Agree 100%. Cheer-leading for SJWs makes me sick. But, it makes sense. Many people have trouble seeing consequences past the next 30 seconds. Pretty scary, isn't it?
Is this ever expanding definition of "SJW" now including protective fathers pissed off that creeps are harassing their daughters?
Well I guess I'm an SJW then, because anyone hurts my little girl and I'll put a bullet in their head.
Since we all got mothers, I'd argue misogyny IS misanthropic.
Civil disobedience has ALWAYS carried the potential for punishment and if you break the law to make your point that the law is unjust you should stand ready to be arrested, imprisoned and tried in court for what you choose to do.
Your argument would carry more weight if the government who'd be trying Snowden weren't the same one he outed for violating its own laws, with the active collaboration of its judicial branch. Not to mention all of the recent fully-public sidestepping of due process for hundreds of other enemy combatants. Oh, and the torture, including of US citizens. And... do I really need to go on?
Snowden has extremely good reason to be skeptical of the fairness of a trial... or if he'd even get a real trial.
Snowden may be using what leverage he has left. He has not yet disclosed all the information he obtained so the US government might cut a deal to avoid further disclosures.
I see no evidence that Snowden didn't hand everything over to the Guardian et al, all at once, as he said he did. On what do you base your claim that he's still got something left?
Cross-platform compatibility of C++ code is excellent these days, C++ can call low-level Apple APIs exactly as well as C, and there is no performance cost to C++ unless you choose it.
1) Good but not as good as C.
In most cases these days it's a distinction without a difference.
2) But it's an unnecessary third layer. Obj-C has the objects. C has the speed and compatibility. What do you need a third layer for?
I see this differently. Obj-C has the objects I need to interact with the framework. C++ has the speed, compatibility and expressive power I want. C has speed and compatibility, but lacks expressive power, which creates a lot of tedium and loses a lot of safety.
3) Indeed.
We agree on something
So virtually no one uses it in this scenario.
Only time I see it used is when it's a library that was written in C++ on another platform and is simply being used on a Mac.
I haven't really done much on Macs, but I did a lot of work on NeXTstep back in the day, and C++ was quite common in scientific computing there. Actually, what I saw a lot of was "Objective-C++"... they may have grown further apart, to the degree that this no longer works, but in the early 90s gcc allowed you to mix Objective-C and C++ constructs freely in the same code. So a common approach was to build everything in an OO fashion, but to choose between Objective-C and C++-style classes based on performance and flexibility tradeoffs. The result required you to be fluent in both, but that really just means being fluent in C++ because a C++ programmer can learn Objective-C in a day (which is something I respect about the language).
Of course, a fair and impartial trial will also require him to accept a very high likeliness of losing the case, based on the current evidence against him.
Yup. When the law is immoral, only the immoral are innocent of breaking the law.
Is this supported if you don't set a screen lock password/etc?
I'd love to have FDE, but I have no desire to enter a password when driving/etc. The two should be completely independent.
Whether Android does this I have no idea, but the device could be configured to power off if the wrong screen PIN was entered too many times. A FDE password has to withstand offline attack, which means unlimited attempts at a high rate.
It is completely appropriate to use a different level of security for each.
You're dropping out of Obj-C for cross platform compatibility, because you're dealing with a low level Apple API, or because you want maximum speed for some part of the code. All these things are usually best served by C.
Cross-platform compatibility of C++ code is excellent these days, C++ can call low-level Apple APIs exactly as well as C, and there is no performance cost to C++ unless you choose it.
Unless you're concerned that you may need to target a platform not supported by a decent C++ compiler (which is really rare, given that gcc is basically everywhere), the only reason to choose C over C++ is personal preference or concern that some of the users of the code may not know C++.
The issue with FDE in Android has for long been the lack of combining strong passwords with a pattern lock or pin lock for unlocking the screen. In other words, your encryption key is only as strong as the pin code or password you are willing to put in every time you open your screen lock.
No, it doesn't. At least in Lollipop FDE-password is separate and you enter it at boot.
