Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Who are you defending against? (Score 1) 158

by NoKaOi (#48613543) Attached to: Verizon "End-to-End" Encrypted Calling Includes Law Enforcement Backdoor

Also, FTA:

Verizon believes major demand for its new encryption service will come from governmental agencies conveying sensitive but unclassified information over the phone, says Tim Petsky, a senior product manager for Verizon Wireless.

Sensitive, but unclassified. That should give an indication as to the level of security they expect it to provide.

Comment: Re:CALEA says it must (Score 1) 158

by NoKaOi (#48613525) Attached to: Verizon "End-to-End" Encrypted Calling Includes Law Enforcement Backdoor


Phone carriers like Verizon are required by U.S. law to build networks that can be wiretapped. But the legislation known as the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act requires phone carriers to decrypt communications for the government only if they have designed their technology to make it possible to do so. If Verizon and Cellcrypt had structured their encryption so that neither company had the information necessary to decrypt the calls, they would not have been breaking the law.

Comment: Who are you defending against? (Score 2) 158

by NoKaOi (#48613517) Attached to: Verizon "End-to-End" Encrypted Calling Includes Law Enforcement Backdoor

If you think you're defending against the NSA with encryption provided by a big telecom company, you're fooling yourself, even if this policy weren't public. If, on the other hand, you're defending against basic hackers hired by a competitor, then perhaps this would be a reasonable option. It's like locking your doors, putting bars on all your windows, and putting your stuff in a safe. Sure, that'll keep most burglars out, but do you think the NSA wouldn't be able to get to your stuff?

This is the part that bugs me: "so long as they're able to prove that there's a legitimate law enforcement reason for doing so." It used to be that meant demonstrating to an impartial judge that they had probable cause, which takes the form of a warrant. However, it doesn't say they need a now it's a Verizon employee rather than an impartial judge who gets to decide if there's probable cause.

Comment: Re:First amendment? (Score 1) 249

by NoKaOi (#48604245) Attached to: Sony Demands Press Destroy Leaked Documents

Those things are not necessarily true. It really depends on if they gave campaign contributions to the right people, in the right amounts, at the right time. Or were you under the impression that separation of powers in the branches of government still exists? Judgeships are political appointments. All Sony really needs is for a politician to pressure the judge to issue an injunction that lasts long enough for the news to go stale.

Comment: Re:Fucking Hell, Harper needs to go! (Score 2) 122

by NoKaOi (#48592337) Attached to: Canada Waives Own Rules, Helps Microsoft Avoid US Visa Problems

It has no impact on how much they can spend at lunch or whether they get the premium cable package or the standard.

Right, I'm sure they have to budget their lunches very carefully. I'm sure they have to make decisions about which days they have to bring lunch from home and how many days they can afford to eat out. I'm sure it's also a huge decision about whether to splurge for the premium cable package, or save money and get standard cable so they can afford a few more days of eating off the dollar menu.

They'd have to sell or take out loans against their shares if they wanted to go buy a Private Jet or something like that.

Oh. My. God. You mean they can't just order another private jet online, they actually have to fill out some paperwork? Scratch that, they actually have to sign the paperwork that their lawyers filled out for them? I feel so sorry for them! They have it so rough compared to their employees, whose entire wealth can be had as cash in an instant simply by digging through the couch cushions.

Comment: Re:Ok Justin (Score 1) 378

But he seems to have gone for the republican kool aid and somehow wants to blame this on.... the executive branch.

Yes, it is the executive branch's fault. Of course, it is also the legislative and judicial branch's fault, but even if Obama tried unsuccessfully to kill the bill, and even if SCOTUS won't hear it for procedural reasons, Obama could still prevent it. It does authorize but does not require the executive branch to conduct warrantless forfeiture of private communications. Obama could simply say, "that's unconstitutional, we're not gong to do that," and order federal agencies to only seize or intercept private communications if they have a warrant.

I have not yet begun to byte!