Which was always pretty stupid. At best it means the Cylons can't hack the whole ship, just whichever part they exploited to gain access remotely in the first place. But really the Cylons would've needed exploits for each individual system anyway, since simply connecting them with wires shouldn't just do that. And unless those other systems are completely air gapped with no wireless or other access, it would be trivial for them to still gain remote access, or have one of their infiltrators provide a local connection of some kind. AFAIR that was never a plot point, which was odd.
I think it's genius to use this element of computer security in narrative fiction. But I think they still had comms across the ship. The cylons could still clone the captain's voice and have random crew members perform arbitrary tasks by directing people to do so over the ship's radio.
Most of the in-ship comms were 'old school' (in our terms) analogue devices. They actually had to pick up speakers. Internal speakers were wired, not radio.
I didn’t follow the whole thread. Just want to point out that over the last 10 years hacking air-gapped systems has been a primary objective. Hard drive clicks, keyboard clicks, CPU squeaks, speaker-to-speaker. Exactly what advanced adversarial AI would be specifically good at.
“Close” in relative terms. It’s been a while and don’t remember, but I think one study concluded it could be done from across the street or through an office window, etc.
It may not sound very exciting, but if you’re the NSA or CIA and you want access to a HVT, then all of these options are on the table if the routine approaches haven’t been successful.
There are, watch the "Strike a pose with adaptive layouts" video they posed yesterday (https://developer.apple.com/iphone-duo/). High level components like split views will adapt automatically, while things like scroll views won't, so there are new adaptive views (AdaptiveView, UIArrangementViewController) to help you move things around.
You can use the weather widget on the lock screen, and as long as you have lock screen content when locked enabled, you can see the current area's weather just fine. Or do you want the whole app experience?
The lock screen widgets don't tell you much more than what you can get from looking outside. It's not very helpful to know that it's currently overcast and raining, but it would be a lot more helpful if I could know when the rain is supposed to stop or what the week's forecast is and so on.
After the first unlock after a reboot yes, except for those items with very high security (usually just keychain items) that require an unlock for every access. Lock screen items can be locked every time you lock the phone, or set to allow access while locked (after first unlock). Unfortunately this is an all or nothing setting, unless the widget specifically uses the redaction views to hide content.
Oddly, I find the weather widget refreshes much more often than the app. I'll tap on the widget, which is up to date, which launches the weather app, which could be from yesterday, and have to wait while it refreshes. Apparently the app doesn't implement any background refresh at all, which is really weird.
It's also because, until Apple's C-series models, they would've had to use Qualcomm modems which had a percentage-based royalty, and Apple would likely need a new contract for usage in Macs, so may had to pay even more. Even with their own modems they still have to pay Qualcomm's patent royalties, so it's likely just don't want to do that on devices which can cost over $10k today.
Also a lifetime pass Plex user, I'll leave as soon as someone has a good solution for identifying raw Bluray rips automatically. Why do I have to manually name the episodes? We had CDDB last century, why isn't there an equivalent for raw video rips? The ripped data should be identical, a simple hash should uniquely identify it.
I'm describing a hypothetical feature that I want. Essentially an automatic version of mkv-renamer that can identify series, episodes, and special content based on the signature of the ripped files. For whatever reason, such a service doesn't even exist.
Does Filebot not do this for you? A quick glance suggests it does, but I'm not overly concerned with its decision-making; name matches are close enough.
There's GPS jamming by the military, mostly in war zones. This seldom effects airliners because they steer clear of active war zones.
Then there's GPS jamming by delivery drivers who don't want their boss watching over their shoulder all the time. When the article mentions jammers as small as a cellphone and costing less than $100, those are sold to drivers.
Delivery drivers don't jam LORAN or VOR, though - so it's not jammed by the second type.
I’d bet a lot of money that the NTSB will determine that the pilots’ failure to maintain clearance from terrain during a visual approach will be the primary cause with contributing factors of dark, moonless night and GPS jamming.
That one’s going to be on the flight crew, not the GPS jamming test.
I'm not going to argue that as it's always easy to blame dead people, but there's two different types of jamming.
One is to actually jam the signal IOW preventing reception. The other is to overpower the satellites' signals and replace them with your own. That defeats the doppler calculations of GPS needed for triangulation, and instead the receiver believes it's where the jammer wants it to be.
If the latter includes altitude information, then it's a huge problem.
If you overpower a signal, is there a difference? I'm not saying you're right or wrong here. I'm just saying there's a long history of coverups in the government and military.
If you can say, "oh we were only jamming" when in fact you were spoofing, well that's certainly a super easy excuse to hide behind.
