Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Might as well be "Simon" (Score 1) 111

Nokia and its shareholders seem to have gotten royally screwed in the process.

I'm not so sure. Nokia's phone business was not doing so well, they gave up a loss making division that was rapidly losing any prospect of becoming competitive in return for $7 billion. I think people that say this don't realise how much of Nokia is still left (back end networking/telecoms equipment, mapping data (HERE) and miscellaneous ("Nokia technologies")), or how their failing devices business could have dragged the rest of the company under.

Comment These would be... (Score 3, Insightful) 674

These would be the sockets that say "not for public use" on them. The sockets that are provided for the cleaners to plug their vacuum cleaners into and, if used when the train is operating, could be subjected to power spikes and liable to fry your electronics and cause a fire? Yeah, I have no sympathy. I don't doubt the police could be doing better things (although I'm no engineer, if this really does pose a serious safety risk, perhaps it is a good use of their time) but when you're on someone else's train you play by someone else's rules. If that means not using the sockets, so be it.

Comment Re:The Charlie H killers were roommates (Score 1) 174

He might mean banning apps where the service provider isn't involved in the crypto and thus can't decrypt messages on demand. Like Skype for example - it's basically secure crypto-wise, but since everything goes through Microsoft servers they can (and do) eavesdrop on any conversation they like.

A weak implementation of crypto is just as bad as week crypto, though. In the case of Skype, for instance, Microsoft can force clients to (silently) downgrade from p2p crypto to server-mediated crypto for eavesdropping. Even if you consider the Russian and Chinese governments (who have access to this capability) to be good guys this MITM capability is always at risk of being used by others.

Also there's little they can do about plugins like OTR: they don't need to access a server so they can't be blocked, it's difficult to force OSS projects to silently weaken their crypto and there's bugger all the IM provider can do to decrypt them or limit their usage.

Comment Re:Because it worked so well for PGP... (Score 1) 423

That has nothing to do with export regulations and everything to do with the fact that strong implementations of asymmetric cryptography and user friendliness have, so far, proved to be mutually exclusive.

In fact, PGP has become the defacto standard for assymetric, non-centralised cryptography - so I'd say it's been very successful.

How much financial success did Phil Zimmerman enjoy?

PGP was sold to Network Associates for $36 million. I don't know how much of that Zimmerman saw personally, but I'd call that a financial success.

Comment Doctrine of first sale (Score 1) 107

Whatever happened to the doctrine of first sale? Yes, I know that's about IP, but the same principle surely applies here: "I bought the f***ing motor, I'll do what the f**k I like with it!"

(Obviously there's legitimate grounds for the government to stop them flying over your house if there's an unreasonably high risk that the plane will drop out the sky, but over the sea?)

Comment Because it worked so well for PGP... (Score 4, Insightful) 423

PGP: Source Code and Internals - Phil Zimmerman - books have 1A protection. So I have no doubt we'll soon see "The Liberator: Source Plans and Internals - Cody Wilson".

Also, WTF does "If it's an executable digital file, any foreign interests can get a hold of it" mean? Is ISIS unable to use non-executable files?

Comment Unsustainable... (Score 1) 260

the time has come for companies such as Google, Facebook and Twitter to accept and understand that their current privacy policies are completely unsustainable?

Unsustainable means that it will become inherently impossible for Google, Facebook and Twitter to continue sustaining them, not that bad stuff will happen (which it won't); or whatever David "Call-me-Adolf" Cameron thinks it means.

Comment Re:That's good (Score 1) 146

And it's the government's business to ensure that happens. If you think that in your jurisdiction the government isn't doing enough to disqualify fraudulent accountants, campaign for changes in the law.

No, it's my business to decide who I think makes a suitable accountant for ME, not the governments. End of.

Acting on an individual level, emotions override logic, and we need someone to take a detached overview to prevent a descent into mob justice.

Do they really? Or is it just that the level of risk is too high for most people to stomach for themselves, despite their willingness to push it on others? I don't see what business anyone else has deciding what level of risk I want to accept into my business dealings.

Slashdot Top Deals

We warn the reader in advance that the proof presented here depends on a clever but highly unmotivated trick. -- Howard Anton, "Elementary Linear Algebra"