|
I thought for sure he was going to talk about that Community Improvement District that they tried to create in Missouri to levy a sales tax on some businesses, but hosed up and accidentally included one college student in the district, preventing the vote from falling to the property owners.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:30 |
|
|
Fellatio del Toro posted:I thought for sure he was going to talk about that Community Improvement District that they tried to create in Missouri to levy a sales tax on some businesses, but hosed up and accidentally included one college student in the district, preventing the vote from falling to the property owners. That was on either TDS or Colbert at some point, and it was hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
IRQ posted:That was on either TDS or Colbert at some point, and it was hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Sorry, this video is not found or no longer available due to date or rights restrictions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
webmeister posted:Yeah fair enough, I guess that makes sense. But I still don't really see why a state government couldn't control fire departments or hospitals, as opposed to essentially unelected interested parties with very little oversight? Most special districts don't have elections outside regular state/local elections and are probably no less unelected than your school board. Keeping in mind that school boards are notorious for no one giving a poo poo about them until a nutter goes and gets themselves elected and pisses everyone off to the point where people care about school board elections for a cycle or two. Then again I don't actually know the ratio between sewer/fire/mosquito/library/whatever legitimate special district and special districts created just so rich assholes can raise money to be even richer assholes. Given the number and lack of record keeping, probably no one does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
The Bugle came back today for more adventures. In case you like me thought it was never coming back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:The Bugle came back today for more adventures. I didn't understand, or believe you, but it's true. He is nervous that Trump hasn't reacted. A sword of dumbass-clese hangs over his head and he fears deportation from president trump. Saw tonight's episode. He missed a great opportunity to show donald as someone rushed the stage and he got scared and clutched at the secret service agent's coat with his baby fingers. Every time that vine loops I notice how terrified his hands are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
How terrified his tiny, untrustworthy hands are, you mean.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
The Swiss war crime joke was good as hell
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
Hey, it's Eugene Mirman! MIIIIIIIIR-MAAAAAAAAN! MAN OF THE SEAAAAAAAAAA!
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
I had a feeling a Smashmouth joke was coming, and it didn't disappoint. "Apple: Join us as we dance madly on the lip of the volcano." was also excellent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 10:49
|
|
|
John Oliver unpacked a lot about the Apple encryption story that I didn't consider; mainly the fragility of encryption. I remember Edward Snowden saying it's bullshit how the government claims it needs Apple's help to get into the phone; that it's more of a matter of the FBI being way more interested in the legal precedent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:John Oliver unpacked a lot about the Apple encryption story that I didn't consider; mainly the fragility of encryption. Richard Clarke went on NPR this morning and said the exact same thing. He straight-up said the FBI could call the NSA at any time and get in, and that the whole thing was just a charade to get the precedent. David Greene of course sounded shocked, just shocked, that someone in high places could act disingenuously. ("NPR stands for..." joke coming in 3... 2... 1...)
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:John Oliver unpacked a lot about the Apple encryption story that I didn't consider; mainly the fragility of encryption. Yeah, I mean Snowden is not exactly a guy who is unbiased on US government and security issues, but I think he's probably right on this point - a while ago there was a big stink when it came out that the NSA had deliberately encouraged the widespread use of certain subpar encryption algorithms, because they knew how to crack them. So it's not exactly unprecedented that law enforcement would be more interested in being able to break into people's encrypted data than ensuring that nobody ELSE can break into that encrypted data. That's really the fundamental problem that the FBI either doesn't seem to understand, or just doesn't care about - as soon as you give ONE person universal access through the use of backdoors or other software tricks, you are essentially giving EVERYONE that level of access.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
If Apple writes something to disable the auto wipe so they can brute force the password, they may as well just remove the feature from the OS since it is now broken and it'll be drat near impossible to keep it under wraps long term. This is especially true since the precedent will now be set to demand it for any newer versions of the OS which may disable that particular access method. John touched on one thing that must others have overlooked. Nothing is preventing terrorists from using even more encryption. FDE is only the first barrier. Files on the phone may be encrypted further as well as communications. They are relying on the terrorists to be incompetent and not do anything beyond the phone encryption which is pretty laughable. Again, at the end of the day, complying with the order will only end up hurting the end user. They are the ones that will have their phone compromised. They are the ones not taking further action to protect data because the phone is supposed to be handling it. With the processing capability we now have, encryption is cheap and most of the sources for encryption services will be outside the jurisdiction of the US government. It's a lost battle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Yeah, I mean Snowden is not exactly a guy who is unbiased on US government and security issues
