Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Submission + - How do you prepare for and deal with a lost/stolen/destroyed Smartphone? 3

Qbertino writes: A lot of our everyday lives today hinges on having our smartphone and our apps/services/data that are on it working and available.

What are you tactics/standard procedures/techniques/best pratices for preparing for a lost/stolen/destroyed Android Phone and/or iPhone? And have you needed to actually use them?

I'm talking concrete solutions for the worst case scenario: Apps, backup routines (like automating Google Takeaway downloads or something) tracking and disabling routines and methods and perhaps services. If you're using some vendor specific solution that came with your phone and have had positive experience with it, feel free to advocate.

Please include the obvious with some description that you use such as perhaps a solution already build into Android/iOS and also describe any experience you had with these solutions in some unpleasant scenario you might have had yourself. Also perhaps the procedures and pitfalls for recovering previous state to a replacement device.

Please note: I'm talking both Android and iOS.
And thanks for your input — I can imagine that I'm not the only one interested in this.

Comment Re:You missed a couple of sections (Score 1) 309

In finding no Fourth
Amendment violation, the Western District of Washington noted that "in order for [] prospective
user[s] to use the Tor network they must disclose information, including their IP addresses, to
unknown individuals running Tor nodes, so that their communications can be directed toward
their destinations." Id. at *2. The Western District of Washington noted that under "such a
system, an individual would necessarily be disclosing his identifying information to complete
strangers."

Sounds like it makes sense to me

Thus, hacking resembles the broken blinds in Carter. 525 U.S. at 85. Just as Justice
Breyer wrote in concurrence that a police officer who peers through broken blinds does not
violate anyone's Fourth Amendment rights, jd. at 103 (Breyer, J., concurring), FBI agents who
exploit a vulnerability in an online network do not violate the Fourth Amendment. Just as the
area into which the officer in Carter peered - an apartment - usually is afforded Fourth
52
Case 4:16-cr-00016-HCM-RJK Document 90 Filed 06/23/16 Page 52 of 58 PageID# 1134
Amendment protection, a computer afforded Fourth Amendment protection in other
circumstances is not protected from Government actors who take advantage of an easily broken
system to peer into a user's computer. People who traverse the Internet ordinarily understand the
risk associated with doing so

Well yeah if you don't patch your system, you know you're going to get hacked right? So, boohoo, you got hacked by the gov should have been surfing kiddy porn

Comment Re:You missed a couple of sections (Score 1) 309

"Furthermore, the Court FINDS suppression unwarranted because the Government did not need a warrant in this case. Thus, any potential defects in the issuance of the warrant or in the warrant itself could not result in constitutional violations".

This language is particularly specific and narrows the ruling to this case and only this case. The fact that the FBI got a warrant to allow them to run remote exploit code on an individual's computers that had downloaded the exploit (which was only available on PlayPen) means that they didn't need a warrant.

The individual was exposing himself to this exploit of his own actions, and thus didn't require a warrant. Let me put it this way, the FBI takes over a drug dealer, and has him continue sale, but under the new watchful eye of cameras that collect identifying photos of individuals who purchase drugs. (Not only that, but the person has to go into a room that specifically says, “illegal drugs” on it in order to even end up on camera.)

Do law enforcement REALLY need a warrant when the person is incriminating themselves?

This is like arguing that law enforcement had no right to put a tracker in the cash bag of a bank that they took. It's BS. It required active agency in acquiring the exploit code, and a clear intent to obtain child pornography.

a) You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you're committing a crime, and b) if you walk into someone else's house and demonstrate direct intent to commit a crime without knowing that you're identifying yourself to police, well, TOO BAD

Comment Re:The message is clear: (Score 1) 309

The site was actually protected by the Tor network (and despite an error in configuration allowing it to be accessed outside of Tor for a bit) was only available through the Tor network.

They then attached the callback program to trigger upon downloading known child porn, and voila your computer happily reports to the FBI that you've just downloaded child porn.

This is actually pretty solid law, and entirely reasonable warrant and execution of that warrant

It looks like (so far, I'm only part way through the actual ruling) one of the chief objections is that the warrant identified the website with the wrong type of logo. The text on that logo, had however stayed the same. This is not a good argument for why a warrant shouldn't be valid

Comment Re:What Constitution? (Score 1) 309

Even though the warrant authorized the FBI to deploy the NIT as soon as a user logged
into Playpen, SA Alfin testified that the Government did not deploy the NIT against Mr. Matish
in this particular case until after someone with the username of "Broden" logged into Playpen,
arrived at the index site, went to the bestiality section - which advertised prepubescent children
engaged in sexual activities with animals - and clicked on the post titled "Girl 11YO, with dog."
In other words, the agents took the extra precaution of not deploying the NIT until the user first
logged into Playpen and second entered into a section of Playpen which actually displayed child
pornography. At this point, testified SA Alfin, the user apparently downloaded child
pornography as well as the NIT to his computer. Thus, the FBI deployed the NIT in a much
narrower fashion than what the warrant authorized.

I dunno, that's pretty compelling reasonable suspicion there for a warrant which is what they actually had

Comment Re:We need a penalty for retarded judges (Score 1) 309

The Court FINDS, for the reasons stated herein, that probable cause supported
the warrant's issuance, that the warrant was sufficiently specific, that the triggering event
occurred, that Defendant is not entitled to a Franks hearing, and that the magistrate judge did not
exceed her jurisdiction or authority in issuing the warrant

So you think supporting the validity of a warrant that was issued prior to the search to be subversive?

Comment Re:What Constitution? (Score 1) 309

To any sane person, if they need a warrant to come through your door to seize the data, they need a warrant to seize the data over the wire.

