DannyB 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (5934) comment rss

  • On the post: Bill Gates Is Confused About Apple FBI Fight, Makes Everyone More Confused

    DannyB ( profile ), 24 Feb, 2016 @ 05:57am

    Re:

    Bill Gates, the man who said the internet is just a fad.

  • On the post: Penis Pump Company Threatens To Report Techdirt To Interpol Because We Wrote About Its Bogus DMCA Demands

    DannyB ( profile ), 24 Feb, 2016 @ 12:02pm

    It makes sense now

    And, just to be clear: we're not selling any stupid penis pumps, counterfeit or not. Did you miss that simple fact?
    So THAT explains it.

    No wonder I never saw one of these on a Tech Dirt Daily Deal.

  • On the post: FBI's Scorched Earth Approach To Apple Means That Tech Companies Now Have Even Less Incentive To Help Feds

    DannyB ( profile ), 23 Feb, 2016 @ 10:51am

    Re: Re: Just take a lesson from FOIA costs...

    A printout is more appropriate than punch cards.

    Punch cards are machine readable much easier than a printout is. Even if you have to build a new punch card reader from scratch.

    Optically reading the printout, while possible, is a much higher hurdle. Enough so that it makes the FBI consider whether it is cheaper to employ a bunch of humans to hand key in the printed information.

  • On the post: Don't Believe The Hype: No, Apple HAS NOT Done What The FBI Now Wants '70 Times' Before

    DannyB ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2016 @ 11:01am

    A note about Backdoors

    See this article entitled: How Google’s Web Crawler Bypasses Paywalls

    http://elaineou.com/2016/02/19/how-to-use-chrome-extensions-to-bypass-paywalls/

    The article itself is about how to quickly get your chrome browser to use the same trick that Google's Web Crawler uses to access paywalled sites. You too can read those paywalled sites by making the paywalled sites think that you are the Google Web Crawler.

    See the last sentence of the article:

    Remember: Any time you introduce an access point for a trusted third party, you inevitably end up allowing access to anybody.
    Do you suppose that would also apply to encryption backdoors?

  • On the post: Wisconsin Supreme Court Grants Law Enforcement Broader Justifications For Warrantless Searches

    DannyB ( profile ), 18 Feb, 2016 @ 11:57am

    Re: Now It Makes Sense

    'community caretaker function' is a modern euphemism that replaces the older euphemism 'big brother'.

  • On the post: Police To Google: Make Our Site More Secure By Delisting It

    DannyB ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2016 @ 01:35pm

    Re:

    Are they aware that there are other search engines? For example, one that looks like a duck but doesn't quack when you visit its page?

  • On the post: Police To Google: Make Our Site More Secure By Delisting It

    DannyB ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2016 @ 01:31pm

    Re: Re: Let me google that for you....

    But wouldn't that be good news for doughnut farmers?

  • On the post: Apple Responds To Order To Help Decrypt Phone, As More Details Come To Light

    DannyB ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2016 @ 10:30am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I agree and believe you are correct.

    Forcing US companies to make insecure products makes the other 96 % of the world's population aware that US products are mandated to be insecure by design.

  • On the post: Apple Responds To Order To Help Decrypt Phone, As More Details Come To Light

    DannyB ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2016 @ 10:27am

    Re: UB Trippin', DoJ

    Since when is operating within the law part of the DOJ's regular business? (Or the FBI's?) I would point out Aaron Swartz.

  • On the post: Apple Responds To Order To Help Decrypt Phone, As More Details Come To Light

    DannyB ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2016 @ 10:25am

    Re: It all starts with just one...

    On a serious note, I don't fancy Apple either. (Although I once was a card carrying fanboy of the old Apple in the 80's and 90's.)

    I am inclined to believe that it is already too late. The escalating effect is sure to come to the detriment of us all, as you say. Whether Apple wins or loses this one. It will come up again. This battle with the clipper chip and mandatory weak encryption with a government key already happened in the 90's. Now the government wants more. Much more.

    Sorry to sound like a pessimist. But I think I am actually a realist.

  • On the post: Apple Responds To Order To Help Decrypt Phone, As More Details Come To Light

    DannyB ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2016 @ 10:21am

    Re: It all starts with just one...

    Forget about small fish like shooters and child molesters.

    You are failing to see the big picture here.

    Piracy!!!

  • On the post: Apple Responds To Order To Help Decrypt Phone, As More Details Come To Light

    DannyB ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2016 @ 10:12am

    Re: Re:

    I realize that you are making fun of the government for having abysmally poor security.

    This kind of incompetence is not reserved to government.

    AT&T for example, had a web site that would show you your information. If you increased or decreased a number in the address bar by typing over it, you could see another customer's information. In fact, you could easily get information for hundreds or thousands of customers.

    If you were to tell anyone of this bad security -- then YOU ARE THE CRIMINAL!!!

  • On the post: Apple Responds To Order To Help Decrypt Phone, As More Details Come To Light

    DannyB ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2016 @ 09:46am

    Re:

    EVEN IF what you describe were true, and it would not be. The FIB would grab that new firmware at gunpoint under color of law the first chance it gets.

    But even if, then this simply becomes the camel's nose under the tent. Or the foot in the door.

    All law enforcement agencies will now want a revolving door into Apple for an endless stream of 'break into this iPhone' demands.

    Of course, with the newest phone hardware this is simply impossible. What makes this case more interesting is that this is an older iPhone.

