps = Likely 1st Amendment Free Speech
"as a practical matter I think it safe to conclude they have no material influence in the process"
I think you are underestimating them.
"The problem of zero-rating flows not from the freeness it gives those who voluntarily choose it, but instead from the role the carriers might play in determining who gets the freeness (and on what terms)."
Fair enough, but I very much disagree with this assessment.
Banning the importation or creation of encryption would be many orders of magnitude more difficult, expensive, intrusive -- and far less effective -- than the drug war. And we all know how well that works.
Re: Re: Re: Toll Free / Zero Rated Data Apps = Likely 1st Amendment Free Speech
You're talking about blocking and allowing apps, but that's not what's being discussed. What's being discussed is the gaming of the app marketplace to ensure that it is as favorable to the major companies as possible.
This isn't in any way a free speech issue. This is an issue of whether or not what amounts to an oligarchy will be able to act as gatekeepers.
"In my area it's difficult to find a restaurant or business office without at least one TV either gesticulating in silence or trying to blare over attempts at conversation."
Wow.
Thank you for reminding me that I live in a truly wonderful part of the country. Where I'm at, the only businesses what do this are bars (and not even all of them).
I also rarely see people leave TVs on if they aren't actually watching them. But they might turn them off when company comes over in order to avoid embarrassment.
On the post: Techdirt Reading List: Cryptonomicon
Re: an annual read
On the post: Wireless Industry Survey: Everybody Really Loves Zero Rating
Re: Re: Re: Re: Toll Free / Zero Rated Data Apps = Likely 1st Amendment Free Speech
On the post: Documents Show FBI Deployed Software Exploits To Break Encryption Back In 2003
Re:
On the post: Microsoft Sues Government Over Its ECPA-Enabled Gag Orders
I don't often get the chance
On the post: Wireless Industry Survey: Everybody Really Loves Zero Rating
Re: Re: Toll Free / Zero Rated Data Apps = Likely 1st Amendment Free Speech
For example, you can say that only specific people are allowed to speak and no others, regardless of what they have to say. Zero rating is discriminating based on who is doing the speaking.
But cell phones are a weird space. The First Amendment only relates to government activities, not private entities. Cell companies use the public airwaves and are licensed by the government, so you could argue that the First Amendment is in full force. But it's also undeniable that there are private entities in the mix as well, where the First Amendment is not.
The whole thing seems very murky to me.
On the post: Matthew Keys Gets 2 Years In Jail For 40 Minute Web Defacement He Didn't Even Commit
Re: Re: ...and what about
It should be an automatic part of the badge deactivation process that all logins (and phone system access codes, etc.) are disabled as well.
On the post: Silverpush Stops Using Sneaky, Inaudible TV Audio Tracking Beacons After FTC Warning
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But for those of us who are very conscious of these things, the existing model is of minimal use. If it were improved -- even along the lines of what CyanogenMod used to do in allowing you to revoke individual fine-grained permissions of already installed apps -- that can only help.
On the post: Wireless Industry Survey: Everybody Really Loves Zero Rating
Re: Toll Free / Zero Rated Data Apps = Likely 1st Amendment Free Speech
And that's the fundamental problem that your scheme doesn't address: it tilts the entire playing field severely in favor of the large players. The result will be the further entrenchment of these companies. Even if you don't personally mind that, the effects on the industry would be pretty bad, because the large players is not where innovation comes from. Disenfranchising smaller players harms everyone.
On the post: US Attorney Suggests Solution To Open Source Encryption: Ban Importation Of Open Source Encryption
Re:
I do.
But crypto is a bit unique in that you can look at compromised crypto code all day long and not be able to see the compromise. Back doors are rarely explicitly coded, but usually take the form of a slight weakness introduced into the computations to make later cracking easier.
Those computations are arcane and VERY easy to get wrong without noticing. Especially by people who are not experts in the mathematics of cryptography.
On the post: Apparently Hacking Syed Farook's iPhone Accomplished Nothing (Other Than Making Everyone Less Safe)
Re: Re: Re: Re: "almost certainly has put millions of people at risk "
They almost never have to, because the vast majority of the time it was already known to them. Particularly in this case. The Feds bought the exploit from gray-hat hackers, and if the gray hats know it, you can be pretty sure that the black hats do as well.
On the post: Techdirt Reading List: Cryptonomicon
Excellent recommendation
On the post: Let's All Talk About The Stuff That UC Davis Spent $175k Trying To Keep Off These Internets
Not just least effective
Personally, whenever I see that someone has hired a reputation management company -- especially an online one -- the message that I get is that they have done something truly horrible that they are trying to cover up.
So the mere involvement of such companies is not just ineffective, it's counterproductive.
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce Actually Just US Chamber Of Our Highest-Paying Members
Re: Re: Not just them...
On the post: Silverpush Stops Using Sneaky, Inaudible TV Audio Tracking Beacons After FTC Warning
Re: Re:
Only if the app is badly engineered. What actually happens is that if an app tries to use a system service it hasn't the proper permissions for, then that system service won't work for it. The only way this will cause an app to crash is if it assumed that the service always succeeds.
But this problem does hit on the main problem with Android app security: the granularity of the permissions is far, far too coarse. Apps that want to use a very specific facility often have to ask for permissions that grant them far more access than what they want.
This means that users can't really tell what an app is intending to do or to prevent it from doing nasty things while allowing it to do only what it claims it wants to do.
On the post: Wireless Industry Survey: Everybody Really Loves Zero Rating
Re: Toll Free / Zero Rated Data Apps = Likely 1st Amendment Free Speech
I think you are underestimating them.
"The problem of zero-rating flows not from the freeness it gives those who voluntarily choose it, but instead from the role the carriers might play in determining who gets the freeness (and on what terms)."
Fair enough, but I very much disagree with this assessment.
On the post: US Attorney Suggests Solution To Open Source Encryption: Ban Importation Of Open Source Encryption
drug war
On the post: US Attorney Suggests Solution To Open Source Encryption: Ban Importation Of Open Source Encryption
Re: Re:
It's not only OK, you can easily find those detailed equations not only on the internet, but in any reasonably comprehensive public library.
On the post: Wireless Industry Survey: Everybody Really Loves Zero Rating
Re: Re: Re: Toll Free / Zero Rated Data Apps = Likely 1st Amendment Free Speech
This isn't in any way a free speech issue. This is an issue of whether or not what amounts to an oligarchy will be able to act as gatekeepers.
On the post: Silverpush Stops Using Sneaky, Inaudible TV Audio Tracking Beacons After FTC Warning
Re: Re: Ominous
On the post: Silverpush Stops Using Sneaky, Inaudible TV Audio Tracking Beacons After FTC Warning
Re: Re: Record shows
Wow.
Thank you for reminding me that I live in a truly wonderful part of the country. Where I'm at, the only businesses what do this are bars (and not even all of them).
I also rarely see people leave TVs on if they aren't actually watching them. But they might turn them off when company comes over in order to avoid embarrassment.
Next >>