In either case, asking for and being cleared for a visual approach (as the crew did and was) puts the onus on them to maintain continuous visual contact with the airport and to maintain their own terrain and obstacle clearance, which it’s safe to say they didn’t do.
>If you overpower a signal, is there a difference?
Yes, obviously. Losing signal on your GPS unit, and having your GPS unit tell you that you are in a different position than you actually are, are two very different things.
Also, since other aircraft reported GPS issues, that is evidence that would speak to jamming or spoofing. All three other aircraft reported a loss of GPS, not inaccurate GPS. Coverups are real, government conspiracies are real. But the completely evidenceless “I’m just saying…” or “isn’t it weird…” or “I’m just asking questions” is tiresome.
IMO tracking is just way too useful. You know when things are about to arrive (so you dont miss a parcel because you went to the toilet or you can even intercept your driver once he's in the area, removing most of the last-mile problem), routes can be changed on the fly (e.g. for on-demand public transport pickup, trunking or delay mitigation) or, well, you can track your vehicles, allowing you to find them quickly in case of theft, optimize routes or have decent evidence in case of disputes.
The real problem is not really drivers being tracked, but how the tracking data is or might be used. Timestamped delivery notifications might be just as bad in this regard.
As often, the solution is probably more about accessible and pro-human law. No idea how that should work, maybe certain sensitive data services having to be provided by a third party or even the government itself? There are probably much smarter ideas or variations of this...
So as a business owner, I'm not allowed to know where my $100,000 asset is? My insurance carrier requires me to track the vehicle as a condition of coverage, they also require a dashcam be operating at all times.
If that's all it was ever used for, then nobody would give a shit. Instead those examples you gave just end up being an _excuse_, so that you as a business owner can fire or deny a promotion to someone you don't like because you can now prove they stopped at the 7/11 for 5 minutes to pee.
If this country had good unions and real worker protection laws, like you can't punish drivers for taking a break, then we wouldn't feel as much a need for broader sledgehammer laws banning GPS tracking. (that, lets be honest, will never happen anyways)
> Instead those examples you gave just end up being an _excuse_
How is an insurance company provision an excuse? Do you propose self-insurance? If so, would that be advisable from a fiduciary responsibility standpoint for most small companies?
Who ultimately bears the increased insurance premiums and deleterious effects emerging from legislatively banning GPS on company assets and dashcams? (Hint: not the business)
Antenna tech has moved way beyond what was possible in the days GPS was invented. Planar arrays and MIMO are ubiquitous and cheap.
These antennas have a very good idea of where the signal is coming from, due to delay measurements and can detect and filter ambient noise. They are super hard to jam. The reason why drones have become such a PITA is that these inexpensive antennas are very hard to defeat even with military jammers.
If this becomes a geniune need in the civilian sector, then I'm sure the tech is up to the challenge.
The tech is already there, but the reason those antenna are not widely used is that they used to fall under ITAR, so no US companies want to touch those for civilian uses. Of course Turkey and China is not US so they don't give a damn about ITAR compliance, and so you can buy those anti jam antennas out of alibaba.
Brad Parkinson, the father of GPS and PNTAB, they've been trying to lobby the US government to remove ITAR from that technology so the civilian can benefit from anti jamming, and finally they managed to do it sometime last year. Now it falls under EAR
There's also a bunch of Western stuff you can buy off the shelves. MIMO tech is standard in every Wifi 5+ router, Cars have pretty sophisticated electronically steered radars nowadays, boats even more so. 5G towers also have phased array antennas. This tech is everywhere in consumer or industrial stuff.
Not sure what makes an antenna/sensor ITAR restricted, I suspect if you try optimizing it to military use-cases, you'll get hit with ITAR, but I suspect Brad Parkinson is right - security through obscurity just doesn't cut it any more.
I remember in the 90s, computer security was either missing or an afterthought (you could bypass the Win98 password prompt by pressing escape in the release version). Thankfully the industry got together and figured it out.
Now everyone else needs to follow suit. We already have a bunch of examples of assuming security does not matter (hackable cars, meters that can be switched with a Flipper zero).
> Not sure what makes an antenna/sensor ITAR restricted,
Intentionally-designed anti-jam features (active-nulling and electronically-steerable receivers made for this purpose) marketed towards GNSS applications are EAR items (and are incorporated into ITAR by reference.)
> These antennas have a very good idea of where the signal is coming from, due to delay measurements
"These antennas" is doing an impossibly large amount of work. What you are describing here is a delay-calibrated coherent receiver, not an antenna, and it's absolutely not "inexpensive" to pull this off.
