Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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

Comment Re:Forcing you to aid in a search (Score 1) 198

Can't you just say one or a combination of the following:

a) You don't remember what finger you used b) You used someone else's finger c) Let them "have" your hand but use the wrong fingers or make them guess what finger is correct d) Use the correct finger but do it incorrectly such that the device won't unlock e) say you never properly set a fingerprint id f) Or, and this is actually true for me, I pick my fingers and the fingerprint id doesn't work because my prints are not exactly the same for very long (and they were in a not-natural state when the passcode was set so it would be impossible to compel me to not pick at my fingers to gain access)

Or in other words - how can a court compel this when the court doesn't even know what they are compelling. Seems to me the easiest thing to do is say you never properly authenticated any of your fingers and thus are unable to comply. If they force you to try all your fingers - just do it wrong. We all know how finicky these devices are and it would seem easy to purposely incorrectly authenticate or damage your print enough to cause a failure.

  1. a) Could get you charged for lying to investigators, which is a crime
  2. b) See a
  3. c) Or just ask "which finger" - They have a 50% chance of selecting the right one before the iPhone reverts to passwords
  4. d) They'll just keep trying, but again only get 5 tries
  5. e) See a
  6. f) This is the best advice - use a password, not your fingerprint.
  7. There's a youtube video of a girl trying to get into her boyfriends phone while he's asleep. She tries one hand, then the other, then other fingers, and finally gives up and leaves. The guy then wakes up, takes off his shoe and unlocks his phone with his toe. Hilarious!

    So just use your toe. They'll never figure that one out.

Comment Re:Fingerprints are protected in Europe (Score 1) 198

In Europe, we understand that, in this context, a fingerprint is equivalent to a password and deserves to be protected as such. You dumb fat Americans really should extend the same protections to fingerprints in this context.

Europeans don't know the difference between something you have and something you know. No wonder Great Britain wants out.

Comment Re:Forcing you to aid in a search (Score 4, Informative) 198

your fingerprints aren't a testimony against yourself. Read the damn thing. "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

Your fingerprints absolutely can be evidence against you. That's not even a question. The police have a long established right to take your fingerprints when you are arrested and to compare them with gathered evidence.

That said I have a hard time reconciling this with the right against self incrimination in the Constitution. In principle I feel a biometric pass code should be legally no different than a memorized one. Either way you are being forced to potentially incriminate yourself. But I suspect that the legal system will rule that they are different and so if you want your phone to be secure against search and seizure you must avoid biometric pass codes unfortunately. The problem here is that they are not comparing your fingerprints against evidence they have found. They are in effect forcing you to open a lock on their behalf. I don't have a problem with them having the right to search but I don't see why the target of the investigation should be forced to aid in that search. If they can break down a door to do a search (with a warrant) then have that right but I don't see why I should have to hand over the key to the house so to speak.

Courts have long held that you are required (once a proper warrant has been issued) to provide keys to any lock (such as a safe) that is the subject of search or evidence. However, you cannot be compelled to provide the combination of a safe that is secured that way. So they're using the same principle. Your fingerprint is something that you HAVE, so you can be required to provide it. A combination or password is something that you KNOW, and you're allowed to keep your mental secrets secret.

Comment Re:Better idea (but unpopular) (Score 1) 198

Don't break the law. If you don't like the law, work to get it changed.

Unpossible. There are so many laws that can be interpreted in so many ways, if an agent wants to pin something on you, they WILL find something. It has been widely reported that the average American commits 3 felonies a day, without even knowing it.

Comment Re:TFA is not terribly clear... (Score 2) 198

If you routinely destroy evidence to avoid implicating yourself in a crime, I think the intent is pretty clear.

But that's perfectly legal. That is, you're destroying documents or files (something routinely done everywhere, all the time), which is not currently "evidence". If you think you're under investigation, or have some reason to believe you might be investigated, then you are not allowed to destroy or tamper with any evidence. But, if you're in the habit of routinely wiping your devices and files, it would be difficult or impossible to prove that in some specific incident you knowingly did it to tamper with evidence.

