Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:The tough economic times (Score 1) 360

I haven't encountered a greeter at Walmart in I don't know how long.

There used to be this old white dude who said "hi!" and handed off to you a shopping cart. Don't see that anymore.

I read in the news that WalMart was bringing back the greeter job. The stores around here never really did away with them. They are supposed to be some sort of loss prevention or deterrent line of defense. I cannot remember the last time I saw one actually offer to get a cart. I'd say it's a 50% chance that they even open their mouth to greet anyone. Mostly, they sit on a chair and look bored.

Comment Re:Microsoft denies any wrongdoing (Score 2) 443

Of course it makes sense. They think it's going to cost them less. Where would the sense be in spending millions if the case can be put away for thousands?

Just because someone has billions, doesn't mean it "makes no sense" for them to avoid spending millions.

Unless by leaving a precedent set of a customer successfully suing and winning, you invite LOTS of others to follow on. This is especially the case when there is such a large pool of potential candidates and a general dislike for the practices that precipitated the suit. You might want to look at how IBM and Newegg handle similar situations. No quarter is given in order to discourage followers.

Bailing out early on the first suit might cause you to have to spend a lot more on others later. Unless you are certain you are going to lose anyway.

Comment Re: Guns (Score 1) 1718

You are an incredibly massive idiot. That only applies to the government. You have zero right to not be murdered.

You are the idiot. Of course I have the right not to be murdered. Anyone who violates that right will be punished by the government. And in my state, that means they run the risk of forfeiting their own life.

Similarly, you have the right to free speech. Unfortunately, you choose to exercise it only to prove how ignorant you truly are.

Comment Re: Guns (Score 2) 1718

So what? There is no constitutional right to not be killed. That's why the death penalty and abortion are constitutionally legal. There is a constitutional right to own weapons making all laws that ban them unconstitutional.

This is the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sounds like a right to me.

Comment Re:Here's the problem. (Score 1) 171

And are you that thick that you do not understand that Apple had to refuse that openly put demand (or suffer a sharp drop in sales because their customers would not trust them anymore) ? Their refusal tells you absolutily [sic] nothing about their ability to enter their phones or not.

Last I checked, Apple was not "the phone company." They are a manufacturer. Maybe you are ignorant of what a "phone company" is. Let me help you: Do you see Apple on that page?

You original assertion was that the phone company could use their sooper dooper hacking ability to defeat encryption. Are you moving the goal posts again? I have no doubt Apple has the ability to defeat their own encryption methods on some phones running some version of ios. I have never said otherwise. When you can point out that the FBI goes to Verizon or AT&T to get plaintext on an iPhone, I will be impressed.

You wrote --> The phone company can, and does have all kinds of (often called "debugging") access to your phone you have little to no clue about, and which, even if you knew, you can't do anything about. [...] Absolutily nothing that is stored on your phone or anything your phone can do that is outside the reach of a phone company, and thus the "law enforcement" agencies.

Well, I call bullshit. I am asking you to give me proof. I asked earlier and you wanted me to do your homework for you. You want me to prove a negative.

Yes, rather voluminous ... What was it, way less than 50 IIRC.

Your memory is either faulty or you are willfully ignorant. On Slashdot, articles have reported between 100 and 400 at the Federal level and many more if you add in local cases awaiting resolution of the New York case resolution before litigating. A New York Manhattan Prosecutor is on record for 175 himself.


Comey himself mentioned the following: He (Director Comey) also said that since October 2015, the FBI has examined "about 4,000 digital devices" and was unable to unlock "approximately 500."

How many of those devices were actually encrypted?

Citation from Ars Technica: and Reuters:

Pardon me ? If the FBI has the Law on their side, why should they start with threats ? What you are saying there is that those feds legally have nothing to go on, but try to bully others into doing their bidding anyway.

You do realize that is what TFA is about, right? The FBI threatening more litigation against tech companies using encryption by default.

And yours speeks [sic] loudly of plain-old gullibility. Don't blindly believe everything you read, especially if the ones claiming something have much to win by you believeng [sic] it.

I do not believe everything I read, including you. I am still waiting for you to cite one single case where a "phone company," which is an entity distinctly different from a phone manufacturer, hacked a cell phone for any law enforcement agency and successfully defeated encryption permitting them to prosecute. I do believe that Apple does have the resources currently to defeat encryption on some of their phones. I also believe that Apple will work to remove that capability to prevent being caught in the position of being "bullied" (as you said) again, provided the Burr-Feinstein bill goes nowhere. And as I have already argued, technical ability is entirely pointless for law enforcement unless there is permission or a warrant granted. That is the whole point of this thread.

You failure of reading comprehension, spouting of things that you clearly have no foundational knowledge of, obliviousness of your own words, and numerous spelling mistakes lend me to believe I am arguing with a high schooler or some freshman college know-it-all. Unless you can show me some semblance of proof that your original assertion is real, do not expect any more effort from me to educate you.

Comment Re:Here's the problem. (Score 1) 171

the phone company has a lot more control over the phone you call your property than you do yourself. It makes it very easy to get anything-and-everything from your phone with you being none-the-wiser. Regardless of if it is legally your property or not.

Citation needed. In fact, the San Bernadino and New York City FBI lawsuits against Apple along with the voluminous other backlogged cases speak loudly against your position. The recent FBI threats against Apple and WhatsApp along with the Burr-Feinstein bill tends to undermine your credibility too. Telegram, SIgnal, WhatsApp, or any of the other fully encrypted apps leave the phone company out of the loop.

And who the heck claimed that a phone company can grant anything at all ? Not me, and not the parent I was responding to. Strawman argument much

You wrote > you definitily [sic] are not the owner (as in the one who makes all the decisions) of what it all can do. Not by a long shot.

