Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Except, of course, they have to prove you can (Score 1) 560

I don't see why not.

First you are resumed innocent at least by US Law. So to claim that you setup the dead-man switch specifically to destroy evidence is to assume a priori that you are guilty.

Second, there are completely legitimate reasons for the scheme presented. Such as preventing absolutely anyone else in the world, other than the police, from accessing the data without your knowledge or consent. The fact that it is so elaborate and/or effective (I can't comment on that last bit) is evidence of skill not guilt.

Assuming a defendant didn't do something stupid like admit their real fear was prosecution using evidence of a crimes stored on those very same drives, I'd have a hard time as a juror finding the defendant guilty of evidence tampering. I am under no obligation to admit anything about those drives, to include my knowledge that the clock is ticking. That is the heart of the self-incrimination argument against having to decrypt a hard drive.

Mind you my assertions above are not backed up by a law degree and in some ways are still tenuous given the current state of jurisprudence in the various US courts. Though iirc, the SCOTUS has weighed in with a narrow decision along those lines. But I might only be thinking of a circuit court decision.

Comment: Re:State constitution, not Federal (Score 1) 519

by Jumperalex (#47214309) Attached to: Teacher Tenure Laws Ruled Unconstitutional In California

haha thanks, you mostly saved me from saying the same thing. So I'm just piling on for effect.

While it might be a worthy discussion to have concerning just how much work gives you how much "paid-retirement" the fact that the concept itself is looked at with derision is truly sad. Instead of lionizing the few left who still have the option, it might be better to start demanding answers for why more people don't.

*Disclaimer - I'm one of the lucky few

Comment: Re:So in other words, it will be just like Firewir (Score 1) 355

by Jumperalex (#46997869) Attached to: Can Thunderbolt Survive USB SuperSpeed+?

The problem lay with the peripheral manufacturers who didn't want to put in more expensive controllers and dual-ports on their enclosures. ... They buy on price and availability, plain and simple.

And they were right. Overall what is cheaper? Six devices and a computer with expensive controllers in them? Or one computer with one less expensive controller in it and six devices with really inexpensive controllers in them?

Daisy chaining - I'm sure it was nice, and I can even think of one or two cases where I might have used it if it were available, but in the end the fast majority of my devices were all within reach of me, which meant they needed to be ~the same distance from the computer, which meant they could both use the same length cables (give or take). Daisy chaining doesn't change the # of cables I need. At best is lets me use one shorter cable and slightly declutters the back of my computer. But that is what a USB hub is for, and combined it was cheaper than FW controllers, enclosures, and cables.

It was a very expensive solution to a problem very few people had: the need to move massive amounts of data in/out of a peripheral at a time when the user is unwilling to wait. That is to say, not even external-backups really needed it because those tend to be fire and forget.

At least that was my experience and I actually did buy an external FW HDD for backups because I really was just that impatient :)

Comment: Re:Makes no sense (Score 2) 178

by Jumperalex (#46853205) Attached to: DOJ Complains About Getting a Warrant To Search Mobile Phones

And if the officer is not in possession of the phone, then having or not a warrant has exactly zero impact on the suspect's ability to wipe the phone. The only thing that prevents that is physical possession of the phone by the officer. Not having a warrant does not prevent the officer from taking the phone into evidence, it just stops them from searching it until a warrant is granted. So no, it most certainly does not.

Comment: Re:you have things backwards (Score 3, Insightful) 192

by Jumperalex (#46626245) Attached to: Supreme Court Skeptical of Computer-Based Patents

Also just stop and look at the insanity and stupidity of that logic ... a system that makes people be willfully ignorant of the current state of the art. A system that wastes resources by encouraging people to create something that will ultimately because it infringes. A system where investors won't (if they are smart) touch you if you haven't done due diligence at some point to protect their investment ... all the while knowing that no matter how hard you try chances are there is someone sitting out their just waiting for a target worthy of suing. How's that for stifling innovation??

I'm not saying patents would be 100% abolished, but the current system FAILS its intended purpose and is in need of a serious overall to avoid wasted resources, prevent submarine-ing, and generally stop ridiculously obvious patents in their tracks to the point of preventing them from being grants in the first place no less costing millions to fight.

I'll sum up with, if you are small entity and think the patent system is your friend ... you have not been paying attention.

Comment: Re:Ok seriously though ... (Score 1) 367

by Jumperalex (#46545117) Attached to: Linux May Succeed Windows XP As OS of Choice For ATMs

with banking and PCI compliance I don't know if it is really that simple.

I mean let me be clear, I'm not saying it is a bad idea to go open-source, or look for options beyond MS ... I'm just saying I'm not seeing how moving from one OS to another solves their software/hardware synchronization problem given that fact that they are themselves independent of each other and driven by different life-cycles realities [shrug].

Comment: Re:Ok seriously though ... (Score 1) 367

by Jumperalex (#46545011) Attached to: Linux May Succeed Windows XP As OS of Choice For ATMs

But that same argument can be used right now with the XP ATM's ... until the hardware breaks those can run "forever". Well that is except for security updates which any old UNIX GUI would need as well. you can't get around the need for security updating. So then it is a question of who will perform that function. with XP is was MS, with [Linux Distro] it is [Linux Distro Owner] and they will both EOL a distro at some point and stop providing security updates.

At least that is my question ... what am I missing?

Comment: Ok seriously though ... (Score 2) 367

by Jumperalex (#46543749) Attached to: Linux May Succeed Windows XP As OS of Choice For ATMs

I guess I'm missing the difference. Linux distros and kernels do indeed go EOL. When that happens there are no more security updates and backporting right? Well how is that different than what MS is doing right now with XP? In either case they will still have to face the fact that the OS isn't going to be supported anymore and will require them to upgrade software.

Or are they thinking they will go it alone and continue to update their Linux distro/kernel just because it is open source? Do they really think they are qualified to do that? Or is the hope that they can spend money to keep the OS in long-term-support status?

Luck, that's when preparation and opportunity meet. -- P.E. Trudeau