Mass. Supreme Court Says Defendant Can Be Compelled To Decrypt Data
You can only destroy the key if it is outside the police control.
What you do is to put half the key on the internet and store half locally password protected on the encrypted drive (so both parts are needed to decrypt). To decrypt you enter the local password and the DNS or IP address of the second half. The second half could even be in plaintext even since it's purpose is to make the other key half useless not to protect the data.
Because the police don't know about this internet site they can't make a backup, so you can have it self destruct after a certain amount of time. If you can hold out for 7 days or a month or whatever then it won't matter if they have write blockers and clones, they will be undecryptable. Or better yet, since you're entering the internet address of the key you can give them one that does expire (a dummy cloud instance so you can log in and 'prove' the self-destruct mechanism), but you also posted the key to some random forum. Without knowing what forum and account there's no way to find the key, but if you actually get out then eventually and with enough TOR you can retrieve the key and get your data back.
Of course really you'll just spend the rest of your life in jail for contempt even if you can prove a self-destruct mechanism...
Data Mining Shows How Down-Voting Leads To Vicious Circle of Negative Feedback
If you mod a troll post down to -100 or more like on reddit, that means 100 people read the post and that is a huge boost to trolls that want attention.
On the other hand, if you have no means to downvote like the majority of hacker news, then it rewards cliches that upvote their own content even though it sucks and you get stupid "Hello World... in Go" posts every day.
Judge Overrules Samsung Objection To Jury Instructional Video
These are shown for about 5 seconds of a 20 minute instructional video, and none of them even show an Apple logo. Later in the video it shows people using an Apple laptop to do work, not as an example of a patented technology.
This is such a tea pot tempest. It'd be silly to not use this video.
Judge OKs Class Action Suit Against Apple For E-Book Price Fixing
Unlike CDs, Apple only set a *maximum* price. The eBook publishers were free to set any price they wanted, even $1 a book. The reason prices went up to that maximum is because eBooks were more valuable than the wholesale or lower price Amazon was selling them for.
Tesla Model S Caught Fire While Parked and Unplugged
Oh, it gets better. He turned down financial assistence from Tesla including covering the car, and the costs of the garage burning.
Maybe he didn't feel like writing the required fanboy letter to Elon Musk about how grateful he was that the car spontaneously caught fire after he parked it instead of while he was driving, like we all know gasoline cars are wont to do.
The Whole Story Behind Low AP CS Exam Stats
People are different, but we don't know exactly the reasons how they are different or why, so all races and genders and backgrounds being represented according to their percent of the population is the most fair (not even 50-50, for gender it would be 48-52). The problem is the selective approach taken to this to only equal things out for specific non-white male groups.
If we want to solve this society should apply the same approach to everybody, proportional to their apparent disadvantage, so the black and hispanic men would get more help in CS than women since blacks and hispanics are much more underrepresented. In the same way, all men would get help in nursing and teaching. And the white kid that grows up in poor Appalachia wouldn't get the raw deal just for being born in poor rural conditions.
Institutionally helping equally for every disadvantaged person is this is the only fair solution. Anything that is "for women" or "for blacks" or any other specific group is inherently unfair right from the start.
Ford Will Demo Solar-Charged Car At CES
Having solar panels on the car means that the car can generate enough electricity to overcome battery self-discharge. So if you leave it parked somewhere, like say the airport, for a couple weeks or even months you don't come back to an dead car.
Tesla draws about 50w all the time. A car without Tesla's poor standby electronics could even get a tiny bit of charge over time from the roof panels.
NSA Says It Foiled Plot To Destroy US Economy Through Malware
A hosed machine has to be replaced... and the replacements are made in China... and the replacements can have other flaws built in. So this would be a total win for China as long as they can do it anonymously and not get the blame for it.
US Intelligence Chief Defends Attempts To Break Tor
More folks die of heart disease every year than over fifty 9/11's... Think for a second about the lengths we've got to because of the pathetic terrorist attacks
If you are going to use that logic then you must be assuming that 9/11 is the worst that terrorists might do, which is patently false. How many would die if Ebola or even maliciously bred bird flu were released in DC? How many would die if a fission bomb were smuggled into a city? Do you really think breeding a super virus can be done by a couple researchers in a lab with some ferrets, but it's impossible that terrorists could?
Your argument that says that terrorists can only ever do as much damage as they have done in the past is just completely flawed. It's irrational thinking.
