239 posts • joined 13 Jul 2007
Re: Tory-led government's Drip bill?
The answer to that is simple, and two-pronged:
1. Email is held strongly encrypted.
2. Only the user has the key.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE, OR HAVE ACCESS TO, THE DATA, YOU CAN'T HAND IT OVER!
You so arrange things that you CAN'T hand it over in response to ANY order, subpoena, warrant, demand, or threat. You make it physically impossible.
More and more companies are going to have to build this methodology into their systems, until it's pretty universal.
The mealy-mouthed disclaimer that "we will disclose data in response to law enforcement requests", seen on so many sites and services, ENDS. It ends NOW. Enough already!
Re: Please to explain?
I'm not selling anything in Britain; I'm storing emails in Iceland.
Or selling server capacity in New York.
Please to explain why I don't use a British 'warrant' for toilet paper?
If they want to try an MLAT in my own country, let them.
"The planned legislation demands that warrants are served in a variety of ways on a person outside the UK whose company offers a form of telecommunications to Brits."
Please to explain?
How can a British warrant under a British act have any validity or enforceability on a person or body corporate located in, say, Iceland? Surely they would operate under, and be bound exclusively by, Icelandic law?
So what is the point?
I've said it before...
...and I make no apology for saying it again; this kind of service IS the future of the internet.
The attempts to balkanize and carve up the internet - with Google search result filtering in Europe, and 'Cleanfeed' secret censorship in the UK being the two most glaring examples - won't succeed. Customer demand is too strong. Before too long, this kind of service will be the *default* from ISPs in non-US countries. The demand is there; if ISPs don't meet it, services like unblock-us.com will.
Trying to stop or regulate the internet at national borders has a name: I call it 'Canute Syndrome'.
From the link you cite:
"There is currently a rulemaking proceeding that aims to improve the regulations on UAVs. It will take a while; indeed, you shouldn't hope for anything before 2010-2012. "
In other words is waaaaaay out of date.
Since then there's been a court case which proved the FAA's purported rules about UAV operations aren't worth the paper they (aren't) printed on; they don't exist. So as of now there ARE no rules affecting UAV operations in the USA; until the FAA get their arses into gear and go through the notice-and-comment rule making procedure, both amateur and commercial UAV/drone use is legal and unregulated in the USA.
'Chancer', 'wide boy', and 'thieving git' appear not to be on the banned list...
Re: "avoid reputational damage to Goldman Sachs"
There speaks someone who knows little about money.
GS have a pretty damn good reputation for getting it right. They're the only big bank who didn't *need* bailout money in 2008 - but of course the US gov made them take it anyway, because they wanted all the big banks to be in same boat, beholden to them.
Four good letters...
Re: What's the result of...
Not relevant to the phone, but I'm a cinematographer; I have no choice but cross borders with several terabytes of digital cinema data.
As for risk profile, phone falling into unauthorized or unwelcome hands is clearly a high risk; they're very vulnerable to theft - including by less than straightforward phone thieves in the target market for this phone (think corporate espionage, both private and government-sponsored).
Physical access is ALWAYS a risk, and one that can be substantially mitigated very easily by strong whole-disk encryption, with a strong passphrase at boot time - Truecrypt-style. I can't think of a good reason for NOT making that part of the defenses for this phone, but I haven't seen it mentioned in the spec.
So, does it or doesn't it?
What's the result of...
CelleBrite UFED vs. Blackphone?
Can the authorities just slurp your data with physical access?
Or does this version of Android come with secure whole-disk encryption?
That is a necessary default for *anything* purporting to be secure these days.
Re: Google maps? Really?
"both" would be a better option; Google is (at least in theory) always up to date and should have accurate real-time data on traffic density and delays.
If the satnav is internal, it's always available, but needs periodic updates and a source of real-time traffic data...
If anyone would be first with this, Tesla is a logical one to bet on; they ARE in the business of selling the future.
Re: For those who have never seen it...
To know is to die...
" a link appeared to a copy of the 2010 film Edge of Darkness, which was adapted from the British TV series of the same name."
Who in hell would download *that*?!
The original was an absolute masterpiece, possibly the best thing ever filmed for TV.
The first time?
The very first time I set up my *own* connection to the internet, at home?
Mid 1990s. OS/2 Warp.
All preconfigured, it Just Worked out of the box. Remember when IBM was an ISP? Very smooth and well-lubricated, no trouble at all.
OK the headphones were plugged into the laptop, and the laptop was plugged into... what?
What laptop uses a *USB* charger as a *power supply*??
Something here doesn't add up.
"But I want it to be. Glassholes are some of the most abhorrent people on this earth.
It I was an employer I wouldnt employ a Glasshole. Unless I was in the Stockmarket biz or marketing. You know, those areas that produce nothing."
Well I'm a fireman and I'm looking at ways to use the Glass display to show data from thermal imagers to both firefighters working inside, and Chiefs monitoring outside.
