|
withak posted:It is following the order to produce the custom, insecure OS that they take exception to, not anything to do with how it gets on the phone. Correct. It's folly to think this will be the only request. We know NYC alone has over 100 phones that police want to get into. And that's the rub. Once it becomes routine to request this OS push, it will be leaked. It will be reverse engineered. Apple will have to patch against it, and the cycle will start again. Millions of people could have their personal information put at risk in the meantime. Meanwhile, once those who really want their info secret realize this has become routine, they'll further encrypt info stored in the phone beyond what the device provides and the whole thing is rendered useless anyways.
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
Jaramin posted:But only Apple can push a phone update externally, so the opportunity to brute force it wouldn't exist on any other device even if it did get out. A hacker wouldn't be able to force a phone to accept the insecure OS update without manually doing so, at which point they're already in the phone. If the issue is security on-site while actually writing the update, then put the development data on devices encrypted the same way as their phones. The ability to update a pin protected phone falls into the same category of things that could potentially be leaked, it's just been of limited utility right now since it can't be used to bypass protections since the OS that would bypass them doesn't exist. Keep in mind ANY user can update or restore a PIN protected device without the PIN, it will just result in a wiped device right now. Also, as John pointed out, the whole industry is barely (and often times not) ahead of the hacker community. The ability to load an arbitrary update while the phone is pin protected is a weak point that could be exploited down the line.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Why are you fixated on "remotely" updated? The whole point of FDE is to deny someone access to the contents of your device if they physically have it in their possession.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
The problem is that everyone is told this is a solved issue and apparently it is not. Second phase of E911 explicitly has location data as part of what's transmitted to the call center. If the data isn't being transmitted, that's the carrier's fault and they should be fined for every omission. If the data is incorrect that's transmitted to the call center, that's a carrier issue. They should be able to pass on GPS info from phones made in the last 10 years. If the handset does not have a GPS lock, then they should be able to do some form of tower assisted location. If the accuracy of such info is not consistent with what the technology is capable of, then they need to be fined. And, in fact, carriers had a deadline of 95% accuracy by 2006 and a number were fined for not hitting it. There's no reason why we can't ratchet up the percentage again and fine again. If the call center cannot receive or interpret location data, then it's an equipment issue and funds need to be allocated to resolve it. We have a standard though, it's E911. Improving the accuracy of location data needs to be thrust upon the carriers. All the call centers need to do is be able to consume it. In the end, the solution is to give the carriers a swift kick in the rear end and point at their record profits when they claim updating their networks to supply accurate location data is too expensive. Stop granting them waivers on compliance. Force them to get it done. bull3964 fucked around with this message at 18:44 on May 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Sivart13 posted:Out of curiosity, is this something you work with professionally? No, it's pretty public knowledge at this point. It was a big stink in 2005 when carriers would refuse to activate older phones on their network if they weren't E911 compatible. At the end of the day, the carriers are reaping massive profits by explicitly not having to maintain the last mile copper infrastructure. Verizon, in particular, is borderline sabotaging it in places to force people to switch to wireless or digital voice. I can't even have a traditional land line at my house because Verizon removed the copper going to it when they installed FiOS. It's digital voice or wireless. No more POTS. Basically, they broke it and they are profiting from it. It should be their financial burden to fix it.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
Jonas Albrecht posted:9,000 people holding 14 million in debt seems staggeringly odd to me. Why? That's only like $1550 a person.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
Veskit posted:John didn't really get into it because it wasn't really the point, but there are a shitload of federal protections for dealing with debt collectors, in which every violation you could sue for 1,000 dollars which include an additional phone call when you have done a DNC, being threatened, attempting to collect on debt without proven you owe the debt, things like that. "There for the taking" is assuming a lot. The people who would need to invoke those protections and sue are the people working 12 hour days likely at two jobs. They have neither the time nor the money to bring suit against these debt collectors. Even if they can find someone to take their case for free, the simple act of taking time off to show up in court is likely beyond what they can afford to do. This is a prime example as to why there needs to be government entities that are specifically tasked with enforcing regulations. Someone working minimum wage shouldn't be required to lawyer up to gain protection or collect punitive damages under the law.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Veskit posted:you do it in small claims court, a lot of it is DYI. It's lovely but it exists You are completely glossing over the time aspect of it. Even filling out the forms is likely to require a visit to a government office, an office that is likely closed wherever the person isn't working. The justice system is only really accessible to those that have some autonomy in their work hours, these people don't fall into that group. The cost benefit analysis of potentially losing a job in order to maybe get some money out of a debt collection agency doesn't work out.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
