Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:I don't get it ... (Score 1) 389

So, Apple has a unique ability to subvert older generations of their iPhone through software signed by them. Then, yeah, the govt. absolutely does have the right to invoke Apple's special capabilities to conduct a lawful search warrant. All of this points to the wisdom of designing such systems so that even Apple can't break them. Then in the future they can claim they have no special capabilities not available to the govt already. This case is a legacy cost for doing half-assed security in the past. Oh well, lesson learned.

Comment Re:Apple should take the next step (Score 1) 389

I definitely agree with that, but if just changing the OS allows a 3rd party to decrypt the data, then the security is still horribly broken. For the data to be secure, Apple, the govt., whomever, should be able to access the full contents of the phone, know all the algorithms involved, etc., and still not be able to decrypt the data. If the user used too short of a password that allows it to be brute forced, then that's their fault.

Comment Re:I don't get it ... (Score 1) 389

It sounds like what you are driving at is that the data itself it not well secured really at all. If you can get a copy of the data and successfully brute force attack it, then that's user error for not having a long enough random-ish password to encrypt the data. For the data to be truly secure, Apple, the govt. whomever should be able to fully access the entire contents of the phone, know what algorithms are being used and still not be able to decrypt the data without knowing the encryption password and brute forcing it should be prohibitively expensive.

Comment Re:I don't get it ... (Score 1) 389

If Apple can simply write some software to get around the iPhone's security mechanisms in this case or any of the others, then THEIR SECURITY MECHANISMS ARE BROKEN.

The govt. is paying them to test their own security, which they have claimed they purposely designed so even they can't break it. Either they lied about that, which wouldn't surprise me at all, or they will get paid to test their own security. How is getting paid for something you should already be doing anyway a horrible intrusion onto your liberty?

And, yes, if Apple *LIED* about designing their security so that even they couldn't break it, then definitely *SCREW* Apple.

Comment Re:I don't get it ... (Score 1) 389

The security of the iPhone *should* be one of their top priorities and they *should* already have whole teams of people working on this internally. If the govt. wants to fund further security audits, then that is a 100% win-win. They will get directly paid for things they should have already been doing anyway. Literally, the govt. will be funding future security improvements to the iPhone.

If the courts are forcing them to labor without just compensation, then that is a different matter.

Comment Re:I don't get it ... (Score 1) 389

"Perhaps Apple doesn't want to divert their resources off of the products and product lines that are important to them as a company." Yeah, the iPhone is such an ancillary product for Apple. I agree! /s

"Perhaps Apple doesn't want the liability if they mistakenly delete all the data the FBI wants." Oh, I'm sure that's a real concern for a multi-billion dollar company ...

"Perhaps Apple doesn't want to set a legal precedent that companies will result in ever increasing demands to break their products in the way the government desires." AFAIK, the govt. has not mandated any particular kind of exploit. They just want the info off of this phone. Great! Work to crack it on the govt's dime and if they are successful, then they've identified security holes to be patched in future versions. It's win-win all around.

"Perhaps Apple is taking a principled stand." Highly unlikely. They are just trying to protect their brand.

Comment Re:I don't get it ... (Score 1) 389

"What makes you think Apple cannot crack their own hardware/software?"

I'm taking them at their word that they have purposely designed the security of the iPhone so that even they can't break them. If that's not true, then screw Apple and force them to perform whatever capabilities they have reserved to themselves. Why should they have superior capabilities to crack our phones than the government, especially when national security or warrants are in play?

"What the FBI wants is an iOS version with a set of vulnerabilities purposely built in so they can more easily brute force the phone in question."

That may be what they want in the long run, but that is certainly not what the court has ordered nor what US law currently mandates. It also shouldn't help them in this particular case at all.

Comment Re:Sunk cost fallacy (Score 1) 485

"Even we forgave all of Greece's debts. They would still be in the negative."

Wrong. They had a primary surplus last year and could easily reestablish it now. They only need money to pay interest and rollover their existing mountain of debt that periodically comes to maturity.

Put it this way: you are spending less than your monthly expenses (primary surplus), but you have a HUGE loan outstanding and you need to pay it off next month when it's due. The eurozone is demanding all this retribution just so that Greece can rollover its debt (i.e. - pay it off with new debt establishing a new payoff date). Meanwhile they collect interest the whole time on the outstanding debt. Not too bad a deal for Europe so long as Greece doesn't default.

"The reason they haven't gone bankrupt is because they CAN NOT AFFORD IT. They are that fucked up!!"

Wrong again. If they cancelled their debt, then they wouldn't need to borrow another euro for anything. But they'd be kicked out of the eurozone. Well, technically their banks would be insolvent and the ECB wouldn't give them any more euros. Six of one, a half dozen of the other.

Comment Grexit would have been smarter ... (Score 1) 485

What people fail to understand is that the Greeks aren't living beyond their means any longer. They had a primary surplus last year. The size of their debt has barely increased since mid-2013:

Greece is being forced to turn over its sovereignty simply to rollover existing debt, even though the creditors know it is impossible for Greece to pay down its debt and they've known this for years.

It's disgusting. Economically they'd have been far better off going for Grexit within ten years then continuing in this charade. Also, Syriza and Tsipras wouldn't have had to make a mockery of their democracy too.

Comment Re:Actually, ADM Rogers doesn't "want" that at all (Score 1) 406

"The law and Constitution (as interpreted and implemented by our system of government) are the constraints -- not specific technological capability."

Complete BS.

History has proven that the primary thing that kept the 4th amendment alive for as long as it lived was the technological inability of the govt. to snoop on most aspects of its citizens lives. Now that technological progress and the digitization of our lives has made it technically possible to capture and examine grand swathes of citizens' lives, lo and behold, suddenly all those previously sacrosanct legal constraints of the past suddenly start getting REAL squishy. Suddenly, Orwellian "full capture" approaches are claimed to be NECESSARY for the govt. to properly protect the HOMELAND against Oceania. Or is it Eastasia these days? I always get it mixed up.

Worse, the military-industrial types and their security pawns in Congress actively chip away at whatever fig leafs of legal constraints still exist on govt. snooping as we've seen over the last decade and a half.

Then these same folks have the audacity to be shocked, surprised and upset when citizens and companies object to them shredding their formerly fundamental rights. They smear anyone who actively takes steps to restore a more proper balance as criminals, terrorists and traitors.

As the OP said, they can go fuck themselves. You aren't putting this genie back in the bottle.

Comment Re:Never Use Goto (Score 1) 677

Then how do you cleanly handle a function that needs to acquire N resources where any one of the acquisitions can fail -- and it needs to clean itself up on failure (and possibly on success)?

The only non-goto answer I've seen so far is to have ever deeper nesting of if's (with a return buried in its depths if the resources should be held on success), followed by a bunch of unwinding else's that contain and separate the error handling in else's and far away from the error detection (with a different return path when the resources are held on success).

Such coding contains a bunch of anti-patterns: ArrowAntiPattern and rejects the use of GuardClauses and HandleErrorsInContext.

Meanwhile, the goto version does exactly the opposite -- it doesn't have ever deeper nesting of the common successful path, it uses guard clauses to abort further execution upon error detection, error dispatching (and any in context handling if necessary) is easily done and you can jump to exactly the right section of cleanup code and it is easy to have a single exit point for the function after all the cleanup code at the bottom of the function.

Slashdot Top Deals

Everyone can be taught to sculpt: Michelangelo would have had to be taught how not to. So it is with the great programmers.