We're very proud of the "American tradition" that our free-market economy, supply-and-demand, and market-driven focus allows "greater freedoms."
Of course ignoring tariffs*, trade-agreements, credit-exchanges, and other regulatory mechanisms that entirely make the above false, we get to the crux of the thing.
We love it when we can get a great deal on a new car because we did our homework. We love it when we find a great special at Macy's on that crystal photo frame we just didn't get as a gift at wedding number one. We love it when we can get five limes for a dollar instead of three.
On the flip side we're proud when we sold our used VW Bug for a few thousands of dollars over the estimated price. We love seeing that Blac Chyna will likely get one million dollars for "starring" in a KUWTK episode. We love it if our worthless script for "Time Tunnel 1980" (starring Barry Van Dyke and Kent McCord) is purchased for a million dollars.
So we love getting something for less than what it's worth. We love selling something for more than what it's worth.
This thing isn't a failure on IBM's part. IBM did their shareholders proud by collecting an amazing ("tragicomical"?) amount of money for a one-line app any schoolkid can code in under a minute. That someone put a graphical user interface (GUI) on it that's a big arrow, and someone else made it "tamper-proof"* is awesome.
What IS the problem is that our government -- which is supposed to have accountability and checks and balances -- not only happily approved this whole mess, but then tries to explain it's not as bad as we think it is.
So good on IBM and its shareholders for maintaining a profit margin on every app. Bad on the TSA for this. You can, however, consider that after fondling children, searching baby diapers, making people take out colostomy bags and various other things, having a mother drink her own breast milk, and holding travelers hostage for 15 years... this isn't even sweet icing on that cake.
* Those blue regulation "genital fondling" gloves mean they can't hack anything. They don't trigger a response from capacitative-touch screens.
Here's what I said: Hello. The DMCA notice process is heavily abused both to silence criticism and censor speech and in blatant disregard for the actual Act itself and requirements for verification of proper content "ownership", lack of license or right to use (including fair use), and oftentimes no validity to the requested takedown target.
These create a chilling effect and are most often not challenged because of the potential liability of the challenger to statutory damages and the fight against a mega-corporation (or a shameless organization representing them like the RIAA or MPAA).
Our Constitutional rights are first and foremost protective of our freedom of speech and expression. The use of DMCA notices to take down content that people find objectionable, competitive, or otherwise take down for other censorious reasons violates our rights under the First Amendment. That in itself should lead to a change in the "burden" that someone sending such a notice has, and someone acting based on such a notice would have.
The lack of fact-checking, oftentimes issuing notice to content entirely unrelated to the sender's own copyrights, a lack of ability to punish those who regularly abuse this process, and no penalty to repeat offenders all contribute to a broken process.
HOW TO FIX THE DMCA NOTICE PROCESS: 1. Because aspects of copyright law (such as fair use and other exemptions) require a human being to verify the use to see if it's a violation of the Copyright, require a human to verify and swear under oath to its authenticity. Today's automated bots send out a fake electronically "signed" document that has no force of oath. 2. Someone who knowingly sends a notice for content for which either a. they do not have the copyright or copyright holder's permission in writing to represent them and their rights b. is not infringing (either through fair use or other reasons) c. does so more than once in 30 days will have to pay a penalty and will be prohibited from issuing takedown notices for 90 days. 3. Someone who uses the DMCA notice process to censor speech shall have to pay a penalty and will be prohibited from issuing takedown notices for one year. 4. People would be allowed to challenge and contest the DMCA notice without subjecting themselves to any additional liability.
ADDITIONALLY: 5. There is no requirement that anyone ever "take down" content. The only requirement is that when served a Notice the party will evaluate it and take the appropriate action --as they see fit-- not the DMCA notice maker. 6. There is no requirement that once something is removed anyone must look for other similar data and impact it as well. 7. There is no requirement that once something is removed it must "stay down".
The Internet is a great medium for the people of the world to share information. The United States not only pioneered the Internet technology but contributes heavily to Internet culture. Our emphasis on freedom of speech that is Constitutionally guaranteed sets us aside from foreign regimes that shutter their people's access (China) or prevent them from using social media (Turkey) or punishes them harshly for downloading songs (Iran). It's time we took our antiquated idea of allowing a few censorious DMCA thugs to take down content without human review.
The FBI has pretended its mission includes fighting terrorism, and Techdirt has covered this. Now it pretends its mission is to break into iphones.
In reality the FBI was formed to solve crimes. This crime is solved. Syed Farook (or as previous commenter would rather he be called "San Bernardino Shooter McGavin or Whatever) is dead. He and his ugly-ass wife* killed a bunch of people and then they died. This crime is solved.
The crime (manslaughter) was committed in California, hatched in California, done by Californians, and ended in California. Other than watching a bunch of movies where the FBI comes in and "declares" they're in charge much to the lack of delight of the immediate law-enforcement agency I don't see where HERE the FBI has *ANY* jurisdiction.
I think the FBI stepped over its own dick in the worst possible way in three separate methods - they didn't have jurisdiction - they tried to make this the raison d'etre for Apple to OBEY YOUR GOVERNMENT MASTERS - they committed perjury, lying to the Court about there being no other methods and them having consulted everyone about unlocking the iphone.
Linkies to previous TD stories about the FBI's mission-motto creep, Edward Snowden's tweets about perjury, various experts opining on the iphone, and analysis about the AWA left out because if you read TD and its comments you know how to read those on your own.
