Because while the ARM processor is probably supported, most of the other sensors, camera, cell radios, etc have proprietary binary drivers that are not.
Just read the problems Replicant, the true FOSS android, has had getting all components to work correctly.
I'm far from a fan of any sport. I absolutely abhor the disparity between professional athletes earnings and the "working" class' earnings. And abhor even more the money spent on college football (e.g., the budget for our university library was being slashed so much that frequently used journals were having their subscriptions cut, while at the same time the football team got a new stadium and dorm). So I say this as a non-fan of sports - sports can definitely have entertainment value. Just like I'm a fan predominantly of sci-fi and comedy, but I really don't enjoy a lot of horror, people have different tastes in entertainmetn. Just because you and I may not have a taste for sports entertainment, that doesn't mean it isn't entertainment.
"And abhor even more the money spent on college football (e.g., the budget for our university library was being slashed so much that frequently used journals were having their subscriptions cut, while at the same time the football team got a new stadium and dorm)."
The irony is that at almost every university, the football team is a profit center, not a cost center. It' entirely likely that your library would have had deeper budget cuts without that football team.
Ordinary people don't live in the kind of circumstances where
they might wander into a felony conviction
Ohh I think you should be shocked at the number of felonies a person could commit on the course of everyday life. Felony is not just used for serious crimes. Almost every state have what are referred to a "catch all" felonies that can be brought against just about any one at any time if you piss off the right person in power.
dont fool yourself into think the legal system is anything other than a tool for oppression and control
Piss off the right person, and you may find yourself getting pulled over on some deserted road where officer Clancy "discovers" a felonious amount of a controlled substance concealed in your car or on your person.
I guess your life is way more interesting than mine. You can also add that NSA will tap your phone/email/web activity and find child porn, CIA will track all your foreign trips to find that you talked to Bin Laden and PETA will report that you feloniously tortured puppies.
Vast majority of white/asian people in this country are so far removed from that life that chance of getting underserved felony is as likely as getting hit by lightning. It can happen but definitely not three times in the row.
That is because the Vast majority of white/asian people are simple sheeple doing what their masters in government tell them to do, never rocking the boat, never expressing any opinions.
When government says Jump, they respond with "How high master" , the government says "Give me 50% of your labor" they say "Yes Master"
The vast majority of people, not even white/asian, just people, are useless sheep being lead complacently to slaughter
Sorry I did not reply sooner, I to not read HN everyday.
The Red Cross is very good about covering their tracks... but they do very little to actually help people. Any money you donate today will never make it to people in need. Most of the "help" the red cross is/will be credited for is provided by the US Government via federal programs (FEMA, Local Aid, etc), military aid, Or Local VOLUNTEERS not from the Donations of Citizens.
Most of the money will be used to pay for more marketing for the Red Cross, and to pay their Executives High Dollar Salaries.
However, to be honest the Red Cross is VERY good about keeping their name out of papers. Paying just enough to people to make most complaints seem like "conspiracy theories"
If you want to waste your money, go head.. But Giving to the Red Cross will help people about as much you burning it in your fire place
And do not get me started on the Massive Scam that is their Blood Selling business, where you are legally prohibited from "selling" your blood so they take it for free, then flip it for a massive profit by selling it to the hospitals for those in "need", or in reality for cosmetic and elective non-emergency surgery which is where most of the blood supply is used.
In my opinion, you should just go ahead and donate. There was a thread a couple days ago about someone replying to essentially the same comment, and for every point there was a counterpoint that led nowhere.
I don't doubt that an international association like the Red Cross has administrative overhead. It is reassuring thought that overall reports [1] seem to be positive.
If that argument is not enough, I'd argue further: we cannot know for sure how (or if) our contribution will make it to those that need it, but I'd rather donate now and research later than postpone the donation "just until I find the ideal charity" and then forget about it. The Red Cross has been around for around a hundred years, though, so I'd say that's good enough when it comes to trusting a random association to coordinate at a global scale.
Samsung as pretty much lost me as a customer at this point..
I have used nothing by samsung smart phones, the last phone I had that was a non-samsung was the Moto Razr Original Flip phone.