It's not separate. In stock Lollipop there is only one password, and it's used both for FDE and for screen unlock. Some customized ROMs (e.g. CM) have separated it, which allows you to choose a strong boot password and a more convenient unlock password. Stock Android didn't go that direction because too many users would set a strong boot password which they only use once every few weeks and therefore forget, losing all of their data.
Had I jumped to the Nexus 6 at the same time, however, that may not have been an issue.
As a recent Nexus 6 owner, I can confirm that encryption is enabled by default. I have not noticed any performance lag and the battery life has been really good. I will admit, I'm coming from an 'ancient' phone, so maybe that's why I think it's fast enough; way faster than my old phone.
As mentioned by Gaygirlie, a big factor is the AES-NI instruction in the ARMv8 instruction set supported by your Nexus 6. It dramatically reduces the performance and power hit of AES operations.
(I'm a member Android Security team who worked on bits of Lollipop FDE)
The issue with FDE in Android has for long been the lack of combining strong passwords with a pattern lock or pin lock for unlocking the screen. In other words, your encryption key is only as strong as the pin code or password you are willing to put in every time you open your screen lock.
This isn't completely true on Lollipop devices that have hardware-backed credential storage. (Well, it's not really "hardware-backed", but it's in a Trusted Execution Environment, typically ARM TrustZone.)
For Lollipop, a big change to FDE was the inclusion of a hardware-backed key in the key derivation function (KDF) for the FDE master key encryption key. This provides two benefits:
1) It means that a dump of the contents of your encrypted flash is useless without the device.
2) It means that brute force search of your PIN/pattern/password space is serialized and rate-limited by the performance of the device. In a way this means that faster devices are less secure, though we also apply a device-tuned scrypt function as part of the KDF, which compensates in the case of an attacker who tries to perform the entire attack on-device.
The best attack against Lollipop FDE, on a device with HW-backed credentials, is to dump the data from the device flash, then flash a custom OS which makes calls into the HW crypto to create an oracle, processing a stream of requests and returning the responses. Then you do a brute force attack with a mixture of on-device and off-device resources, computing the first scrypt function offline, then performing the on-device crypto operation, then taking the results of that and performing the second scrypt function offline, which you then use to try to decrypt the FDE master key, offline.
The fastest devices on the market today will perform the HW-backed crypto operation in about 50 ms. Assuming everything is pipelined properly, this is the brute force attempt rate: 20 attempts per second. With a four-digit PIN, this is negligible: the entire space can be searched in 8 minutes. However, a six-character alphanumeric password (random, all lowercase) would take 630 days, on average, to break. That's pretty reasonable security.
In theory. In practice it would take much longer than that. I tried running this test on a Nexus 9 and found the device kept throttling itself because it got too hot, plus even with a 2A charger it consumed more power than was being provided to it, so I had to stop when the battery died and wait for it to recharge.
Pre-Lollipop, and even on Lollipop devices that lack HW-backed crypto, you can conduct the entire attack off-line, parallelized, on however much hardware you care to throw at it. I can't make any promises about the future, but I will say that I, personally, really want to significantly improve Android FDE in the future. I have changes in mind that will make brute force essentially impossible, unless you can break into the Trusted Execution Environment.
Bah. Outright falsehood-pushing "journalism" is as old as journalism, and the online version of it as old as online journalism. Wikipedia has been abused as long as it has existed, and the Woozle Effect is also nothing new -- indeed the name and awareness of the phenomenon predates the existence of ARPANET, much less the Internet.
C++ can be clean. The problem is really Macro metaprogramming madness tends to lead to some really strange code and sometimes straight up gibberish. I much prefer Objective C as well, I think its terse, readable and *usually* fairly resistant to a lot of the gunk C++ has accumulated. HOWEVER with that said C++ *can* be well written and clear. Hell even PERL can be. Its just that often it isn't.
More than a head per side? It's been attempted, and turned out it's not really worth it. It's a lot of extra complication for not that much benefit. Heads are expensive and generate heat, so it works out to close 2X the price anyway, plus an increased change of failure. Easier and safer to just add another drive.
These days there are SSDs too.
UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker