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
VagueRant posted:Probably a minor point, but...what does this mean? That he is not the biggest fan of those kinda things? Are you confused by the double negative?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
VagueRant posted:Probably a minor point, but...what does this mean? Edward Snowden is that dude who leaked a shitload of classified documents showing how the US spies on its own citizens etc. He doesn't like how the government treats people's privacy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Edward Snowden is that dude who leaked a shitload of classified documents showing how the US spies on its own citizens etc. He doesn't like how the government treats people's privacy. Well that and the fact that he literally cannot return home because of it. He's got a lot of reasons to not like the US government but bear in mind that for this particular thing he's not commenting on the technical side of it, he's commenting on the potential motivation of the FBI, which is based entirely on his own personal feelings rather than any specific proof.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
I just work under the belief that the government can crack everything already so I shouldn't make myself an enemy of the state. That's a pretty good way to get along in a world where the government potentially could crack anything; you won't get caught trying to hide something if you assume you're already in an Orwellian nightmare and can't hide anything and therefore shouldn't have anything worth hiding. Which is probably not far off from the truth. Working under that supposition, this case is bad because they want access in a way that anyone can use once they discover it. That's awful, because I don't want JEFFK tapping into my phone. Even in the Orwellian nightmare, at least only the "good guys" with the black helicopters and Roswell alien technology can break into a phone, the teenagers doing it like a 21st century version of blue-boxing the pay phone is a different matter entirely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Edward Snowden is that dude who leaked a shitload of classified documents showing how the US spies on its own citizens etc. He doesn't like how the government treats people's privacy. Problem is that it implies that Snowden is biased* on this issue, because he has related experience on the matter. Just like doctors are clearly biased against anti vaccers and reasonable people are biased against Flat Earthers. *Meaning you shouldn't take his concerns seriously.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
I'm not convinced that the FBI or NSA can crack that phone. If they could do it, they almost certainly would have in this case, as these are actual terrorists who are now deceased and can't exactly hire a lawyer to defend their rights. Sure, this case will set a precedent, but that could be done with almost any other case--like a case where there is more moral ambiguity and a less urgent need to obtain as much info as possible about the crimes in question. Honestly, everyone's insistence that the FBI or NSA could get into that phone if they wanted reminds me of a segment of some show I saw long ago where people were just assuming that it was possible to get into a locked phone just because... well, of no supporting argument other than "they're the NSA/FBI" and "we put a man on the moon, therefore we can do this other totally unrelated thing!" And by "some show I saw long ago" I mean the very episode of this show that we're discussing now. One thing I really liked about this segment was that it actually did present this issue as less of a cardboard-cutout, black-and-white thing. Fact of the matter is, if there is a warrant, the authorities have the right to look in your wallet, in your house, into your phone calls (recording them even), in your computer, in your safe, in your back yard under 4 feet of dirt, hell--even in your butthole. And until recently, almost all digital devices were open to them. Now, we're getting into a situation where they can't get into a locked phone, even if there is a warrant that legally allows them the right to do so, and that's not necessarily a good thing. I mean, in NYC, there were, what, over 100 phones that potentially had evidence that can't be obtained because of the encryption? The laws have to catch up to the technology, and decisions have to be made. If nothing else good comes out of the current battle between Apple and the FBI, we will at least find out if a 200+ year old law can be used to make a computer company write the software equivalent of a master key.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:I'm not convinced that the FBI or NSA can crack that phone. If they could do it, they almost certainly would have in this case, as these are actual terrorists who are now deceased and can't exactly hire a lawyer to defend their rights. Sure, this case will set a precedent, but that could be done with almost any other case--like a case where there is more moral ambiguity and a less urgent need to obtain as much info as possible about the crimes in question. There is a clear difference between being able to do something and being legally able to do something. It can be argued that if the FBI cracks your encryption, that since it constitutes hacking into the phone, the evidence was illegally obtained. If you obtain the information through a lawful court order the evidence is fully admissible. The NSA or CIA don't care since they operate outside the law, but the FBI would care a lot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
