Why is that pledge has to go through some Beacon? I am again asked to register with them, create an account, blah-blah... I'm ready to donate if the process is simplified and I do not need to create one more fake account that I won't be using anymore.
Beacon has been a really useful platform for us in terms of managing the crowdfunding process, but if you'd prefer to just give directly there are ways to do so at our own "insider shop":
I think if you're explaining, you're losing people. Specifically you're losing the ones who can't think past OMG TERRORISM!.
I disagree. That's an easy excuse and it's insulting. It reminds me of the "but... piracy!" excuse that we always heard on the copyright debate. But the people who explained things and why it's not just about piracy tended to win out in the end. And that's happening here as well.
Unlike the Hogan leak -- in which 1st Amendment issues were the centerpiece of Mike's discussion -- Mike never even once mentioned 1st Amendment issues in the Fappening leak, when the shoe was on the other foot in the male/female divide.
I think the issue was quite different there. There wasn't a lawsuit against a publisher for publishing those images. Just a legal threat against Google, which I noted was a mistake. If the lawsuit had actually gone forward, Google would have been protected.
If a newspaper had published photos from those leaks, I still think the result should be effectively the same: the public can (and almost certainly should) shun & shame the publication for taking the low road and making such a decision. But a jury shouldn't be deciding if it's "newsworthy" or not.
Again, I don't condone Gawker's decision to publish. And I don't think it should have published. But I'm not Gawker and I still worry about juries making editorial decisions.
Intuitively, I feel there should be a line somewhere. Is there? And if there isn't: should there be one?
Why does there need to be a legal line? In most cases, the limit comes from the natural fact that publishing things that are not newsworthy or which cross a line too far, leads to social and economic damage for the publication.
For Techdirt, it isn't a race. Much of main stream media strives to be 'first to report', or 'exclusive', or 'everything fit to print', or 'if it bleeds it leads'. But those are not the focus here.
Chances are good that what we send them they have already seen. Deciding what should be presented for discussion seems to be more important to them than when.
Sometimes they write up a story but other things take precedent and that story gets pushed back. I have even heard talk about stories that were in the queue but never made it to publishing, for whatever reason.
Does techdirt think any of these Department of Defense documents are overstating the administration's knowledge of what went down even as they colluded with google and youtube to block a video they knew was not responsible for the attacks?
You realize none of that has to do with anything in this post, right? All I'm talking about is whether or not the evidence revealed today shows that Google and the WH colluded to take down the video -- as claimed by Wikileaks.
The evidence you've presented is solely about what the USG knew about the attacks. That has nothing to do with the question here.
What a pathetic piece of apology this column is.
Yeah, okay. Sorry I posted actual facts and supported my position and you ran with it and pretended something totally different. That's on you buddy.
While it's strange that you have to answer for the professor, it's clear that neither he nor you has not explained why THIS issue issue is so incredibly special that it's binary. Honestly, I'd rather him explain it, as you're proved over and over again that you abhor subtlety and make a living presenting most things as binary. Can the professor not speak for himself? Or is he too busy to explain anything--just like you always pretend to be?
Ah, didn't realize it was you. Should have figured you'd resort to insults. But for someone who continually (wrongly) insists that I speak from an area of ignorance, it's kind of funny to see you now so sure that it's not a binary situation at all, which is only displaying your ignorance of cryptography.
The issue was already well explained by That One Guy, but to add to his response even further: cryptography is not easy. The whole point of strong cryptography is building system that only let the intended person (singular) in. But there are always vulnerabilities or the possibility of vulnerabilities, and the job of cryptographers/security professionals is to block all of those. But any time you make any change to a cryptographic solution, you are almost certainly introducing new vulnerabilities.
That's the part of this that so few people seem to understand. The government is asking for:
(1) Apple to add in a new vulnerability, which will be added without significant or widespread testing to make sure it's truly safe. (2) That new vulnerability almost certainly will create other vulnerabilities. This is just a fundamental thing in cryptography. (3) However, rather than with any other system whereby there would be a targeted effort to fix those vulnerabilities, that won't be possible here, because the vulnerability will be demanded by the courts and purposely put into place.
The level of disaster this can cause for everyone could be massive. You're basically undermining how *computer security itself* works, and handcuffing the people who fix things.
The end result is that you and everyone else are almost certainly less safe. And that's why this choice is binary. People who don't know any better *think* that there are shades of gray here. And in lots of situations there are shades of gray. But in cryptography, if it's not fully encrypted, it's like it's not encrypted at all. It's open. This isn't "oh, open a tiny door and then throw away the key." This is "punch a giant hole in the damn" and then pretend it won't wipe out all the lands downstream.
EFF and Techdirt are two different types of organizations, and we can work together quite well. Techdirt's reporting is helpful to the EFF in activating more people. But they need the kind of reporting that we can do.
Do you teach your students that it's good journalism to say that complex issues are binary?
The point he's making is exactly right. Too many people -- especially on the policy side -- continue to believe that there is some sort of "middle ground." The point that Dan is making is that, in THIS case, it's not. If you weaken security, you weaken security for everyone. It is a binary decision.
He is not saying that all complex news stories are binary. But some of them are. This one is.
is to presume this is an unintended consequence of overzealous regulators who end up accomplishing the opposite of what they want.
That's a valid point in many cases. However, having spoken to a variety of people involved in this consultation I *do not* think it's the case here. They legitimately think that they need to "stop" the big internet players, and basically just have not thought through the actual impact.
Unfortunately I can't seem to find the link, but assuming my memory is correct there's a rather relevant point to this, and that is that Feng accepted a plea deal, which means they aren't going through all this trouble to find evidence of a crime(unless they feel like changing the deal after the fact, which might raise some eyebrows), but simply just in case the phone happens to contain evidence they can use elsewhere(you know, totally unlike the other case).
Yes, that's true. The reason this decision just came out is because the judge asked the DOJ if the whole application was moot, given that Feng has plead guilty. The DOJ says it is because they're "still investigating" what they claim may be a larger drug ring and Feng insists he's forgotten the passcode to the phone.
Re Lavabit, I note that the EFF brief referred to is hosted on the Apple servers rather than the court's system. I'd wager that the brief itself is available, just not from apple's servers. ... or not when Techdirt wrote it up.
I got the briefs directly from PACER or from Apple. For whatever reason some of the "attached" briefs aren't in PACER (or posted by Apple).