I currently run a Note II, will never buy another directly as a Result of their lack of updates for the device. Stilling have 4.1 as the official rom is ridiculous
They are not, no where in the constitution is that stated.
To Quote Jefferson:
"to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
No part of the Constitution expressly authorizes judicial review, nor does the constitution need "interpreted" it was written in plain language and the words are very clear
Lawyers and Judges have supplanted their desires for expediency instead of going to correct and harder path of amendment.
Take for example the 18th amendments, in order for the federal government to ban alcohol a constitutional amendment was required because the government lack the constitutional power to regulate any substance, fast forward about 40 years, and all of the sudden the constitution has been "interpreted" to allow the government to ban any substance it wants at any time it so desires.
No no, the constitution does not interpretation, it needs protection, it needs to be upheld, it needs a court that will defend it, not "interpret" it like it was some dead language that only those chosen few can possibly understand
All companies, in every nation, pay the minimum they can get away with. In nations with no social structure, very little wealth, and no jobs the choice is not government hand out vs minimum wage, but a very low paying job or starvation. It would appear you would rather these children starve then to allow them to work for enough money to feed themsleves, possibly working up and out of poverty over generations.
America did not just magically start out as a wealthy nation, for generations children labored on family farms, in business, and even in sweatshops. Generations ago a person had to work form dawn to dusk just to feed themselves, Today in America "poverty" is not having and iPhone or Broadband internet.
The idea that we can magically transform these 3rd world nation into 1st world nations is naive at best, The same path America took, is the same path these nations must take. Over time wages will increase, conditions will improve, etc, this is a natural order of things. The good news is, this will happen MUCH MUST faster than it did in America.
The thing about sweatshops is that they could make the same clothes, retailing in the West at the same prices, if they hired adults on a 45 hour weeks with genuinely optional overtime and didn't treat their staff abusively. There would actually be higher employment rather than lower employment in the local economy as a result. In many cases the only people that lose out would be middlemen that earn very well by developing world standards reallocating outsourcing contracts to cheaper factories offering worse conditions. Sure, the fact that economic globalization allows people in poorer countries to earn an income doing work for richer countries benefits them, and it's very difficult for factories and even local governments to unilaterally enforce better working conditions, but that doesn't mean that the people whose best option is working in the garment industry wouldn't on average be better off if retailers actually knew where their clothes were made and regulation was so pervasive internationally and effectively enforced that buyers didn't have the option of getting T-shirts for a cent less from the factory that employed actual slaves.
The evidence so far doesn't support outsourced garment manufacture as being a route to developed country status either.
Your hypothesis in the first sentence is testable - would a Bangladeshi factory owner who chose to do as you say be more competitive than others, getting higher productivity while being able to sell for the same prices? Are the most successful manufacturers there doing it right now, and if not, why not?
> America did not just magically start out as a wealthy nation,
[...]
> The idea that we can magically transform these 3rd world nation into 1st world nations is naive at best, The same path America took, is the same path these nations must take.
America isn't a good example. It stomped on so many people to get where it is today. And even right now America only continues to function because of the exploitation & corruption of other countries. Nobody can/should follow America's footsteps.
You seem to be okay with children being crushed to death or burning up in fires from substandard building construction. Construction that is known to be unsafe. It's accepted because it is convenient, not because it's necessary. These factories aren't turning out bare essential materials that are sold for small profit margins. They create luxury items that often have the markings of vapid pop culture and are sold with huge margins. First world countries know these conditions are abhorrent, because we do not allow them, but first would countries do allow the thirst for high profit margins to come at the cost of human lives overseas.
Your inability to understand the depth with which poverty strikes those in the U.S. is astounding. Poverty in the U.S. means that you don't have clothes to wear to school, that the school you go to is underperforming, that you live in a neighborhood where you could get shot, abducted, propositioned for drugs. It means going hungry on a day-to-day basis. It means the power being shutoff. It means probably not having a parent in the home because they are either absent or working two or three jobs. It often means the environment you grow up in is likely to be rife with psychological, physical or substance abuse. It means taking two hour bus rides both ways to get to a minimum wage job. It means no or substandard healthcare. It could mean living in a car, on the street or being under threat of such outcomes.
