hahainternet

9 ms·

31.
by hahainternet 11y ago
> 1 - To whom do you suggest the government should be accountable? Other governments and ultimately the citizenry as a whole. > if Apple cannot comply without endangering every iPhone owner, then the other owners of iPhones have a sta
32.
by hahainternet 11y ago
> For example changing the WiFi or Bluetooth MAC is not locked down and effects the UDID. Because the UDID was never intended to be a way to bypass the device encryption it was not designed with anywhere near the same level of care and s
33.
by hahainternet 11y ago
Therefore they have the ability to unlock the phone. I mean I knew people defended Apple here but I didn't think they'd demand logic no longer works to satisfy that.
34.
by hahainternet 11y ago
> Taking the private key from Apple with a warrant, national security letter, subpoena, or other methods is much easier than creating a custom version of iOS. Clearly it is not, otherwise they would have done this. They did not.
35.
by hahainternet 11y ago
> Including breaking down the doors of anyone they texted or called. But not the service provider intentionally denying access to this vital information? What a bizarre twist of logic!
36.
by hahainternet 11y ago
Wouldn't these mechanisms apply to key verification? How exactly can you argue that you can modify data in realtime inside the phone's architecture, but couldn't possibly modify data in realtime inside the phone's archit
37.
by hahainternet 11y ago
> Do you really not understand how precedent works or are you being deliberately obtuse? Please do not insult people on HN. This false dichotomy is offensive to me. > The criminal act being investigated is irrelevant. They want data o
38.
by hahainternet 11y ago
This comment simply makes claims like altering data in transit inside the architecture of the CPU. Yes, if you can do that, then you can flash anything to the phone. When someone shows me that happening, then I'll believe in this techn
39.
by hahainternet 11y ago
> Chances are, this happened at least once over the lifetime of the terrorists ownership of the phone - thus we can at least see who they are communicating with, right? Is that really acceptable to you? Maybe they accidentally screwed up
40.
by hahainternet 11y ago
> The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few No, they don't. We live in nations with individual rights. The US specifically is a nation without acceptable levels of healthcare. The needs of the many clearly do not outweig
41.
by hahainternet 11y ago
> I don't see the point you are trying to make. Somalia is a country where the government are beholden to the citizenry. > I'm simply suggesting that "treating the government as no better than a customer" is probab
42.
by hahainternet 11y ago
> The issue is the precedent that is made That searching the effects of a dead terrorist is acceptable? I really don't find this objectionable in any way whatsoever. > Apple could no longer argue they had to create something to f
43.
by hahainternet 11y ago
> They could get all of the logs of outgoing requests from the cell company and then go to each service provider and demand dumps of data from any accounts that Phone logged into right? The primary service provider being Apple, who opera
44.
by hahainternet 11y ago
> Heck, I don't want them to be able to do it. Why? Having talked to a lot of people who hold this position, the only underlying thought I've been able to discern is that you can't conceive of any time someone else holding
45.
by hahainternet 11y ago
That guarantee until the latest generation was the only thing protecting the hardware. It has never been altered or hacked that I am aware of. Doing so would require modifying the physical construction of the chips on the device. Possible?
46.
by hahainternet 11y ago
> A search warrant doesn't require me to create a new capability that did not exist before. I don't see how that's relevant. If I invent a new kind of lock you've never seen before, you'll have to come up with a
47.
by hahainternet 11y ago
Apple could write code that checks the hardware ID supplied and sign only that version. It's been sufficient to prevent hacking so far and is the major protection relied upon until the latest generation, so I don't think this is a
48.
by hahainternet 11y ago
> The best way to prevent governments from oppressing their citizens is to refuse to create tools that enable oppression. Are search warrants oppressive? Can you distinguish this request from the FBI requesting a safe manufacturer modify
49.
by hahainternet 11y ago
> I, for one, would like to live in a country where the government is a servant, not a master. Would you? Why not Somalia?
50.
by hahainternet 11y ago
It's extremely hard to understand how this could be the case. He has evaded prosecution for rape for years and still has people defending him. It was entirely his own choice to seek refuge inside the embassy and he did so to avoid pros
51.
by hahainternet 11y ago
"it" being "The idea they might shut down a free service with only 10 months notice". If your company relies on Google to this extent, and does not have the staff to fix the issues inside 10 months then you need to recon
52.
by hahainternet 11y ago
> Probably this will still not be enough for Python enemies though. Because it doesn't appear to actually do anything. It's a joke to call this 'static typing'.
53.
by hahainternet 11y ago
> So it sounds like your needs don't align exactly with perl's sigils anyway (and why should they? For different business requirements you'd categorize differently). Indeed but I can write constraints in my function signat
54.
by hahainternet 11y ago
IMHO Project Euler is a good start. There are solutions published in Perl6 to a large number of them.
55.
by hahainternet 11y ago
I resisted replying to Don as I didn't think he presented any actual argument. The "Write two functions" crew haven't thought this through though. Ultimately, the scenario I came across this in was an atomic transaction
56.
by hahainternet 11y ago
It's absolutely worth a try. Please see the fact that there are examples on this very page which are very succinct but hard to do in other languages.
57.
by hahainternet 11y ago
With a language like Perl 6, you can happily use simply @clients or %clients and if you define those correctly, you can explicitly detail the key too.
58.
by hahainternet 11y ago
Really? my %clients vs my @clients Do you name your variables client_list .. client_dictionary? No? Then sigils aren't superfluous.
59.
by hahainternet 11y ago
My apologies. I read it as sarcastically requestioning them.
60.
by hahainternet 11y ago
If I check __iter__ I consume strings too which is what I'm trying to avoid. Both of you have taken the perspective that this distinction is irrelevant but neither of you have a good answer to this case: > multi sub hi($a) { s

More ›