Why iOS 7 Is Making Some Users Feel 'Sick'
The reaction I've seen in both of these forums is so extreme it's actually kind of terrifying. It's so far outside of my realm of understanding that it is literally giving me the shakes
I get seasick reading in a moving car... so I don't read in a moving car.
These transitions don't happen except by user input... so just don't look at the screen when you do something that causes these transitions.
Is it because most people have never experienced debilitating motion sickness and thus cannot believe it's real? I don't know, and that's what spooks me.
The reaction is so disparaging and heartless because the people with the problem, even if real, are massive whiners.
"I now have to close my eyes or cover the screen during transitions, which is ridiculous," she told The Guardian
These people have an easy solution and it is really just pure whining. It's first world problem. These complaining are histrionics, like your "literally giving me the shakes" is.
You know what makes me mad? Those people having so little sympathy for the blind, deaf, paralyzed, or others with *real* problems to overcome that they think their complaints are anywhere nearly on the same level.
Can Even Apple Make a Watch Insanely Smart?
Watches aren't flexible. Why would you think flexible display is important? The only way a flexible display could matter is if it unfolds to make a larger display than the watch face... but that's not going to happen.
The key feature will be the display though. An e-ink display that doesn't flash for instance (can change single pixels without having to refresh whole areas). An always-on display that takes next to no power is the key feature for a smart watch. Combine that with something useful like a always-on heart rate or blood pressure monitor would finish it.
Google Chrome 29 Is Out: Omnibox Suggestions, Profile Resetting
I do not trust google not to load it with spyware or some "legitimate" excuse to constantly call home/checkin/spy on me.
You'll get a lot of replies saying "but they *don't* do that" or "check the source" or "use chromium". Even if it is true that Google *does* nothing bad with Chrome, currently, what do you think they will do when they hire too many people and need to raise more money? Or once there are no other browsers but Chrome?
At some point Google will reach a balance of income and spending because too many people will get fat raises and inefficiency will creep in, and any corporation is going to favor screwing over users/customers before giving themselves a haircut. If they own the browser then they're going to do things with it that Google fans right now think are unimaginable.
Chrome's Insane Password Security Strategy
If your machine is ChromeOS then it has a secure bootloader and doesn't have any way to access the actual unix system except through Chrome, so there is no official way to access the passwords directly. But Chrome simply hands your passwords over and anybody using the computer unsupervised for 10 seconds can see all your passwords and take a photo of them to use later on. Just going to the bathroom while somebody is using your computer and all your saved passwords are compromised. A user would have to root ChromeOS in order to do this without Chrome's help, which is an extremely high bar.
The only difference between ChromeOS and desktop Chrome is that the bar to stealing protected passwords is lower than rooting the OS -- but the bar still exists and it is higher than most people can reach, so it is still mostly effective at protecting the passwords.
If Google feels that a master password is annoying and useless because people won't use it then the proper solution is to *never show the saved password*. Except then if some site changed their forms a lot then you couldn't log in unless you remembered the password, but so what? Use the site's password recovery mechanism.
The simple fact of the matter is that Google purposely made an insecure system to make the browser more convenient, and allows no option for people that want to choose security over convenience. This is Google's vision of the future internet: whatever they decide is your only option. That's the real reason why this teapot has a tempest in it... if Google gets what it wants and the only browser is Chrome, on ChromeOS, what then? Sure Chrome has poor security for the passwords, but the real problem here is Google's explanation which is "we decided to do it this way, and that's final".
What Keeps You On (or Off) Windows in 2013?
2. Windows still doesn't have proper package management. Which leads to...
Ironically this is the main reason why I use Windows, because it doesn't have a "proper" package manager. I can install an 8 year old copy of winamp alongside the newest iTunes and everything just works. You can't do this with a "proper" package manager like any of the ones for Linux because there will be 100s of conflicts.
Also due to this I get to decide when I want a completely new interface foisted on me. If I don't want Windows 8 I can continue using Windows 7 with almost any software for years. You just can't do that with the "proper" package managers in Linux, at least not without a ton of work.
Futurama Cancelled (Again)
Futurama has a cast of likable characters, great voice actors, is a cartoon, and it is set in the future in space so any story you can think of can be told. The problem with the Simpsons is the setting; once you explore every possibly lame alleyway and monorail, and every two-bit character in Springfield what's left? Shelbyville? Who cares?
