domain:streamable.com
netstack
Texas is freedom land
3m ago
cover sheets
Hot damn. If the FBI managed to screw up the investigation of what should be obvious misconduct, I’m going to be so disappointed. Let’s see what exactly they did…
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/03/mar-a-lago-trump-classified-documents-00156124
Looks like they added placeholders and cover sheets when they initially sorted the fifteen boxes. And then possibly failed to remove them? Assuming every cover sheet was left in the count, and there are really only half as many documents as stated in the warrant, that could mean Trump’s 15 boxes held fewer than 100! Witch hunt!
This is stupid. It’s also not the cause of the delay, which stems from the complaint that those searched boxes are now out of order. How much did they change? No idea. How did they notice the change? Because the contents were exhaustively documented after the seizure.
It’s not a great look for the prosecution. But it also has no bearing on the facts of the case. If Trump’s team could point to any version of the boxes as favorable, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I don’t mind a delay of the trial, but I’m not going to treat this as exculpatory.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3m ago
I don't know what you mean by this. What is "the trivial solution"?
Whatever you meant when you said "(and by the way, we can do so trivially)".
I am not injured in any such way. I explicitly presented the value of stopping the deluge of trivially-hackable devices with default passwords as a terminal value. You're just really off the mark.
I think you're being rather coy about it. When you tell me things like:
If you want to characterize any version of "we need to fix this problem (and by the way, we can do so trivially)" as being "my way or the highway", I think this is just a fully-general argument against fixing any problems ever, even the most trivial ones.
That means you're proposing a trivially simple fix, and consider me to be stubbornly and unreasonably standing in their way. That does not come off, "default passwords must be purged from the face of the Earth, even if it means the end of all tinkering". You do say the latter when someone talks to you for a bit, but this is after posts and posts of portraying anyone that objects as unreasonable and hyperbolic.
I actually explicitly said that I would consider all possible ideas, and that I was even open to the possibility that all options genuinely have too many demerits to implement. Literally in the comment you were just replying to. Please don't lie about what I've said.
You're the one lying about what you're said:
Nybbler would declare that this is, in fact, changing the culture of people who mass produce end-use consumer goods. That this is the only way, that we have to change their culture. If that is required, I am willing to do it.
You were literally explaining to me how getting rid of default passwords is a terminal values of yours just a moment ago. What are you even doing?
ControlsFreak
6m ago
There you have it, @ArjinFerman. You're a culture-destroyer. You just didn't know it.
I mean, I can hardly blame you, though. It was the only choice you had. Literally if you do anything, Nybbler will think that you're a culture-destroyer. There are only two options: do nothing and have billions of trivially-hackable devices with default passwords... or be a culture-destroyer. That's it. That's the dichotomy.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
14m ago
If you regulate mass-produced end-user consumer goods, you will destroy the culture of innovation in that sector, yes. But that's what you want, you've said so yourself; you explicitly want to change the culture of the outgroup you have that consists of software people who refuse to color within the lines.
cjet79
14m ago
There are obligations you agree to and obligations that are forced upon you. If I agree to deliver 10 widgets to you then back out, I've backed out of an obligation I agreed to. If government says I need to deliver 10 widgets to you then I back out, I've backed out of an obligation that has been forced upon me. Obligations that are forced upon people seem like takings to me. If I had any faith in older supreme courts I'd wonder why they weren't considered 5th amendment violations.
Which isn't to say I think the ADA way is right either, I'd rather just have a mandate passed on what a company needs to do, set up a department, people make complaints and the government either finds in the companies favor and does nothing, or uses government power to force the company to comply. Then you could also measure the cost both to the company and to the government of enforcement without diluting the whole purpose of having a government.
I would be somewhat fine with this solution if they also kept track of the costs of these mandates, possibly by allowing partial tax write offs for anyone complying with them. I'm not really firmly fixed on a particular solution for this problem, just firmly in the position that it is a problem.
A mandate without funding is just a sneaky tax and spending scheme that doesn't get added to the government balance books and has far less oversight and checks/balances than other forms of spending. Even if you are a big government liberal there are good reasons to dislike this kind of scheme. There are not unlimited resources, and unless you only care about one particular pet issue that is using one of these mandates without funding then there is less wealth available for all other issues. Take this pet example:
All businesses must spend about $10k to accommodate a particular disability. The disability can also be fixed with a surgery. Fixing the disability for everyone would average out to about $5k per business. The government in this case could tax the businesses $9k each, spend $5k paying for fixing the disability, and then have $4k in tax revenue left over. The business is happier with this solution, the disability is solved for all cases (and places that get exclusions from ADA aren't also excluding people with the disability.)
I am Libertarian, but I also was an Economics Major in college. The ADA stuff bothers my economist side just as much as it bothers my libertarian side. If I am going to have a government doing things that I don't like, can I at least ask that they not do it stupidly and waste a bunch of money?
