You say "the real reason" as if there could only ever be one reason for doing something...
Damn, you're right. Too bad
...the more star systems will slip through your fingers!
Seriously, if this is true, it's a pretty good illustration of why tin-pot dictators throwing the book and the kitchen sink at whistleblowers are a far more serious security threat than the whistleblowers themselves.
That's what slashdot is for.
Hm, brings new meaning to the term "pair programming."
I am a programmer, and I find working with other programmers nearby to be very valuable. Having randoms wander into the office is not so good, but there's a good synergy to over-the-cube-wall conversation when you are coding in a team. Having worked from home for the past decade, this is the primary thing that I miss. The commute, not so much...
It would be absolutely awesome of Samtrans or Muni provided a service similar to what the Google buses provide, but they don't, and they have actively worked to avoid doing so. So the activists really have no leg to stand on here. They should be trying to fix public transit in the bay area, not prevent people from working around its brokenness.
Actually if your TLS implementation is solid, there is no way for the ISP to do this to you. They don't have access to the keys. They can prevent you from using HTTPS, but if they do you will stop using them, because you won't be able to do online shopping or online banking, or even log in to Facebook.
Also, TLS and HTTP are "IETF crap." Whereas the document Weinstein is up in arms about is not—it's a document that's been proposed as work in the IETF by a couple of people, but it is not work the IETF has adopted.
Did you read the draft? He's articulated quite accurately what's being proposed. Maybe that's not what the authors intend to be proposing, but that's what the document currently does in fact propose. (I say "authors" because the IETF has not adopted this work, so it's not accurate to say that the IETF is doing this work—the IETF is explicitly not doing this work at the moment.)
What proxy would you trust with your banking details? Because this spec will let them see your private conversations with third parties including banks. Weinstein is correct to be worried about this proposal. However, this is not an IETF document. The IETF isn't trying to do anything here. This is a document some people have floated in the IETF. As written, I don't see it getting traction, because it's in violation of existing IETF policy.
That's what the draft says. But it's NOT A BLOODY IETF STANDARD. It's an individual submission to the IETF. The IETF isn't working on this. Some IETF participants are. The IETF has a formal policy excluding work on lawful intercept technology or even allowing for it in our protocol specifications.
To paraphrase, "people allow themselves to be misinformed, and suffer as a consequence." I agree. That's why I'm engaging in zealotry!
My Nexus 5 has excellent build quality. Motorola was deliberately locking bootloaders—this was common knowledge four years ago. Verizon is a poor choice of provider, precisely because they have such draconian policies about handsets.
What you're saying is that you want open, but you aren't willing to punish vendors who give you closed. That's your prerogative, but complaining about it here isn't going to change anything. If you want open, that has to be your priority, because it is _very_ hard to get. And yes, you will pay extra for it. It absolutely sucks that this is the case, but it is a fact of life, and the cell phone manufacturers and providers frankly could give a fuck if we don't like it, because the "we" who don't like it isn't voting with our feet.
BTW, to all the nice folks who modded my previous post "flamebait," I guess that's your prerogative, but that really isn't what I'm trying to do here. And it doesn't look like bondsbw thinks I am either, or he would either have flamed me, rather than responding seriously, or ignored me. But whatever. Slashdot moderation, etc.
Yeah, whatever, I can never keep the various euphemisms straight, but the point is that you wanted to be able to install your own firmware, and you bought a phone made by a manufacturer that didn't want you to do that, when you could have bought a phone from a manufacturer who was happy to let you do that. Effectively, you rewarded Motorola for screwing you over. My reason for asking is that I honestly don't get why people who want to mod their phones buy phones that the manufacturer doesn't intend to allow you to mod. Even if you can get around it, why bother? If we reward manufacturers who allow us to mod our phones, and carriers that will let us use those phones, the market will punish manufacturers and carriers who don't, to everybody's benefit. It really saddens me to see people shooting themselves in the foot like this, because it's not just your foot you're shooting.
Jolla? You know you wanna.
That really sucks—sorry!