|
Jaramin posted:This makes sense, but witnesses can block the disclosure of specific copyrighted material at the discretion of the court. And in this case, I think it wouldn't even be necessary since you could test that the update wasn't altering data pretty easily on a control device. And all of a sudden it's being used on two devices instead of one!
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:04 |
|
|
Jaramin posted:All I mean by that is that that device cant have the software updated from within the device, the update has to come from somewhere else. there's no "iOS8" chip inside of it. Right now apple are the only people able to make an iOS device go from iOS8 to iOS8.1 without the user's input. The FBI is not asking them to push an OS update to the device OTA that revs the version to iOS8.nowipe. The FBI is asking them to create an in memory only runtime shell OS that will allow infinite attempts to the PIN on the phone, with no delay, that can be inputted by a machine. The update would be loaded via DFU. They throw in a proviso that this program should be locked down so it only runs on the unique ID of the device in question and they do say that the device can stay at Apple while it is running the software. So, do you see now what the concern is? They are essentially asking apple to write a bootstrapper that can be loaded via standard recovery that bypasses these checks without touching the system partition. This is not a normal OS update. This is a signed program that bypasses security checks. So, the only thing standing in the way of this being used against another phone is Apple's ability to tie this particular program down to a specific phone. On their first attempt, with very little lead time or testing time. It may be possible, who knows, but it's not correct to paint this as a special one time OTA. It's essentially an out of band program that can continually try to unlock the storage. Once it can, that means they have the correct passcode and they can boot the device normally and enter it. If someone figures out a way to spoof the UID of a device to the update during DFU, the world is open to anyone who wants to attempt this. The best part is, it would probably take seconds end to end once the ability to spoof the UID of the device is cracked. Got a jealous partner? Lose track of your phone for a few minutes at a party? Congrats, someone may now have your PIN code for your phone with zero trace in a matter of minutes. Beyond all that though, there's the legal precedent angle which is where things get really tricky. You've now established that tech companies can be compelled to breach consumer protections on demand if possible. It's the parameters around what make those demands valid and what constitutes "possible" where we have to be really careful. bull3964 fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Mar 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:Even in the best case scenario, where Apple could theoretically create this thing in house, unlock this one phone, and then destroy any trace of the crack they created, all the backups, and mindwipe the knowledge out of all of their engineers, the only thing a court could ever get as an assurance is a "Apple did it and certifies that it's all on the up and up". But that's not good enough for legal scrutiny, especially when you're talking about a process that was specially created for this particular case. In order to defend it in court, the methods of the crack will necessarily have to be divulged, and if Apple were to somehow erase all that information, then the crack may well have been for naught in the case because none of the evidence derived from the crack can be used in court. The issue is, though, that realistically, that would not happen. I mean, Apple isn't stupid. They know that if they comply with this request, even if they manage to do it to just this one phone, there is a 0% chance that they won't be asked again. That's what precedent is, after all. And there's no way they're going to have a bunch of engineers do this from scratch every single time. So it'll obviously be stored somewhere. And that means it's vulnerable to outside hackers and inside saboteurs. Now, it is possible to overstate the danger this would pose. After all, this could still end up being something that can't be updated remotely; someone might still have to physically posses your phone, and then they'd have to be savvy enough to upload the patch and then they'd have to do the brute force attack, all while preventing any remote ultra-lockdown of the phone once the owner sees that it's missing. But at the same time... poo poo like that happens, and hackers are resourceful. Sooner or later, it'll be another one of those trojan horse virus wurm things that Apple products never get (until they suddenly do).
