I actually subscribe to the *paper* (gasp!) edition of Wired. It provides something for my teenage boys to read on long drives that is, to a certain extent, enjoyable (and sometimes quite funny).
I had (note tense) wired in my RSS reader, but once they implemented the "block users who block ads" rule I simply dropped them. Now I learn about things a bit later (a month or two), but I eventually get it, although I might not renew the paper subscription since my boys are aging out of it, and since I don't see it every day I don't think of it as much.
At least ArsTechnica hasn't switched; *that* would annoy me to have to turn off.
Wired has every right to implement their business model the way they want to. More power to them, even. That doesn't mean I have to do business with them.
Yahoo fought with pretty much every appendage tied behind its back. An unsuccessful challenge was a foregone conclusion. But, if nothing else, its long tangle with the NSA dragged some of its so-called secrets out of the shadows.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
pretty much defines "States Rights." But the commerce clause of the Constitution permits the US Government to control/manage interstate commerce. I can't think of anything more interstate (in both political meanings of the word "state") than broadband access, so "states rights" does not apply. The states should not be intruding on the domain of the FCC.
2. Yea, right. The broadband companies can donate relatively huge amounts to state legislators, helping their campaign war chests, and hand them the words to use in their bills. The legislators get resources they need to be re-elected, and the broadband companies get the right to do things like defining "broadband" as whatever they can get away with. Until funding of elections is reformed, anyone who wants to "petition their representatives to change it" can pretty much expect nothing.
And suing due to material damage? That depends on whether the broadband company has forced you to agree to arbitration...
Just because the FCC, until Tom Wheeler (I hope), has ignored it's duty for decades and let the states tilt the playing field, doesn't mean the FCC can't now step up and insist that there are lines which should not be crossed.
I hope it gets better, but the states should have very little say in this; it is an FCC matter.
Or, as appears to be the case in Canada, the key can be handed out to law enforcement agencies, allowing them to decrypt at will…
Really? So, this is like the FBI using the one gut wrenching "because Terrorism!" case to show a need to crack an iPhone and be handed a tool to crack all iPhones (and then they would have it in their tool chest without needing to get one of those pesky warrant thingies for the "next" one).
...and since one government agency is just a part of the government, it means that effectively all government agencies would have it (like the NSA wouldn't be able to get it from the FBI if it wanted it?)
So, in Canada, it probably means *all* law enforcement agencies would have the non-BES key available, with no need to go to the courts (or Blackberry) to get permission. I thought Blackberry was stupid, but I didn't think they were *that* stupid. At least with keeping it to themselves, they would have a revenue stream from the requests for decryption.
If the deadline passed "with nary a smiling monkey complaint," then how can they expect the filing to be processed? Yes exceptions can sometimes be made, but my experience with the courts is that they'd rather _not_ make decisions, and when there is a legitimate reason to reject something, they use it.
Otherwise "deadline" doesn't mean what they think it means. ... and that is inconceivable!
I must have missed the ArsTechnica toe-dip in the dark side; I have been a supporter of them for years and I'm glad I don't need to drop them.
I have/had both Wired and Slate in my RSS news feeds for a while. As noted above, Wired recently started blocking users using blockers (I use Ad Block plus); I now no longer have Wired in my news feed. I kind of miss it (and I actually subscribe to the physical magazine!) but it was too annoying to deal with.
Slate, on the other hand just displays a removable footer noting that it noticed my blocker and could I please subscribe...
If the ads were controlled by the sites themselves, I'd probably white list them, but in almost all these cases the ads are coming from a service (google, or some other purveyor of web ads); how far should my trust go? Ads these days can be used to pwn your machine -- in the current case I would need to trust Wired's trust in their ad source's vetting of their advertisers, and I can easily imagine their vetting process being fooled.
To the original question: link to them. Maybe set up a style to indicate link targets? Pay-walled vs Ad-blocking vs NSFW vs "normal"?
When Holder’s resignation was announced, the Office of Information Policy made a FOIA request for the identity of the new Attorney General, so they could correct their FAQs. They are still awaiting a response.
Who the Attorney General is should be considered a national secret; disclosure would compromise too many active investigations and prosecutions. /s
they are asking for a backdoor -- just a narrow one that can only be used for this phone and would be ineffective against most modern iPhones
Which would imply that if Apple seriously considers this everyone will be dumping their old iPhones for the "modern iPhones" (i.e. more sales!) -- if they trust Apple at all after this (i.e. fewer sales!).
As for brute forcing: I would think they could copy all the data off the existing phone, encrypted though it may be, just in case they "accidentally" cause a data wipe; whether they could copy that (encrypted) data back may be an issue, but it would seem to be a way to start.
It would require, simply, that designers and makers of operating systems not design or build them to be impregnable to lawful governmental searches.
This cannot, by definition, exclude encryption since no encryption is impregnable.
im·preg·na·ble imˈpreɡnəb(ə)l/ adjective ·(of a fortified position) unable to be captured or broken into. "an impregnable wall of solid sandstone" ·unable to be defeated or destroyed; unassailable. "the case against Hastings would have been almost impregnable"
No encryption is impossible to break, just difficult (for large values of "difficult").