Posts by JohnFen

Re: Both sides?

When I was young, that warning was universally understood to mean "this will get you high".

Re: Both sides?

Or my favorite: "It is a criminal offense to read this sign."

Re: Function over form

I prefer Paint over paint.net, mostly because paint.net is slower.

Re: Nostalgia?

Paint 3D is not an adequate replacement for Paint.

Re: Can't stop laughing

Ignoring that your amusing rant is just a bunch of insults without even providing examples, I think you went off the rails right at the start by assuming the entirety of El Reg's commentariat consists of infosec professionals.

"In other words, dead letters such as the ones in a constitution give you exactly zero rights."

This looks to me like they actually followed the constitution, and ensured that the suspect did maintain their rights. When accused and faced with police searches, our rights are that a court will review what the police intend to do to ensure that the legal and constitutional protections are being honored.

Re: Doesn't compute

I agree, "metadata" is almost never used correctly.

Usually what they mean is "envelope data", as opposed to "payload data".

Re: Another nail in the coffin for my regard for biometrics...

This. They aren't really a security measure -- or at least they're in the same ballpark as a lock on a screen door.

Re: Forced password entry not possible

"But there’s no way to force someone to enter a password, whatever a court may rule. You can coerce them with threats of fines and imprisonment, but you can’t actually compel compliance."

Not true. Courts can, and have, jailed people until they decide to provide the password. Legally, you can be jailed indefinitely or until you comply, whichever comes first.

Re: Not an item for debate

"Friendly Judges and Sheriffs have been known to play this lose and fast."

And if they play it too fast and loose, then a higher court will rule that the evidence obtained is inadmissible on appeal.

Re: You can pry my password from my cold, dead lips.

"I wouldn't cross a border with anything electronic"

I don't even fly domestically with anything electronic (outside of a burner phone for emergency use).

Re: You can pry my password from my cold, dead lips.

"I simply don't use a so-called smart phone or any other thingie that requires an Internet connection to be useful."

A smartphone doesn't require an internet connection to useful.

Re: A Good Counter Argument ...

"I got stopped because - apparently - I looked like someone who had been reported by several women as a sexual attacker."

The cops may have been lying. In the US, it isn't rare for cops to use excuses like "you matched the description of someone we're looking for" when they just want to stop someone but have to real reason to.

Re: One BEEELLION dollars!!

It depends. For it to be illegal, the person making an incorrect criminal claim has to know that it's incorrect when they make it. It's entirely possible that Apple was just wrong, not lying.

Re: Its just like

"The film "Idiocracy" has come true."

I wish. President Camacho was actually a good president and leader.

If not, then who is? Reagan is the only legit Hollywood star (even if b-list) that has been elected president.

Re: Nice

It all depends on the camera. Consumer cameras tend to have partial IR filters because they're intended to be used in low-light conditions as well as daylight conditions (if the camera can see IR well, it tends to distort certain colors, so a complete lack of filtering is not often desirable in consumer gear). Industrial surveillance cameras often (but not always) separate out the two different conditions. if the camera is intended to be useful in low-light/night conditions, it won't have an IR filter at all. But there are also daytime cameras that do. Your mileage may vary.

I suppose my point is that if someone is thinking that an IR dazzler will afford them protection against all surveillance cameras, they're bound to be disappointed sooner or later.

Re: Nice

"Very bright ones, to flood the area with IR so I can see easier. Doesn't bother other people."

It also doesn't bother cameras that have IR filters installed.

Inside my house, I use a capacitance-based human detector. It's much more reliable and less prone to false positives than motion detectors. (It doesn't really detect humans specifically -- it detects the presence of large bodies, so big dogs and the like will still trigger it).

"I'm surprised nobody has tried it on surveillance cameras."

Every so often, I read about someone who has attacked such cameras with paintball guns.

Re: Who Wants It In The First Place?

"Does this still happen?"

Yes, it absolutely does. But it tends to be a generational thing, mostly limited to executives nearing or past retirement age.

Re: Who Wants It In The First Place?

"The purchaser is probably hopelessly shallow, crass and obsessed with their own wealth but not necessarily an idiot."

I think that being a shallow person so obsessed with proving their wealth to other people is an idiotic thing to be.

Re: Who Wants It In The First Place?

"For all you know the person was a lowly employee sent to purchase on an errand."

In that case, the person was acting as a proxy for their employer, and as such the "idiot" label is proxied right back and applies to that employer.

Re: Who Wants It In The First Place?

> So somebody assumes a person who has a fortune that increases faster than they can spend it is an idiot.

No. But wasting that fortune on stuff that is clearly bullshit certainly does make one suspect idiocy.

Personally, I like that these people do this sort of thing. It helps to make them visible and easier to avoid. More importantly, it makes it easier to know to avoid doing business with them. I have nixed a couple of business deals because of this sort of thing.

According to Trump, he has the greatest memory of all time.

Re: The Mueller report was one big nothingburger

Yes, really. You clearly disagree (and it's interesting that your sticking point was Obama rather than, say, Nixon), but I have never seen any actual evidence that indicates otherwise. Note that I'm not an Obama fan. I think he was a corporatist and a mixed bag in terms of policy, but he never gave me any reason to believe that he wasn't motivated in large part by what he viewed as being in the nation's best interest.

Your comment also supplied no actual argument otherwise.

Re: The Mueller report was one big nothingburger

"It's a failed strategy and this was proven in 2016."

But let's not forget that Trump lost the popular vote.

Re: The Mueller report was one big nothingburger

"Except for any other president, these level of findings would be enough to force someone to resign."

Yes, but every other president in my lifetime (including the ones that I vehemently disagreed with), actually had the best interests of the nation (as they saw it) as one of their primary motivations. I don't think this president shares that particular motivation. Trump cares only about his own wealth and power.

Re: The Mueller report was one big nothingburger

"Anyone that thinks differently is simply a rabid Clinton supporter. "

Oh? I'm not a Democrat, and I am absolutely not a Clinton supporter (let alone a "rabid" one). But the Mueller report was clearly damning of Trump, and includes copious amounts of actual evidence.

Re: Not equivalent

I agree. What this guy did is pure vandalism. Ransomware is extortion.

Re: People are strange and as a stranger I would like to say...

"perhaps a sense of achievement."

But there is literally no achievement here beyond knowing how to buy something online. I think even script kiddies have a greater claim to achievement than this guy.