Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:confused (Score 3, Informative) 344

by praxis (#47947103) Attached to: U2 and Apple Collaborate On 'Non-Piratable, Interactive Format For Music'

And local bars don't have live music anymore because local bands aren't allowed on the radio.

I don't know where you live, but in Seattle there are three *pages* of live shows for *today* [1] and five *pages* of live shows for *this weekend* [2]. Granted that is both for bars and larger venues, but the vast majority are small local bars.

As to local bands not allowed on the radio?! There are plenty of radio stations that cater to music lovers and absolutely do play local bands. One of several Seattle (again, I live here; I don't think Seattle is unique) is KEXP. They even have an article on how to get airplay on KEXP [3]. While it's a local station, I know many of their listeners are from beyond the city limits so getting airplay on such a local station can have wider-ranging effects for an up-and-coming band.

I guess what "local" bars offer depends on locale but generally higher-population areas sustain more arts. That's always been the case, though. Artists and patrons congregate.


Comment: Re:Good (Score 1) 126

by praxis (#47946273) Attached to: Next Android To Enable Local Encryption By Default Too, Says Google

Already the industry is realizing what it needs to do.

Yep. In the wake of Snowden, people need to feel better. Performing encryption on a computer that you can't trust, is the best of both worlds and gives everyone what they need.

Users will be put at ease, manufacturers can check the "encryption" bullet point, and thanks to the computer working for someone other than the user, various other parties who "need" the data will be able to quietly get the keys without an unpleasant confrontation with the user. Everybody wins.

Trust is not a binary. If it were, I would say I don't trust anything that I don't fully control (like the compiler trust issue), become extremely paranoid and have no sane life. I choose to have some trust in some things and live a normal life.

Comment: Re:Don't use a google account with Android. (Score 1) 126

by praxis (#47946237) Attached to: Next Android To Enable Local Encryption By Default Too, Says Google

So, riddle me this batman... If you store the key on the device and read it automatically on boot, how's that protect you?

There are ways to store a key on the device and not need to read it automatically on boot. Page nine of the iOS Security Guide from September 2014 describes how Apple solves the problem.

Comment: Re:Don't use a google account with Android. (Score 1) 126

by praxis (#47941115) Attached to: Next Android To Enable Local Encryption By Default Too, Says Google

And if you think I'd ever willingly put non encrypted data in any sot of could you're dreaming.

I thought this was about ON THE HANDSET encryption?

Which leads you to the key hiding problem.... Keys need to be plain text to be used, so they are in memory when you have a device that is encrypted. Which leads you to the problem of how to get a sufficiently complex key into the device on boot? Providing keys is where most crypto systems start to break down, and people do stupid stuff like reduce everything to a 4 digit pin or some such nonsense...

Why not generate the key on the device and store it in a secure piece of hardware? That's been a pretty standard solution for a while now. I kind of imagined Android would also do the same.

Comment: Re:Good (Score 2) 126

by praxis (#47941097) Attached to: Next Android To Enable Local Encryption By Default Too, Says Google

and when user's complain their battery lasts much shorter as the CPU is busy encrypting and decrypting constantly, then they'll switch the default back... and when user's complain that they flip flop too much, they'll make it a giant setup screen option where new user's can complain about which option is on top.

iOS has encrypted most of its data most of the time already and iOS has not had significantly worse battery life than Android in the past. What's the crux here is not the addition of encryption, it's the location of the encryption key.

Comment: Re:What's your suggestion for intelligence work? (Score 1) 502

by praxis (#47939781) Attached to: Apple Will No Longer Unlock Most iPhones, iPads For Police

First, no one said anything about being angry. Second, no one said anything about "Hollywood" always getting history wrong in favor of the Americans. Third, gnasher719 and I are two different people.

What gnasher719 said about American movies rewriting history is true. My point was propagandists have used fiction to sway the masses and it appears to have worked: gnasher719 was responding to a common misconception that Americans broke German codes in WWII. A misconception perpetuated by Hollywood.

I have no gripe with Hollywood, but I do support people like gnasher719 who go out of their way to correct misconceptions others have because a Hollywood movie twisted history. You pointing out that it was not a documentary doesn't make the misconception any worse nor gnasher719's attempt to correct that misconception useless.

No one is saying fiction can't bend the truth, if that's what you thought.

Comment: Re:Possible to store encrypted email? (Score 1) 191

by praxis (#47922699) Attached to: Tim Cook Says Apple Can't Read Users' Emails, That iCloud Wasn't Hacked

Yes, but it's between your MUA and your server. S/MIME, as far as I know, does not do server-to-sender public key exchange. If I send a signed message to you, then you have my public key and can encrypt messages to me, yes, but you can't get my public key from the server.

Frankly, S/MIME is really the best solution available today. It works with gmail (not web-mail but using a MUA). Most MUAs support it. It's easy to get a free personal S/MIME keypair from a CA. Google, Apple or whoever you use for mail never sees your private key and can't read your messages.

Comment: Re:Just wait (Score 1) 424

by praxis (#47921221) Attached to: Apple Edits iPhone 6's Protruding Camera Out of Official Photos

The subject of the photograph does not have zero thickness. The camera focal point could be along the plane of the front of the subject, which would make it *not* along the plane of the rear of the phone.

Imagine I am standing long the plane of the front of a building, am I also standing along the plan of the rear of a building? Am I looking at the building at a flat 90 (whatever that means)?

Error in operator: add beer