You know, useful stuff.
I may be a Glasshole, but with your attitude you resemble a manky armpit mate.
I don't see it as derogatory at all... it's typical British tongue in cheek wordplay.
When I got Glass I blogged about being inducted into the 'Honourable Order of Glassholes'
1. A very rare case where I agree with Scalia; this was a real tortuous stretch. SCOTUS essentially said, it doesn't matter what the law says and if you technically comply with it, if you LOOK like a cable company you ARE a cable company.
2. The answer will be crowdsourcing, not centralising. We need an Uber for the airwaves. Something like sharemyslingbox.com (not a real URL, an illustration of the kind of concept).
3. "There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back." - RAH
There HAS to be some way of undoing the 'kill'. There HAS to be.
The possibilities for mischief, false or erroneous kill requests etc. are legion.
And, what happens the day crackers (or indeed enemy state hackers) get hold of the keys to the kill switch system? How many millions of phones could get 'killed' before they manage to turn the system off?
It needs to be an on/off switch, not a deadly death permanent bricking.
And what's the real subtext here...?
Also gives the networks the ability to brick your phone if you do something they don't like, such as an unauthorized SIM unlock?
The company that tried to bill me $7,000 for three days light to moderate internet use in Iceland four years ago? And insisted the bill was correct, represented the true cost of providing the service, and was perfectly reasonable, a bargain even?
And only backed down (and backed down quickly!) when I threatened them with the law of unconscionable contracts?
Pot? It's Kettle on line one...
It isn't 90% of the internet...
...but the post-Snowden lesson is that it (or something like it) bloody well SHOULD be!
Sounds like telcos and ISPs in Holland should be putting certain strategic bits of infrastructure overseas, out of reach of Dutch law, if they have any interest in protecting privacy of customers.
Re: alternative view courtesy of StateWatch...
Well how did bway.net get their AnonDSL service working?
(I think they've changed ownership and systems a few times since then, so I have to refer you to archive.org - https://web.archive.org/web/20040321130622/http://www.bway.net/bway/dsl/anondsl.html )
Obviously it's not very compatible with static IP addressing, but otherwise... yes you need to manage IP address allocation, but you don't need to keep a long-term log of what you've done!
No-one is mentioning the elephant in the room here; why do ISPs routinely record the association between IP address and account details in any case?
If you're privacy-minded, the surest defence against turning over data, with or without a warrant, is to make a point of *not keeping the data in the first place*. Keeping IP address allocation records should be turned off by default.
My previous, excellent, ISP - bway.net - did that as a matter of policy, and proudly advertised the service as a pro-privacy feature; they called it AnonDSL. Given Snowden etc., it's only a matter of time before more and larger ISPs start doing exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason. The market for privacy IS out there.
I'm extreme, and extremely passionate, when it comes to free speech. Very very little should be banned. But I don't have a problem with criminalising real, specific, and explicit threats of, or exhortations to, violence. "Death to the Jews!" is fine. "Bring plenty gasoline, we're going to burn those Jew bastards tonight - meet here at 11pm" is not.(1)
This one is very close to the line, if not over it. I think a lot will hinge on the interpretation of his so-called 'disclaimer'. I think it likely that the disclaimer may have been very much tongue in cheek, intended to enhance the threats, rather than the reverse.
(1) No antisemitism intended or implied; I just picked a random group who are sometimes targeted by racists for my example.
Re: People are starting to react to surveillance.
I'm a pro. A pro drone with a pro camera rig can easily cost north of $80,000:
- $35k for my Red Dragon camera
- $30k for a Master Prime lens
- $25k for a drone capable of lifting them
You destroy my drone, you better have a very good lawyer and very deep pockets because I'm going to pwn your sorry ass, when you get out of jail. Stupid stupid stupid.
Possibly the ultimate 'Canute Syndrome'; who in hell do the USA think they're kidding, thinking they can regulate the sale of images that weren't even taken on US soil?!
Given the capabilities of other countries in this field, such a law would never survive strict scrutiny under the first amendment; it serves little to no useful purpose.
Re: They don't want much...
Moron managers at LCM?
I happen to know some of the people there. One of their pdp-10s came from my collection. They're extremely high-calbre folks.
You do NOT know what you're talking about, and I suggest you pull your horns in rather sharpish.
Send in a proper big octocopter to retrieve the toy...
Re: I'd be curious to know...
If it's going to be sold widely, yes. Are you aware of any provision in the construction and use regs that would specifically prohibit a car controlled by a computer?
If it's not - if it's a small test fleet - there are special provisions for this. SVA etc.
And if it's imported from overseas, as is very likely, then the approval there is good for temporary use on UK roads. I've moved cars between countries on several occasions. Currently driving a UK-registered car on UK plates & MOT in New Zealand as a temporary import. The regs that apply are those in the country of registration, not the country where it's being temporarily driven.
Re: I'm against it at this time. here's why...
