111–120 of 183 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't want to be tracked when I go to work (or ever), but I have to bring my cell phone to work because I need it to do my job. So, yes it's a "choice": I can have my privacy or I can have my job.
Get a dumb phone for work.
> No, David. If I were in the job now, I would have simply told the FBI to call Fort Meade, the headquarters of the National Security Agency, and NSA would have solved this problem for them. They're not as interested in solving the problem as they are in getting a legal precedent. That's quite the quote, especially given his history of employment. The weirdest thing about this whole cell-phone saga to me is that the…
I think it's all an act to make people think apple phones are more secure than they actually are.
Which is to say they absolutely have vulnerabilities that work against certain versions of iOS, but probably not others. And the NSA likely has more than a few zero days, simply because it's a far cheaper way for them to do their job than any alternatives.
Just like with any piece of software, there is no "secret vulnerability that works all the time forever": it's discover, exploit, patch, repeat.
(Which, incidentally, is also the argument against key escrow schemes. Whereas it would be discover, exploit all devices that implement the key escrow code, wait until the government develops a new patch, wait until all device manufacturers incorporate the patch... repeat.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what about the rest of the world? Can we do anything other than just trusting the US citizens to get their government to do the right thing?
Make your own country less corrupt, more free, and better for the economically-worst-off, so that your own entrepreneurs may eventually overtake the authoritarian superpowers?
Not that I disagree with this, but how is this supposed to help entrepreneurs? If anything, it will just increase the tax burden of running a business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Make your own country less corrupt, more free, and better for the economically-worst-off, so that your own entrepreneurs may eventually overtake the authoritarian superpowers?
>and better for the economically-worst-off, Not that I disagree with this, but how is this supposed to help entrepreneurs? If anything, it will just increase the tax burden of running a business.
> No, David. If I were in the job now, I would have simply told the FBI to call Fort Meade, the headquarters of the National Security Agency, and NSA would have solved this problem for them. They're not as interested in solving the problem as they are in getting a legal precedent. That's quite the quote, especially given his history of employment. The weirdest thing about this whole cell-phone saga to me is that the…
And IIRC the phone in question is the perp's work phone, they also had personal phones which they destroyed , so the perps themselves knew phones could hold valuable data but saw no value in the the phone the FBI wants unlocked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Make your own country less corrupt, more free, and better for the economically-worst-off, so that your own entrepreneurs may eventually overtake the authoritarian superpowers?
>and better for the economically-worst-off, Not that I disagree with this, but how is this supposed to help entrepreneurs? If anything, it will just increase the tax burden of running a business.
Before you comment, please consider whether you'd prefer to vent your frustration in online message boards with like-minded people, or spend that potential energy in other ways: "What you can do about it: -- You can contact the Obama White House online to comment on strong encryption. https://www.whitehouse.gov/webform/share-your-thoughts-onstr... -- You can contact your state Senators and Representatives via the con…
I feel like that White House petition is a honeypot.
Isn't it true that encryption legislation or policy is sort of irrelevant next to the very clear math that says encryption will always be ahead of decryption? Even in a (hopefully avoidable) dystopia where encryption is illegal, would that really stop technology companies from continuing to do what they've always done?
John Oliver has a great segment[1] where he notes that the majority of cheap, available encryption applications aren't even US-based, and so it becomes nigh-impossible for our (or any) government to stop any pedestrian from encrypting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Make your own country less corrupt, more free, and better for the economically-worst-off, so that your own entrepreneurs may eventually overtake the authoritarian superpowers?
>and better for the economically-worst-off, Not that I disagree with this, but how is this supposed to help entrepreneurs? If anything, it will just increase the tax burden of running a business.
If you use tax money on education you also have a positive effect for both startups and poor people.
You also even out the divide between new and and established companies, established companies having non innovative advantages, such as brand names, maybe their own "infrastructure". So you even get rid of companies that try to keep status quo and have innovation stall.
The sad thing is that currently some governments/parties/politicians create inhuman, even counter productive productive competition between humans while at the same time have companies be cartels and monopolies and more importantly create counter productive anti-competition laws such as intellectual property, to a degree really awful patent systems, brand protection stuff, etc.
It's kind of destructive in regards of innovation and progress.