There's usually at least one every year. It's a blockbuster that's not really a good movie but not glaringly worse than a lot of other blockbusters that get released around it. It just bombs due to bad word of mouth. 2015 it was Fantastic Four. It wasn't a good movie, it was a boring and bland movie, I don't know it it was really a 9% RT movie though. But it became poison at the box office. Generally people will go see mediocre blockbusters, but you reach that critical mass of bad buzz and it just tanks hard. I don't really think FF was all that much worse than BvS, but the latter somehow managed to make $850mil before bad buzz killed the box office draw.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
It sounds a lot like the assholes in the piece, but I do think a lot of it is due to the pieces that people were interested in on a day to day basis (and thus would pay for) are now free. Mainly, it's hard to pay for the hypothetical story. Even with media of as the watchdog, your are asking people to pay to prevent some hypothetical from coming to pass. People bought newspapers to read the puff pieces and get the community calendar and to look at the want ads and the TV schedule. If they happened to absorb good journalism and fund investigative pieces on the way, that's bonus. Now all the things that people consciously bought the paper for are on BuzzFeed, your Comcast STB, as well as Facebook and Twitter. They still need the other stuff and probably enjoyed the other stuff, but it's like the vegetable side with your dinner. Only a small subset of the population is going to seek out and pay for just that when they already have the main entrée and dessert. I don't really see an easy solution. You can't fund journalism with taxes because gently caress government funding free press. But you also can't force adults to eat their vegetables when they don't feel like it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:I loving love that they bought that demon car. It wasn't the demon car. They mentioned it got stolen and the demon car was a 2004 while they said that one was a 2003.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
The audio mix in general was messed up. On both my recording and HBO Go, John's voice wasn't anchored to the center channel. He was bleeding into the front channels and the surrounds. It was very distracting and hard to listen to.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
I really get the feeling that the live shows marked a shift in Colbert. It feels almost as if he's hit the 'fuckit' stage and is allowing more weirdness infiltrate into the show. Both Word (or Werd) segments were on point and just like old days.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:I think it's more that he's bringing back the old stuff to keep from being canceled. His audience on CC isn't even remotely the size as an average night on late night. The FINAL episode of the Colbert Report didn't has as many eyeballs on it as the convention coverage. Colbert's ratings issues haven nothing at all with him "selling out" or "needing to bing back old stuff", it's about his brand of weirdness not appealing to a wide audience. You only have to look at the late night leader, Fallon, to see that. If you want Colbert to do well in ratings, he's going to have to 'sell out' far far more. The failure is CBS not realizing what they were buying. They thought because Colbert's fanbase was younger that he would appeal to all young people and they could pull in the younger audience for the late show. What they didn't didn't realize is that even though Colbert had a energetic young fanbase, not all young people subscribe to that sort of humor instead of more mainstream stuff like Fallon.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
What could he have said about the fires or floods that would have been investigative in nature? That last segment was inspired.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
Invalid Validation posted:Whenever I hear of a program using government money to fund a private business I just always assume the people running it are funneling money into their pockets somehow. Cause nobody gives a poo poo about the funny money that comes from taxes. You mean like this? http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/08/24/pa-cyber-founder-pleads-guilty-to-federal-tax-fraud-charges/amp/ Supposed to have been around $8mil stolen.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:The prisons accomplish their purpose. That's highly dependent on your full definition of what a prison is supposed to accomplish. Regardless, there have been enough cases of kickbacks to judges to show for profit incarceration is a bad idea
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Local doesn't necessarily help when you have things like gypsy cops. The biggest thing is data. Centralized collection and availability of data including things like resignations while under investigation and officer involved shootings would go a long way.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:John Oliver was angrier than usual, for good reason. You could actually see his non-gesturing hand shaking with rage.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
It's was a good segment theme the entire night. It's not hard to connect the dots from Trump through Gitmo to a Kadyrov like regime.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Both Trevor and Sam are hitting it out of the park tonight,. Kinda annoying Colbert isn't new tonight.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
Adding a 3rd party doesn't make the system less corrupt. The only way to make the system less corrupt is to stop the corrupt candidates before they get to this level. The only way THAT will happen is making sure government is inhabited by those who have the interests of their people at heart rather than party talking points. That can only happen from the bottom up.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Carlos Danger returns!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
