4 ms·

Note that the cost of each device includes "the rights to all the books loaded on it," so this is more like a civilian e-reader with a lot of content on it than

by dmckeon 12y ago

Note that the cost of each device includes "the rights to all the books loaded on it," so this is more like a civilian e-reader with a lot of content on it than just an empty $3k Kindle or equivalent. Still, I wonder how many of the titles were free, or nearly so, and what kind of price break one could get on 100's of titles. For those wondering: why not a Kindle/Android/etc.? - same reason you can't bring a Furby toy into a secured area - it contains a recording device!

PhasmaFelis 12y ago
> same reason you can't bring a Furby toy into a secured area - it contains a recording device! Well, technically speaking, a Furby doesn't contain a recording device at all. But the important thing is that it might. It doesn't, but it might! Can America take that risk?
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  Your code contains an eval($_GET['foo']);. Technically speaking, your UI is doing nothing bad, but the important thing is that it might. Can your company take that risk? Seriously, it's not worth calling something a secured area if you ignore the most obvious attack vectors. Banning Furbies is a reasonable action.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    Banning furbies because they "learn and repeat words" is a stupid reason, because they had an inbuilt list of about 100 English words that they could "learn". Thus, you could talk state secrets to it all day every day for a year and all it would learn would be its internal list of words. Having said that banning furbies is probably a good way to remind people about recording devices and banning furbies was probably a sensible thing to do. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/254094.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/254094.stm
  - PhasmaFelis 12y ago
    I don't know what that code sample means. General-purpose computers are capable of doing anything if the right (wrong) code is executed, so it makes sense to be paranoid about them even if you believe the code you put on them is safe. A Furby is not a general-purpose computer and does not contain a recording device. It is no more capable of recording conversations than a plastic spork is. I'm sure someone could open a Furby up and install a recording device, but at that point you've just committed to banning all physical objects from secure government installations.
- DrStalker 12y ago
  The way they were originally marketing indicated they learned from the people playing with them, which means they had some way of observing things and recording information about what they saw. I think it was later worked out they did no such thing, but by that time they were already banned from secure installations.

by dmckeon 12y ago

PhasmaFelis 12y ago

> same reason you can't bring a Furby toy into a secured area - it contains a recording device! Well, technically speaking, a Furby doesn't contain a recording device at all. But the important thing is that it might. It doesn't, but it might! Can America take that risk?

TeMPOraL 12y ago
Your code contains an eval($_GET['foo']);. Technically speaking, your UI is doing nothing bad, but the important thing is that it might. Can your company take that risk? Seriously, it's not worth calling something a secured area if you ignore the most obvious attack vectors. Banning Furbies is a reasonable action.
- DanBC 12y ago
  Banning furbies because they "learn and repeat words" is a stupid reason, because they had an inbuilt list of about 100 English words that they could "learn". Thus, you could talk state secrets to it all day every day for a year and all it would learn would be its internal list of words. Having said that banning furbies is probably a good way to remind people about recording devices and banning furbies was probably a sensible thing to do. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/254094.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/254094.stm
- PhasmaFelis 12y ago
  I don't know what that code sample means. General-purpose computers are capable of doing anything if the right (wrong) code is executed, so it makes sense to be paranoid about them even if you believe the code you put on them is safe. A Furby is not a general-purpose computer and does not contain a recording device. It is no more capable of recording conversations than a plastic spork is. I'm sure someone could open a Furby up and install a recording device, but at that point you've just committed to banning all physical objects from secure government installations.
DrStalker 12y ago
The way they were originally marketing indicated they learned from the people playing with them, which means they had some way of observing things and recording information about what they saw. I think it was later worked out they did no such thing, but by that time they were already banned from secure installations.