Let's examine that, let's see

The Court FINDS, for the reasons stated herein, that probable cause supported
the warrant's issuance, that the warrant was sufficiently specific, that the triggering event
occurred, that Defendant is not entitled to a Franks hearing, and that the magistrate judge did not
exceed her jurisdiction or authority in issuing the warrant

Oh, they did have a warrant.

Submission + - Where is the rugged 16GB RAM / 1TB Storage / 20 hrs. battery tablet?

Qbertino writes: I’m a tablet user. I bought the HTC Flyer when it was just roughly 1,5 years old to fiddle with it and program for it. I was hooked pretty quickly and it became part of my EDC. The hardware has since become way outdated, but I still think it’s one of the best tablets ever built in terms of quality and consistency. About a roughly four years later I moved to a then current 10“ Yoga 2 with Atom CPU & LTE module + a SD slot for a 64GB card. I’m very happy with the device and it goes with me where ever I go. It has 12 — 16 hours of battery time, depending on usage and basically is my virtual bookshelf/music/multimedia/mailing device and keeps the strain on my eyes and my fingers to a minimum. It has some power-button issues, but those are bearable considering all the other upsides.

I’ve got everything on this device and it has basically become my primary commodity computer. My laptops are almost exclusively in use when I need to code or do task where performance is key, such as 3D or non-trivial image editing.

In a nutshell, I’m a happy tablet user, I consider it more important than having the latest phone — my Moto G2 is serving me just fine — and I’m really wondering why there are no tablets that build on top of this. Memory is scarce on these devices (RAM and storage) as often is battery time.

Most tablets feel flimsy (the Yoga 2 and Yoga 3 being a rare exception) and have laughable battery times (again, the Yoga models being a rare exception). However, I’ve yet to find a tablet that does not give me storage or memory problems in some way or other, lasts for a day or two in power and doesn’t feel chinsy and like it won’t stand a month of regular everyday use and carrying around in an EDC bag.

Of course, we all know that RAM is an artificial scarcity on mobile devices, so the manufacturers can charge obscene amounts of money for upgrades but 1GB as a standard? That’s very tight by todays standards. Not speaking of storage. Is it such a big deal adding 128GB or perhaps even 256GB of storage to these devices as a default? Why has none of the manufacturers broken rank? Do you think there’s a market for the type of tablet described in the title and we can expect some movement in that direction or am I on my own here?

What are your thoughts and observations on the tablet market? Do you think they are the convergence devices we’ve all been waiting for — as apparently Apple and Aquaris & Ubuntu seem to think? (I’d agree to some extent btw.)

Your educated opinion is requested. Thanks.

Submission + - systemd starts killing your background processes by default (blog.fefe.de) 1

nautsch writes: systemd changed a default value in logind.conf to "yes", which will kill all your processes, when you log out. And as always: It's not a bug, it's a feature. Translated from the german source: "Bug of the day: systemd kills background processes on logout". There is already a bug-report over at debian: Debian bug tracker (link also from the source)

Submission + - It's No 'Accident,' Safety Advocates Want to Speak of Car 'Crashes' Instead 1

HughPickens.com writes: Matt Richtel writes in the NYT that roadway fatalities are soaring at a rate not seen in 50 years, resulting from crashes, collisions and other incidents caused by drivers. But don’t call them accidents as a growing number of safety advocates campaign to change a 100-year-old mentality that they say trivializes the single most common cause of traffic incidents: human error. “When you use the word ‘accident,’ it’s like, ‘God made it happen,’ ” says Mark Rosekind. “In our society, language can be everything.” Rosekind says that the persistence of crashes — driving is the most dangerous activity for most people — can be explained in part by widespread apathy toward the issue. Changing semantics is meant to shake people, particularly policy makers, out of the implicit nobody’s-fault attitude that the word “accident” conveys. The state of Nevada just enacted a law to change “accident” to “crash” in dozens of instances where the word is mentioned in state laws, like those covering police and insurance reports and at least 28 state departments of transportation have moved away from the term “accident” when referring to roadway incidents.

The word 'accident' was introduced into the lexicon of manufacturing and other industries in the early 1900s, when companies were looking to protect themselves from the costs of caring for workers who were injured on the job, says historian Peter Norton. "Relentless safety campaigns started calling these events ‘accidents,’ which excused the employer of responsibility,” says Norton. When traffic deaths spiked in the 1920s, a consortium of auto-industry interests, including insurers, borrowed the wording to shift the focus away from the cars themselves. “Automakers were very interested in blaming reckless drivers,” says Norton. But over time the word has come to exonerate the driver, too, with “accident” seeming like a lightning strike, beyond anyone’s control. “Labeling most of the motor vehicle collision cases that I see as an attorney as an ‘accident’ has always been troubling to me," says Steven Gursten. "The word ‘accident’ implies there’s no responsibility for it."

Submission + - Study shows FACEBOOK tends to censor stuff from the political right.... (mrctv.org)

lugannerd writes: I always love to see slashdotters chime in politically for giggles.
From the article --> Generally, media have covered the accusations that the social media site is censoring conservative news and sources from their trending news feed. Coincidentally, this is also the part of the Facebook story affecting the media.

Potentially a bigger scandal (because it affects more people) is the accusation that Facebook censors individual member pages, blogs, smaller media outlets, and discussion groups reflecting a conservative point of view. Sometimes, the sites are shut down, sometimes they are simply threatened into silence.

Slashdot Top Deals

The rich get rich, and the poor get poorer. The haves get more, the have-nots die.

Working...