That you can tell any story and are only limited by the writer's imagination is what made Star Trek, Dr. Who, and others such great programs. But even those had the problem of being live action, where you can only tell stories that can be filmed or CG'd. Futurama on the other hand has everything going for it and it shouldn't, and can't be allowed to die just due to some corporate politics.
Ask Slashdot: Simplifying Encryption and Backup?
This is a key point, that encryption only protects data when the encrypted part is off-line. If you get a malware and your My Financial Data volume is mounted then the malware can access it. And if you get a malware and then *ever again* pay your bills then it can just wait until that encrypted volume is mounted and then steal the data.
Encrypted drives only protect against theft. Encrypted volumes protect against 'temporary theft' like a roommate poking around while you're taking a shower and logged in. That's it... they aren't a security solution themselves.
To actually secure data you have to use encryption to protect from theft, but also never mix different levels of protection. This basically means using a separate computer entirely for your banking, or however you want to assign the security say one system for high risk activities like gaming and porn and another for everything else. Ideally you don't share data between zones, but if you do it's always the higher protection one that accesses the lower one (banking computer mounts gaming computer shared folder, never the other way). Also any zones that overlap are the same; if you have a gaming system and a porn system with the same password, they might as well be the same computer.
Ask Slashdot: Simplifying Encryption and Backup?
It isn't a good explanation at all, it's just a claim with no facts to back it up.
Drives are encrypted using the algorithm in counter mode so that they are random access and parallel. That means every block is independent, so any simple corruption only affects the corrupted parts. The only way you could lose the whole container is if you have insertions/deletions in the data, which will corrupt a whole plain filesystem container as well (but since it isn't encrypted you could possibly repair that).
Google Threatens French Media Ban
People don't use google because they know you write great articles. They use google because they are looking for something.
What you described is a middle-man. Google is a middle-man between users and authors. A middle-man pays the source and charges more than they paid. They provide some value-add like "search".
But that's not how Google works. They take the content for free then charge money for it (indirectly through advertising), giving nothing back to the source. They're a middle-man that never pays their suppliers.
People say that if Google had to actually pay for content they wouldn't make any money. That's not true at all. They just wouldn't make as much, but there would still be profit. Just as the net effect of advertisers competing is to raise the price of ads the net effect of content people competing would be to lower the price they charge. Creators that have really valuable content could get a larger price from Google, whereas junk sites or blogs would change less to get more visitors. But it wouldn't be zero universally, highway robbery, like it is now.
Paying newspapers and investigative journalism is *more important* to society than Google employees getting a free lunch.
Google Developer Testifies That Java Memo Was Misinterpreted
Oracle is trying to use the e-mail to prove
There are literally shittons of emails talking about Google needing a license, trying to get a license, not doing clean-room because they were confident they would get a license, etc. To show it wasn't clean-room Oracle doesn't even have to show anything was copied, Google up and said it. 'Should we do this clean-room?' 'No, it'll be fine'.
Google now needs to prove to a jury not just that they didn't actually need a license, but also that all their top execs and engineers were wrong. If say in a police interrogation you admit to doing the crime a jury will still convict you even if there is absolute proof that you didn't do it. Human nature says if you admitted to it then you did it, so Google has a huge uphill battle to climb here with these emails. At this point they may be already planning the appeal, where the actual law matters.
Google-Funded Study Knocks Firefox Security
Both IE and Chrome offer sandboxing, JIT hardening and ways to make vulnerable plug-ins less easy to exploit and gain access to system. Firefox offers none of these.
On the other hand only Firefox is checked with static analysis tools before released, meaning that there are very, very few actual flaws in the browser (IE might be, Chrome certainly isn't). For instance when Chrome added a very basic memory checker to their test servers they caught dozens of bugs -- and that's just from the most basic of runtime checks. When people have run their commercial static analyzers on Chrome they've found several hundreds of potential flaws.
What does this mean in practice? The inner sandboxed code in Chrome is wide open to attack. They aren't even using serious methods to try to protect that code and are instead relying completely on the sandbox. This is the reason why you'll get random crashes in Chrome, and why they purposely try to keep you from using too many tabs (if a process is rendering more than one tab then when it crashes more of your tabs have to reload). On the flip side, this is the reason why in a years of running Firefox nightly it has never crashed once. Yes, there are errors in Firefox, but they are complex ones not the simple mistakes that crash Chrome left and right.
Personally I've never had a malware in dozens of years, so browser stability matters a whole lot more to me than security. A sandbox would be nice, but one that is relied on and causes random page crashes is worse than not having one but having far fewer crashes.