With passive antennas, most of the attenuation of adversarial signals is being done by the relatively-high-directionality of planar arrays: off-boresight signals have far greater attenuation with these (20dB? - tricky because you still do want good satellite data close to the horizon), and most garden variety jammers are terrestrial and off-axis.
Still, these signals are always below the noise floor and mostly unsigned, it's somewhat easy for an airborne (or spacefaring) jammer to fully drown out, replay/time-shift, or spoof the signal.
Eh a month or two before the October 2023 Israel conflict - there were many reports of GPS jamming in the middle east impacting air transport aircraft. To the point where it basically caused various failure modes that shouldn't have happened with avionics (think the things you'd expect in a fuzzing scenario). It was pretty eye opening example of just how poor modern avionics are (and their integrations) when they get unpredictable inputs & the dependant downrange systems that rely upon that data.
GPS jamming is fairly detectable right? I wonder if we could create some crowd souced map of jammers. I think this kind of already exists as fairly course data but if a bunch of people installed fixed GPS sensors at home and wired them up to note every time their location lock is lost or moves. It could create a hyper detailed map of where the jammers are and track them moving in realtime.
> if a bunch of people installed fixed GPS sensors at home
Similar things already exist - although it's used for increasing GPS precision and detecting faulty satellites, moreso than detecting jamming, so the networks might not be dense enough to detect small areas of jamming.
For one state's example, see [1] - choose 'RINEX archives' if you want historical readings.
They're easy to find, but not necessarily with stuff from off the shelf. Professionals with the right equipment though have no trouble locating them. The FCC is happy to hand out 5 and 6 digit fines for operating a GPS jammer and has fined retailers tens of millions for selling them.
If you wanted to exactly pinpoint it with a single device sure, but I'm thinking of a map where nodes just report that they are experiencing jamming, and then with the whole network you can see a radius of the jam, see it moving around, and assume it's somewhere in the center. All with cheap off the shelf hardware.
The police could probably combine this data with license plate scanners and see the single truck that always exists in the jammed location.
I know we all like to jack ourselves raw to the big powerful government handing out ruinous fines for things we don't like but realistically none of that is gonna stick to some McDonalds manager who's got a side gig importing Alibaba stuff or some delivery driver who bought it. You can't get blood from a stone. You're just guaranteeing the stone always stays a stone.
Yeah the FCC could probably pull an ATF and shoot a bunch of people over fairly petty crimes but that costs political goodwill that I'm not sure the FCC has to burn.
Yesterday's actions include 7 $25k fines apparently all for companies illegally importing banned drones (a procedural fine just for ignoring the investigation attempts). You can peruse that list and find plenty of things, lots of pirate radio recently. They absolutely do go after apparent small fry and your "mcdonalds manager" absolutely has assets that can be seized.
>Yeah the FCC could probably pull an ATF and shoot a bunch of people over fairly petty crimes but that costs political goodwill that I'm not sure the FCC has to burn.
This is exactly the kind of circle jerk commentary I was complaining about. Tone doesn't make right.
The notices of liability the FCC posts to their website are not final orders. They're the federal equivalent of when your zoning sends a notice saying "your patio is 6in too close to the property line, according to the aerial photos it's been there since , you owe use ". It's essentially civil enforcement speak for "hey asshole, lawyer up and take this seriously". So then like a naive idiot you reply back "this patio predates my ownership of the property" and the money grubbing commissioner fires back "don't care, pay up". This is what the forfeiture order the FCC post on their website are. That said, the FCC is less slimy and less interested in fine money than your local commissioner probably is and I personally hold them in high regard.
Most of these end in the subject of the enforcement simply changing their behavior and paying a trivial fine (the lawyers are the real winners).
To quote those numbers as if they're final is no less dishonest than to quote lawsuit claims as if they're final judgements.
>They absolutely do go after apparent small fry and your "McDonalds manager" absolutely has assets that can be seized
Once again, you can't get blood from a stone. You might get a little but it's not worth the squeeze It is not politically sustainable to make a habit of ruining small time businesses and individuals (we're not talking about the Sackler family here) over nonviolent violations in technical laws where there is no clear chain of causation from the violation to some sort of harm to life or limb. The Mcdonalds Manager will settle for $5k, throwing away his storage unit of Alibaba stuff and not doing that anymore.
The reason I brought up the ATF is because they have a track record of forcing compliance with arcane arbitrary laws and they do it through flamboyant violence. This comes at political cost.
>The FCC doesn't have guns, they can't arrest you
Right, they'd get the FBI be the muscle like all the other Feds that don't have entry teams do.
