If anyone can just throw in their own button and change the code of the button to patch the phone, you've just got around Apple's security though the Home Button.What the hell are you talking about? One presumes that the button sends a scan of the finger to some more central part of the phone. Unless the button itself is verifying the finger, replacing the button should have no security effect. Fingerprint scanners, including Apple's, are trivial to bypass from the outside, anyhow.
But Apple shouldn't allow 3rd party's to get around it or we're right back to people getting mugged for iPhonesAs opposed to people ending up unable to use their iPhones because they've lost the passwords. Either way, you lose the phone. People get mugged for shoes and handbags, too. Should those be glued on? It should always be possible to wipe and reset a device without knowing any passwords or having any fingerprints or showing any receipts or whatever. Not to get into it and see what's on it already, but to restore it to a usable blank state. ... and getting past the lock screen is a nonissue for phone theft anyway, since you can't change an IMEI without replacing the core of the phone. If your device gets stolen, the network can blacklist it. That may or may not be a good thing, but it means that we would not be "right back to people being mugged for iPhones" if it were possible to factory reset and reuse a device in your physical possession.
Telling somebody that you'll ban them from the country for 5 years if they don't withdraw a request for admission is not doing their job. Especially when it's a naive person whom you are holding incommunicado. It is, however, deprivation of civil rights under color of authority, and you can get a Federal prison sentence for it. Which is what should be happening to a lot of these people and their bosses.
Next time, don't tell the FBI before you disclose. That was really dumb.
The "paranoid" mode is basic least-common-denominator crypto security practice.
I know the kids today want everything to be easy, but some things are not easy. You can't rely on somebody else to hold your crypto keys and expect to have any security.
If it's not a privacy problem for Google to collect data so long as it doesn't use them, I assume you agree with the US Government's contention that it hasn't "intercepted" phone or Internet traffic so long as no human has looked at the contents...
Protection from intermediary liability is essential for a distributed and useful Internet, as lots of small companies ..."Companies"? If you have to have a company to run the service, it's not decentralized enough. Even a wee little company.
... because right now one of the biggest problems with the Internet is that it's too dependent on intermediaries. More push behind decentralization could lead to valuable technical changes.
Maybe, anyway.
I guess I'm too cynical to believe the Emir of Kuwait is really concerned about the average citizen's privacy.
Given that many members of the ruling class in most of the countries around that neck of the woods are relatively relaxed about raping whoever they want, beating servants, and generally indulging in criminal behavior that lends itself to DNA-based investigation and proof, I have a different hypothesis about why the Emir might not want everybody's DNA profile in a database.
It is blindingly obvious what will happen if the CRS stuff is automatically available to the public.
It will become a resource for the press, and it will become a resource for advocacy organizations. You'll hear people using it out in public, in arguments that affect congresscritter's electability and public image. Every time the CRS says anything that actually MATTERS, it will get used politically.
Every time that happens, some dipshit in Congress will claim that the CRS is biased and deliberately wrote a report to give ammunition to their opponents. Eventually you'll get some Lamar Smith type who makes it a crusade. The CRS will find its funding and its very existence in jeaopardy. So it will stop saying anything that matters. And those reports you love will turn into shit.
Anybody with even a basic understanding of politics should see that.
WHY do you think Gingrich wanted to kill the OTA? So now you want to put the CRS in the line of fire?
That's really dumb.
I think this must be one of those things people who watch that crap care about.
Humans evolved not just to play repeated games communities where they will have a lot of diverse interactions with all community members for a very long time, while being watched and evaluated by other members of that same community.
In such an environment, it makes sense to signal a desire to enforce community norms in general, and demonstrate a willingness to take costly action to do so. That strategy wins so often that it doesn't even make sense to undertake the energy cost of identifying the cases where it doesn't. And norms about distribution of benefits from effort are extremely important ones.
You may have identified a case where it doesn't win. Maybe. And maybe things have changed enough from the ancestral environment that it wins less often than it used to in general. But I wouldn't even bet on that.
Shouldn't every article like this, as a matter of policy, include a prominent link to the documents in question?
Do not taunt happy fun legislature. They might pass something you really wouldn't want to see...
I think the most interesting thing is that there is NO emphasis on minimization, selective surveillance, privacy, whatever. When they talk about targeting, it's always in the context of not losing the target, never making sure they attack only the target. I'm sure they can do all kinds of selective stuff, but it's obvious that they don't think not spying on the wrong people is at the top of the customer's mind. And I'm sure they're right.
The best they do is "Correctly interact with non-target cell phones to preserve service". Which is as much a stealth feature as anything else.
"Compelled a judge"?
Unless they actually held a gun to his/her head, the judge deserves some blame here.
That hyperbolic BS has to end.
Others have already pointed out that CP distributors must be worse than viewers.
I'd like to further point out that there are plenty of sick fucks out there who torture all kinds of people, including children, in all kinds of ways, many of which have permanent effects up to and including death, and many of which have nothing to do with porn or sex.
"Worst of the worst" is just lazy.
Not ONLY for purposes of identification.
It also says "or to disrupt continued unauthorized access".
So DoS attacks are fine as long as you don't actually delete any files on their machine or create a threat to public safety.
The whole "hacking back" concept is idiotic, anyway. You're giving your enemy control over your targeting. If this happens, Joe jobs will become even more popular than they are now.