The videos linked are pretty disgusting and make libertarians sound like horrible people. Maybe you should also put some videos up about how libertarians justify slavery or indentured servitude because the slave or servant would have died if they weren't being exploited. Maybe an article could be written about the exploited workers in Dubai, and how it's still mutually beneficial to have their rights stripped of them, pay held for months, because the alternative is possible starvation in their home country.
Raising awareness and demanding better standards can improve conditions. If you are coming from the point of view that there is no problem with sweatshops and things don't need to change, then it's likely workers will continue to be exploited. How long have China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Malaysia had sweatshops? Why haven't sweatshops brought supposed prosperity to these countries yet? How many generations more will have to endure sweatshops and possible death? No one should have to put up with a sudden and horrible death so "Keep Calm Carry On" shirts can make it on to Target store shelves.
libertarians justify slavery or indentured servitude
libertarians first and foremost believe in non-aggression, voluntary trade. so slavery, in so far as it was forced upon someone via violence or the threat of violence would not be justified.
If you are coming from the point of view that there is no problem with sweatshops and things don't need to change
None of the video's I linked to, nor it is my position that things do not need to change, your emotional response is the problem, you lack the ability to react with logic, to understand how the world actually works, instead you lash out with emotion about how the world "should" work in your opinion
How long have China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Malaysia had sweatshops?
They are in reality, why do you think in recent year companies have been flocking back to the US, telecom and tech industries are the most widely known, but many business are coming back. It is the increased in wages in those nations brought about by economic development via sweatshops coupled with the reducing wages in the US brought about by the failed economic policies of the US government
A simple question - would ms. Meem from the article be happy if you went there and got the owner to fire her and other kids mentioned? That would be a small step towards eliminating child labor there, would you be proud and count it as a small victory?
I'm OK with children working in factories if that is the reality of their situation
At no point here have I said we should shut the places down, in fact I've acknowledged the opposite. I'm not saying we need to transform third world nations into first world, that is just absurd. What I am saying is that they should be paid enough to afford proper housing and real futures, not the slim possibility of working themselves out of poverty over generations.
The email encryption was not in play here, from what I understand the end user was the only person with the key to the email "inbox" encryption
What is in play here was the SSL Key that is used to encrypt the browser traffic between LB and the user. No differant than the SSL Cert used when you make an online purchase
It technologically impossible/impractical to have a separate SSL cert for each user, that is just not how the HTTPS protocall was designed
This is not Lavabits doing, that is the work of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
By turning over the SSL Key the FBI using the Pen Trap Device would capture in real time all data of all users and be decrypting it in real time.
Turning over a Master Key to a building would not give the FBI instant access to all apartments simultaneously, nor would they have the ability to go back in time to look at previous data, nor thousands of other problems with this analogy
People are attempting to conflate physical keys with encryption keys simply because years ago the mathematicians used the word "keys" as analog to explain things to the general public. This does not mean there is, in reality, any analogous relationship between encryption keys and physical keys
They could have instant access if they duplicate the key and raid all apartments simultaneously.
Also the legal speak above states I believe that even that the FBI clould technically access other user data, this does not somehow disallow this from happening because is not ideal. It is more a fault of Lava it than anything else.
SSL is a standard secure communication protocol of the internet, it is not lavabits design and it is impossible for Lavabit to modify while still keep interoperability.
You do not seem understand the underlying problem, as many people are misinformed as to which key the government was requesting., They WERE NOT asking for the key of the private inbox data, they were asking for the GoDaddy Signed SSL key that encrypts the web browser session from the Lavabit User to the Lavabit server, not the user level key for the encrypted mail box stored on LB servers
This is the same protocol that HN uses for this very site, Amazon, Gmail, and thousands of other sites use every day to secure communications between public servers and the users of those servers
> SSL is a standard secure communication protocol of the internet, it is not Lavabits design and it is impossible for Lavabit to modify while still keep interoperability.