I was listening to a podcast that likes to talk about the encryption poo poo and terrorists mostly use regular texts more than anything. That and just talking face to face or writing letters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
No slight intended to anyone here who's said it, but I find the "the laws have to catch up with the technology" to be an evasion. We've already seen where NSA backdoors backfire and seriously compromise the public good (juniper). It's not a matter of lawmaking to fix that issue. If you intentionally engineer a weakness into a technology, it will be exploited by those that it wasn't designed for. Full stop. It also ignores the fact that US law can't regulate every coder out there. You break or backdoor the encryption mechanisms built into these products, then the nefarious types will use technologies that AREN'T built into the device, bypassing US law entirely. So, now you have to regulate what can be installed on the phone and make sure that only approved and properly broken encryption technologies are capable of being used on the OS. Even if you somehow managed to pull that off, the individuals involved can go back to an old-school cipher and purely use the devices as a communications link. The law can't catch up with technology. This is the new normal that we have to live in and adapt to. Law enforcement isn't going to be able to obtain all digital information anymore than they can retrieve a note that was tossed in a fireplace. It's not even a choice at this point. You can whittle away consumer protections all you want, but the tech is always still there, available to be used, in ways that cannot be regulated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
I'm sad John didn't point out the fact that the FBI hosed up their chance to get into the phone themselves. They tried to crack the passcode against Apple's advice, and made it lock up. I believe Apple stated that they could and would have unlocked the phone for the FBI before that, as it wouldn't have conpromised their new encryption feature. I don't know if it's giving the feds too much credit thinking they did that on purpose just to manufacture the scenario where they could demand Apple break their encryption.bull3964 posted:The law can't catch up with technology. This is the new normal that we have to live in and adapt to. Law enforcement isn't going to be able to obtain all digital information anymore than they can retrieve a note that was tossed in a fireplace. It's not even a choice at this point. You can whittle away consumer protections all you want, but the tech is always still there, available to be used, in ways that cannot be regulated. This is another part of the government's argument that didn't sit well with me. They made it sound like technology has made law enforcement harder than ever since laws can't catch up. Really, speed of communication and fallable encryption is all that is on the side of criminals, and most of them don't even use the latter. Snowden revealed that the government has never had as much information as they're able to gather now, and it's made them lazy and greedy. Why work to get things done when you can get a judge to sign a warrant unread that will grant you every single facet of someone's life? Law enforcement has never had it this good, and they still want more. Poor Miserable Gurgi fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Mar 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:No slight intended to anyone here who's said it, but I find the "the laws have to catch up with the technology" to be an evasion. I disagree. The law must at least try to catch up with technology. Saying so isn't an evasion; it's a concession that our current laws regarding information gathering are outdated given the difference between the state of technology when the laws were written and the state of technology now. When the 200+ year old law the FBI is trying to use was written, the state of technology was "write it down and lock it in a box." It's slightly more complicated than that now, which is why there is this disagreement between Apple and the government. quote:We've already seen where NSA backdoors backfire and seriously compromise the public good (juniper). It's not a matter of lawmaking to fix that issue. If you intentionally engineer a weakness into a technology, it will be exploited by those that it wasn't designed for. Full stop. ... so it's hard and complicated; therefore, let's do nothing. This isn't an evasion how? Do you think that wire fraud was written into the criminal code in the 1700s? That's just one of many examples where the law has been changed, amended, or created to deal with changes in technology. It happens, and it's necessary. Nobody is suggesting that it's possible to solve all the problems with one perfect piece of legislation and accompanying regulation. But we do have a new problem that we didn't have 20 years ago, much less 200 years ago, and the whole reason that this is an issue right now is that nobody has brought the laws up-to-date. It's why it's hard to prosecute men who share x-rated videos they made with their girlfriends before they broke up, it's why some kids sexting each other are getting arrested for distributing child porn, and it's why bad guys currently have no fear of storing evidence that would lock them up for life on a handheld computer that can be confiscated but never deciphered.