Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:good (Score 1) 238

by Sancho (#47027115) Attached to: Apple To Face Lawsuit For iMessage Glitch

I suspect the problem is that you also associate e-mail addresses with your iMessages. If someone sends to your e-mail address instead of your phone number, it can't fall back to SMS. I don't know why it would say "Delivered"--and I suspect it doesn't. But the problem in this case would be the sender not using the phone number to try to send the message.

Comment: Re:A new law in not what is needed (Score 3, Insightful) 519

by Sancho (#46424733) Attached to: Massachusetts Court Says 'Upskirt' Photos Are Legal

If the law didn't specify what "partial nudity" means, then I think the ruling is perfectly valid. What is partial nudity? Can someone go out in public "partially nude?" Can they be arrested for that?

I don't think it's fair to use one the standard differently. A person should not be partially nude while out in public.

The error here is not on the judge's part, but on the legislature's. If the legislature had better defined their terms, there wouldn't be ambiguity. If they had specified that these kinds of photos were illegal, there wouldn't be a question here. They did not, and so the judges (who are upholding the law, not their opinions of it) made the right call.

Even if it means a pervert is still on the streets.

Comment: Re:A new law in not what is needed (Score 2) 519

by Sancho (#46424019) Attached to: Massachusetts Court Says 'Upskirt' Photos Are Legal

No, you've got it wrong. The women were considered fully clothed because no private parts were exposed. Partial nudity requires "private" parts to be uncovered, not any part of your body. That's precisely why this guy got off--despite his creepy photograph, he wasn't photographing partially nude people--he was photographing fully clothed ones. The law (apparently) doesn't criminalize photographing fully clothed people.

Comment: Re:LastPass (Score 1) 445

by Sancho (#46308649) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How Do You Manage Your Passwords?

Lastpass doesn't have the same problem; you don't need anything messy to do the client-side encryption and decryption. There is no server-side 'option' for Lastpass, nor would anyone have a reason to use it if there was one, really.

How do you know? I mean really, how do you know they aren't sending up your passphrase?

Even if they're not now, how do you know they won't? If TLA government agency asks them to, do you think they wouldn't issue an app update that sent them your passphrase? Assuming you trust them today, will you decline every app update?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but they're valid points. If the submitter is in an industry where "obviously" he can't use Lastpass, then I'm assuming these are operationally valid concerns.

Comment: Re: Everything old is new again (Score 1) 120

by Sancho (#46300157) Attached to: Drive-by Android Malware Exploits Unpatchable Vulnerability

Well most jailbreaks require plugging your device in. That means that your exposure is pretty small and there won't be drive-by exploits like this one.

And Apple may not support the 3GS anymore, but their support record is still stronger than most android phone manufacturers.

Nothing in progression can rest on its original plan. We may as well think of rocking a grown man in the cradle of an infant. -- Edmund Burke