141–150 of 236 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're very overpriced for what they do.
True, they are expensive, but that build quality and the availability of firmwares to do what you are looking for with just a quick flash makes them handy AF for keeping in a pocket to play with. I have found several uses for mine which weren't in mind when I made my decision to purchase.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since smartphones are already locked down by their vendors, the cops have a point.
Some smartphones are locked down by their vendors. There's plenty of options to get full root access on something that's for all intents and purposes a smartphone, especially if you don't particularly care about warranty and/or keeping commerical apps functional.
I guess they don't want anyone to jam the GPIO headers into someone's eye.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not really accurate though. Both a Raspberry Pi and a Flipper Zero can easily and readily be turned into a signal jammer or spammer with off the shelf parts and nearly no technical skill. Modern smartphones are generally both more locked down and also don't come with an external antenna option.
Any mobile computer can be easily and readily turned into a signal jammer/spammer with an off-the-shelf SDR. There is nothing particularly special about the Raspberry Pi. I didn't see laptops on the list.
It's not like they're banning them across all of NYC... it's just security at the inauguration event. "Large bags" are banned too. > When a policy bans specific devices rather than behaviors or capabilities, it creates ambiguity for people on the ground. To the contrary, how the heck is someone working security at the entrance supposed to check for a device's "behaviors or capabilities"? This is a quick visual inspec…
There's no legitimate purpose in bringing crayons and a coloring book, or a box of paperclips, either. We should probably see to it that nobody brings any of those things in, as well.
[no legitimate purpose] + [identified as a potential threat or disturbance vector] + [described in a way useful for laypeople who will be consuming said list]
>New York City usually gets this right. It has decades of muscle memory for doing hard things in public, under pressure, without panicking. Not something I would say about Stop-And-Frisk city but whatever.
Stop and frisk reduced crime rates. It should be brought back.
It's not like they're banning them across all of NYC... it's just security at the inauguration event. "Large bags" are banned too. > When a policy bans specific devices rather than behaviors or capabilities, it creates ambiguity for people on the ground. To the contrary, how the heck is someone working security at the entrance supposed to check for a device's "behaviors or capabilities"? This is a quick visual inspec…
Agreed. This comes off as self-absorbed and entitled - 'how dare the security team not recognize my ascended morality and technical genius! Suppose an evil hacker does plan to disrupt the event - the only thing that stops a bad guy with a Flipper Zero is a good guy with a Raspberry Pi running wireshark!'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no legitimate purpose in bringing crayons and a coloring book, or a box of paperclips, either. We should probably see to it that nobody brings any of those things in, as well.
This isn't an exercise in cataloging all worldly items. The criteria for the list is very obviously: [no legitimate purpose] + [identified as a potential threat or disturbance vector] + [described in a way useful for laypeople who will be consuming said list]
Congratulations on your hiring for head of digital security for the inauguration of the mayor of New York City.
The mayor elect has drawn scrutiny from right wing agitators and there are creditable threats that some of the "angry twenty something tech bros" are going to attempt to disrupt the event or otherwise prank it.
As this event makes significant use of projectors and large digital displays, please advise the security (regular law enforcement officers that may not be familiar with the latest digital devices) for any objects that may be things that are likely inconspicuous but could be used to disrupt the event. Items that would be conspicuous in their use or have other legitimate use that the general public or credentialed reporters would be using should not be considered (e.g. laptops, cellphones).
These items will be added to the standard list of items prohibited at political events.
----
This is a bit of creative writing, but you could imagine it being fairly close to what the person who is hired to preform this role is faced with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't an exercise in cataloging all worldly items. The criteria for the list is very obviously: [no legitimate purpose] + [identified as a potential threat or disturbance vector] + [described in a way useful for laypeople who will be consuming said list]
The fact that these items were thought to satisfy your item number two, while more dangerous items did not, indicates that someone's feeding bad information to security, or alternatively, that was not the criteria. There is also some indication of Mr. Robot style fantasies about the power of individual computers.