Correct. If Lavabit wanted to be 100% immune from these type of subpoenas, then they would have designed the system to never have been accessible this way. I'm guessing (just like Hushmail) that having a proper end-to-end type encryption, like forcing the users to use some sort of PGP on their end would reduce uptake, thus preventing them from having a viable business model, so they compromised in this way.
Just because SSL is a standard etc is irrelevant. The government is going to use its subpoena power to get to the information they have reasonable suspicion is being sheltered by Lavabit. If the least intrusive method unfortunately exposes everyones data, well that really is what they call "tough luck."
Further on the "tough luck" point, that is not how our legal system is suppose to work, the government infact does not get access to any information even if they have a reasonable suspicion it is being "sheltered", there are all kinds of limits that are suppose to exist, and the "tough luck" part is suppose to be the burden of the GOVERNMENT not the people,
US Constitution, Federalist Papers, 100's of years of case law, the very concept of innocent until proven guilty, all that supports the notation that the burdens are placed upon the GOVERNMENT not the people.
THe laws allowing for Pen Trap's are very clear that the pen trap must not cause undue hardship on the business in question, and there are simliar limits on all of the powers of government
The idea that the government has, or should have, unlimited power to destroy businesses and individuals in the pursuit of "justice" is not only ridiculous but very dangerous
Could you perhaps cite one case in the hundreds of years of case law that supports the argument that privacy concerns override the right of the courts to every man's evidence?
You really do not understand what is going on here.
Hushmail would have the exact same problem, Hushmail is not all that different from Lavabit.
When you load a message from your hushmail encrypted inbox it is DECRYPTED on the server side using the password you provided at login, then the HTML representing the email contained in your inbox it is then ENCRYPTED by the web server using SSL and Signed Certificate that is recognized by a web browser, in Hushmails case that CA is thawte, in LB case the CA was GoDaddy and sent to you.
ALL HUSHMAIL USERS share the same SSL Encryption from the Hushmail server to their Browser, this is how the web works. There is no changing at least not by a single company.
The only way around that would be to not use HTTP, or web browsers. But then you could create an entire new messaging system like BitMessage, but LavaBit was attempting to give people private EMAIL, not create a new messaging protocol
This has no bearing again whatsoever on what the government can subpoena. Just because it "sucks" that you've designed your system that if the feds need access to one account you've configured it such that one must grant access to everyones account when you have to comply is par for the course.
You could say that the blame for Lavabit being shuttered is actually due to the technical design of the site and the compromises made for connivence. You should blame the site creator for that, not the USG for exploiting it.
I do not believe the USG has the right to the SSL keys, period
But it is clear you believe that the USG should have unlimited power with free reign to do whatever it wants.
Then do you believe that power extends to forcing a business or indivual to commit fraud? Lavabit had an agreement with both its customers and its business partner GoDaddy to NOT reveal the SSL Keys to a 3rd party, the second it was forced to do so, it had an obligation to disclose those keys were compromised, failure to do so is fraud.
Do you believe the USG should or does have the power to force people to commit said fraud
> It technologically impossible/impractical to have a separate SSL cert for each user, that is just not how the HTTPS protocall was designed
Not impossible; each paying user[0] could be granted their own subdomain based on username and then an SSL cert issued specific to that domain.
What really stands out from reading the unsealed documents is that there was no separation of data and control within Lavabit; Mr Levison argues at one point that handing-over the SSL certs will also expose his administrative commands. Well, tough. Control and data should never flow in the same channel, particularly when handling data for which you have already received and processed warrants in the past.
[0] there were only 10,000 users paying for the high-security service. The other 400,000 were on the standard offering, without at-rest encryption.
I believe it is very telling that a pro-privacy company, a company that has integrity and wants to honor the commitments it has made to their customers, is now a "anti-government" company...
I see a lot of comments about how "good" this analysis is, to me it seems very weak, and only "good" if you believe the government should be allowed to violate the 4th amendment, should be allowed to obtain any information from anyone at any time, and should be allowed to get SSL Keys from service providers, without disclosing this to the Certificate Authorities and violation of all security agreements with said CA's.
