Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Yes and yes... (Score 1) 215

by gnasher719 (#47953773) Attached to: Why the iPhone 6 Has the Same Base Memory As the iPhone 5

Best selling means that most actual consumers think that 16 GB is enough. That means that while _you_ want more storage in a smartphone, most people don't. That doesn't make them wrong. :-)

Up to now, you had to pay a lot of money to upgrade from 16GB to 32GB. Now you get 64GB for the same money. I'd think the percentage of 64GB purchasers will go up.

Comment: Re:Apple Pay? (Score 1) 77

by gnasher719 (#47947789) Attached to: Home Depot Says Breach Affected 56 Million Cards

Great -- now the hackers that got my credit / debit card numbers could, instead, get my PayPal info! We all know how nice PayPal is to customers when their accounts are compromised!

Excuse me - Apple Pay. Not PayPal. Unless you lived under a stone for the last two weeks I would have expected that you've heard of Apple Pay.

Comment: Re:confused (Score 4, Informative) 338

Once Amazon started selling MP3s, I jumped ship from iTunes and never looked back. I imagine even if there was no court order mandating they remove DRM they would have for competitive reasons anyway.

That's what you call rewriting history. The only reason why there was ever DRM on the iTunes store was because the record labels demanded it. The only reason why Amazon was allowed to sell DRM-free music in mp3 format was because they record labels wanted a strong alternative to the iTunes store - I wonder how happy they are with this nowadays and when Amazon will turn on them like they are turning on the book publishers. At the same time Apple was still not allowed to sell DRM free; only after Apple agreed to raise all the prices.

Just a reminder: The two A's in AAC stand for "Advanced Audio" and have nothing to do with Apple. And AAC = mp4.

Comment: Re:There is no "almost impossible" (Score 1) 229

by gnasher719 (#47944129) Attached to: Apple's "Warrant Canary" Has Died

Any encryption can be broken with enough processor power and time.

As explained elsewhere, there is encryption for which "enough processor power and time" doesn't exist in the universe. The limit is (total energy in the universe) divided by (smallest possible amount of energy to make any change, as dictated by quantum physics). That limit isn't anywhere close to 2^256.

Comment: Re:There is no "almost impossible" (Score 2) 229

by gnasher719 (#47943559) Attached to: Apple's "Warrant Canary" Has Died

Won't last. Someone will forget his passcode about 8 seconds after the iOS 8 goes public. Then comes the flood of unhappy customers locked out of their unbreakably encrypted phones. "Sorry, we can't help you" won't be accepted as an answer.

That's the answer they already had to accept. The guy in the Apple Store _never_ could get your passcode. Apple in Cupertino _could_ get your passcode by brute forcing at a rate of one passcode every 80 milliseconds. They would do that if the police hands over a phone together with a search warrant, but not because a customer is too stupid.

(MacOS X uses a clever trick to reduce the number of cases: You turn on full disk encryption. At some point you will have to enter your password for the very first time, proving that you remembered it at least that far. At that point nothing is encrypted yet! Only when you demonstrate that you have actually remembered your password does the encryption start.

Comment: Re:There is no "almost impossible" (Score 1) 229

by gnasher719 (#47943541) Attached to: Apple's "Warrant Canary" Has Died

Encryption is ALWAYS breakable by brute force. Question is how long does it take? Seconds? Hours? Months? Years? Decades? This is usually determined by key sizes. The longer the key, the longer it takes to brute force. (generally)

256 bit = physically impossible, unless some hugely unexpected mathematical breakthrough happens. Plus each file in the file system has its own 256 bit key and needs to be decrypted individually.

So that's the kind of situation where an honest statement says "almost impossible" although it is of course possible that the first of about 100,000 billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion possible guesses might be right. And that's the situation where idiots say "it's almost possible, therefore the NSA can crack it".

Comment: Re:Not Coincidence, it's the point (Score 1) 229

by gnasher719 (#47943527) Attached to: Apple's "Warrant Canary" Has Died

I think the GP has a point. Of Apple defied the order what would happen? Tim Cook in handcuffs? There would be hipster riots up and down the country, not to mention investors and friends of the government getting very upset as their stock price crashed.

Tim Cook in handcuffs? Maybe. You as an unknown Slashdot poster can of course easily demand heroics on his part. It's a lot harder if your name is Tim Cook. Complaints about the stock price crashing? Well, that would be directly due to Cook's actions, so he'd probably lose his job about it.

But more importantly, it is easy for you to ask him to act illegally. I suppose he doesn't want to do anything illegal. For example, unlike a Samsung CEO who gets convicted and pardoned, I wouldn't expect any conviction of Tim Cook for breaking the law would go away. Would governement agencies be allowed to buy from a company whose CEO is a convicted criminal?

What Apple _does_ is exactly what they should do: They make information about the horrible laws public as much as they can. They do whatever they can to get the laws changed.

Comment: Re:Not completely gone (Score 3, Informative) 229

by gnasher719 (#47943477) Attached to: Apple's "Warrant Canary" Has Died

well cook already made a public canary announcement or a lie, about them not being able to read your mail while at the same time it's obvious for anyone that they can change your apple credentials with or without your consent(giving access to your mail).

Except the only source for the "not being able to read your mail" is the summary of a slashdot article, which managed to incorrectly quote the article that it summarized. And the source of the statement is openly available (a 1 hour interview with Tim Cook) and he clearly doesn't say anything like what you claim.

Comment: Re:Sanity... (Score 1) 501

by gnasher719 (#47939311) Attached to: Apple Will No Longer Unlock Most iPhones, iPads For Police

Dignity is the only thing, that suffers, when a cop violates an innocent man's privacy. If dignity has nothing to do with it, than "innocent man going to prison" does not either â" yet you brought up the latter yourself earlier...

Respect for the police suffers. Respect for the law and the state in general suffers.

Comment: Re:So everything is protected by a 4 digit passcod (Score 1) 501

by gnasher719 (#47939201) Attached to: Apple Will No Longer Unlock Most iPhones, iPads For Police

The presence of a security question on any service indicates immediately that they almost certainly have access if served with a warrant.

Only an idiot would implement it in such a way that the password could be produced by Apple. They take your information, then encrypt it with the answers to three security questions. Without the exact answers nobody can extract the information.

And remember that you can enter anything you like as the answer to the security questions. It doesn't have to be thre truth.

"The chain which can be yanked is not the eternal chain." -- G. Fitch

Working...