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:and it's why bad guys currently have no fear of storing evidence that would lock them up for life on a handheld computer that can be confiscated but never deciphered. They will never have fear if they have a inkling of knowing what they are doing. There isn't a law that can be written that can change that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:They will never have fear if they have a inkling of knowing what they are doing. There isn't a law that can be written that can change that. My point is that... well, here's an example: say you have some mobster in Chicago, and it's Prohibition, and he's boozin' up Cook County something fierce. Get your hands on his ledger, and you can put this bad guy away. Now, put his ledger in a magical box that only the bad guy can open, and let's pretend for a moment that the bad guy doesn't want to open it because he knows that if he does, he'll go to an island prison and eventually get released to die of syphilis some day. Since that isn't something he feels like doing with the rest of his life, he just lets you keep the magical box containing the ledger and... well, you let him go, because you really don't have evidence. Maybe a new law will specify that you can't force a company to circumvent its own trade secrets in order to comply with a warrant. Maybe it'll be the opposite. The point is, we need a standard, and if nothing else, we'll get one when this goes before a judge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
Invalid Validation posted:I was listening to a podcast that likes to talk about the encryption poo poo and terrorists mostly use regular texts more than anything. That and just talking face to face or writing letters. iMessage texts are encrypted by default though, at least from iPhone to iPhone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
Something he didn't bring up in the segment but is also worth considering: if the FBI is able to compel Apple to deliberately weaken the encryption on their products for the purpose of law enforcement, that's going to affect more than just US Citizens. People all over the world use Apple products - should the US have the ability to set laws that affect the privacy rights outside of their national jurisdiction? Apple is an American company so they do legally have the right to dictate manufacturing standards like those set by the FCC, but even those only apply to phones that are sold within the US (as other countries have their own standards and thus have their own versions of the hardware that conforms to those standards). This kind of touches on the much larger issue of the international nature of corporations/commerce vs. the national nature of governments and laws, but it's definitely a question that should be considered and something that we're going to have to figure out how to handle, in general, at some point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:My point is that... well, here's an example: say you have some mobster in Chicago, and it's Prohibition, and he's boozin' up Cook County something fierce. Get your hands on his ledger, and you can put this bad guy away. Now, put his ledger in a magical box that only the bad guy can open, and let's pretend for a moment that the bad guy doesn't want to open it because he knows that if he does, he'll go to an island prison and eventually get released to die of syphilis some day. Since that isn't something he feels like doing with the rest of his life, he just lets you keep the magical box containing the ledger and... well, you let him go, because you really don't have evidence. You are fundamentally missing the point. So Apple creates a magic key that can only be used under the utmost protection of the law and is perfectly secured so that it cannot be misused. That is the most perfect and best outcome. The key is used to unlock the phone.....only to discover that the 'mobster' downloaded a Russian notebook program with built in encryption or used an encrypted messaging app to arrange his affairs. Square loving one, only this time US law has no ability to compel the makers of the application to backdoor their product. That's the issue. Encryption is not some fantastical technology that very few people understand. It's out there, it's open source, anyone with a tiny bit of computer knowledge can incorporate encryption into their application. You can't undo that. You can chip away at it, you can find flaws (which are then patched), you can increase computational capability which makes bruit force cracking more plausible (and that same computational capability makes stronger encryption possible.) In the end though, the game is lost. You would have to restrict the means to create and install these applications and even if that were possible, the implications of that are too terrifying to contemplate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Something he didn't bring up in the segment but is also worth considering: if the FBI is able to compel Apple to deliberately weaken the encryption on their products for the purpose of law enforcement, that's going to affect more than just US Citizens. People all over the world use Apple products - should the US have the ability to set laws that affect the privacy rights outside of their national jurisdiction? Apple is an American company so they do legally have the right to dictate manufacturing standards like those set by the FCC, but even those only apply to phones that are sold within the US (as other countries have their own standards and thus have their own versions of the hardware that conforms to those standards). This kind of touches on the much larger issue of the international nature of corporations/commerce vs. the national nature of governments and laws, but it's definitely a question that should be considered and something that we're going to have to figure out how to handle, in general, at some point. Agreed. I will say, though, that I want US lawmakers and judges shaping regulations for US companies according to our standards, and not the standards of other countries. If they're going to try to set a limit on encryption systems used and installed on devices made for sale in the US (the uselessness of such efforts notwithstanding), I don't want the FCC sitting back and thinking, "Hmmmm... what would Italy think about this?" Writing regulations that would satisfy the citizens of every country in the world would truly be a fool's errand. (This doesn't apply to all laws, though. When writing rules about blowing people up with drones, I'd prefer the government to put some thought into how the people who aren't getting blown up in Yemen feel about all the people who are getting blown up, and why they're getting blown up.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:People all over the world use Apple products - should the US have the ability to set laws that affect the privacy rights outside of their national jurisdiction?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
