Yet again, another person who can't distinguish between the technology and a particular application of that technology. What you're complaining about has nothing to do with the implementation of OpenSSL (which is what this article is about), but has to do with the application of OpenSSL. OpenSSL is doing it's job by verifying the presented certificates against the list of trusted certificate authorities that you have configured. The fact that you're trusting too many people isn't a problem with OpenSSL. (It is also not OpenSSL's concern as to how you obtained your list of trusted CAs, only that you have one.)

If only they weren't lying. I don't want _any_ of the ads.

Or, set an acceptable price to you. $1 per play (or whatever). No negotiation. Look at all of the time you just saved.

Read Dragon's Egg by Robert L. Forward. (and the sequel, Starquake) Part of the story involves humans interacting with an alien species that is a lot faster. The alien's lifespan is about 15 minutes...

Because your "reasoned" decision apparently doesn't take into account the threat you now represent to everybody else.

Not really... the cabs are being artificially hamstrung by regulation that was put into place precisely because private people were doing bad things and thus government was lobbied/decided upon that regulation was required in order to protect public safety. So now there are a bunch of cabs which are following said regulations (likely at a pretty significant cost), and now this other organization is setting up a de facto cab company, but doesn't have to follow the regulation. Now... if the cab companies no longer had to follow the regulations and _still_ couldn't compete with Uber, then so be it. But as it is now you're comparing the performance of two race horses, but one of them has its legs tied together.

I made no comment on the validity of the case itself (and had also mentioned the 5 minute thing). What I'm pointing out is that this article is inaccurate in it's headline ("Stop and _Search_ Based On Anonymous 911 Tips"), and many of the comments are making the same leap. The facts of the case didn't link the anonymous tip to the search. The facts of the case linked the anonymous tip to the _stop_. It was evidence gathered during the stop that lead to the search. The dissenting opinions were around whether the police had sufficient cause to stop the person in the first place since without the stop, the police wouldn't have had the additional evidence to provide cause for a search. So, much of the outrage here is misdirected. It should all be directed at whether or not the police had sufficient cause to stop the car. What we should be seeing is arguments along the lines of: "The police received an anonymous tip. Based on that they located the car and observed its behaviour over 5 minutes." Followed by either "Having seeing no signs of impaired driving we stopped observing the car and went on our way", or "We then pulled the vehicle over in order to have a discussion with the driver that a concerned citizen had observed the car behaving erratically, was there something wrong?" (Which then leads to the discovery of the other evidence)

You're missing a bunch of parts, and the headline of this article is similarly misguided (the original title is not). The 911 call did nothing regarding the _search_. What the 911 call did was focus the attention of the police on a vehicle that was allegedly driving dangerously. They then pulled over the vehicle that was allegedly driving dangerously under the suspicion that the driver was impaired (remember, driving impaired is illegal). During that interaction they discovered further indications that drugs were involved and based on _that_ evidence a search of the vehicle was conducted. Where the dispute comes from is whether the police had sufficient suspicion about the original "driving while impaired" problem (and thus sufficient cause to pull the vehicle over). They'd apparently followed the vehicle for "5 minutes" and didn't see any indication of poor driving. _That's_ where the dissenting court opinion comes from, not about the search. (I've made that 911 call myself. And in one case, I'd actually saw the vehicle that I was reporting clip someone else and tore the mirror off of their car. They'd pulled over, but I bet he was rather surprised as how fast a police cruiser arrived on the scene....)

That's not security (well, not the security that the rest of this thread is posting about). That's resiliency.

The proposal doesn't say a whole lot about why one would want to do it. So I can attach a date to a link. How does this guarantee that _those_ links won't die?

Not really. That means every application that wants to talk securely would have to add the noise, vs the library that they use adds the noise behind the scenes and the multitude of applications can concern themselves with what they need to do. And if the noise generation needed to be changed for some reason, then you only have to update the library and not the multitudes of applications (some of which may never be updated....).

Then the vendor is literally incompetent. There is _no_ reason why email should take hours to get a response.

Yep, you don't have to pay capital gains on the appreciation of your property. Not the same thing as property tax. Property tax is dealing with the property's "current value". Since you are still holding the property, no capital gains (or losses) have occurred (yet).

In certain jurisdictions this is illegal without a court order.

Not quite. Your analogy is missing the part where the adult walked up with the 10 year old and told the cashier that the child was allowed to use the credit card, and then left. That's not to say that Android should probably have multiuser capabilities across all devices, a device administrator designation, and an account setting about "auth once" vs. "auth for 30 mins" on wallet access.