josefonseca

It was just an example how you could detach the secret and the device made by Apple. I'm sure there are better ideas for that. The way this is configured now Apple can decrypt any phone, which voids the argument made in the OP. But I can understand why this will be the unpopular opinion here.

> Apple doesn't use scrypt. Their approach is to add a 256-bit device-unique secret key called a UID to the mix, and to store that key in hardware where it's hard to extract from the phone. Apple claims that it does not record these keys nor can it access them.

Technically, this is where it breaks down. As in "Trust me I don't store the keys."

If that hypothesis is true(they don't store these keys), then they'll have a hard time breaking your encryption indeed. But you must trust Apple at that point.

If there was a way to buy an anonymously replaceable chip with this cryptographic key in it and replace it on the phone like a SIM, then we'd be much closer to stating "Apple can't decrypt your phone".

I did that years ago as well. Soon as I read somewhere that Stallman meant Emacs to be his only shell and do everything in it(?), this was my first thought.

You're right. I am holding it in my hand now and it seems like a generic model. Below it says "for use with information technology equipment".

This charger came out of a brand new iPhone 5S box purchased in an Apple store in the USA.

Apple then shipped a lot of generic low quality chargers? Can anyone else please check theirs? This was purchased in late June 2014.

Also found this: http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/07/25/apple-warns-chines...

Mine definitely looks like a generic one cautioned by that article.

Sure, but this one came out of the Apple box, purchased in an Apple store in the USA

Most of the awesome software running the WWW is running in tightly sealed compartments, hidden away from our sight.

Imagine being able to see Google's search engine source code. That'd be truly something.

Unfortunately market forces are still pretty much in control of much of the world's most interesting software.

> Maybe all the time I spend looking for better ways to do things is keeping me from, well, doing things.

Eureka!

People are complicating their lives just to decomplicate later. It's a vicious cycle designed to keep the market flowing. Needs are created in real time, we don't even know why we need certain things any more. We live under the anxiety created by the excess of excess.

With 99% of the so called "life hacks", we're just trying to eliminate a problem that we created by another "life hack". Oh a nice trick to keep the iPhone doing X? Cool! Why did I need X in the first place again??? I don't remember. And the iPhone...why did I buy it? I just play a silly game and use the contacts list most of the time.

There is a:

99% chance you don't need your email available 24x7

99% chance you don't need a new car

99% chance you don't need a cell phone turned on 24x7

99% chance that 99% of the shit ton of information you gather daily will be thrown out of your brain in just a few weeks

99% chance you don't need a stupid GPS guiding what you do, where you drive

99.99% chance you don't really need a new iPad, iThis, iThat, HTC that, whatever

99% chance you don't need the extra U$ 1000 on your sallary

99% chance you didn't need to be tweeting or checking your email while there was a nice person sitting next to you while you waited at the airport

99% chance you don't need to be all you can be better richer faster more

This is why the world is turning into a bunch of control freaky, unhappy, lonely, greedy and unhealthy bunch of individuals.

I discovered this one day. I said fuck it and went for a walk at the park. Since then, I've done the same thing daily and I don't miss the other 1567 things I used to do on the Internet instead of having a silly walk at the park.

And this is in Scotland. Can you imagine what it is like in the poorest countries in the world? This is why we need a permanent, open Internet on all nations, because as soon as the truth comes out, someone does something about it.

This was absolutely expected. The Nasdaq delays probably had about zero impact on the IPO results but you know how it goes...someone lost money on Facebook paper and they're bound to make it back speculating on the courts...

Thanks for your feedback. Yes, I have been trying with the bank for the past 2 months. Apparently it takes a while.

The intuit here is not only to try to receive the U$ 300 back but also to let Yahoo! and others here on HN know that this shouldn't be happening.

> But how about if Google collects its OWN information about me. Does that fall under habeas data?

Anyone whom you suspect has data on you can be subpoenaed to give you, and only you, the data they have about you. The government included, even spy agencies - you have the right to request your personal information from any other person, corporation or governmental agency.