So routinely wiping your data is a good strategy.

Comment Apple Laptop (Score 1) 56

Years ago Apple had a laptop that let you switch out an internal module. You could add a device, such as high capacity drive, without changing the form factor. The advantage was high speed and plug and play. It was not a success because these were not good values and you still had to carry all this stuff around with the added mass of casing and connectors.

I can't imagine what the benefit of this would be. USB is fast, the connector small. You can probably get all this stuff cheaper, maybe even lighter, as standalone components. The connectors seem to be way more metal than a USB C. If the issue is multiple devices without a hub, the we need to find a daisy chain solution this is both USB and FireWire.

Comment Re: Analogue vs Digital, and DRM (Score 1) 506

The one good critism is DRM. Right now I can't watch movies on my desktop because my monitor is not HDMI. Which means content providers can block the headphones as well when the jack goes away.

Which I think it will. I see more kids using Bluetooth headphones. Think in a few year all the cool kids will use these. I wonder if you can pair multiple headphones to the same device?

Comment Re:unpasteurised milk is way better (Score 1) 254

It's fact, not propaganda that "Raw milk causes more than half of all milk-related foodborne illnesses in the United States, even though only about 3.5 percent of Americans drink raw milk". Your grand conspiracy doesn't involve just the FDA, but instead a multitude of research institutes, like Johns Hopkins, whose scientific findings, across the board, shows significant dangers from drinking raw milk: - []

I suggest you Google about webmd and their funding (big pharma) and propaganda (promotions from grants). WebMD is paid by the FDA, which receives its funding from big pharma and, yes, the corporate farming lobby. So by posting propaganda from WebMD, you're supporting MY argument, not your own.

The article you linked was not a study, did not link to any study. It was a (poorly done) article about a report prepared for politicians (who, of course, have an agenda). There is no link to the report, no reference to the "81 studies" that the "researchers" selected to support their position (a conclusion that they were paid to support). No science there at all.

All the actual peer-reviewed articles you posted referred to raw-milk cheese, and mostly specific anecdotes of specific outbreaks, and primarily outside the US. So, pretty irrelevant, especially considering that any process where you INTENTIONALLY GROW BACTERIA can certainly go wrong in many ways.

Comment Re:unpasteurised milk is way better (Score 1) 254

I have drank raw milk since 2011, and it has kept me strong and healthy.

OK. You don't know that. I appreciate your fetish for fucked up smelling gloopy milk, which of course you're welcome to - but that's the bit that you seriously do not know.

You should try it some time. If you're used to the watery, ultra pasteurized, hormone-laden milk from factory cows caged and injected with chemicals and bacteria, you may not know what milk is really supposed to taste like. It's really very delicious, smells wonderful, and is actually creamy, not gloopy.

Comment Re:unpasteurised milk is way better (Score 1) 254

There's absolutely no evidence for that. In fact incidents of food-borne illness are significantly higher for practitioners of the new-age "raw milk" psycho-babble.

Thanks for repeating our propaganda. We'd send you a check for your support, but we sent all our money to the FDA and the former FDA administrators that now have positions on our board.

--- Signed, The Corporate Dairy Council

Comment Re:unpasteurised milk is way better (Score 1) 254

That's right. Raw, or unpasteurized milk, is much better. It builds a strong healthy body.

I drank it for a year or two, as a member of a "cow share" cooperative. I didn't re-up the last time, so I don't drink it any more.

The next best thing is the pasture-fed "organic" (hormone free) milk from the grocery store. Interestingly, that stuff normally comes "Ultrapasturized", and the shelf life on it is at least 4-5 weeks. So I'm not sure what advantage this process brings.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It is better to have tried and failed than to have failed to try, but the result's the same." - Mike Dennison