Why should craft beer be required to only register the full name?
Hell, if LA Gear can get a trademark on the term "LA," Boise State can trademark "athletic fields which are not green," and T-Mobile can trademark the color pink, why should there be rules for craft beer?
To be fair, craft brewers have spent the last few years getting the shit sued out of them by other people who make beer; people who make alcoholic beverages other than beer; people who make beverages, but not alcoholic ones; people who make food, but not beverages; people who make stuff that isn't food-related at all; people who don't even make stuff; sports teams; geopolitical subdivisions; and my uncle Joe.
"The Internet is really blossoming, but some policy-makers and politicians want to control it and regulate access to it. We should not try to intervene in this marketplace…"
There is ample competition in the VPN marketplace, there are reputable organizations vetting how they work, and you can, in fact, vote with you wallet.
With a properly functional VPN, the only thing your ISP would be able to see is THAT you connected to the VPN. They wouldn't be able to see what you did over it. And even in the case of a tagging technique like Verizon was using, that tag would be outside the SSL/IPSEC protected channel (it would break the packet authentication, otherwise), so it would not survive into the plaintext traffic exiting the VPN node on the other end.
Obviously,a leaky VPN doesn't do anyone any good.
The big deal with ISPs is that to them, you aren't simply a demographic. The ISP has the goods to bridge the gap between you as a demographic, and you as a specific human (OK, account holder) with a social security number and a functional bank account, a physical address, a telephone number and a name.
Just because the WEB advertising market isn't currently trading in these details (that we know of), it does not mean that there ISN'T a market for them. Or that the web ad business wouldn't jump at the chance to be able to send you physical marketing (like, you know... Postal SPAM).
...Or that the people wanting to buy these details are even as legitimate as the shadiest purveyor of online ads. We know, for certain, that the big ISPs already go out of their way to help third parties screw over their phone customers (what with the AT&T cramming debacle and all) if there's money to be made.
The PUBLIC erected the vast majority of the poles... The PUBLIC strung most of the wires... The PUBLIC dug the vast majority of the trenches... The PUBLIC installed most of the conduits...
AT&T is actively blocking Google from using the infrastructure that WE BUILT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
What does AT&T do if it has to put up more poles or dig more trenches? It TAKES PUBLIC MONEY, PROMISES TO BUILD THE STUFF, NEVER EVEN ATTEMPST TO BUILD THE STUFF, then FLEES THE MARKET OUTRIGHT WHEN THE PUBLIC CATCHES ON.
2006: Medtronic Introduces a wireless insulin pump called "Paradigm REAL-TIME."
2008: Johnson & Johnson release their own, similar device called "Animas Ping."
The Paradigm and Animas devices are each other's fiercest competitors.
2011: Jay Radcliffe exploits security vulnerabilities in the Paradigm device. He can KILL you REMOTELY. He gives a talk and demonstrates the exploit at Black Hat.
AT BLACK HAT.
The mainstream media ride this story into the ground in the cataclysmic fashion only the mainstream media can.
Meanwhile: Medtronic is suing Johnson & Johnson for patent infringement. The patents being infringed are for the Paradigm device. The device claimed to be infringing is the Animas device. Medtronic is literally accusing J&J of COPYING the thing. COPYING.
2016: Jay Radcliffe hacks the Animas device using a similar exploit. He can KILL you REMOTELY.
So....what this means is that in the 5 intervening years, nobody at J&J thought, "Hrm. Maybe we should check out the security of that device we make with the patents we stole from that other device that wasn't secure."
Weanwhile, at the Kremlin, Putin leaves the treaty we negotiated to reduce stockpiles of weapons-grade plutonium, introduces a bill in the parliament to halt talks on Syria unless we reduce our military presence in countries that joined NATO after 2000. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37539616)
Trump and Clinton decide just to piss him off more?
I think the "targeted, geographical advertizing" problem has already been solved. You know, buy the actual people who are here predicting the apocalypse. YES. ESPECIALLY you, Comcast. YOU HAVE ACTUALLY ALREADY SOLVED THIS.
Ok, I know you'd all like to forget, but you guys own your very own streaming platform. Yeah, yeah...that Hulu thing.
That Hulu thing already identifies where I'm located, and already delivers the MARKET-SPECIFIC version of the shows I'm watching, and also....the ADS along with it.
"The Court has long held that 'Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights which . . . may not be vicariously asserted.' My right to privacy is not violated when the government collects your metadata."
...unless they do it in bulk.
This is something that, seemingly, nobody understands.
I've had this conversation with a number of people when discussing, for instance, Facebook.
"I don't care if Facebook gets my contact list from my phone."
Certainly, it is your choice to disclose your informaton to Facebook or not. However, if MY name, address and phone number are in your contacts list, that's not just YOUR privacy being violated. When you take that ridiculous survey that showed up in your feed, and the app pownloads the entire content of your profile and feed, you are sacrificing your FRIENDS' privacy as well.