That's a good question. It bears mentioning, though, that just because Apple is a US company and it makes things that are sold in the US and in other countries, that doesn't mean that it produces exactly one standard of product for all markets. If Mozambique required that all phones sold in the country use numeric dial pads that are in base-13 and broadcast at a specific frequency, you can bet your butt that they'd produce a phone for that market that met the local standards. And maybe all Apple phones sold in Russia can only legally be sold with the lone encryption approved by the government, called "Igpay Atinlay," which converts all words to Pig Latin. Well, Apple can comply with that. If a Russian decides to purchase a black-market iPhone that was made in China for the American market so they can enjoy better encryption, that's on them, not Apple.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Krowley posted:Is there any reason to think they give a gently caress about this? No, because the FBI especially isn't even an agency that HAS to care about international relations (unlike the NSA or CIA who theoretically should (but obviously don't)). But the FBI's job isn't to write laws; it's to enforce them. The people writing the laws should care about the international community, because maintaining international trade relations is a big part of the government's job. And laws which harm Apple's ability to maintain consumer confidence in their products abroad is something that they should be concerned about. That's the economist answer, anyway. From my perspective, I think it's a larger ethical issue and it's something that, if the US lawmakers aren't concerned about it, it's something that at least the people in general should care about. The world is a hell of a lot more connected now than it was even 20 years ago and if you have a government that doesn't respect the international nature of the world, it's going to hurt their citizens who have to live in that world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:My point is that... well, here's an example: say you have some mobster in Chicago, and it's Prohibition, and he's boozin' up Cook County something fierce. Get your hands on his ledger, and you can put this bad guy away. Now, put his ledger in a magical box that only the bad guy can open, and let's pretend for a moment that the bad guy doesn't want to open it because he knows that if he does, he'll go to an island prison and eventually get released to die of syphilis some day. Since that isn't something he feels like doing with the rest of his life, he just lets you keep the magical box containing the ledger and... well, you let him go, because you really don't have evidence. Why go for a magical box when in reality it should be a cryptographic algorithm that only he had the key too. With no computing power it could still take a long time to decipher and he is the only one with the key. so yea he gets away free unless you have other means to connect them on. Same difference these days. Cerepol fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Mar 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
I went with "magical box" because it takes less time to type than "cryptographic algorithm that only he had the key too" and carries the same meaning.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
A big piece of the picture thing that the coverage hasn't touched on is that its mathematically impossible to design encryption with a master key that only certain people get to use. By the sheer objectiveness of algorithms either the encryption works and is indistinguishable from random noise or its not effective encryption. Having apple backdoor their encryption engine inside the phone effectively renders it useless in all phones going forward in time. This is a good PDF on the mechanics behind it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:30 |
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:A big piece of the picture thing that the coverage hasn't touched on is that its mathematically impossible to design encryption with a master key that only certain people get to use. By the sheer objectiveness of algorithms either the encryption works and is indistinguishable from random noise or its not effective encryption. Having apple backdoor their encryption engine inside the phone effectively renders it useless in all phones going forward in time. Yeah that's basically crypto 101 but the problem is that for a lot of the population, the technical aspects behind software and encryption and what makes them different from say, a safe and a key, just isn't something they've ever learned, nor have ever needed to learn. Which is part of the issue that was mentioned on the show - people don't really understand encryption or data security so they have to be able to trust that their phones are handling it for them. If that trust is broken then sure, the tech oriented people are probably fine but the vast majority of people won't know what they need to do to avoid being compromised.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 07:01
|
|