The feds effectively all have guns. It's just a question of how many desks the papers must cross before they turn into bullets.
The FCC takes the public commons very seriously. Given how easy it is to make radio frequencies unusable, they need to hammer hard and fast to discourage people from trying. They don’t wait for a report to be filed, they can proactively search for violators. They may only be able to fine you but they can get law-enforcement involved. Especially if your city or state has laws against what you’re doing. You usually see this when you start messing with airplanes.
If I was a concerned boss, I would likely use GSM cell info to track my drivers. While not good enough to do turn-to-turn navigation it certainly is good enough to tell where people are.
Btw, don't smartphones have this built in? I remember some old and cheap Android phones without GPS that came with this.
Being much closer to the receiver and tied into terrestrial power grids, ground-based beacons can transmit at higher powers than GNSS signals and be received at much higher powers.
Received GNSS power is on the order of -130dBm (10e-16 W) - you can jam that with a 1W terrestrial source for hundreds of meters around. Way more if you're willing to scale the power from car USB power levels to bigger grid-connected supplies.
LORAN, from my quick googling, looks to be about 6-7 orders of magnitude higher received power.
Making animations faster is one of the main reasons why, despite all the glass effect rendering, the 26 Apple OSes can feel faster than their previous versions. (Not always, of course.) They simply shortened the animations. The 27 versions do the same thing. Of course, this doesn't help all interactions, but it definitely improves the first impression.
Title doesn't match the article, which is currently "Apple changes its rules for personalised advertising in apps".
Apple gave itself better dialogs for the permission prompts, which they will now equalize (perhaps just in the EU?) with the prompts they use for their own apps.
My understanding of ATTF is that first-party tracking needed no disclosure other than the information declared in the app's App Store privacy section about the information gathered. If you made a suite of 20 apps, you could track usage across all of them without issue, as long as you didn't also share that info with a third party.
Apple didn't give itself better dialogs. It never did third-party tracking across across apps or websites so the ATT prompt would never apply to their apps. It also voluntarily showed a dialog explicitly asking you to opt into personalized advertising. Facebook doesn't show anything similar when you use Instagram or the Facebook app, because that would be undoubtedly bad for business.
The German regulator settled because the facts are simply on Apple's side. Apple settled because at the end of the day it's no skin off their back if the EU now wants to weaken privacy protections to benefit ad-tech.
>Apple only gives third-party app publishers access to the IDFA if they have obtained user consent through a dedicated consent prompt that is largely predefined by Apple – the so-called ATT prompt. If the user refuses to give consent in this prompt, the app publisher does not gain access to the IDFA.
According to the Bundeskartellamt’s investigation, there are no other technical options available to app publishers that are equally suitable for exchanging data across companies.
In contrast, Apple’s own personalised advertising is subject to different conditions. Apple itself does not use the IDFA and cross-company data combination, but draws on user data from its own ecosystem – a wealth of data that is not available, in particular, to the large number of smaller app publishers. This is why Apple is not subject to the requirement of displaying an ATT prompt. Insofar as Apple requests consent to its own processing of user data for advertising purposes, the company uses a different consent prompt – the so-called PA prompt (“Personalized Ads prompt”). The design of the PA prompt differs from that of the ATT prompt for third-party app publishers.
Ok, let's break down your claims one by one and compare to the text of the FAQ...
> Apple didn't give itself better dialogs.
On the contrary page two of the FAQ states "The design of the PA prompt
differs from that of the ATT prompt for third-party app publishers."
> It never did third-party tracking across across apps or websites
The FAQ strongly implies that they did track across apps and websites, i.e. "draws on user data from its own ecosystem [which involves multiple apps and websites]",
> It also voluntarily showed a dialog explicitly asking you to opt into personalized advertising.
Nothing in the FAQ supports that this was voluntarily and not required by law. In fact it strongly implies the opposite "the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the provisions of the ePrivacy Directive, in particular, require app publishers to obtain user consent for certain types of data processing" ... "Insofar as Apple requests consent to its own processing of user data for advertising purposes,"
> Facebook doesn't show anything similar when you use Instagram or the Facebook app, because that would be undoubtedly bad for business.
Nothing in the FAQ supports this claim, and as discussed in other comments here it is simply false.
> The German regulator settled because the facts are simply on Apple's side. Apple settled because at the end of the day it's no skin off their back if the EU now wants to weaken privacy protections to benefit ad-tech.
>On the contrary page two of the FAQ states "The design of the PA prompt differs from that of the ATT prompt for third-party app publishers."
