finnw

> a number of cases show undercover officers flaunting those rules

No, they flouted the rules.

http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/01/flaunting-the-rul...

Not to mention the radiation

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/03/010329075139.ht...

Has anyone ever actually found NSA spyware on a feature phone?

Also Alabama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Obscenity_Enforcement_Act

I can just see the Daily Mail headline now:

"Facebook records reveal convicted killer wrote 13-word post 5 years ago - red flag was raised - why was nothing done?"

What if the current firmware has a bug that allows an attacker to steal your keys?

I can see firmware updates being a problem.

If the malware can hijack the firmware update process, then it copy itself onto the Trezor (making the device worse than useless.)

I assume it will display a fingerprint of the new firmware and the user will need to press the button (like with a BTC transaction.) Still, a few users will probably be caught out by this.

Unless they Tivoize it (then the "open source" claim is rather dubious, but I think this may be the best solution anyway.)

So don't buy a used one.

Shame all they need to work around it is to have 2 or more cameras pointing at the same spot (which is usually the case in London.)

Thanks. I love paying extra tax to replace vandalised cameras.

> don't use plain AES to encrypt a file

What does "plain" mean in this context? (If you mean ECB then you are right, but it is ambiguous.)

> Laws should be about the informed* consent of the governed*

That is a huge can of worms, because it depends on being able to determine who is and isn't "informed."

Previous submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5767116

Some of these questions can be guessed at by data mining from your email and social network data.

> Also if more than one percent commits fraud you could have a problem.

Yes, it means that the definition of "fraud" is too broad.

Most UK citizens have probably laundered money this year [1]. That does not mean all money laundering should be legalised.

[1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering#United_Kingdom]

> Google knows exactly what sort of porn you all like

If only.

Your first paragraph is inaccurate. The IWF[1] does operate such a blacklist, but it is not secret and they are not involved in the blocking of piratebay by UK ISPs.

[1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation]

That depends whether you agree with the parents having the choice of how the money they earned is used. My point is that if we take the money from the children on the grounds that they do not deserve it, we implicitly deny the parents that choice. Which may be what you want. But if you do give them the choice of how to spend what they earn, you must accept that they may choose to spend it on people (or charities, or products etc.) that you consider undeserving.

It is a robot, just not a quadrupedal robot.

If the use of ECB is appropriate (which it may well be for this application) then the fact that is was used is not an indication of "brain dead" decision making. I would be much more worried if they made the system unnecessarily complicated (and thus more vulnerable) just because they thought the presence of ECB would be bad for marketing.

> What about people born into wealth, who inherited the money their parents or grandparents earned by doing something useful for society?

There isn't really any difference. The parents kept the money they earned, and (quite rationally) chose to spend it on giving the children an economic advantage (that the children, more often than not, could not have earned for themselves.) To tax the children is to tax the parents.

And maybe predict domestic violence before it happens.

I'm not sure if I qualify as one of the "privacy folk" or not, but I would say "As long as the police cannot compel you to install the thing and switch it on, or have an AI system issue search warrants in seconds based on what the machine reports." Unfortunately I think we will have both of those things 20 years from now.

I was just thinking the exact opposite. I am really not convinced that the site can be maintained indefinitely for a $15 one-off payment per user. And when it inevitably closes down I will feel cheated out of the "lifetime" of service I paid my $15 for, whereas I would have been happy to pay $60 a year for it. ($5/month would also ring alarm bells for me, even though the total price would be the same.)

> Let's face it, if someone has hundreds of hours of footage of your work, they can find problems.

Yes but they will have to spend hundreds of their own time to do that (and if they intend to sue you to get their money back, also a lawyer's time.) I wouldn't worry - they will lose their own job long before they find enough evidence to harm your reputation.

The type of user who uses public keys usually knows better than to use server-side key management on a social networking site (however pretty the interface may be.)

But if you are a competent recruiter, you should be able to spot these people quickly.

No, but it does not matter. Either you have already decided not to hire them, or they have decided not to wait any longer for you to make your decision.

I've had former colleagues offended that I did not endorse them for skills (that I had not witnessed them using, though I knew they used them at that company.)

Metal bitcoins are real.

https://www.casascius.com/

I wonder if the steam rocket[1] was invented as a result of an incident like this?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_rocket

I guess I will have to introduce random spelling errors into my messages then.