FaceBook tracks you everywhere - every page that has a FB "like" button from what I understand. It's ubiquitous and pervasive.
Somehow I don't think that NYT tracking will be anything like that. Which is why I'll continue to subscribe to NYT and not use FaceBook.
FaceBook tracks you everywhere - every page that has a FB "like" button from what I understand. It's ubiquitous and pervasive.
Somehow I don't think that NYT tracking will be anything like that. Which is why I'll continue to subscribe to NYT and not use FaceBook.
So why is it that Apple is being called out here?? This is not to say that Apple does not have a role - but why is it singled out?
Everywhere we see claims that Android has the dominant position in the market, so why not start with Google? That would seem to lead to a wider result, wouldn't it?
There will be an interesting debate when this, as it inevitably will, arrives at the court of appeals.
And that will be about who owns the device. Did the vehicle purchaser buy the device as part of the vehicle, or is it a separate "facility" of some sort that's owned by the vehicle manufacturer, or some such.
>It is also clear that the government has made the considered decision >that it is better off securing such crypto-legislative authority from >the courts (in proceedings that had always been, at the time it filed >the instant Application, shielded from public scrutiny) rather than >taking the chance that open legislative debate might produce a result >less to its liking. Indeed, on the very same day that the government >filed the ex parte Application in this case (as well as a similar >application in the Southern District of New York, see DE 27 at 2), it >made a public announcement that after months of discussion about the >need to update CALEA to provide the kind of authority it seeks here, >it would not seek such legislation. See James B. Comey, "Statement >Before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental >Affairs," (Oct. 8, 2015), >https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/threats-to-the- homeland >("The United States government is actively engaged with private >companies to ensure they understand the public safety and national >security risks that result from malicious actors' use of their >encrypted products and services. However, the administration >is not seeking legislation at this time.").
>I therefore conclude that what the government seeks here is "to have >the court give it authority that Congress chose not to confer."
>Director Comey's salutary call for meaningful public debate can >therefore be achieved only by recognizing that the All Writs Act does >not serve as a mechanism for courts to give the executive branch >authority it fails to secure from the legislature.
FBI bailed on this but the damage is done. It might not set a binding precedent but any judge who gets one of these cases will certainly read Orenstein's denial order.
The FBI should have withdrawn their original request as soon as San Bernardino happened. Make up an excuse, any excuse. Since Feng had pled guilty, pursuing this had little possible upside. Orenstein hadn't drunk the KoolAid FBI was peddling and refused to make an ex parte decision. They knew there was going to be a fight with not much to win and a lot to lose.
I suspect that FBI/DoJ were more than a little surprised to be hammered so hard by Darrell Issa. He clearly knew what he was on about and was not buying what they were selling.
They probably expected him to fall in line with the "terrorist" + "law and order" mantra. Big mistake.
Their ultimate goal is a rewrite of CALEA and this gambit just made that most unlikely.
If the zero-rating is available to ALL video then it's probably OK. But if it's selective then it's just T-Mobile getting to pick winners and losers - not good.
I may be old'n'grey but I remember that companies were doing this - sort of - in the mid-to-late 70's. GE at the time had a worldwide data processing network and quite a few companies were doing selected parts of their business there. Not all, by any means, but there were certainly more than a few mission-critical applications (financial services mostly) that were not done in-house, and that were run on "someone else's servers".
It was groundbreaking for its time. Pity that GE squandered it.
It's not about Pooh. The whole copyright extension thing from Disney is about Mickey Mouse, and a bunch of animated movies.
It's not about Pooh. The whole copyright extension thing from Disney is about Mickey Mouse, and a bunch of animated movies.
FaceBook tracks you everywhere - every page that has a FB "like" button from what I understand. It's ubiquitous and pervasive. Somehow I don't think that NYT tracking will be anything like that. Which is why I'll continue to subscribe to NYT and not use FaceBook.
FaceBook tracks you everywhere - every page that has a FB "like" button from what I understand. It's ubiquitous and pervasive. Somehow I don't think that NYT tracking will be anything like that. Which is why I'll continue to subscribe to NYT and not use FaceBook.
So why is it that Apple is being called out here?? This is not to say that Apple does not have a role - but why is it singled out?