If you're very much a "pro" government person then I can see how this "analysis" would meet with your approval. To me it looks like pro-government biased drivel
I think you are missing the point. The analysis just says that you can't get an exception from the subpoena power by just claiming "but the whole point of my business is providing protection from it!".
A legal analysis like this is not too concerned with the specifics of a case because otherwise you couldn't have broad judicial principles at play.
That is to say, even if you think the government request was outrageous, Kerr's analysis simply says that yes, there's a long history of the right of the 'people' (here represented by the grand jury) to ask for information even if in the process the dignity or business of the person/institution the government is requesting the information from is damaged.
Lavabit needs to make a good case within those legal boundaries (which Kerr says is difficult) or try to change those boundaries.
My impression, as someone who is not a lawyer, is that much of what gets posted to the volokh conspiracy is "pro-process."
I think it is entirely reasonable to analyze the situation from the perspective of the law, but it seems like underlying their analysis is that the law is more than just a tool, that it is itself not subject to question. I can understand that from a functional perspective. Challenging the law itself, especially long established law (even if it is being applied to new situations) is a very hard task. But too often (at least for my taste) the writers there seem to bleed that over into the law having some sort of unstated moral stature beyond its utilitarian nature.
Volokh is not a philosophy site for people to opine about morality. It's a site about law, courts, and lawsuits. These things are all about process. Even when applied to new situations, the job of courts is to implement solutions consisting with existing law and legal norms, not to stray from the law to implement what they see as the more "moral" outcome.
Volokh is not a philosophy site for people to opine about morality.
Exactly my criticism. There is an underlying current of morality at that site and it seems to be firmly anchored in process. They need to exercise editorial control to eliminate that moralizing, just because it is subtle doesn't mean it is compatible with a site that aims for an analysis of process rather than a cheer-leading of the current process.
> It's a site about law, courts, and lawsuits. These things are all about process.
Reading Orin Kerr is akin to reading someone critique the actions of the principals in a waterboarding without critiquing the rightness or wrongness of waterboarding itself.
There's a creepy overtone to that kind of commentary.
This comment perfectly encapsulates everything that is horrible about legal discussions on HN: they are anti-intellectual, in the sense that they penalize knowledge or understanding insofar as such understanding complicates some poorly-stated valence issue (most often "the government should honor everybody's right to privacy"). It's not that the angry HN commenter has a carefully-considered (or even specific) complaint about Orin Kerr†. Rather, the angry HN commenter is angry that anyone has taken the time to understand the legal issue at all, instead of simply joining them in baying at the moon.
You should be embarrassed to argue this way. You should want to first understand the issues that are at play, and then figure out how your principles engage with those issues. You obviously shouldn't be trying to dismiss dense sources of information that you clearly didn't already have access to by making allusions to torture. But you do anyways, as do many on HN, adding no value, no original insights, no new information, not even a meaningful criticism of someone else's insight or information --- just, "new information that doesn't fit my worldview: BAD".
I've been here long enough to know that you're getting upvoted for comments like these, hopping from thread to thread shouting down anyone who fails to scoop out their eyeballs, pick up the accursed panflute or vile drum, and dance idiotically around the formless confusion of whatever issue you think you're advocating for. Just know, the same people upvoting you for poisoning threads are also the ones upvoting the incomprehensible douchebags who snark about "getting their side project acquired next time they get a job offer". You're two sides of the same debased coin.
† You can, once in a blue moon, find a carefully considered criticism of Orin Kerr on HN, but they've uniformly come from people on HN with law degrees and are thus obviously suspicious.
In the US, if you post BAIL you do get it back, a BOND however is a service provided by a company where by they post BAIL for you and you pay a company 10% (normally) for their service, The BOND company then guarantees to the court you will appear or they will track you down, if they bond company does not they must pay the court 100% of your BAIL. So if you have a $5,000 bail, you can go to a bonding company and get out for $500, you will not get that $500 back, however if you had the $5,000 you could give that to the courts, and get 100% of that money back.
Just read the problems Replicant, the true FOSS android, has had getting all components to work correctly.