ElBarto

29 ms·

241.
by ElBarto 8y ago
> Do you have a cite for that? The GDPR?
242.
by ElBarto 8y ago
No, I'm not wrong. The GDPR does not say that consent cannot be tied to access. What was 'explained' to me stems from people who haven't read the GDPR and/or who do not understand the terms used.
243.
by ElBarto 8y ago
That's always misunderstood. A company is not obliged to allow access to its free contents if you refuse their terms. End of. This does not put anyone at a detriment. The GDPR does not change that at all. What you quoted refers to spec
244.
by ElBarto 8y ago
It's not illegal. If you don't like their terms you navigate away from their site. They don't have to provide you access to their contents if you refuse their terms.
245.
by ElBarto 8y ago
> Either way, the proof is in the pudding: every hardware pentesting shop will be going after these boards like they're looking for golden tickets. Either we'll get our die shot, or Bloomberg's getting their pants sued off
246.
by ElBarto 8y ago
Assuming the story is true then acknowledging it would be more damaging that denying it (and they may have been directed to deny). Remember also all the denials regarding PRISM. If this is being correctly handled by the intelligence service
247.
by ElBarto 8y ago
In my view Solid is trying to provide a technical solution to a problem that isn't technical. The internet and web are already decentralised technical solutions. But self-hosting is not a feasible solution for people and network effect
248.
by ElBarto 8y ago
Yes saw that and edited.
249.
by ElBarto 8y ago
They complain too much... Apple apparently entirely dropped Supermicro as a supplier over a few weeks when they were planning a large order(source: theregister.co.uk). The ones who should strongly deny such a story, if it is indeed incorrec
250.
by ElBarto 8y ago
You can't just ask for proof for everything. Sometimes you need to read between the lines. You have no proof that the denial is genuine. Either those denials or the story on those spy chips is untrue. Seems more likely to me that the s
251.
by ElBarto 8y ago
Those denials have no value. It seems clear that this is a large scale counter-operation led by the US government and that it has been ongoing for quite some time.
252.
by ElBarto 8y ago
That does not answer the question at all.
253.
by ElBarto 8y ago
How do you work out that probability?
254.
by ElBarto 8y ago
It's a possibility but I think not more likely than the possibility that we are not. If we are, then it pushes back 'reality' one step back but the question of what 'reality' is remains. And that even opens new ques
255.
by ElBarto 8y ago
> Can the Chinese Government be trusted? The US Government can trust the Chinese Government as much as the Chinese Government can trust the US Government. ;) The spy game has been played for 4,000 years...
256.
by ElBarto 8y ago
The problem highlighted in the article is very tricky because verifying a motherboard to that level of details is difficult. As I hinted in another comment I suspect that they had a suspicion and checked those motherboards very, very carefu
257.
by ElBarto 8y ago
I would think that, logically, and as illustrated, "the device wasn't tampered AFTER shipped from manufacturer" means after YOU have shipped it to customers. The anti-tampering system is to prevent modifications in the field.
258.
by ElBarto 8y ago
The point is that if the devices are sensitive with compliance requirements then you must be able to verify them irrespective of who you hired to manufacture them. You cannot just trust the word of a contractor on this because it's you
259.
by ElBarto 8y ago
I think what is described is an issue with process. If the device is sealed with an anti-tampering system then the contents must be checked by a trusted entity before being sealed. Trying to guess the contents of a box that you cannot open
260.
by ElBarto 8y ago
How common is it for a seemingly standard security audit to inspect motherboards with such level of detail or at all? They likely needed to have the exact official schematic of the motherboard to compare every single detail of the hardware
261.
by ElBarto 8y ago
I am French... there is no need to you to be rude and disrespectful, and borderline racist. Boy, we are on Reddit...
262.
by ElBarto 8y ago
I am not saying that the law is pointless because that there are exceptions. This law is useless because schools can adequately set their own rules. I am countering your argument that this law is useful because it prevents arguments in scho
263.
by ElBarto 8y ago
Yes, schools can set their own rules, within the law. Like everywhere. Schools were perfectly able to restrict use of smartphones before that law. In fact, here is a description of schools' internal rules by the French government itsel
264.
by ElBarto 8y ago
The question is why waste Parliament's time on something that can adequately be dealt with at school level. This seems like a typical French statist approach...
265.
by ElBarto 8y ago
If a school needs a national law to tell children not to use smartphones in class then I'm thinking that the problem isn't smartphones...
266.
by ElBarto 8y ago
You're saying that this law is useless, then. Having checked it, it allows exceptions (e.g. teaching purposes or for disabled pupils) which schools are free to decide on and set in their own rules. The 'issue' of debating sch
267.
by ElBarto 8y ago
That makes no sense at all. The fact that schools are state schools does not imply that headteachers cannot set some rules. Especially this new law does allow exceptions which schools can set in their own rules. The fact that a law was pass
268.
by ElBarto 8y ago
I fail to understand why a national law was necessary. Let schools set and enforce their own policies. It seems to me that the main result of having an actual legal ban is that teachers are now prevented from using smartphones in class for
269.
by ElBarto 8y ago
Makes no difference at all.
270.
by ElBarto 8y ago
Yes, I meant the American West, which was opened by the railways.

More ›