Now, scale that up zillion times. If (three-letter-agency) is collecting enough metadata (which we know they are), they don't have to be SPECIFICALLY collecting my metadata. It's already there by virtue of the fact that I interact with the people they ARE collecting metadata on.
How could this possibly NOT also implicate MY Fourth Amendment rights?
THE KEY! THE KEY! THE KEY! THE KEY! THE KEY! THE KEY!
I'm not sure but I don't think this code itself is a big problem.
The big problem seems to me that in order to validate the code, and that it works as advertised against a real device the expert would have to have access to Apple's signing key.
So, I'm thining that the iOS 7 update wasn't being pushed because of encryption.
I believe that the feature being pushed here is that the phone can't even be factory-reset and used by someone else. Prior to 7, if you stole an iPhone, you could just wipe it and use it as brand-new. In 7, the phone would not register to another user unless it was first released by the original user (by some mechanism - the IMEI or something was actually bound to the specific iTunes user account).
"Our concern is that, as a result of the OLC opinion, agencies other than DOJ may likewise withhold crucial records from their Inspectors General, adversely impacting their work. Even absent this opinion, agencies such as the Peace Corps..."
What? What the hell is the Peace Corps doing that it feels like it needs to hide from its OIG?
40 years ago?
If his wife immigrated to the US from the Ukraine region 40 years ago...
Some math....and...
She did, in fact, emigrate from the Soviet Union.
Re: Trademark of full name
Why should craft beer be required to only register the full name?
Hell, if LA Gear can get a trademark on the term "LA," Boise State can trademark "athletic fields which are not green," and T-Mobile can trademark the color pink, why should there be rules for craft beer?
To be fair...
To be fair, craft brewers have spent the last few years getting the shit sued out of them by other people who make beer; people who make alcoholic beverages other than beer; people who make beverages, but not alcoholic ones; people who make food, but not beverages; people who make stuff that isn't food-related at all; people who don't even make stuff; sports teams; geopolitical subdivisions; and my uncle Joe.
Can we blame them?
May as well be archaeology...
I especially love this quote:
"The Internet is really blossoming, but some policy-makers and politicians want to control it and regulate access to it. We should not try to intervene in this marketplace…"
Made by the FCC Chairman...in 1999!
A time when competition ACTUALLY DID EXIST.
Response to: Thad on Mar 29th, 2017 @ 3:20pm
Exactly!
There is ample competition in the VPN marketplace, there are reputable organizations vetting how they work, and you can, in fact, vote with you wallet.
With a properly functional VPN, the only thing your ISP would be able to see is THAT you connected to the VPN. They wouldn't be able to see what you did over it. And even in the case of a tagging technique like Verizon was using, that tag would be outside the SSL/IPSEC protected channel (it would break the packet authentication, otherwise), so it would not survive into the plaintext traffic exiting the VPN node on the other end.
Obviously,a leaky VPN doesn't do anyone any good.
The big deal with ISPs is that to them, you aren't simply a demographic. The ISP has the goods to bridge the gap between you as a demographic, and you as a specific human (OK, account holder) with a social security number and a functional bank account, a physical address, a telephone number and a name.
Just because the WEB advertising market isn't currently trading in these details (that we know of), it does not mean that there ISN'T a market for them. Or that the web ad business wouldn't jump at the chance to be able to send you physical marketing (like, you know... Postal SPAM).
...Or that the people wanting to buy these details are even as legitimate as the shadiest purveyor of online ads. We know, for certain, that the big ISPs already go out of their way to help third parties screw over their phone customers (what with the AT&T cramming debacle and all) if there's money to be made.
Smart TVs
Hayden:
"We kill people based on Smart TVs.
But that's not what we do with THESE Smart TVs."
No...the PUBLIC built it
The other glaring oversight AT&T makes is...
The PUBLIC erected the vast majority of the poles...
The PUBLIC strung most of the wires...
The PUBLIC dug the vast majority of the trenches...
The PUBLIC installed most of the conduits...
AT&T is actively blocking Google from using the infrastructure that WE BUILT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
What does AT&T do if it has to put up more poles or dig more trenches? It TAKES PUBLIC MONEY, PROMISES TO BUILD THE STUFF, NEVER EVEN ATTEMPST TO BUILD THE STUFF, then FLEES THE MARKET OUTRIGHT WHEN THE PUBLIC CATCHES ON.
So, wait.
2006: Medtronic Introduces a wireless insulin pump called "Paradigm REAL-TIME."
2008: Johnson & Johnson release their own, similar device called "Animas Ping."
The Paradigm and Animas devices are each other's fiercest competitors.
2011: Jay Radcliffe exploits security vulnerabilities in the Paradigm device. He can KILL you REMOTELY. He gives a talk and demonstrates the exploit at Black Hat.
AT BLACK HAT.
The mainstream media ride this story into the ground in the cataclysmic fashion only the mainstream media can.
