Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Eugen Fischer (Score 1) 215

by nine-times (#47939219) Attached to: Schizophrenia Is Not a Single Disease

We've covered this. You're a crazy German who has somehow assumed that, because you once said something in Greek and your Greek friend didn't criticize you, the German pronunciation of any word in any dialect of any language is proper, and the only people in the world who disagree are English speakers who are somehow all dumber than you.

Once we uncovered that much information, it stopped being worth my time to compose real responses. The fact that you don't believe linguists are capable of studying languages is just the last nail in the coffin. I've read your responses up until now, but I won't read any more. It's a waste of time. I'm guessing you're probably a 12 year-old or a mental case anyway.

+ - Once vehicles are connected to the Internet of Things, who guards your privacy?->

Submitted by Lucas123
Lucas123 (935744) writes "Carmakers already remotely collect data from their vehicles, unbeknownst to most drivers, but once connected via in-car routers or mobile devices to the Internet, and to roadway infrastructure and other vehicles around them, that information would be accessible by the government or other undesired entities. Location data, which is routinely collected by GPS providers and makers of telematics systems, is among the most sensitive pieces of information that can be collected, according to Nate Cardozo, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Not having knowledge that a third party is collecting that data on us and with whom they are sharing that data with is extremely troubling," Cardozo said. in-vehicle diagnostics data could also be used by government agencies to track driver behavior. Nightmare scenarios could include traffic violations being issued without law enforcement officers on the scene or federal agencies having the ability to track your every move in a car."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Complete mischaracterizaion of original report (Score 1) 128

by nine-times (#47938949) Attached to: Snowden's Leaks Didn't Help Terrorists

Well as I understood it, the argument that Snowden's leaks had helped terrorists centered around the idea that, prior to the leaks, terrorists wouldn't have known that they were being monitored, or at least wouldn't have known the manner in which they were being monitored. Now that they knew that they were being monitored, and they had additional information about how they were being monitored, they would be able to change their behavior to avoid detection.

So if we can say that these terrorist organizations have not changed their behavior, it goes a long way towards debunking that theory.

Comment: Re:It it never had much effect on terrorists (Score 1) 128

by nine-times (#47938921) Attached to: Snowden's Leaks Didn't Help Terrorists

Yeah, I actually really like the quote, "well prior to Edward Snowden, online jihadists were already aware that law enforcement and intelligence agencies were attempting to monitor them."

Really? Terrorists were aware that law enforcement were attempting to track and monitor them? Next thing you know, we'll find out that the mob is aware of law enforcement attempting to locate evidence and identify potential witnesses. What a shocker.

Comment: Re:Duh Snowden was a stalking horse. (Score 1) 128

by nine-times (#47938899) Attached to: Snowden's Leaks Didn't Help Terrorists

Yeah, I don't want to put words in anyone else's mouth, but I feel like there's been some cognitive dissonance in response to the Snowden leaks.

I've had conversations with people who, on the one hand, claim that what Snowden revealed couldn't possibly be helpful or meaningful, because he leaked things that "everyone already knew anyway". Meanwhile, on the other hand, they also claim that Snowden is a horrible traitor for releasing vital national secrets that threaten our safety. I feel like you can't have it both ways.

As I see it, he took what was a conspiracy theory that few people in the USA took seriously, and turned it into fact. It would be like leaking documents that JFK was, in fact, assassinated by the CIA, and then people responded by saying, "So what? I've been hearing that rumor for years! Still, we should kill the person who leaked it because he's compromising CIA operations."

Comment: Re:What's your suggestion for intelligence work? (Score 1) 285

by daveschroeder (#47938235) Attached to: Apple Will No Longer Unlock Most iPhones, iPads For Police

An oversimplification. The US, UK, and allies variously broke many cipher systems throughout WWII. Still the US benefitted from this.

What if the Germans were using, say, Windows, Android phones, SSL, Gmail, Yahoo, and Skype, instead of Enigma machines?

Comment: What's your suggestion for intelligence work? (Score 1) 285

by daveschroeder (#47938053) Attached to: Apple Will No Longer Unlock Most iPhones, iPads For Police

I presume you wouldn't say it was "wrong" of the United States to crack the German and Japanese codes in WWII...

...so when US adversaries (and lets just caveat this by saying people YOU, personally, agree are legitimate US adversaries) don't use their own "codes", but instead share the same systems, networks, services, devices, cloud providers, operating systems, encryption schemes, and so on, that Americans and much of the rest of the world uses, would you suggest that they should be off limits?

This isn't so much a law enforcement question as a question of how to do SIGINT in the modern digital world, but given the above, and given that intelligence requires secrecy in order to be effective, how would you suggest the United States go after legitimate targets? Or should we not be able to, because that power "might" be able to be abused -- as can any/all government powers, by definition?

This simplistic view that the only purpose of the government in a free and democratic society must be to somehow subjugate, spy on, and violate the rights of its citizens is insane, while actual totalitarian and non-free states, to say nothing of myriad terrorist and other groups, press their advantage. And why wouldn't they? The US and its ever-imperfect system of law is not the great villain in the world.

Take a step back and get some perspective. And this is not a rhetorical question: if someone can tell me their solution for how we should be able to target technologies that are fundamentally shared with innocent Americans and foreigners everywhere while still keeping such sources, methods, capabilities, and techniques secret, I'm all ears. And if you believe the second a technology is shared it should become magically off-limits because power might be abused, you are insane -- or, more to the point, you believe you have some moral high ground which, ironically, would actually result in severe disadvantages for the system of free society you would claim to support.

Comment: Re: Price of safety (Score 2) 49

by CanHasDIY (#47936317) Attached to: London's Crime Hot Spots Predicted Using Mobile Phone Data

Yes, it is. Your "privacy" is not worth a human life. And no, you don't get to have any say in the matter.

Sayeth the Anonymous Coward.

Why not include your name, address, and contact info on every post? after all, your "privacy" is not worth the chance that you might someday take a human life, right jackass?

Comment: Re:Price of safety (Score 4, Insightful) 49

by CanHasDIY (#47935905) Attached to: London's Crime Hot Spots Predicted Using Mobile Phone Data

Crime reduction is certainly a worthy reward, but as the article says, lots of people might not be too happy with having their information shared this way.

Especially considering that said "information sharing" leads to a mere 8% increase in accuracy.

Let's hope it is truly anonymous (which I doubt) and see how it goes.

Let's assume that it's not, and see how it's used nefariously. That's not cynicism, that's realism.

Iphone

Apple Locks iPhone 6/6+ NFC To Apple Pay Only 276

Posted by samzenpus
from the pay-our-way dept.
Ronin Developer writes From the Cnet article: "At last week's Apple event, the company announced Apple Pay — a new mobile payments service that utilizes NFC technology in conjunction with its Touch ID fingerprint scanner for secure payments that can be made from the iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus or Apple Watch. Apple also announced a number of retailers that would accept Apple Pay for mobile payments at launch. However, Cult of Mac reports that NFC will be locked to the Apple Pay platform, meaning the technology will not be available for other uses. An Apple spokesperson confirmed the lock down of the technology, saying developers would be restricted from utilizing its NFC chip functionality for at least a year. Apple declined to comment on whether NFC capability would remain off limits beyond that period." So, it would appear, for at least a year, that Apple doesn't want competing mobile payment options to be available on the newly released iPhone 6 and 6+. While it's understandable that they want to promote their payment scheme and achieve a critical mass for Apple Pay, it's a strategy that may very well backfire as other other mobile payment vendors gain strength on competing platforms.

"Be *excellent* to each other." -- Bill, or Ted, in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure

Working...