Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Not completely gone (Score 1) 227

by thunderclap (#47942319) Attached to: Apple's "Warrant Canary" Has Died

Apparently (I haven't read the source docs myself), there is some similar language -- suggesting that some type of order has been served on Apple, so the canary is perhaps not dead yet -- just pining for the fjords [yes, I know, not really the correct use of this phrase].

To date, Apple has not received any orders for bulk data

What's missing is a specific reference to Section 215, suggesting that a limited Section 215 order has been served on Apple.

If its pining for the fjords then it is in fact dead. 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This canary is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! 'E's be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! He's f*ckin' snuffed it!..... THIS IS AN EX CANARY!!

Comment: Re:That used to work, but it shouldn't anymore (Score 1) 184

by thunderclap (#47869029) Attached to: Device Boots Drones, Google Glass Off Wi-Fi

802.11w adds security to management frames: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... ...which prevents this sort of silliness. You can't spoof deauth frames from other stations now, unless the WiFi network happens to be running on an older device.

Before 802.11w, you could do a passive scan, collect target MAC addresses, and then spoof deauth frames all day long, I know people used to do this at conferences or other crowded events.

And why was this stopped? Because its a form of malicious hacking.

Comment: Re:Great, crash the drone into things. (Score 1) 184

by thunderclap (#47869023) Attached to: Device Boots Drones, Google Glass Off Wi-Fi

Deauthentication messages work outside wifi encryption. It's a common wifi attack to broadcast deauth messages, then record the reauthentication of clients as they reconnect to the wireless access point. For encryption with known weaknesses (like WEP), reauthentication attempts can be analyzed to discover the network key. This attack is similar, but without the goal of discovering the key. Apparently, the 802.11 standard states "Deauthentication is not a request; it is a notification. Deauthentication shall not be refused by either party." If the device is standards-compliant, then spamming a deauthentication message should continually knock it offline.

Which is why its illegal to craft a fake one. If the manufacturer places a warning that they are not liable if you do that then its illegal. No amount of hand waving, or hand wringing will change that. One lawsuit by a person who knows what happens and Cyborg unplug goes the way of Aereo. This Google we are talking about. Those are only in early beta. When they WANT to roll them out, nothing will stop them.
And people are ignoring that 3g can be put on them. Then what?

Comment: Re:legal loopholes? (Score 1) 184

by thunderclap (#47869003) Attached to: Device Boots Drones, Google Glass Off Wi-Fi

"It doesn't interfere with radio signals themselves"

It causes intentional interference, which is illegal for a Part 15 device.

I don't know about that... by that interpretation, any RST packet sent over Wifi would be illegal.

This is the digital equivalent of saying "Hey You! Yeah, Google Glass with MAC ID XXXXYYYY! Get off my lawn!"

The rule for Part 15 devices (which includes Google Glasses) is that they must accept any signal interference and fail gracefully, and they must not cause interference with other signals using the spectrum.

It doesn't cause any interference with the transmissions, it just sends a message on the transport layer that the device should leave.

But if that message is false then it IS interference. If you eject a device improperly in a public place you are violating the law. You are damaging property and are liable.
No matter how much you hate it, welcome to 1984.
“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know what no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
The object of a camera is permanent image creation. You don't want to be a part, leave.

Comment: Re:Seems fine to me. (Score 1) 184

by thunderclap (#47868969) Attached to: Device Boots Drones, Google Glass Off Wi-Fi

Oh, no, it's not "inevitable" at all. There are plenty of totalitarian places around the world where people have lost the right to take pictures; it goes right along with losing the right to free speech. We need to fight that the same doesn't happen here.

And I think AC needs to go to one of those places for a couple months. Maybe witness a beheading or two for supposedly worshiping the wrong deity.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Working...