tenly
About
- Username
- tenly
- Joined
- Visits
- 19
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 258
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 710
Reactions
-
Netflix admits to throttling video on AT&T & Verizon, says it was to protect viewers
Both are guilty. Agreed.sog35 said:Both are guilty.
Netflix for not informing customers what they are doing. This is like McDonalds giving you only one beef patty in your BigMac because they are trying to 'protect' their customers from heart disease. Give me a break. Netlfix throttled streaming because it SAVED THEM MONEY. PERIOD.
AT&T and Verizon are guilty for charging ridiculous penalties for going over your cap. Pure evil. There should be a law if companies charge massive fines for OVERUSE the customer should get massive refunds for UNDER USE.
Solution? Get T-mobile.
Netflix should have made people aware they were doing this and given them an option to disable the throttling - like they are about to do now. But throttling didn't save them any money. They don't pay for the bandwidth that they use to transfer video to your device - you do.
And for all the people complaining that NetFlix didn't deliver what you paid for - they only throttled over 2 of the mobile networks - if you used Netflix while on Wi-Fi or from your TV, Computer, DVD or game system - using your home internet - you did get exactly what they advertised.
I think that the number of people that watch Netflix EXCLUSIVELY using 3G/LTE data AND that NOTICED they were receiving a lower quality image is dwarfed by the number of people that Netflix saved from nasty AT&T overages. If you did use Netflix exclusively over AT&T or Verizon LTE AND you noticed a difference in quality - you have a right to be upset - and I hope that you call Netflix and have them give you a free month - especially because there aren't very many of you.
This policy helped far more people than it hurt - but having said that - Netflix was wrong in not announcing that it would be throttling on these 2 networks - but I am soooo glad that they kept large amounts of overage money out of AT&T coffers!!!
-
Eddy Cue says FBI could force Apple to secretly activate iPhone camera, microphone if precedent is
I'm disgusted by the fear-mongering on both sides of this argument. I really need to stop reading the comments on these FBI vs Apple articles. Doing so gives me heartburn!
For example - this article implies that *IF* the government is successful here, then one day they *may* have the ability to secretly turn on your camera and microphone. That's a true statement - but it's misleading in that it implies that if Apple wins this fight, it protects us from the FBI directly accessing our cameras in the future.
In reality, they are not really related at all. The FBI will go after the camera and microphone access in the future regardless of what happens here. Win or lose in this particular case doesn't mean much as far as the future is concerned. This is one of the first battles in what will be a very long war. A loss will hardly slow down the FBI. They'll be back - again and again - trying different angles - trying the same angles in different courts. Other countries will definitely join in making demands of their own. Settle in folks. This privacy and security issue is one that will be here for a very, VERY long time.
-
Apple acknowledges 'Error 53' glitch, says it's part of Touch ID security [u]
That's not necessarily true. Intentionally implemented or not - if it is not acting as it was intended to, it can be considered a glitch. From what I gather, the "error" might be firing more often than intended and in situations where it was not necessarily meant to. Bricking the phone when it does occur may also be a more drastic measure than was intended when the feature was intentionally implemented - only Apple knows for sure. Sorry to shatter your black and white world by introducing logic and reality.DCJ0001 said:
This security feature was intentionally implemented.AppleInsider said:Apple acknowledges 'Error 53' glitch, says it's part of Touch ID security"
Therefore, it is not a glitch. -
House committee invites Apple CEO Tim Cook, FBI Director James Comey to discuss encryption
I started off being 100% behind Apple
on this issue, but the longer this conversation goes on, the more clearly I'm able to see both sides.
From what I understand, it is within the governments authority "in some cases", with the proper warrants - to search and seize all of the property of an individual. But to properly debate the issue, we should probably separate the issue itself from this one specific case - since it just complicates things.
So - assuming a situation arises (because it will) in which the FBI does have a justified reason and a legitimate warrant to search the contents of an individual's smart phone. How is this different conceptually from a warrant to search someone's home or to place wiretaps on their phones? These practices have been occurring for decades and they have been able to compel the phone company into creating a mechanism for them to do so. So - as much as we all despise the idea of it - what makes it significantly different with Apple and smartphones? Why can't Apple be court-ordered to provide access? (Off topic, but what do Microsof, Symantec and other full-disk encryption providers do to comply in the PC World?)
If they were asking for hooks to be built into iOS that would allow them to pull data remotely off of a smartphone, that would be completely unacceptable for many reasons - but especially because those hooks would always be there for hackers, thieves and foreign governments to attack and leverage.
But - if we resign ourselves to the fact that the government can and will legislate a requirement to provide some type of assistance - what kind of system could they create that would protect individuals from hackers and foreign governments while still complying with a legal requirement to help law enforcement agencies?
