Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Learn to Build 14 Websites with 28 Hours of Instruction on HTML, JavaScript, MySQL & More for $14 ×

Comment Re:Here's a good idea (Score 1) 206

You can call it a configuration issue if you want to, but the change in the configuration was made by a Microsoft patch

Yep. Microsoft is in Violation of the contract regarding Windows Update. Critical updates are security fixes that are not for the purpose of introducing new features, incompatibilities, or other breaking changes.

Addition of a nag screen is a breaking change.

Comment Re:So forgetting a password (Score 1) 658

That sounds very constructed. Do you have any evidence something like that is happening here?

I don't know what's happening in the case of the article. Possibly this former PD seargent decided he would like to challenge the order legally in court on 5th amendment grounds; Possibly he knew the password and admitted that fact, Or couldn't testify under oath that he was no longer able to recall the password.

And for some reason the court decided since he wanted to challenge/appeal the order, he would still be penalized for violating the order, for the time until his appeal can be considered.

I would suspect that because the former PD seargent admitted that hard drive belonged to him, or worse, even admitted to being capable of unlocking it but refusing to comply, Possibly b/c he was only being ordered to hand over information and not being charged with a crime.

That possibly the guy might have delayed retaining a lawyer, Or did not refuse to have any discussion of the order or the hard drive with police until after consulting with said legal counsel: to ensure said lawyer would be present for any discussions.

Just because "Forgetting" the password is an out does NOT mean the guy in the article was able to make the claim that he forgot it, without perjuring himself.

Comment Re:So forgetting a password (Score 1) 658

Now prove, that you forgot your password.

You missed the point..... you don't have to prove that you have forgotten it.

You just need to testify that you are not able to recall a password for any hard drive or system of that description.

You would also avoid explicitly asserting that it's your hard drive in the first place and/or you ever had a password for it.

If the prosecution believes you can recall it, then to pursue criminal charges for contempt of court, the burden of proof is upon the prosecution: They must be able to prove you had and have access to that specific particular piece of hardware, that you still remember or are in control of the password at that very moment (You have an Agent working on your behalf who is withholding a physical copy of the password at your direction), or you're otherwise capable of providing it.

Also, even if the offender is ruled in contempt, at any point in the future they could later claim they are no longer capable of providing the password, and challenge the contempt order.

Comment Re:Here's a good idea (Score 3, Insightful) 206

This is the TV station's fault for not deploying their computers correctly. This issue has been known for months and months now and a fix has been around for quite a while.

Not an initial deployment issue.

A surprising unwanted behavior introduced in a patch, that the administrator would not have noticed, unless they were reading many online articles about it.

If anybody's fault it's Microsoft's for not having provided the option Years ago, so they could opt-out of Nag Screens and Auto OS upgrades at the time of initial deployment, not AFTER deployment, with a new Opt-Out being required for Novel unwanted behavior.

However, I would just say it's an understandable accident that anybody could make. It's nobody's "Fault" other than Microsoft management/marketing deciding to introduce the Novel behavior with a NEW Opt-Out option, instead of one that could have been selected Along with the option to turn on Automatic Updates.... back in 2012, 2013, or 2014.

Comment Re:Playing King of the Hill (Score 1) 150

I'm sorry, I have this thing called a life. I'm not going to play games like trying to bump-up against an edit/revert counter with a bunch of people that don't have lives

Then it starts to seem like you were not very sincere about contributing the article in the first place, if you're unwilling to engage with other people community and/or the other editors, and confront them, resolve conflicting goals, or decide which differences are important to argue over. The encyclopedia anyone can edit, Does Not necessarily mean there is no way in which edits get reviewed, no stylistic standard, no tacit "ownership" by the original authors of a text, and No process whatsoever to follow for you to make improvements that survive.

"Having a Life" or "Having no Life" is an Ad Hominem, and does not credit or discredit one's contribution on WP over anyone else's.

If you're sincere about contributing to a Wiki, then you should be prepared to engage with the other editors, in the event your view on an article conflicts with theirs.

Insincere contributors abandoning their half-baked edit or trivial/non-improving contribution is part of the way that Vandalism and other Noise also gets drowned out in the latest version of most articles.

Comment Re:So forgetting a password (Score 4, Insightful) 658

Which happens to be impossible to prove due to fundamental restrictions of how reality works. Hence the government just assumes they are capable

The government is not allowed to assume that you are guilty. It does not matter how inconvenient this requirement becomes due to how reality works.

The law requires the government to show you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, otherwise the legal principles at the basis of our rule of law say that you must be presumed innocent, in that case you should be released.

If the suspect has forgotten the password, and reports to have forgotten or never knew the password and has no access to the password, then I do not believe there is any legal basis for holding them in contempt beyond that point.

Only way they could is they have definitive proof that someone has access to the password, and it's being withheld under the control of the suspect.

Comment Re:Plausible deniability (Score 1) 658

Divide your crypto key into 3 pieces. You own the third; Two other trusted third parties have the other half.

