Reply to Re: Millimeter talks about copyright
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Before you further comment that I have an inherent lack of knowledge in network security, and how it applies to mobile devices
Be careful what you wish for. I currently see two options: either you don't know very well what you're talking about on this subject, or you are intentionally deceptive. You may not want to convince me that the first option is incorrect, unless you have an extra option ready that I didn't think of.
perhaps you could answer 1 question.
I can, and I will. However, I would very much like to hear how your statements that I quoted before can all be true. I see some pretty direct contradictions.
So, on to your question. There are three entities at play here: the sensors, the operating system, and the apps. The sensors, as I wrote before, do not run code on the main CPU. That means they are not a threat themselves. They do of course give information to the OS that in most cases can be considered sensitive in terms of privacy, and sometimes in terms of security.
You seem to imply that the OS is trusted, but the apps are not. I challenge that assumption; I haven't ever seen a mobile phone (in any form factor) on which I trust the OS. Apps are usually worse, but I'm quite confident that the phone providers work with the government to spy on their users. Especially in the US. If that is acceptable to them, I don't see why I should trust them to limit it to the government.
But indeed, if you would trust the OS, then all of the sensors should be considered sensitive. I don't think you argue that the GPS should be made available to all apps, and I agree that the accelerometer, compass, gyroscope, thermometer, microphone, camera, touch screen sensor, and whatever else is present in the device should all be protected in the same way.
If "Near Field Communication" can be used to transfer downloaded music, do you believe that sound files are the only thing accessible?
I do not. That has nothing to do with me trusting the hardware; it has everything to do with me not trusting the OS. Of course the OS can transfer anything it wants over a network connection.
While I suspect you do have a higher understanding than you let on, it isn't showing in your responses here.
I'm trying to understand why you write this. I have been trying to find out what you think, and when I saw contradictions, I've been trying to get them clarified. If your point is that I haven't been showcasing my awesomeness enough, that would be because I'm not interested in that.
I'm probably completely missing the point, though. Can you explain why you wrote this?
O M G, you're "That Guy" who used to hit the Chat button on my buddies BBS, and I knew I had time to make toast while waiting for the first sentence to arrive.
Haha, I suppose I could have been. But no, I've only used BBSs from my MSX computer (those were pretty popular in the Netherlands at the time), and the BBS I mostly visited also ran on an MSX. The hardware for those allowed three speeds: 1200/75 (mostly download), 75/1200 (mostly upload) and 300/300 (symmetrical). I think the limit was in the MSX computer, not in the modem. It simply couldn't handle a higher data rate. So everyone there was limited to that speed.
Seriously though, it's cool meeting someone that may have actually had a Fidonet ID.
I was there at the right time for it, but I never heard of FidoNet back then. What probably was the main issue, was that all calls cost money (I understood this wasn't the case in the US at least), and I know the SysOp at my favorite BBS didn't have money for making regular calls to synchronize.
Be careful what you wish for. I currently see two options: either you don't know very well what you're talking about on this subject, or you are intentionally deceptive. You may not want to convince me that the first option is incorrect, unless you have an extra option ready that I didn't think of.
perhaps you could answer 1 question.
I can, and I will. However, I would very much like to hear how your statements that I quoted before can all be true. I see some pretty direct contradictions.
So, on to your question. There are three entities at play here: the sensors, the operating system, and the apps. The sensors, as I wrote before, do not run code on the main CPU. That means they are not a threat themselves. They do of course give information to the OS that in most cases can be considered sensitive in terms of privacy, and sometimes in terms of security.
You seem to imply that the OS is trusted, but the apps are not. I challenge that assumption; I haven't ever seen a mobile phone (in any form factor) on which I trust the OS. Apps are usually worse, but I'm quite confident that the phone providers work with the government to spy on their users. Especially in the US. If that is acceptable to them, I don't see why I should trust them to limit it to the government.
But indeed, if you would trust the OS, then all of the sensors should be considered sensitive. I don't think you argue that the GPS should be made available to all apps, and I agree that the accelerometer, compass, gyroscope, thermometer, microphone, camera, touch screen sensor, and whatever else is present in the device should all be protected in the same way.
If "Near Field Communication" can be used to transfer downloaded music, do you believe that sound files are the only thing accessible?
I do not. That has nothing to do with me trusting the hardware; it has everything to do with me not trusting the OS. Of course the OS can transfer anything it wants over a network connection.
While I suspect you do have a higher understanding than you let on, it isn't showing in your responses here.
I'm trying to understand why you write this. I have been trying to find out what you think, and when I saw contradictions, I've been trying to get them clarified. If your point is that I haven't been showcasing my awesomeness enough, that would be because I'm not interested in that.
I'm probably completely missing the point, though. Can you explain why you wrote this?
O M G, you're "That Guy" who used to hit the Chat button on my buddies BBS, and I knew I had time to make toast while waiting for the first sentence to arrive.
Haha, I suppose I could have been. But no, I've only used BBSs from my MSX computer (those were pretty popular in the Netherlands at the time), and the BBS I mostly visited also ran on an MSX. The hardware for those allowed three speeds: 1200/75 (mostly download), 75/1200 (mostly upload) and 300/300 (symmetrical). I think the limit was in the MSX computer, not in the modem. It simply couldn't handle a higher data rate. So everyone there was limited to that speed.
Seriously though, it's cool meeting someone that may have actually had a Fidonet ID.
I was there at the right time for it, but I never heard of FidoNet back then. What probably was the main issue, was that all calls cost money (I understood this wasn't the case in the US at least), and I know the SysOp at my favorite BBS didn't have money for making regular calls to synchronize.