Meanwhile: Medtronic is suing Johnson & Johnson for patent infringement. The patents being infringed are for the Paradigm device. The device claimed to be infringing is the Animas device. Medtronic is literally accusing J&J of COPYING the thing. COPYING.
2016: Jay Radcliffe hacks the Animas device using a similar exploit. He can KILL you REMOTELY.
So....what this means is that in the 5 intervening years, nobody at J&J thought, "Hrm. Maybe we should check out the security of that device we make with the patents we stole from that other device that wasn't secure."
Define "Interesting..."
Wait...so.
Weanwhile, at the Kremlin, Putin leaves the treaty we negotiated to reduce stockpiles of weapons-grade plutonium, introduces a bill in the parliament to halt talks on Syria unless we reduce our military presence in countries that joined NATO after 2000. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37539616)
Trump and Clinton decide just to piss him off more?
Re: Correction...
Actually, the first statement is correct.
Russia absolutely IS hacking the United States.
Just because the discussion is centered around one such example, doesn't make the statement any less true.
Meh. What's the big deal?
That government officials are on the warpath over this should come as a surprise to nobody.
Remember, these are people lulled by the phrase "We absolutely kill people based on metadata."
These are the same people whose response to hard evidence that, "ok, we tortured some folks," was a resounding "Meh."
But...WHERE THE HELL IS ALL THE STUFF?
Commission:
Fear not, citizens! We DIDN'T BAN THE INTERNET. We only outlawed FINDING STUFF on the Internet.
...unless the stuff was created in NOT-EUROPE. You can find LOTS of stuff to buy from NOT-EUROPE.
Um...Hulu, anyone?
Hey, um...guys? Psst! Yo!
I think the "targeted, geographical advertizing" problem has already been solved. You know, buy the actual people who are here predicting the apocalypse. YES. ESPECIALLY you, Comcast. YOU HAVE ACTUALLY ALREADY SOLVED THIS.
Ok, I know you'd all like to forget, but you guys own your very own streaming platform. Yeah, yeah...that Hulu thing.
That Hulu thing already identifies where I'm located, and already delivers the MARKET-SPECIFIC version of the shows I'm watching, and also....the ADS along with it.
I'm especially fond of this...
"The Court has long held that 'Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights which . . . may not be vicariously asserted.' My right to privacy is not violated when the government collects your metadata."
...unless they do it in bulk.
This is something that, seemingly, nobody understands.
I've had this conversation with a number of people when discussing, for instance, Facebook.
"I don't care if Facebook gets my contact list from my phone."
Certainly, it is your choice to disclose your informaton to Facebook or not. However, if MY name, address and phone number are in your contacts list, that's not just YOUR privacy being violated. When you take that ridiculous survey that showed up in your feed, and the app pownloads the entire content of your profile and feed, you are sacrificing your FRIENDS' privacy as well.
Now, scale that up zillion times. If (three-letter-agency) is collecting enough metadata (which we know they are), they don't have to be SPECIFICALLY collecting my metadata. It's already there by virtue of the fact that I interact with the people they ARE collecting metadata on.
How could this possibly NOT also implicate MY Fourth Amendment rights?
this certainly changes the calculus doesn't it?
THE KEY! THE KEY! THE KEY! THE KEY! THE KEY! THE KEY!
I'm not sure but I don't think this code itself is a big problem.
The big problem seems to me that in order to validate the code, and that it works as advertised against a real device the expert would have to have access to Apple's signing key.
Apple's signing key.
APPLE'S SIGNING KEY.
So, maybe I'm the only one....
So, has anyone read the actual legislation? I don't speak or read French.
The thing I wonder is:
The Guardian article states, "...stipulates that a private company which refuses to hand over encrypted data..."
So, does the legislation actually say, "hand over the decrypted data?"
This would seem to be an important distinction.
So...I'm fairly certain
So, I'm thining that the iOS 7 update wasn't being pushed because of encryption.
I believe that the feature being pushed here is that the phone can't even be factory-reset and used by someone else. Prior to 7, if you stole an iPhone, you could just wipe it and use it as brand-new. In 7, the phone would not register to another user unless it was first released by the original user (by some mechanism - the IMEI or something was actually bound to the specific iTunes user account).
Captain Crypto....
BY OUR POWERS COMBINED, WE ARE...
...able to spy on all those girls who wouldn't date us.
Holy 1986, Batman!
"3M’s ALPR cameras have inherent security measures, which must be enabled, such as password protection for the serial, Telnet and web interfaces."
I'm sorry....the WHAT interface?
I swore for a second you said "telnet interface."
Peace Corps?
"Our concern is that, as a result of the OLC opinion, agencies other than DOJ may likewise withhold crucial records from their Inspectors General, adversely impacting their work. Even absent this opinion, agencies such as the Peace Corps..."
What? What the hell is the Peace Corps doing that it feels like it needs to hide from its OIG?
...Oh. Wait.