Researchers will demonstrate the process used to spy on smartphones using gyroscopes at Usenix Security event on August 22, 2014. Researchers from Stanford and a defense research group at Rafael will demonstrate a way to spy on smartphones using gyroscopes at Usenix Security event on August 22, 2014. According to the "Gyrophone: Recognizing Speech From Gyroscope Signals" study, the gyroscopes integrated into smartphones were sensitive enough to enable some sound waves to be picked up, transforming them into crude microphones.
I can't help but feel like there are gyroscopes involved in this process somehow...
Because despite recent bad press, they are interested in security.
Your post makes various other points that sound reasonable to me, but I have to call out the above line from a couple of angles:
1) using the phrase "bad press" implies a virtuous subject that has been distorted by a reporting industry with a non-virtuous agenda. NOTHING OF THE SORT has happened to poor lil' NSA here... they FUCKED us, straight up, and got caught red-handed.
2) Whatever the extent to which the NSA is "interested in security", it might as well be the extent to which a wolf is interested in "keeping chickens alive"... yes the wolf wants a food supply, but that doesn't make the wolf a proponent of livestock. The NSA is all about surveillance at this point; their putting on the badge of promoting security is a means to an end. I won't rehash the extensive list of public standards they secretly compromised to that end; it speaks for itself.
Again, I think much of what you wrote makes sense, but in this particular line you stray notably too far into something approaching neutrality about the NSA. They are bad people with a bad agenda, and they'll fuck YOU the first chance they get.
Don't worry. The plucky geek sidekick will - via phone - talk him through reprogramming his entire GPS operating system by pushing five buttons in the right order.
"This is Unix. I know this."
The hundreds of thousands of people who are alive today because of those actions probably don't consider it "nonsense".
Actually, yes we do.
Do not -- by any stretch -- put it past the interested parties to thusly lie.
>While the idea of a gun that couldn't be turned on its owner seems like an obvious win for everyone involved
Um, except for the intruder/burgler. Not that I'm pro-intruder/burgler, but... "everyone involved"?
If it's not transparent and open, it will be hijacked and abused by the government. Not even a question. You yourself may have the best of intentions, and the evolving system may currently be in a benign state; that's well and good, and I thank you for both your intents and for your summary of things as they seem at the moment. That being said, it does not in any way serve to derail the larger theme that this will be abused and corrupted. I have no doubt, however, that the government will do its utmost to pretend otherwise. And this opinion of mine is based on a LOT of evidence.
Anthony Hopper, chief executive of advertising agency Lowe Open, said brands need to change how people buy chocolate, but acknowledges that it won't be easy.
After that scene where he talks about eating fava beans with a light chianti, I figured he could make anything sound tasty. No surprise he ended up in food advertising.