Everywhere we see claims that Android has the dominant position in the market, so why not start with Google? That would seem to lead to a wider result, wouldn't it?
There will be an interesting debate when this, as it inevitably will, arrives at the court of appeals.
And that will be about who owns the device. Did the vehicle purchaser buy the device as part of the vehicle, or is it a separate "facility" of some sort that's owned by the vehicle manufacturer, or some such.
Re: Hashing is not encryption
True - it's not encryption.
But the proposals would outlaw it just the same.
restriction period
Why is it that the restrictions are only for seven years?? Granted, that's better than three which was an earlier proposal, but why only seven??
Why not "forever" ??
This is like saying that you have to be good for seven years but then you can rape and pillage all you like.
NO !! The prohibition on bad things is supposed to be permanent.
a few snippets from Orenstein's order
>It is also clear that the government has made the considered decision
>that it is better off securing such crypto-legislative authority from
>the courts (in proceedings that had always been, at the time it filed
>the instant Application, shielded from public scrutiny) rather than
>taking the chance that open legislative debate might produce a result
>less to its liking. Indeed, on the very same day that the government
>filed the ex parte Application in this case (as well as a similar
>application in the Southern District of New York, see DE 27 at 2), it
>made a public announcement that after months of discussion about the
>need to update CALEA to provide the kind of authority it seeks here,
>it would not seek such legislation. See James B. Comey, "Statement
>Before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
>Affairs," (Oct. 8, 2015),
>https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/threats-to-the- homeland
>("The United States government is actively engaged with private
>companies to ensure they understand the public safety and national
>security risks that result from malicious actors' use of their
>encrypted products and services. However, the administration
>is not seeking legislation at this time.").
>I therefore conclude that what the government seeks here is "to have
>the court give it authority that Congress chose not to confer."
>Director Comey's salutary call for meaningful public debate can
>therefore be achieved only by recognizing that the All Writs Act does
>not serve as a mechanism for courts to give the executive branch
>authority it fails to secure from the legislature.
not an "escape"
FBI bailed on this but the damage is done. It might not set a binding precedent but any judge who gets one of these cases will certainly read Orenstein's denial order.
The FBI should have withdrawn their original request as soon as San Bernardino happened. Make up an excuse, any excuse. Since Feng had pled guilty, pursuing this had little possible upside. Orenstein hadn't drunk the KoolAid FBI was peddling and refused to make an ex parte decision. They knew there was going to be a fight with not much to win and a lot to lose.
And now they've lost it.
Re: sandwich
Is her name "sudo" ??
As in "sudo make me a sandwich"
mass tracking
When you are trying to find a needle in a haystack, more hay is not helpful.
In this instance, the needles were already found. Just not treated seriously.
So why is it that mass surveillance is the answer?
Re: all crypto is breakable
Quite true. All it takes is time. Lots of it.
"We didn't see this one coming"
I suspect that FBI/DoJ were more than a little surprised to be hammered so hard by Darrell Issa. He clearly knew what he was on about and was not buying what they were selling.
They probably expected him to fall in line with the "terrorist" + "law and order" mantra. Big mistake.
Their ultimate goal is a rewrite of CALEA and this gambit just made that most unlikely.
If the zero-rating is available to ALL video then it's probably OK. But if it's selective then it's just T-Mobile getting to pick winners and losers - not good.
Re: Re: cloudy origins
Sorry, AC, but this really is tinfoil hat.
I may be old'n'grey but I remember that companies were doing this - sort of - in the mid-to-late 70's. GE at the time had a worldwide data processing network and quite a few companies were doing selected parts of their business there. Not all, by any means, but there were certainly more than a few mission-critical applications (financial services mostly) that were not done in-house, and that were run on "someone else's servers".
It was groundbreaking for its time. Pity that GE squandered it.
Re: stored data
Do you KNOW that the stored data is unencrypted? If so, please explain HOW you know that.
And if you fail to do BOTH then you're just blowing smoke.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Erroneous title.
Pie are round
I am sure that Apple did not "rebuff" the subpoena. I expect that it replied with all the relevant information that was available.
And that would look just like the DoD/DoJ/NSA redacted documents do - a header follower by a lot of black lines.
It is worth noting that this piece is published in today's printed version of Washington Post (31 July)