IGI-111
20m ago
It's yet one more of these irregular verbs.
I defend myself.
You air unfounded theories about the prosecution.
He is held in contempt of court for raising the specter of fear for the safety of the jurors and of their loved ones.
ControlsFreak
23m ago
if the trivial solution does not work, you won't think twice about destroying the tinkerers' culture
I don't know what you mean by this. What is "the trivial solution"? I don't have any idea what you mean by it. We've been talking about the entire class of possible solutions that stop billions of devices from being trivially-hackable with default passwords. Which one is "the trivial solution"?
My complaint with you is that you're acting injured that anyone would portray your values as terminal
I am not injured in any such way. I explicitly presented the value of stopping the deluge of trivially-hackable devices with default passwords as a terminal value. You're just really off the mark.
I think your link was meant to be this. Frankly, I interpret Nybbler's silence as rejecting your proposal. We can clear this up right quick, though. Hey @The_Nybbler! Arjin says:
My personal way of squaring that circle is that I'm open to regulation on mass-produced end-user consumer goods, and a more freedom on anything that requires some deliberate action.
Do you think this will destroy the culture, since anyone who wants to make mass-produced end-user consumer goods will be reduced to nothing but checking boxes? Or do you think that he can do this without destroying the culture?
My problem here is that if it doesn't work, you explicitly said you won't stop at it.
I actually explicitly said that I would consider all possible ideas, and that I was even open to the possibility that all options genuinely have too many demerits to implement. Literally in the comment you were just replying to. Please don't lie about what I've said.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
29m ago
If Ford was fully liable for any accident in which a driver of a Ford vehicle was found at fault, but this did not apply to any other vehicles, how much more do you think Ford vehicles would cost than all those other vehicles to cover that liability? I expect it would be at least an order of magnitude; being involved in an accident with a Ford vehicle would be a potential lottery-winner (regardless of who was at fault, and that's often muddy). And I think that's true even if from some nonexistent objective observer's POV, the Ford driver was never actually at fault.
2rafa
31m ago
Articles getting longer is a long term thing; read old newspapers from 100 years ago and a lot of news stories for smaller things were the length of tweets today, just very small box paragraphs of text.
Rov_Scam
33m ago
As a products liability lawyer, I can tell you that insurance coverage is a lot more complicated than that. Any hypothetical policy would base the premiums on the number of vehicles sold. If there's a defect that results in injury, only a small percentage of the affected vehicles are going to result in claims, and only a small percentage of the total claims are going to involve huge losses. Huge verdicts only result when the insurance companies are adamant that there is no liability and are looking to get out from under it. Once it's clear there's liability (and often not even then), they'll settle claims at standard rates. You may get a couple of eye popping verdicts but these won't become a normal thing. No Plaintiff's lawyer is going to spend 100k+ taking a contingency case to trial chasing a verdict that's likely to bankrupt the company and leave him and his client waiting 5 years in the unsecured creditor line in a Chapter 11 hoping they can recover a percentage of the original verdict. Better to take the cash now.
cjet79
36m ago
Much of these are solved through private arbitration, with courts as a resolver of last resort. The reason they are a last resort is that lawyers will eat up most of the money in the case. Which kind of defeats the purpose of a dispute over money. Courts are mainly avenues of Justice. As in you want the person who screwed you over monetarily not just to pay you back but to suffer.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
38m ago
Nor should he be. When the Senate assassinates Caeser, it's bad news all around. When the Senate fails to assassinate Caeser...
ControlsFreak
43m ago
I mean, just read them again, more slowly. 5.6-3 says that the company needs to at least think about leaving physical interfaces open. They can choose to do so, so long as they assess that there are benefits to the user. But their choice here is to either consider it consumer-facing or manufacturer-only. It is their choice, but they have to pick one, so they can't pretend like, "Oh, that's supposed to be manufacturer-only, so we don't have to worry about securing it," while also forgetting to turn it off before they ship.
Then, suppose you have a physical interface, is it a "debug interface" or not a "debug interface"? From the definition, it is only a "debug interface" if the manufacturer has determined that it is not part of the consumer-facing functionality. So, if they choose to make it accessible to the user (as per above, making a conscious choice about the matter), it is not a "debug interface", and 5.6-4 simply does not apply, because the device does not have a "debug interface". But if they choose to say that it's manufacturer-only, then it's a "debug interface", and they have to turn it off before they ship.
It's actually very well put together. I've seen many a regulation that is light-years more confusing.
hydroacetylene
51m ago
I wouldn’t say it’s certain, but pissing off young blue collar males specifically is highly likely to be expressed with ‘oh the nigs are burning the city down again’ in the specific case of highly concentrated and very badly educated urbanites(which big chunks of the black community are) in close proximity to seats of power.