Sorry, FBI, you're useless and obsolete. Better mission-creep your motto to something you're good at doing. Right now that doesn't include law enforcement, investigation, terrorism, using obsolete arcane laws, or parading about your knowledge (or ignorance).
* Total opinion here, but they're dead, so not only can I not be sued for slander but there's nobody with standing anyway :)
"Mike Masnick... make an achievement... before you come blabbing and running your lips..."
Actually THIS IS Mike Masnick's website. He didn't COME blabbing and running his lips. YOU came to HIS website blabbing and running your lips.*
Ehud * In modern English the words you meant to use were blabbering and running your mouth off. Of course to expect literacy from a hater that tells a website owner off while drowing in invisible irony is an exercise in futility.
Re: Re: Microsoft "successful" at Windows (was Re: )
> Raise your hand if...
Raise your hand if the way you judge reality is by how many people raise their hand. Popularity contests are awesome for high-school cheerleader but not so much for news.
> Windows the most ubiquitous desktop OS
You made that criteria up. Now go read up like someone who is responding to a previous posting and see that wasn't the criteria at all. Good boy.
Microsoft wrote crap. The fact that they sold it to everybody (and his dog) is good salesmanship but it doesn't make the crap any more eadible. Amiga and Mac had better OSs and they didn't sell so well at all. Still better mousetrap.
> Was betamax[sic] also more successful Again if you define success to having the better mousetrap then sure. If you define it as taking the market and running away with it [see various international lawsuits against Microsoft for unlawful behavior] then yeah that too.
That wasn't the point. The point was that looking at Microsoft was a bad choice. It still is.
> ...his implementation was vastly less successful than Microsoft's
The first Microsoft Windows was barely a crosshatch pattern on an ASCII screen. It competed UNFAVORABLY against AmigaOS which had true multitasking and MacOS which has true graphical windows. In every single measurement Microsoft's implementation of Windows sucked.
It took Microsoft from 1993 to 1996 (Win95) to 2001 (Win2K) (and using the kernel they stole from DEC's VMS) to be able to actually have usable windows doing different things. that's 13 years after Amiga and Mac had it down pat.
However, what Microsoft did was ensure that "everything runs Windows 3.1 software" so they left all the old cruft in, which made Microsoft Windows the least secure and most easily pwn3d operating system in the world -- ever -- on any platform -- ever -- in all of history.
So to compare them and include the word "successful" is a slap in the face of "success."
Ray and others like him and from that time contributed a lot to get a network of IMPs to become a network of IP processors to an ARPAnet backbone, NSFnet backbone, and eventually the commercial Internet.
Through it all email evolved but several things stayed: 1. Ray's use of the @ to separate man and machine. (Bitnet's broken % sign did not last long...) 2. Email as envisioned by many people has persevered and improved. 3. No 14-year old indian poser kid invented email
It's amazing how many people believe his story despite reality and factual proof to the contrary.
You outsmarted everyone! You're the South African Walter. How could I have missed it before -- illiteracy, inability to communicate with "normal" people, egomania, maladjusted personality disorder, and a deep desire to prove dominance withouth a shred of talent or ability -- those are the hallmarks :)
Welcome South African Walter. This topic is not about you. (Nor your show, should there be an LDC-Scorpion airing somewhere.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: ...also IOS running entirely in RAM
>Besides giving me a completely irrelevant answer, your answer also appears to be wrong. > >From A (not so) quick primer on iOS encryption
That also modifies the filesystem on the device. What the FBI has requested is -zero- modifications to the device. That is not (according to the declaration under oath) possible.
This is not unreasonable. For example (this is an example so as you know some parts apply and some parts don't)... you can boot Ubuntu-Live without ever touching the local drives. However, that requires more than the 1GB of RAM you'll find in the iPhone 5c.
There are other considerations that their "Secure Enclave" does that renders this difficult to accomplish. They're not saying impossible... I believe 6 coders, 2 support people, 1 doc person, 3 from legal... all for 4 weeks although that time might double.
That seems to be an unreasonable burden -- not because the government wouldn't pay _something_ for it, but because it's not Apple's desire[5th am] to write this code [1st am], sign this code[1st am], or in any way be a part of the process[AWA].
To the person who said: But it belongs to its owner and they're just asking for help getting into it: They can get into it. That's not what they want. I'll spell it out:
Owner: I want to get into that phone. break into it for me. Apple: You can get into it any time. Enter the wrong PIN ten times and your brand-new used iPhone 5c will be ready for you to setup. Owner: But I want my employee's data! Apple: Well 1)You could have setup MDM. You didn't? 2)You could have plugged it in at the office and let iCloud do the backup. You changed the password? Well you screwed up the data and your employee's dead. Go look in the mirror; point at yourself a few times; we're not the problem.
If you don't follow best practices, it doesn't make it Apple's problem, and that is the truth the FBI doesn't want to discuss.
Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Twitter to file as amicus curiae
I guess other companies, having read the filing, agree with Apple's point of view, not the trolls'. We won't know what the DoJ/FBI response is until they file it, of course, although lately they're more than happy to provide that in the media first. (Motion to compel before filed response, anyone?)
He has no need to read the filing. His talking points were supplied by either his prejudice, his masters, or his ethereal otherworld spirit.
The Government's request is outside the boundaries of lawful and it will not stand. The reasons have been discussed. Any attempt to shift this to "it's easy for them to decrypt" and "nothing will fall into the wrong hands" is a strawman argument.