The total dismantling (not reform) of the ACA has wide reaching consequences across the healthcare space. I know, in my situation, my entire division is completely hosed if that happens to the point where we would likely be completely liquidated. There's a lot more legislation there than just "sell people overpriced insurance." So, just feeling like I got hit by a truck last night. My entire career to this point is in jeopardy because the orange rear end in a top hat managed to tap into and mobilize racist fuckwits to the polls.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:What is your job out of curiosity. Not going to get into specifics since it's a small enough field that it would be pretty easy to figure out where I work, but a good chunk of our revenue is enabled around Medicare/Medicaid regulations. We have revenue outside that, but Medicare/Medicaid reform drove a large chunk of our growth.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:was because he was a huge ratings cash cow, and it's another example of the corporate media dicking over the public in pursuit of profits. That's really the crux of it. Trump coverage should have been "These are the things he said in his rally and they are false because of x,y,z." Instead, they didn't do any fact checking or any actual reporting other then turning the camera on him and watching the train wreck. No one tunes in for "he said he was going to deport x people in a year but we don't actually have enough planes to do that so it's impossible" but they do tune in for Trump acting like a jackass in front of a crowd.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Because today doing so would destabilize the democracy (well, more than this election already did and is currently in the process of doing.) Yes, its stated reason is more or less this exact situation, but the last time a faithless elector had ANY effect of the outcome of a race was over 150 years ago (and it wasn't even for president). It just wouldn't fly today. It would be looked upon as a subversion of the popular will and any faith left in the system would collapse. Also, the possibility that you could get ENOUGH faithless electors to change the outcome of this election is remote so as to not have a mention. This is especially true since in 29 states (many of which decided the outcome of this election) have laws that make voting against the popular vote in the state illegal.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
TheCenturion posted:
Two reasons, budget and they do a lot of research for the segments.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:Our electoral system is mathematically designed to prevent a 3rd party from being a viable alternative without becoming a spoiler for a party that has intersected coalitions. The US would have to convert itself to a proportional representation system that allots seats by percentage rather than win/lose elections in gerrymandered districts. Essentially this. 3rd parties have their place at other levels of government and can be important for bringing new ideas to the table in the presidential election. However, we cannot have 3 fully functioning and viable parties for president as long as we have the current electoral college. The only role for a 3rd party at that level is to replace another party in decline. At that point though, you are probably better off pushing for reform of one or both of the existing parties. It will be a quicker path to success in most cases.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
Endless mockery is one of the few successful inroads we have to rattle Trump's cage. He doesn't like being made fun of and it causes him to lash out. Wearing on his mental state is about the only way forward at this point in time. He needs to be goaded into behavior that the GOP can't gloss over without risking their positions in the next election.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:And honestly, there's a kind of social responsibility here because the second the late night hosts say "eh, Trump did something scary and outrageous but we're tired of that so we're going to talk about something smaller" is the day it all becomes normalized. That's essentially it. The moment we stop going WTF, it's normalized. That's the #1 message that Oliver gave when the break started. Not talking about it out of fatigue is the worst thing that can be done now.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
Oliver is on the daily show tonight and Trevor opened with Janice not giving a gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Yeah, that's essentially it. This is what we are paying the CIA to do and nothing in the leaks point to then using these programs domestically. This is what intelligence does. That said, when it comes to compromising software, the cat is out of the bag now and their techniques could be used by actors that aren't constrained by the law. So that portion of it is troubling.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
LWT just helps with HBO mindshare. HBO operates under the same model as Netflix. LWT just helps the general HBO brand even if they are essentially giving away the content for free.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
precision posted:
USED to?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
What's nice is we still have Colbert.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
If you think Colbert and Stewart could have had any sway at all with the election, you are pants on head crazy. The election was decided by people who don't even know who those two are.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
I'm not sure I even like the framing of what Colbert is doing as rejecting being non-partisan. Calling Trump on his bullshit is called being a rational human with empathy and shouldn't be aligned on party lines.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
That young generation usually doesn't vote in significant numbers regardless and I don't think a few rallies or specials by a couple of comedians would change that. Especially true since they were all already screaming at the top of their lungs to go out and vote even if you didn't have your ideal choice. Trump energized a base to go out and vote in a way that hasn't been captured by Democrats and a few comedians aren't going to pick up the slack.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 15:51
|
|