  • On the post: Apple Responds To Order To Help Decrypt Phone, As More Details Come To Light

    DannyB ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2016 @ 09:43am

    Re: Two sides to this for Apple

    If you read the link about how iOS security works, at least in the latest phones, newer than this present case, a data wipe simply consists of the Secure Enclave destroying the decryption key. No need to wipe anything. It's all just a bunch of encrypted data that statistically resembles random noise. Good luck decrypting it without the key.

    What the FBI wants here is to get hold of the key. But wouldn't it be easier to simply torture the defendant? It seems the court could simply order that, it is more likely to be effective, and would cost significantly less. And it is the in accordance with the values of the Untied Police States of America.

  • On the post: Our Further Response To Australian Lawyer Stuart Gibson, Who Continues To Threaten Us

    DannyB ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2016 @ 06:44am

    Re: About his response to Levy's letter

    Gibson's lack of a basic understanding of the meaning of spam might simply reflect his lack of basic understanding of the internet. Also perhaps it reflects his lack of basic understanding of the term unsolicited. Or the term bulk. Could it possibly reflect even a lack of understanding of the practice of law? Everyone would have to draw their own conclusions from the available evidence.

  • On the post: Our Further Response To Australian Lawyer Stuart Gibson, Who Continues To Threaten Us

    DannyB ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2016 @ 06:38am

    Re: Single Publication Rule

    If you publish something in a newspaper, wouldn't it only be considered published that one time. If I find that newspaper in the stacks of my public library fifty years later, does that now mean it was published again fifty years later?

    If you publish a book, and I find it in a public library or a bookstore fifty years later, does that now mean it was published again?

    If you publish something on the intarweb tubes, and someone reads if fifty days later, does that now mean it was published again?

  • On the post: Using Copyright To Shut Down 'The Pirate Bay' Of Scientific Research Is 100% Against The Purpose Of Copyright

    DannyB ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2016 @ 01:39pm

    An Act To Encourage Learning?

    If Copyright is about encouraging learning, then maybe the dreck that Hollywood puts on screen out should not even be eligible for copyright. Ditto for most of the so called music produced today.

  • On the post: Apple Responds To Order To Help Decrypt Phone, As More Details Come To Light

    DannyB ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2016 @ 09:38am

    Unduly Burdensome

    Who would pay for this new software development? Apple? The Taxpayers?

    Will Apple be compensated for the opportunity cost of lost time to market? What if Apple were to miss a major market opportunity because they have to divert significant resources into a development effort? Would Apple be compensated for that?

    Can the court require the FBI to post a several billion dollar bond to cover this possibility?

    Or maybe the FBI can use their own resources to recruit and employ the developers who would do this work? (Oh, yeah, a government run software development project. Those always work out well.)

    Is there some standard dollar amount to how high a barrier Apple should be required to jump over? What if Apple designs a device where the cost to break into it is absurdly high? Why should Apple be considered more capable of breaking it than our good fiends at the NSA? [sic]

    In this present case, is the cost to absurdly high to require Apple to comply with this order without compensation?

    The ultimate question: can the government require that nobody is allowed to build devices that are secure enough that it is infeasible to break into them? Or should the world be aware that US devices are mandated to be insecure by design?

  • On the post: After Failing To Use Copyright & Trademark Law To Stop Printer Ink Resellers, Lexmark Finally Scores A Victory With Patent Law

    DannyB ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2016 @ 06:23am

    MISUSE of a patent

    A patent gives you a monopoly. To protect your right to sell the patented thing.

    Is Lexmark somehow claiming that their INK is special in some way? (Not the cartridge. Not the mechanism. Not the printer. But the INK ITSELF.)

    If yes, then these third party ink manufacturers are not infringing an ink patent, because their ink is different.

    If no, then what Lexmark is doing is misusing a patent on some other mechanism to prevent other parties, and the end user from engaging in their own private transaction to buy/sell ink for the printer the customer owns. Or said differently, Lexmark is misusing a patent monopoly on some mechanism to create another monopoly that they should not rightfully have on getting a different kind of ink into the printer.

  • On the post: No, A Judge Did Not Just Order Apple To Break Encryption On San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone, But To Create A New Backdoor

    DannyB ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2016 @ 06:03am

    The REAL questions we are dancing around

    It could be argued that since the device can receive over the air (OTA) updates, that Apple can subvert the device, even if it cannot break the encryption.

    Apple could develop (at whose expense?) an OTA update that collects the password the next time the user unlocks the encryption.

    But can Apple be compelled to develop this? Even if the government pays, it cannot pay Apple for the lost opportunity cost of diverting resources from developing new products. Money cannot make up for time-to-market.

    In this situation, Apple could selectively deploy such an OTA update to a single target. But then this is just the camel's nose under the tent, or the foot in the door.

    The real question we're dancing around by suggesting that Apple COULD defeat encryption by expending tremendous resources are really these:

    Should Apple (and everyone else) be LEGALLY BARRED from building a secure product?

    Even though there may be no such law in writing. The effect becomes just the same. If you can, through tremendous cost and effort, manage to defeat encryption, then you should be required to do so at the government's mere whim and slightest wish.

    Other questions:

    Can Apple (and anyone else) be COMPELLED to expend tremendous resources to break into a device? At whose expense? Will all of their expenses be compensated, including a lost market because Apple diverted resources away from product development? Is there some level of cost (exact dollar value please) at which Apple is no longer required to break into a device? What if Apple deliberately engineers a device to ensure that the cost to break in will exceed this threshold?

    And finally a lesson for those concerned with privacy. Once your phone has been seized, they may not be able to unlock it, but once the bad guys return it to you, it may have been compromised with software such that your next successful unlock of the device will open it up for them to rummage through fishing for, or to manufacture evidence.

Next >>