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:The FBI is not asking them to push an OS update to the device OTA that revs the version to iOS8.nowipe. The FBI is asking them to create an in memory only runtime shell OS that will allow infinite attempts to the PIN on the phone, with no delay, that can be inputted by a machine. The update would be loaded via DFU. They throw in a proviso that this program should be locked down so it only runs on the unique ID of the device in question and they do say that the device can stay at Apple while it is running the software. Yes, that makes more sense. I was under the impression the order compelled the modification of the actual OS, but that doesn't seem to be right so I'll concede the point. As for the precedent, it puts Apple in an awkward position regarding consumer confidence, but I think they'll have to relent sooner or later. Jaramin fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Mar 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:My phone has literally never updated. It is a bad android that never updates the operating system. Nothing on the google play store is compatible with my version. I was just assuming it would update like windows where you have to log in and then reboot it later. What device is this? bull3964 posted:Yes, the issue is it defeats a key security measure of the phone. If it is written and used, it will be used for more than just this instance. It will be leaked (either from within sources at Apple or from people who use it.) If Apple does this, they might as well just remove the feature from the OS as it becomes meaningless. I understand the topic, my post that you quoted was dealing with the nuance of the discussion: that we are not talking about breaking encryption but rather getting around it by simply guessing the code. The encryption method itself is still unbroken. However on the subject of possible combinations... bull3964 posted:It honestly doesn't matter if it's a 4 digit numerical pin or a 6 or even an 8 when you are talking about brute forcing it with a machine with no retry limit/timeout. https://theintercept.com/2016/02/18/passcodes-that-can-defeat-fbi-ios-backdoor/
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:What device is this? I have a droid charge. It was the most shiny and new droid at verizon when I got it but it was a fake android. It has never had an OS update. And when you google problems for it, you only get good deals on chargers for every other brand of android. Just like how if you searched napster in ~2000ish for songs by the band Live you only got live concerts of every other musician ever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 09:16
|
|
|
This episode was mediocre. So many of the throwaway jokes fell flat. And I couldn't escape the feeling that someone at Apple got their hooks into John and he provided them some cover. Not that the topic is irrelevant or dull.. just not the best use of his platform, imo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
MrBuddyLee posted:This episode was mediocre. So many of the throwaway jokes fell flat. And I couldn't escape the feeling that someone at Apple got their hooks into John and he provided them some cover. It was payment owed to one E. Snowden for services rendered 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
I'm trying to wonder which is John more likely to cover when it's Olympics time. Will he just do a general (and well deserved) takedown of the Olympics as an institution? Or will he talk about how things are very screwed up in Brazil? Both could be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
trump again, hmmm
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
"Imagine a bulldozer at your family's graveyard" truly is the worst lyric from John Lennon's Imagine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
It's too hard to choose between Biscuit, Mollie or Winston.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
If you don't vote Biscuit then I hate you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Butts posted:trump again, hmmm In retrospect doing the whole "Trump, what a joke that guy is right? I'm not even gonna talk about that guy that's how much of a joke he is" thing perhaps wasn't quite as clever as John might have thought at the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 11:51
|
|
|
Well it's pretty clear that he reconsidered that stance when Trump started having an actual shot at the nomination.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 12:27
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:In retrospect doing the whole "Trump, what a joke that guy is right? I'm not even gonna talk about that guy that's how much of a joke he is" thing perhaps wasn't quite as clever as John might have thought at the time. I don't think anyone thought Trump would actually get this far, no matter who you were. Jonas Albrecht posted:If you don't vote Biscuit then I hate you. Mollie was a drat good fit too though!
