It's not going to be presented as a matter of trust. If the proxy bothers to ask the user to opt in, they will ask "Do you want us to use the SuperMegaFast approach to get this page or the normal way that's likely to be somewhat to much slower?" When phrased like that, I think most non-technical users (and even some technically-savvy users) would choose the fast MITM approach.
Hmm
It may be worthy of study. Just not in a SCIENCE class.
Sure, we can't observe the early Earth (at least not until or unless we discover time travel.) But we can simulate conditions on the early Earth and see what happens. In fact, the Miller-Urey experiments and others have done and are doing this, and they've found some very interesting results. It'll be interesting to see what would or will happen if such an experiment were done on a larger scale and left undisturbed for a longer period of time.
I think that whatever kill switch mechanisms they put in place will be compromised to let attackers remotely trigger them to brick phones at a distance in a week and a half.
On the down side, script kiddies able to permanently disable phones from dozens or hundreds of feet away is a scary thought.
On the up side, interrupting people who are paying more attention to their phone conversation with their friends than to controlling the several ton hunk of metal and plastic they're driving at 60/80/90+ miles per hour down the road may not be all bad.
Tell whoever's in charge that you need to add tests before you start making changes to the code, to ensure that any changes you make don't break existing functionality. Ask them if there are any specifications, requirements documents, or plans you can use to decide what tests to write. If they agree, lock down the existing behavior with tests, then use the tests as guidance when you enhance/refactor/rewrite the existing code. Test writing IS development -- it's building a scaffolding around the application you're developing, to ensure that the building doesn't fall when you add another story.
If they don't agree, ask them to tell you in writing that you should not write tests first and that they accept and take responsibility for the consequences of not adding tests.
The airlines could make money auctioning off short periods of time in the booth for passengers on flights with screaming babies or young kids who are getting antsy and bored. "How much for 15 minutes away from the babies in the third row? Bidding starts at $50."
By the way, we don't supply that data to anyone,' he told attendees.
Well, until they show up with an NSL, in which case we'll supply the data forthwith. But don't worry, we'll still have to maintain we really don't.
Or when (not if) someone hacks the database in which we've stored that information, or when one of our staff members becomes obsessed with someone who drives a Ford, or some staffer gets careless about disposing of the media on which the data is stored, or
One approach that is not very secure but is cheap and fast (so if you're going in for emergency surgery and only have a couple minutes to prepare) is to send a letter to yourself just before the operation. Print out your passwords, stick them between two sheets of cardboard or other sheets of paper on which you've scribbled random lines (to prevent someone from holding the letter up to the light to read the message) and send it to yourself. Add a sticker (or a painted strip of nail polish of which you've taken a picture) across the flap as a little added intrusion detection.
This avoids the problem that some people have identified with other solutions, namely remembering what you did with the passwords. ["I got a letter, I guess I should open it since that's what you do with letters."] It also makes it a federal offense (mail tampering) for others to open your mail, and it is a little bit of "security through obscurity" because that letter will look like any other letter you receive. [Security through obscurity shouldn't be your ONLY means of security, but if you have to use that approach the obscurity is a bonus.] Sure, it's not going to safeguard your passwords from the government
I didn't decorate my dwelling at all because I knew I would be elsewhere for the holidays.
It seems, lately, that there is a clearer-than-ever delineation between legality and enforceability. If our government commits an illegal act, who is able to enforce it? Who's able to hold them accountable? I wish I could say I had a good answer to that question.
The only thing with power over the US Government is other parts of the US government. Thus if the executive branch commits an illegal act, the Congress can impeach, the courts can make orders, etc. If the Congress passes an unconstitutional law, the courts can annul by ruling on the constitutionality. If the courts go overboard, the President and the Congress can appoint new justices. Checks and balances.
This act is on the executive branch side, so it is up to the legislature and/or courts to enforce. Private citizens can speed up the process by trying to sue, but of course, good luck finding someone with standing in this case, based on recent court rulings about domestic surveillance (only the phone companies have standing, not the people whose records were obtained).
Suing the Government and/or T3 could be problematic based on the example you cited. But there's another option: ignore the license agreement and continue distributing the material. They can try to DMCA you, and you can file a counter-notice. If they then file another counter-notice, wouldn't that give you standing to sue for a declaration that you have a right to distribute the material? If they sue you, well, you get to make your claim in court.
But what if the government promised to keep the data as secure as its diplomatic communiques? Those things must have multiple levels of security attached to them, making them impossible to compromise! Surely that would satisfy privacy-conscious individuals like yourself, right? Bueller?
At the start of my Thanksgiving bus ride, the driver announced that passengers could use their cell phones but asked that users be courteous to other passengers and keep the calls quiet and short. It seemed to work -- the bus ride was fairly quiet, as quiet as a bus full of (I would guess) 50-60 people can be. [Coughing, rustling of papers, quiet conversation with passengers seated next to one another, etc.]
...such as being able to forcibly disembark a passenger immediately upon violating a voice-call prohibition.
Preferably while in mid-air.
But all life is sacred, right ???
Now disembarking their CELL PHONE in mid-air would require a much smaller airlock to prevent the cabin from depressurizing, and would ensure that a first offense (on a particular flight by a particular passenger) likely would be the LAST offense on that flight by that passenger. [If we made it that ALL that passenger's phones were disembarked, it WOULD be the last offense.]
On a more serious note, we don't need this type of law. All we need is for airlines to have a clearly stated policy, something like "You can talk on your phone, but keep it quiet and short. If other passengers complain, you will be asked to lower your voice or end your call. If you refuse, your phone will be confiscated and returned to you at the end of the flight. Passengers who resist the confiscation will be treated using our existing 'unruly passengers' policies, and as such may be banned from the airline or even may be arrested when we land."
So
This file will self-destruct in five minutes.