You’re correct that the black community is not very politically aware, but that political lack of awareness is generally expressed through ‘of course we get the short end of the stick every time’, which is a bad combination with a policy like a draft which by its very nature is going to impact poor young men- the violent demographic- the hardest anyways. And to the nybbler’s suggestion of not formally but de facto exempting blacks that probably won’t stop either black draft riots(lots of these people tend to read anything except explicit favorable special treatment as discrimination when they’re pissed off which they will be because draft) or widespread red tribe resistance. You’d probably just get the cops getting out of the rioters way and pointing them at elite neighborhoods- after all, their kids aren’t getting exempted.
Draft riots are historically common and we know the black community rioting is a thing that happens from time to time. The draft would be a highly unpopular policy without recent precedent and the working class population is likely to view it as a beyond the pale onerous imposition.
pigeonburger
1hr ago
It goes almost without saying that, if Trump were elected in 2024, he could have the authority to fire Jack Smith and derail both this case and the documents case in Florida.
One way in which I see a second Trump term being significantly different from the first one is that he's not going to be shy around things like this.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
1hr ago
In case there's any question left about the press's lack of objectivity, the CNN article you cited -- article, not editorial, not column -- contains this bit:
The move by Cannon is a significant win for the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee. The proceeding will give Trump and his attorneys a platform to air unfounded theories about the prosecution, including the accusation that it is politically motivated.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1hr ago
Searching "debug interface", I see three places:
The first is on page 10, in section 3.1(Definition of terms, symbols and abbreviations: Terms)
debug interface: physical interface used by the manufacturer to communicate with the device during development or to perform triage of issues with the device and that is not used as part of the consumer-facing functionality
EXAMPLE: Test points, UART, SWD, JTAG.
The second is on page 20, in section 5.6 (Cyber security provisions for consumer IoT: Minimize exposed attack surfaces)
Provision 5.6-4 Where a debug interface is physically accessible, it shall be disabled in software.
EXAMPLE 5: A UART serial interface is disabled through the bootloader software on the device. No logon prompt and no interactive menu is available due to this disabling
The third is on page 32, in Table B.1: Implementation of provisions for consumer IoT security, where, at the bottom of the table, there is a "conditions" section, and "13) a debug interface is physically accessible" is the 13th such condition:
Provision 5.6-4 M C (13)
For reference
M C the provision is a mandatory requirement and conditional
NOTE: Where the conditional notation is used, this is conditional on the text of the provision. The conditions are provided at the bottom of the table with references provided for the relevant provisions to help with clarity.
So, to my read, the provision is mandatory, conditional on the product having a debug interface at all.
"But maybe they just meant that debug interfaces can't unintentionally be left exposed, and it should be left to the company to decide whether the benefits of leaving a debug interface open are worthwhile", you might ask. But we have an example of what it looks like when ETSI wants to say "the company should not accidentally leave this open", and it looks like
Provision 5.6-3 Device hardware should not unnecessarily expose physical interfaces to attack.
Physical interfaces can be used by an attacker to compromise firmware or memory on a device. "Unnecessarily" refers to the manufacturer's assessment of the benefits of an open interface, used for user functionality or for debugging purposes.
Provision 5.6-4 has a conspicuous absence of the word "unnecessarily" or any mention of things like the manufacturer's assessment of the benefits of an open interface.
So coming back to
They're still completely free and clear to have any interfaces for debugging or anything else that are meant to be usable by the user.
Can you state where exactly in the document it states this, such that someone developing a product could point it out to the legal team at their company?
hydroacetylene
1hr ago
If you’re working with low income people, there’s a good chance they’re getting more back than they pay in.
hydroacetylene
1hr ago
Commercial vehicle owners have such a high to nonexistent liability cap that there are entire sections of the insurance industry specializing in suing them, and somehow they manage.
hydroacetylene
1hr ago
An imperfect analogy already exists with commercial vehicles, where the company that owns them and their insurance company is held liable for any damages caused by the driver.
The usual demands are so high as to be called the ‘ghetto lottery’.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
1hr ago
Might be the first time I’m hearing news stories described as longer. We had to keep our Floyd containment bare links thread for months!
I’m skeptical that article delivery has changed much, at least in the mainstream publishers. The struggle to hold on to newspaper models continues, I guess.
hydroacetylene
1hr ago
Did you notice the accelerating pace of people accepting things which are not the dollar to trade internationally?
hydroacetylene
1hr ago
To be fair, I think a lot of them actually don’t know, and are totally fine with having an uninformed opinion.
AvocadoPanic
1hr ago
I wanted an Atari 2600 what I got was a Magnavox Odyssey 2.
Then later I had a NES.
My children now have a Switch and a xbox.
Again, explain to me, why are you expecting a reasonable response if this is how you interact with people?
More options
Context Copy link