Every time you open the encrypted vault, you enter a key, and send your password to one of the trusted third parties who.submits their half of the key.

Your trusted third parties have an agreement that you contact them every N days, otherwise, they will automatically perform a secure destruction of their half of the key Upon inactivity, or upon your request, they will destroy the key, and forward your request to the other TTP.

Your communications with trusted third parties are conducted over a secure channel, each of you has a Public-Private keypair stored on tamper-resistant SmartCards.

Your trusted third parties' half of the key is stored on a tamper-resistant blackbox, and they don't have access to the key itself: only an encrypted message which Your smartcard is required to decrypt.

You might choose to use anonymous third-parties. Requests to open your vault are published to Bitcoin public blockchain. The response contains an encrypted secret key, and the decryption key is held by you only in RAM per decryption.

If there is no request to open the vault for N days, then the keys are automatically destroyed by the 3rd parties, and you pick N. For some data, N might be 5 days.

Comment Re:So forgetting a password (Score 4, Informative) 658

IANAL and all that, but can't they hold someone in contempt indefinitely?

It is only legal to hold them in contempt if they ARE capable of complying with the order.

At such time as the person is physically or mentally incapable of complying with the order, for example, they don't have the information required, or it is not possible for them to perform as requested, they cannot be held in contempt.

Comment Re:Playing King of the Hill (Score 2) 150

The person that spends the most time making edits is the Editor. And there are a lot of self-important busy-bodies that will revert casual edits because they can.

Just revert the reversion, unless they made a valid point. Due to the 3RR rule, you can revert 3 times, unless another author agrees with them, Also, your edit will wind up remaining in place, because the other user is also not allowed to revert more than 3 times, and if they do, you can request intervention.

Comment Re:Who cares? (Score 1) 109

I think most investigations stay secret. The police are not required to disclose the details of specific investigations, unless someone winds up in court charged with a crime.

Why would you expect them to disclose the secret with no net benefit to the public in doing so, After the gov't Paid for this vulnerability, and the value derived from this payment will be completely destroyed if Apple learns the details of it?

Comment There is policing (Score 4, Insightful) 150

This may seem surprising, since there is no policing authority on Wikipedia

Yes there is.... Haven't you ever heard of "New Page Patrol" ? There are such things as Oversighters (History Suppression); The WP Foundation has Police power through Oversighter, and Control of stewards who assign Administrative permissions to some users, who then act as police, Selective Deletion (Destroying/Hiding historical information about past actions), Banned Users, Requests for Discussion, Votes for Deletion, Speedy Page Deletion (eg BLP), and Banned Content

no established top-down means of control. The community is self-governing, relying primarily on social pressure to enforce the established core norms

There are top-down means of control in regards to certain actions (Oversighting).

Comment Re:Who cares? (Score 1) 109

How they behave with this security vulnerability today is how they will behave with the next one tomorrow.

Requirement should be to prosecute someone in court, they have to disseminate all technical details to the public of how they gained access to the phone --- no black boxing, closed, secret, or proprietary technologies or programs allowed.

No full disclosure of the design specs and source code of any exploit software or exploit devices, then no evidence from hacked phone can be used in court.

Comment Re:No, this is double taxation (Score 1) 239

Investment means employment.

No.... employment or hiring employees is not an investment, companies hiring employees is a necessity but a drag and a friction on the economy which lowers production per invested dollar, but often a requirement, and a cost of doing non-passive business in the real world.

Employment one of the largest costs of doing business, so successful companies that build our economy and produce most of the things we require seek to minimize this expense, which maximizes the benefits to society of that company's production output (by keeping costs low for consumers).

There are many ways they minimize it; mostly by leveraging overseas employees, and using machines instead of employees to do as much production work as possible.

The ideal company for society would spend all their $$$ on production and growth, and employ zero homo sapiens.

Also, the cost of their products to end consumers would be close to zero, and their profit margin would be close to 100% of the money they take in.

Comment Re:No, this is double taxation (Score 1) 239

It's called currency because it only functions when moving. When corporations sit on cash, everyone else suffers.

Nonsense..... people only suffer from cash hording when the cash is limited and scarce. In our economic system, the federal reserve bank decides what borrowing rates should be and manufacturers more cash on demand, as much needed to reach targets, whenever interest rates exceed whatever their target number is, therefore, there is an unlimited amount of cash as needed.

The real suffering of the public is caused by low interest rates on savings and inflation. This is a consequence of pumping endless amounts of money in the system to help the big banks make profits.

Why do you think technology companies sit on cash? It's not because there is no motive to make a re-investment. It's because a judicious opportunity does not exist for them to invest that cash; any tax-based motivation is attempting to pressure them into making an otherwise unworthy or reckless investment.

If interest rates were higher, they would find a judicious investment more easily, such as by lending it out, since the interest would be more comparable to potential returns from their business.

Slashdot Top Deals

If bankers can count, how come they have eight windows and only four tellers?

Working...