You've clearly never driven in NYC!
Or, Goddess help us, New Jersey!
Oh, and UAVs are perfectly capable of operating entirely autonomously, and frequently do; you program a flight path, the drone executes it, traveling and loitering as programmed, and returns to the spot it took off from. I'm in the movie business, this is fairly common practice for our drones. They CAN also be flown under full manual control of course, but they don't HAVE to be.
I'd be curious to know...
Is there actually anything in current UK law that says that a car must have a human driver? Has anyone bothered to *check*? Much of the law in this area is so old that the possibility wouldn't ever have occurred to anyone, and there may well be nothing in law either allowing or forbidding this. And if the law is silent... qui tacet consentire videtur...
I'm sure it's an offence to operate a vehicle without a license, but try taking a machine to court for that offence. They might try a case against the occupant... but which occupant? The one who happened to say "OK Car, take me to Glasgow"? How to prove who said it, if more than one occupant?
And if the occupant has a license anyway, what charge could be offered? Can't be driving without a license. Failing to maintain control? "I maintained perfect control! I had a computer do it for me! If you think it didn't do a good job of controlling the car and an offence occurred, prove it!"
This could get very interesting :-)
Re: Driverless car
Good point. It'll be 'Ford - powered by Google'
Yes. Good old-fashioned human intel.
The alternative - what we have at present - is far, far too amenable to misuse, however benign the proclaimed intentions, however laudable the alleged purposes.
Intelligence work has to be based on capabilities - what your adversary CAN do to you, not what you think they WANT to do to you. And it's very clear, the security state has become the adversary here, and what they CAN do to ALL of us has gone so far over the line that the line is now a dot on the horizon.
"1984 was a WARNING, not a bloody INSTRUCTION MANUAL!"
"Documents provided by Snowden show that GCHQ particularly prizes the data they get from Sweden..."
I wonder, I just wonder, if this apparently exceptionally close relationship between US spooks and Sweden could have any bearing on the Assange situation?
I don't LIKE the guy, I think he's a prize plonker with an ego the size of a small planet, but his situation and circumstances seem... convenient. Very convenient.
"It will probably take weeks to months before we can find out through IP, servers and back-tracking the electronic footprint."
I thought they sent a text message?
Good luck anyway, if they used a pay-as-you-go phone, bought with cash & topped-up with cash...
There was a case, a few years ago, being brought by Kent Police as I recall, where a prosecution was being attempted under the Obscene Publications Act, for the content of an entirely private online chat: the thinking being, presumably, that the scope of the OPA could be extended to virtually anything IF the participants in the conversation could be construed as 'publishing' to each other (for sufficiently warped and twisted definitions of 'publishing'). I believe El Reg reported on it at the time.
I'd very much like to know what the final score was in that case; that hasn't been reported to my knowledge.
(It may be relevant to the attempt to criminalize 'paedophilic manuals', whatever the hell they turn out to be. Probably virtually anything, IF in the possession of someone the police decide they want to charge with something...)
I'm not surprised about BT being in serious cahoots...
I used to be a senior field guy for a large computer company I won't name (DEC).
I worked on systems in GCHQ. No drama apart from getting searched, and not taking parts offsite, especially hard drives!
I worked on special branch systems; those were built-in to safes in secure rooms at the back of police stations. But no drama.
But when I went to work on a system at one of the... more dodgy bits of the BT facility at Martlesham Heath, they wouldn't even let me anywhere near the server installation; they eventually wheeled it out to reception and had me work on it there.
You ARE Louise Mensch AICMFP
Hah! That's what I said when I first heard about Glass.
Google aren't in the hardware business. It'll be 'Oakley - Powered by Google'.
Re: Good effort...
Yeah within a foot or two of the drone, not of the operator!!
Re: Good effort...
It was all shot on Red Dragon 6K, Canon 28-300mm zoom… didn't need the length, but did need a 'shoot everything' lens; you do NOT want to change lenses in that toxic atmosphere!
More story here: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?111475-Dragonfire-Extreme-Cinematography
…but I got a lot closer to a lot more lava, also in Vanuatu. Marum volcano, no drones :)
Re: Almost certainly a stupid question...
Apparently the Skunk Works think they've cracked it - and when the Skunk Works go public, that means they're pretty damn sure...
"West Virginia lawmaker says cryptocurrency mixed up in illegal activity"
Yeah, and greenbacks aren't??
Goddess give me strength!
I am NOT letting my wife see this. She has enough 'ideas' already!
Am I the only one who read "French youth faces court for illegal drone FIGHT"???
I was thinking this could be an Olympic sport one day...
- Just TWO climate committee MPs contradict IPCC: The two with SCIENCE degrees
- 14 antivirus apps found to have security problems
- Feature Scotland's BIG question: Will independence cost me my broadband?
- Apple winks at parents: C'mon, get your kid a tweaked Macbook Pro
- Driverless car SQUADRONS to hit Britain in 2015