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
I'm guessing many of us feel the same way as John about how to talk about Trump, which is mixed feelings. He first exercised restraint on giving Trump too much air time because he didn't want to fall into the same trap as the cable networks, etc. But now the contrarian mindset is "Can you also talk about the other candidates running?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
I liked the breakdown of the wall logistics but I think everything is becoming over saturated with Trump. At least with most of his other stories the viewer might take a critical look at something and adjust their opinion. Anything relating to Trump has the opposite effect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
I take it easy. I already hate Trump. Time to laugh at him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
The problem is that before it was easy to just laugh because he's a big pompous buffoon (and always has been) and nobody really took his candidacy seriously. Only now unless some poo poo goes down at the RNC (which I actually kind of think might happen - the Republican establishment HATES him), it's looking really likely that Trump is going to be the Republican candidate in the next presidential election. It's impossible to ignore him now because the crazy poo poo he's saying is actually going to matter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:The problem is that before it was easy to just laugh because he's a big pompous buffoon (and always has been) and nobody really took his candidacy seriously. Only now unless some poo poo goes down at the RNC (which I actually kind of think might happen - the Republican establishment HATES him), it's looking really likely that Trump is going to be the Republican candidate in the next presidential election. It's impossible to ignore him now because the crazy poo poo he's saying is actually going to matter. That is the problem. He can't be ignored and the fact that he has a serious shot at the white house is scary as gently caress. The stuff he says goes from insane to serious if he is sworn in. He is not a good representation for this country which is weird to say because this country is hosed up in a lot of ways but not nearly as much as he will make it seem to other nations. He doesn't act like a president he acts like a crybaby bitch
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Guys, relax, Trump is trolling. (He's actually a goon.  ) If you're not in on it, then unfortunately you're the one getting trolled.  Just sit back and watch him work his magic. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
If Trump becomes the actual GOP nominee, we should all be celebrating because he's basically guaranteed to lose the general election. That's without the GOP elites flipping the table and running a third-party candidate to deliberately sabotage Trump, which is itself a very real possibility.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
The Republican Party will tear itself apart if he gets the nomination. I've listened to people bring up specific examples of them turning on him already and it seems pretty likely to happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:If Trump becomes the actual GOP nominee, we should all be celebrating because he's basically guaranteed to lose the general election. Trump is using a sort-of high-octane version of the Southern Strategy--playing to the basal tendencies of his target constituency in order to gain their support, even though he knows it'll cost him support from moderates, because he believes that the people who are sympathetic to his xenophobic, racist, creedist, and outright loony positions will outnumber the moderates. And among the Republican voting bloc, that has turned out to be much more true than most Republicans would have ever cared to admit. The idea that I hear all the time, both from my fellow Goons and from my Facebook friends who don't have stairs in their houses, is that this kind of insanity won't play on the big stage, because too many people are too moderate, or at least sensible, to vote for him in large enough numbers. But here's the thing--everyone said the exact same thing about his chances in the primary! The same logic and reasoning that led many people to assume Trump would be laughed out of the primary very early in the race is now being used to predict that he doesn't stand a chance in the election, even while it should be clear and fresh in everyone's minds that his brand of poop is currently winning him droves of supporters who will literally beat up people they don't like in public at his rallies. It's like saying that the match won't light when struck against the box because the box of matches got wet. So you let them dry and you strike the match, and it lights. Then you keep doing it, because that first one was a fluke, because everyone knows that water destroys matches. After a couple dozen matches, each of which lights, you have to stop assuming that the next match won't light, don't you? Or was Jon Stewart was right when he said that learning curves are for pussies? Here's what I can see happening: Republicans who hate Trump, hate what he says, hate what he represents, and hate what he made clear about the kinds of people who fill the rank and file of the Republican party, from its leadership to its constituency? Those people? They're going to vote for Trump because he's a Republican. Maybe they'll hate doing it, but they will do it, because the alternative is a Democrat. tarlibone fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