The PA prompt is a voluntary (required in the EU?) prompt Apple shows requesting opt-in for personalzied ads. It is of course different from ATT because it doesn't involve third-parties whatsoever.
If Apple wanted, it could mirror Facebook's behavior (in the rest of the world) by not showing any PA prompt. This would greatly increase the number of people who are exposed to personalized ads from Apple's first-party ad network.
>The FAQ strongly implies that they did track across apps and websites, i.e. "draws on user data from its own ecosystem [which involves multiple apps and websites]",
It draws on data from Apple's first-party apps.
>Nothing in the FAQ supports that this was voluntarily and not required by law. In fact it strongly implies the opposite "the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the provisions of the ePrivacy Directive, in particular, require app publishers to obtain user consent for certain types of data processing" ... "Insofar as Apple requests consent to its own processing of user data for advertising purposes,"
My comment refers to Apple and app developer behavior in the rest of the world.
>Noting in the FAQ supports any of these claims.
That is my informed opinion based on following this story since the very beginning.
> It is of course different from ATT because it doesn't involve third-parties whatsoever. [and] It draws on data from Apple's first-party apps. [and] It draws on data from Apple's first-party apps.
Your original comment does not distinguish between multiple first and multiple third party apps. This is defending a comment you did not write. Regardless the FAQ you cite does not say whether or not Apple is collecting or aggregating with data from third party apps (just that it is not using the apple specific identifier for advertisers to do so) nor say that not doing so is why the PA prompt is different. And again it does not support your assertion that it is voluntary (in or out of the EU). So again your claim that page 1 of the faq supports all of your original comment is wrong - it supports literally none of it.
> My comment refers to Apple and app developer behavior in the rest of the world.
No, your comment explicitly refers to the behavior of Apple in its interactions with the german regulator, which is its behavior on germany, not the rest of the world.
>Your original comment does not distinguish between multiple first and multiple third party apps. This is defending a comment you did not write. Regardless the FAQ you cite does not say whether or not Apple is collecting or aggregating with data from third party apps nor say that is why the PA prompt is different. And again it does not support your assertion that it is voluntary (in or out of the EU). So again your claim that page 1 of the faq supports all of your original comment is wrong - it supports literally none of it.
That is what Apple says about their ad network and what they've said in communications with regulators. And if they were actually doing third-party tracking, that would actually be an instance of Apple being a hypocrite. The regulator would have had them dead to rights if that were the case. The regulator doesn't actually say Apple was doing that.
The quoted section from page 1 indeed says that Apple does not use the IDFA nor uses cross-company combination of data:
>Apple itself does not use the IDFA and cross-company data combination, but draws on user data from its own ecosystem – a wealth of data that is not available, in particular, to the large number of smaller app publishers. This is why Apple is not subject to the requirement of displaying an ATT prompt.
>No, your comment explicitly refers to the behavior of Apple in its interactions with the german regulator, which is its behavior on germany, not the rest of the world.
I wrote my comment and know what I was referring to and I clarified it in later comments. I'm sorry you misunderstood.
Your mistaken, words have meanings, I understood perfectly, I'm sorry you did not write the comment you meant to but intending to write something other than what you did does not mean you did so.
The ABC's memory was not mechanical, even if the drum was driven directly by an electric motor. It was a self-refreshing series of capacitors using the same general mechanism as modern, non-persistent memory (self-regenerating I think?). It's was one of the other parts of the ABC that invalidated the Eniac patents, in addition to the ABC's binary adders. But the memory itself was entirely digital.
Sorry, I shortened to the point of inaccuracy - I should have said not fully electronic _speed_. Not meant to say that it was mechanically reading and writing values per se, just that the slow rotation of a mechanical drum was essential for its operation and ultimately had a limiting effect on the speeds it could compute. Thus the electronic storage and compute was rather defeated by inclusion of a mechanical element in the “critical path”, so to speak. I think that’s accurate to say?
Not any more accurate than it is to say the electronic storage and compute of any computer is defeated by the latency of its memory. Virtually all early memory devices were deeply limited.
Really the ABC was most limited by its use of a custom I/O device which used electrically burned holes in special paper to input the initial problem state and output the solution. Atanasoff never got it working reliably, which is the main reason the ABC was never fully functional before WWII.
In any case, the fixed nature of the ABC is often why its considered the first "digital electronic computer" and the ENIAC the first "general purpose digital electronic digital computer" (or later, the first "programmable digital electronic digital computer", after it was rebuilt in '46 - '47 to operate more like a modern computer).
Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with Zuse's computers or the Colossus to say if those statements are really accurate.
reply