More or less. Unless it's something to do with the employee's privacy or something to that effect. Doesn't mean the criminals are the good guys here, since they're trying to make bank on it instead of releasing it to the public -- if it's something that the public has an interest in.
No, not really. The science products eventually become public (after 1st access right by contributing nations). But why would the API keys (for instance) ever be public?
The title is misleading. "Allows" need to be in quotes - they did everything they could to make sure this won't change anything in practice. Screw Apple.
Could you elaborate? Other than the "Japan" requirement it seems legit?
I guess the requirements are pretty onerous, but they all seem like table stakes for a browser these days (Firefox or Chrome should have no problem with them, for instance.)
We can't let banking apps invade our property.. things like banking apps need so much control in order to be secure that they need to exist on dedicated devices.
Bank security has and never had anything to do with real security. It's all stupid audit checkboxes and missing forest for the trees. I've dealt with PCI and similar auditors and I wouldn't trust them with my gym locker combination.
My only solution is to have multiple accounts, spread the risk, and rely on legal protections and bailouts when they inevitably screw up.
In Spain (I think the whole Hispano-America by proxy) the BBVA's banking app just allow a 6 char long password. This is bullshit. Also, if you try to root the smartphone the app might disable itself.
I'm tired of this. Can't wait to a good cyber attack from Russia+China so the whole security theater crumbles down (and in China too because of the social credit) until the civil rights get restored back.
That's not really necessary, though I understand why banks are doing this when they're held responsible for their customers' inability to spot fraud before hitting the "transfer my life savings into a Bitcoin wallet" button.
Having a dedicated "banking device" is a good solution for power users, though I'd probably just switch banks if my bank tries to pull that bullshit on me.
But the user needs to be able to override this faulty check, albeit my solution is to never let any app decide what I can have on my device by not installing the app.
EDIT: there's also Android Protected Confirmation that works in the TrustZone so apps can't display over that. It was made exactly for apps like banking apps, so they should use it.
This is "protect the users from themselves" as-a-feature to prevent scammers from using malware to obscure their scams. Letting the user override the warning would make the entire feature useless.
Using overlay permissions, it's relatively simple to trick someone into transferring money by overlaying a different UI that the malicious app makes the user type or paste into. I believe blocking access to the app while such an overlay is present makes a lot of sense. Trusting apps from Google Play to do this while blocking other install sources would be an obvious mistake, though.
I'd argue this feature shouldn't exist (because of things like the API you mention) but having a user override doesn't make sense here.
It's for emergency.. if that happened to me I'd argue in court that I thought the driver went insane (because a system can't work like that) so it qualified as emergency..
But back to my country (Poland), it's better here - some had problems with physically getting out on the right station, and when the conductor saw it she even encouraged us to pull this lever in those cases so we don't have to get out at the wrong station.
It's the governments' fail.. this kind of software can't be profitable, so it should be funded via grants for common good.. these did not arrive though.
Seriously. All things considered, browsers are extremely cheap to fund. The fact that no government has come forward to spearhead this movement is damning to the concept of the state.
And no, I obviously don't want to fund Mozilla, a hilariously incompetent entity that hates its users.
I could count on one hand the jurisdictions in which a publicly-funded browser wouldn’t eventually cause a voter backlash. Unless it—and the rest of the government—are run perfectly, paying for something most people get for free sounds like corruption.
I don't think you could do it as a direct "fund browsers" law. You'd have to do it as a "technology research fund". Something we already somewhat have in the US with the National Laboratories. But those budgets are pretty limited. The NSA gets a whole lot more money to pay for it's research.
> Something we already somewhat have in the US with the National Laboratories
Our national labs fund aren’t typically replicating commercial findings.
Nuclear fusion isn’t something you can download for free. Browsers are. It looks wasteful to everyone but the technically inclined, and even we would be undercut by those who never trust the government.
Non-profit that competes for government grants and contracts seems the way to go.
You're demonstrating my point for me: the institutions tasked with governing our lives and protecting us from wrongdoers are increasingly divorced from reality. Albeit moroseo in america than anywhere.
China has also wisened up and is limiting supplies also. Their B2C marketplace is seeing less and less >1TB SSDs and even those who sell I've seen prices x2 in the span of two months.
He's being downvoted because it's a dumb, knee-jerk comment. This has nothing to do with RAM, the thing getting really expensive at the moment, and Samsung isn't even stopping SSD production (which would be worth getting really mad about). It's about stopping production for a specific interface which has long since been saturated by even the cheapest, crummiest SSDs.
SATA SSDs don't really have much of a reason to exist anymore (and to the extent they do, certainly not by Samsung, who specializes in the biggest, baddest, fastest drives you can buy and is probably happy to leave the low end of the market to others).
> down-votes can't stop China. Tariffs can though...
People like you and I pay tariffs. Not China. You realize that right? And how will that stop China? Tariffs mostly hurt American consumers and producers. Just ask farmers.
First, cost != price. Pricing is in part based on competitive product availability. So if the cost of a product + tariff is greater than the cost of a competing product, there is pressure to reduce that cost. There's also pressure to produce elsewhere, such as domestically to avoid the tariff altogether.
This is a large part of why the tariffs have in fact not had the dramatic impact on all pricing that some have suggested would happen. It's been largely a negotiation tactic first, and second, many products have plenty of margin and competition to allow for pricing to remain relatively level even in the face of tariffs... so it absolutely can, in fact be a burden borne by Chinese manufacturers by lowering margins instead of US importers simply eating the cost of tariffs.
I'm waiting for the WebKit part - I remember this Japanese law also mandated Apple to allow other browser engines. The EU law effectively failed to enforce this.. I hope this will work better in Japan.
reply