Invalid Validation posted:The Republican Party will tear itself apart if he gets the nomination. The party will also tear itself apart if he *doesn't* get the nomination. It's going to be a fun year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:The party will also tear itself apart if he *doesn't* get the nomination. Unless something stupid enough happens in the general election that he goes all the way. Then it's going to be a brutal four years. For everybody. Everywhere. Sleep tight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:Here's what I can see happening: Republicans who hate Trump, hate what he says, hate what he represents, and hate what he made clear about the kinds of people who fill the rank and file of the Republican party, from its leadership to its constituency? Those people? They're going to vote for Trump because he's a Republican. Maybe they'll hate doing it, but they will do it, because the alternative is a Democrat. There is another choice, which is simply not voting. You have to go out, stand in line, etc. People see voting as a pain in the rear end, especially if you have ever had some kind of difficulty, ranging from "gently caress this parking lot!" to "you are at the wrong place and not registered". I think if Trump is the nominee, you will see record lows of voter turnout for conservative and Republican voters. That in of itself is damning enough to a campaign. Toss in RNC shenanigans to get another guy in, and there is no way Hillary/Sanders (lets face it, Hillary) doesn't win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
swickles posted:There is another choice, which is simply not voting. You have to go out, stand in line, etc. People see voting as a pain in the rear end, especially if you have ever had some kind of difficulty, ranging from "gently caress this parking lot!" to "you are at the wrong place and not registered". I think if Trump is the nominee, you will see record lows of voter turnout for conservative and Republican voters. That in of itself is damning enough to a campaign. Toss in RNC shenanigans to get another guy in, and there is no way Hillary/Sanders (lets face it, Hillary) doesn't win. I hear that, but I also worry about low turnout for Hillary, especially if people say that she has it easily. She will probably be a perfectly capable president, but she doesn't really get a lot of people very excited to the point where they'll brave the bullshit that is voting to go do it. So it really comes down to will hatred of Trump beat a whole bunch of voter apathy? Maybe, but maybe not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
The rest of y'all need to start using mail-in ballots. All aboard the Oregon train! Toot toot!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:The problem is that before it was easy to just laugh because he's a big pompous buffoon (and always has been) and nobody really took his candidacy seriously. Only now unless some poo poo goes down at the RNC (which I actually kind of think might happen - the Republican establishment HATES him), it's looking really likely that Trump is going to be the Republican candidate in the next presidential election. It's impossible to ignore him now because the crazy poo poo he's saying is actually going to matter. Anyway, now, it feels like the mood has changed. Trump and Trump's supporters have defined themselves, and to everyone else, it's clear that they are vile. It seems that much fewer people are supporting him 'ironically'. So, now's the time for laughter, applied offensively, as a weapon, against the bully. Getting on *his* nerves and straining *them* until he no longer manages to hide the weird neuroses of his own fragile ego - which he has tons of, all right, from his reaction to women actually having bodily functions to his defence of his stubby, stubby fingers. And then using his reactions as a fodder for new jokes, on and on, in a positive feedback loop, until, hopefully, he breaks. And if he doesn't, well, at least it will be cathartic and so positively unifying for everyone else. So yes, it's time to laugh. And laugh. And laugh. In his face. Trump, ideally, should leave the election every bit the human wreck he left Jeb!.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
I liked this segment because "the Wall is terrible" can mean it's morally terrible, which is a message that would make a Trump supporter feel spitefully superior to such "politically correct" garbage, while "the Wall is stupid" is much more to the point and demoralizing. Not that this is going to sway Trump supporters directly, I just think if people shout "your wall is stupid!" at them they'll feel less smug and superior than if people shout "your wall is racist". So I like that being added to the narrative like this. (So long as we all remember that the wall is really loving racist too.) tarlibone posted:Trump is using a sort-of high-octane version of the Southern Strategy--playing to the basal tendencies of his target constituency in order to gain their support, even though he knows it'll cost him support from moderates, because he believes that the people who are sympathetic to his xenophobic, racist, creedist, and outright loony positions will outnumber the moderates. And among the Republican voting bloc, that has turned out to be much more true than most Republicans would have ever cared to admit. Trump can't win much more than a third of Republicans in most primaries. He's winning largely because the field is divided by a bunch of garbage candidates no one's all that enthusiastic about. That's not going to translate into a magically great success in a general election. It's true that the conventional wisdom was 100% wrong about Trump in the primary, but that doesn't mean that everything's possible all of a sudden. About 15% of Americans, extrapolating from his support in the primary, are absolutely in love with Trump. That is pretty terrifying, and there are more who would hold their noses and vote for him against Clinton, I'm sure. But that's a long way from a general election win so long as he keeps being so actively repugnant to the majority. It's hard to imagine