To that end - unless somebody can point out a serious flaw with the approach - I'm thinking I could probably live with something like this:
1. Apple creates a completely new bootable image - (not a customized version of iOS ). The OS would be extremly minimal in its capabilities - no networking, no Bluetooth, no nothing really.
2. The only thing this bootable image could/would do is to ignore the auto-wipe after 10 bad attempts rule and run a brute force attack on the password/passcode. I read that a 4 digit passcode could be cracked in about 30 min. ( a "good", long password/passphrase that has a mix of letters, numbers, special chars and avoids use of words in the dictionary could take many years to crack.)
3. The software described above would only boot-up if a valid hardware key fob with a signed certificate (that could be revoked) was plugged into the lightning port.
4. The key fob would be "configured" for the specific target device by downloading a certificate from Apple and copying it to the key fob. Each individual iOS device would require its own unique certificate.
5. After the passcode is cracked, the law enforcement agency would be able to reboot the device into off the shelf iOS and unlock it with the passcode.
6. Apple would be reimbursed for the cost of creating this process and maintaining it. I think a fair hourly rate for each employee required to work on it would be the same rate the government approved for the court-appointed monitor in the e-books incident. It's obvious they think that rate is reasonable for a specialized consultant!
The approach has the following advantages. It would:
1. Provide oversight by Apple since a certificate would need to be generated by them for the specific device named in the warrant. Certificates would not be issued without the presentation of a valid warrant.
2. Not require any updates to iOS itself.
3. Require that law enforcement have physical possession of the device. (No remote attacks possible)
4. Enable us to keep our devices secure by choosing a "good" passphrase.
5. Only work on one device at a time
6. Not be possible for hackers to compromise
7. Require both a certificate AND a custom key fob (2 factor authentication)
The issues about whether the government has the "right" to do this or not and the preservation of the constitutional rights is one for the courts. I'm glad that Apple is standing up for our rights, but there is only so much that they, as a corporation can and should do. If actual laws are passed - Apple will be forced to comply with those laws. Let's hope that they find a way to do so that continues to protect our rights and ensures that our data remains secure. -
US Attorney General Loretta Lynch talks iPhone encryption case with Stephen Colbert
[quote]First of all, we're not asking for a backdoor, nor are we asking anyone to turn anything on to spy on anyone," Lynch said. "We're asking them to do is do what their customer wants. The real owner of the phone is the county, the employer of one of the terrorists who's now dead.[/quote]
The owner of the iPhone itself may be the county - but the owner of the data on it belongs to the person who protected it with a passcode - not the county. Just because you buy or otherwise obtain a used iPhone, you do not become the owner of any data that was left on it.
Hey - here's an unrelated question. I have an iPhone protected by the Activation Lock feature. Nobody has my Apple ID password. What happens if I die unexpectedly? If I bequeath the phone to my son - how will he be able to get past the Activation Lock in order to set it up with his Apple ID? Will Apple disable the Activation Lock upon presentation of a death certificate?
-
FBI contacted Apple, received data related to San Bernardino case 3 days after shooting
Do you know how to program? I've got two decades under my belt - and what I described *would* in fact disable the booby trap with a 1 byte change to the source code. Beyond that, the code would have to be recompiled, signed and tested of course but such a small change doesn't require the full regression testing that a new version of iOS would require.Urei1620 said:
Is this a discussion about grammar? If so,then you should read your own posts before posting. You are misspelling words and have duplicates.tenly said:This article is kind of sloppy. Was it written in a hurry? There are several grammatical mistakes. There are also inaccuracies and lots of speculation and opinion that is presented as fact.
This issue is difficult enough to discuss without all that. People are arguing with emotion instead of fact and many people act like they've never heard of the constitution.
[quote]
Investigators have been unsuccessful in their attempts to break into Farook's iPhone 5c, which is protected by a strong encryption method designed to thwart brute-force attacks. [/quote]
My understanding is that the phone in question is only protected by a 4-digit passcode. A brute force attack would take half an hour or less to find the right passcode whereas a well chosen passphrase could take hundreds or thousands of years to crack. A four digit passcode is hardly a component of a strong encryption method. The thing that makes it difficult to crack in this case is the auto-wipe feature which wipes the phone after 10 incorrect password attempts. While that's part of the security model in place - it's not part of the "encryption method" and like it or not, I think the government would be able to declare it illegal and force Apple to remove it - not the encryption - just the booby trap which once triggered - destroys evidence (which is already illegal). If the government chose to pursue the auto-wipe in isolation - I think they'd be able to compel Apple to remove it from this particular phone (not all phones) without Apple having any grounds to object. If this ability were to "get out", it wouldn't compromise Apples encryption - but it would force us all to use passwords or passphrases to ensure our data remains private from governments and hackers alike. 4-digit codes would no longer offer any real security. This would acutely completely solve the problem for this "one phone" however, it doesn't set a useful precedent and would be useless against phones using proper passwords which is why (I presume) they are not going this route. But by ignoring this approach which would solve their problem for "this one phone", they are proving that their intentions do not end with "this one phone" as they have stated publicly.