> Do you own the data or does the company you post the data on own the data? This is a decision that needs to be made

This decision was made long ago. The remedy is called habeas data and YOU own your personal data and nobody else. Whether other parties(like an employer) can USE your data, is a matter of contract and agreement. But who owns it is already decided.

> The problem here is that the whole security model is upside down.

I had to scroll two screens down to find your comment.

At some point Google and Facebook(and everyone else, these two are just the most popular right now) inverted the rules. Years ago it was completely unacceptable for any piece of software to mine any piece of data without your consent. Screens had to be shown explicitly "do you authorize we contact server X in order to send data Y?"

Fast forward a few years and these companies are out there providing Javascript libraries that are essentially urchins on every web page. Every web site which uses Google gadgets for example, like maps or adsense or whatever is giving their visitor's client data to Google - screen resolution, IP address, web browser used, allows them to set tracking cookies, etc.... Same with Facebook javascript gadgets. Since when is this OK?

This would have been completely unacceptable a few years ago but somewhere it got lost. Now it's not only ok for Google and Facebook to track you everywhere, it also seems to be OK to FIGHT over having access to even more data!

The whole privacy thing has been turned upside down. These people are not fighting for our privacy, they are fighting over who gets to access MORE of our personal data.

> The Inquirer

The question-headline and the article without any usable content is thus explained.

> I thought this acquisition as was just about patents.

This, IMHO should be the top comment here.

> All the manufactures drop Android?

[ ... ]

> I see only good in this.

This makes zero logical sense.

> what else will happen?

Well that is like asking what comes next in the stock market. If anyone knows, then they're the next billionaires ;)

> Even if Facebook collapses, it doesn't mean it will take the rest of the web down with it.

The WWW was here before Facebook. To even raise that possibility shows people completely lack a sense of proportion. Facebook and Google can disappear from the WWW and the WWW will stay there just like it was before these companies came along.

It was a wrong move for Google to have gone into the social media business IMO. It took focus from their search, which has arguably lost quality, and injected search with too many diversions and "noise".

The level of interest in Google+ reflects "the fallacy of Facebook" as well, it is the same effect: why would people continue to expose themselves like that?

Social media with a purpose, like LinkedIn and similar, are good for business contacts. Facebook and Google+ simply aren't a business environment.

The purpose of Facebook and Google+ is to mine data and sell ads. IMO that is a broken business model, because at some point privacy will inevitably become a barrier.

So much bad publicity for Facebook today all over social media...

Is it just my impression or is there a barrage of bad publicity for Facebook all over social media today?

Is this relevant?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Tesserac...

Coding is necessary for computing, it's not going away, just like math isn't going away due to the evolution of computers. The better computers will use math better, but math is there because it's the basis for what we call "computing". Coding is the method by which we turn our ideas into practical logic.

If you think typing in long programs is going away, you may be right - the future looks more like a Lego type of programming rather than the current sea of logical equations. But in that case I'd say you've coded your message in the form of lego blocks, but coding is still there in essence.

When you speak instructions into a computer, you've still coded. When you change your proxy like in your example, you've coded(in a non imperative way).

> The spotlight here goes to the browser, and what this means to it's future.

It probably means that the web browser's future is to be an awesome web browser.

> eliminating coding will eventually be realized > people will still need to know how to program

I think that by coding, you mean typing? In your example, we won't be eliminating coding, we'll just be entering code using a different language.

I stand corrected.

> Git is a notoriously user-hostile piece of software

Then you probably didn't use any SCCS before git. Because CVS is even uglier, Bitkeeper is the reason Linus wrote git and every other I tried was more "user-hostile" than git.

> pretty much the only thing it has going for it on the usability front is Github.

You sound like a Visual Basic programmer who just saw C for the first time.

Edit: Bitkeeper, not bucket!

Never heard of him here in Brazil. He probably gave up his Brazilian citizenship as well.

I wouldn't be surprised though, taxes here are 3x those in the USA.

How about the microcode on the CPU running the pacemaker's code?

Funny how extreme the views here are. So I either hit the bars and get drunk every night or I run on a manic schedule?

The premisses here are entirely false. There is a balanced life in between which IMHO is where we should be aiming.