any traditional Democrats voting Trump, but it's easy to imagine some Serious Business Wall Street type Republicans holding their nose to vote for known-quantity-Clinton, and some high minded Evangelicals and clean mouthed Mormons just staying home. Anything's possible (Clinton being indicted, a horrific terrorist attack the day before the election), and so people are right to be worried because the consequences of such a freak occurrence would be unspeakably dreadful... but let's be clear: the odds are overwhelmingly in Clinton's favor and it would take a freak outside event to prevent her from being the next president at this point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:If Trump becomes the actual GOP nominee, we should all be celebrating because he's basically guaranteed to lose the general election. That's without the GOP elites flipping the table and running a third-party candidate to deliberately sabotage Trump, which is itself a very real possibility. I've been secretly hoping that something like this happens: Trump v. Cruz? v. Hillary... v. Bernie!! That's right, let's say Bernie doesn't get the nomination and also runs as an independent. The election would be pure chaos; no one would get enough votes to win.  Ah well, a goon can dream, can't he?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:I've been secretly hoping that something like this happens: Trump v. Cruz? v. Hillary... v. Bernie!! That's right, let's say Bernie doesn't get the nomination and also runs as an independent. The election would be pure chaos; no one would get enough votes to win. Then the Republican controlled House of Representatives will choose the next president if no one gets the required 270 electoral college votes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
Trump may have a huge net negative rating, but he could very well be a big threat in the general. I don't understand why people think he doesn't have a shot. He has a strong chance of winning, especially if he clinches the GOP nomination before the convention. - The GOP support network still might fall in line. Fox News may be defending Megyn Kelly now, but you think they still won't try to make the best of a Trump nomination? That they'll suddenly stop pretending they hate the Clintons? - Enthusiasm gap between Hillary and Donald. Hillary's running on a continuity message. That's not a strong message for the current political climate. - Donald's ability to dictate what the news cycle covers. - If Trump gets the a majority of the delegates at the convention, he'll have a week long commercial on all the networks to rebrand himself for the general election. And Trump is pretty good at stagecraft and optics. Yes, the gender gap will be a huge problem, because women hate Trump a lot. This may be the thing that stops Trump. But don't think Trump might not bring up how he defended PP. And he'll certainly try to rebrand the Clintons' record on women. Many people might not fall for it, but all that matters is enough people fall for it. My point is, take Trump seriously as a threat. That monster could be president. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:
Hillary will be running on a "If you don't vote for me you get DONALD loving TRUMP as PRESIDENT for gently caress's sake" message which is pretty convincing imo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Unkempt posted:Hillary will be running on a "If you don't vote for me you get DONALD loving TRUMP as PRESIDENT for gently caress's sake" message which is pretty convincing imo. I'm pretty sure this is 90% of the reason Sanders is still running for President at this point, "I may be a socialist but I"m not DONALD loving TRUMP "
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
The problem with making fun of Trump is that he's a joke. He's a joke of a man. He's been a joke for decades. Making fun of him often implicitly gives him undue respect. Comedians are latching onto weird things to make fun of because they've already used up all their jokes about his hair. There's no way to demean the man because there's no meaning in there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Trump may have a huge net negative rating, but he could very well be a big threat in the general. I don't understand why people think he doesn't have a shot. He has a strong chance of winning, especially if he clinches the GOP nomination before the convention. Actually nobody likes either of them. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/22/politics/2016-election-poll-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/index.html quote:On the Republican side, Trump scores a net negative of -33, with a favorable rating of 24% compared to 57% of voters who view him unfavorably. On the Democratic side, Clinton fares only slightly better with a net negative of -21, registering a 31% favorable rating and a 52% unfavorable rating, according to the poll. But Clinton is still generally expected to beat Trump handily in the general. Clinton here will probably benefit from the same thing she does on the flip side - people have known her for decades, so the people that don't like her are already a very solid and known quantity. Wailing and gnashing their teeth over emails or benghazi won't get any new traction against her because the GOP has been relentlessly making GBS threads on her for 20 years - Trump's abject insanity will scare people about him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:04 |
|
|
IRQ posted:Actually nobody likes either of them. God drat I hope you're right. I've been saying for a while that Clinton would easily topple Trump but there's a small part in the back of my brain that is getting worried because more and more serious media outlets (like The Economist) are talking about a potential Trump presidency.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 18:30
|
|