[quote]
To circumvent this particular security layer Apple would need to write a new, compromised version of its iOS operating system, sign the code and install it on the device. But Apple is refusing to comply, citing an overreach of federal authority and potential First Amendment rights implications. [/quote]
This, I believe is speculation. If all they wanted to do is to disable the auto-wipe booby trap - they wouldn't have to touch the operating system. All Apple would have to do is take the existing firmware - find the line that adds 1 to the "incorrect password counter" and change the formula so that it adds "0" instead of "1". Then, they would just have to replace/update the existing firmware with the 1-byte tweak and give the phone back to the FBI. They could pay a clerk to start entering passcodes with 0-0-0-0 and incrementing by 1 until they find the code that unlocks the phone. Shouldn't take any longer than a couple of days I would think. And even if (when) the FBI lost control of this "revised firmware" - it would quickly become completely useless as everybody concerned with pricacy (which should be all of us) would stop using 4-digit codes and begin using secure passphrases. Apple could even help speed up this process by eliminating 4 digit passcodes ame forcing users to choose something secure.
In any case - speculating that a new, compromised OS would have to be created seems like fear-mongering. That is certainly one-possibility - but an extremely unlikely one. There are other ways that Apple could comply with a law requiring them to help - if such a law is indeed created that passes all constitutional challenges.
Chang of topic.
On many of these recent threads, there are many people who are arguing about what Apple should or shouldn't do in response to the demands of the FBI. These are useless debates. It's clear what Apple should be doing - and it appears that they are doing exactly that. Apple is a private company, responsible to its shareholders. They don't have a choice. They must do what is in the best interest of the company and its shareholders. Tim Cook is not the owner of the business and cannot choose to ignore a law, risking punishment simply because he disagrees with it. If it is in the best interest of Apple to do business in the USA, Apple must comply with their laws. If the law doesn't seem right - they can (and should) challenge it all the way to the Supreme Court - but - when the dust settles and the final ruling is made - Apple must (and Apple will) comply with the law. In this case - that is exactly what is happening. It would be irresponsible - and not in the best interest of Apple, its shareholders - and all of us - for Apple to not challenge the existing demands, so they can and will fight this with all legal options open to them. When they run out of legal options to refuse - they will comply with any law that comes out of this. They have to.
I dont want to give up my privacy and I am happy that Apple is challenging the FBI. I hope they win - but the debates on these forums are useless if they ignore the constitution, if they ignore reality and if they ignore reality.
I always laugh at people who have never done software development/programming. Simpletons like you think that what the courts are asking Apple to do is a one-line code change. I am actually surprised that Apple has estimated up to 4 weeks of work. I would have thought that this could take months. It is not only the software development, but all the testing involved that takes lots of time. It is tricky. You do not want to brick the target iPhone.
The fact is that this court order is an overreach of government powers. This is no longer about Apple 's willingness to help. Apple has always been expeditious in responding to warrants. However, when Apple has to pull a considerable amount of resources to develop a product that undermines its own product by court order, it is no longer reasonable.
I do not know how you can write "I dont want to give up my privacy and I am happy that Apple is challenging the FBI. I hope they win" when everything you have written shows that your position is quite the opposite.
There could be many reasons why Apple is quoting 4-weeks or more - most likely though is the fact that their plan would be to do something different than what I suggested - because the FBI is asking for something different than what I suggested. It could be many things - perhaps a self-destruct (I hope) or code to limit it to work only on the 1 device which is also reasonable.
As for the grammatical errors and double words in my posts, they're mostly a result of trying to compose the measure on my iPhone and fighting with auto-correct. I often re-read and correct after I post and always find errors. This time I didn't have time to - but my errors are completely irrelevant to my comment. Articles posted my journalists are (and should be) held to a higher standard than we who comment on them. Mikey's articles rarely have these errors which is why I speculated that this one may have been composed hastily.
You seem to have a problem with comprehension as you obviously didn't understand much of what I wrote. You are a good example of what I meant by people who ignore reality and are therefore unable to contribute anything of value to the discussion. If you could "comprehend", you'd see that I clearly stated (many times) how privacy and security could/would be preserved. We don't live in a world of black and white - but you don't seem to understand that. You apparently lash out at anything you don't understand. We are both on Apples side and we both want to preserve our rights to privacy - but when I pointed out that there is a small part of the overall issue that the FBI *might* be able to "win" based on existing legislation - you stopped listening.
You didn't contradict any of my points with reasons why that would be bad - or why it wouldn't apply the way I think it would, or anything else. You added no value to the discussion. You just called me names and picked on my typos. Not very mature. Not very open minded. No signs of any kind of intelligence from you. Grow up.