Parent wrote > Your car, just like the above. The dealership or credit agency can not give the police permission to search your vehicle. Well, they can. It won't hold up in court.

Yes you are the owner and decision maker of your property. The phone company cannot "hack your phone" without your knowledge or permission unless backed by a warrant. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act specifically makes this illegal. Evidence only matters in court if it is collected legally. That was the whole point of this thread from the OP. You are the owner of the phone. LEO must get a warrant or permission to search. In San Bernadino, the owner (the county) gave permission. In the New York case, a warrant was issued. Your assertion that the phone company can hack the phone through some sort of OTA malware or baseband backdoor is irrelevant; parallel construction notwithstanding. Just last month a Federal court threw out evidence obtained by an invalid warrant that was overturned in a child porn case.

Also, if it is yours from day one than why is a phone company allowed to vendor-lock your property to their services up until after the contract ends (if at all -- but thats a whole other discussion) ? Quite a contradiction, don't you say ? :-)

Uh, no. It's allowed because it is not illegal. It is the same logic that locks the iPhone, iPad & iPod Touch to the work only with the Apple App Store "service" too. Or are you arguing that Apple should be required to "unlock" iPads to use the other software stores just because you own them?

And in case you missed the big shift, phone contracts are pretty much defunct these days. You would have to be insane to sign away multiple years in a contract at the current rate of change in the telecommunications industry these days. I haven't been "under contract" for almost five years now. My last three phones I purchased outright and were unlocked from the start.

Comment Re:Here's the problem. (Score 1) 171

Your assertion is totally non-sequitor. Technological ability is independent to legal rights. The point of the GGP was that the phone company CANNOT grant the right to search and as such, any LEO MUST obtain a search warrant based upon probable cause to search a phone. Evidence obtained by the phone company "breaking in" to a users phone against his will with no valid search warrant would be suppressed by the court. i.e No conviction.

As for the phone company owning a users "financed" phone: The last time I checked, breaking contract requires payment of an ETF or payment of the balance of the credit acount, not repossession of the phone. The phone company or credit agency has no legal ownership of the financed phone, nor lien. I believe you are conflating own/p0wn anyway. The court can tell the difference.

Try to pay attention next time.

Comment Re:I'll tell you where the theft is (Score 3, Interesting) 221

The crux of the issue is that while copyright absolutists claim the high moral ground, they have very little popular support short of those who make their living off copyright or have fantasies of becoming fabulously wealthy because of it. People choose the path of least resistance nearly every time and observing copyright generally is that path. When it is not, they have no qualms about ignoring it.

I knew this to be the case when I had a fairly computer illiterate 70 something explain to me how she had discovered how to pirate music and now had a large collection. She is an accountant with an accountant's typical mindset and otherwise follows the rules blindly. She explained to me with the zeal of a proselytiser. In a different case, I had to laugh my ass off when I found out that another man I know, who is a software development manager and makes crazy big money, pirates video games. He rails against pirating movies and music and has forbidden it at his house, but I guess software is okay.

Human nature does not see a moral equivalence between taking someone's property (theft) and copying their ideas without compensation. Copying does not "cost" the victim anything in real terms, in the same way that a lost sale does not actually "cost" the seller anything. It is the moral equivalent of duplicating a restaurant's recipes at home. However, restaurants cannot litigate since recipes have no copyright protection. Since no one expects copyright privilege in the restaurant industry, no one rises up in arms screaming about the "theft" of Red Lobster dishes.

Comment Re:Sparked a "debate"? Why? (Score 1) 62

actually, the State does. It is law in many countries. It is also law in the USA if a 'National Security' issue is at stake. Literally federal marshalls can come in and sit behind you at your desk with guns at your head and 'make' you perform... Shoot you if you do not.

You may want to look it up.

WTF? Why don't you just point out the law that gives Federal Marshals the power to summarily execute citizens for failure to perform and ordered task. I'm calling bullshit.

Comment Re: Hmm (Score 1) 130

If you think the cops don't give a shit about petty crimes,[Bullshit deleted]

My experience when someone broke into my car and stole a radio was that the cops don't care. The cop pretty much told me so. They are "too busy" to investigate small time theft. He told me he was only taking a report for the inevitable insurance claim. They did thousands of dollars in damage by cutting a convertible soft-top and then totally destroyed my dashboard just to pull out a radio that wasn't worth $20 at a pawn shop.

Comment Re:a blow (Score 1) 101

The only people I know still using standalone GPS are over 65 years old. So if by "different client base" you mean, people who bought GPS in their forties and are now retired, then I suppose yes.

I think I know one other person, but it's a hand-held device for geocaching, so not exactly a turn-by-turn navigation system.

In short, try a new app one of these days. I'm not sure what you mean by "localized data" but I'm betting it's on there.

I had an old TomTom which I had not used since getting a smartphone. I gave it to my daughter last October and she was grateful. She has limited data availability (T-Mobile) out west where she was headed. She is 22.

Oh, and I have a Garmin handheld that I use for Geocaching too. I had an old Eagle, but I gave that to my son when I bought the Garmin. The sensitivity of the Garmin beats the living shit out of my Nexus smartphone. It sometimes takes the fun out of Geocaching when it takes you right to the exact spot and there is no searching effort involved.

Comment Re:Mark zuckerberg is #6 richest man in the world (Score 2) 83

Just more anti govt haters. The police are after the bad guys. Sorry to break it to you, nobody is spying on you. You're just not that interesting.

Snowden revealed facts which do not support your assertions. Whether or not a human being manually reviewed your individual data does not obviate the fact that you were spied upon by your own government without cause if you made any phone calls in the past ten years.

Slashdot Top Deals

Crazee Edeee, his prices are INSANE!!!