For the past couple of years, AOL has been a place where companies go to die. Will Verizon pick up that mantel and continue offering the much needed "Death with Dignity" service for waning tech companies?
Not true at all - HuffPo has grown, Adapt.tv is a big win, 5Min was the foundation for video (they're top 3 now), Weblogs Inc setup content division, etc. I'm sure there are some bad deals done, but they've had a great track record on buying+integrating.
I took a contract at this great place with highly experienced team members which had been acquired by Verizon a year before. I was assured Verizon would not mess with the great thing they had going but slowly, almost all of them got fed up with the changes and left, including our manager.
It was not just our team, almost every week there would be a "bye and thanks for all the fish" email from some higher up.
Just last week was talking to a recruiter who told me of massive layoffs on that place last year.
Thats lil bit worrying case..But unless Verizon wants to kill of Video Ad Management Product "ONE by AOL", this may not happen here. AFAIK Verizon doesn't have anything related on this..
They were bothered that their "stingray" like devices could not capture the messages. But fear not, they can still get it from Prism or Xkeyscore (or whatever they call it).
The article linked complaints that traditional legal interception means do not work. Those are the ones where they nicely ask the cellular providers for the data. It's not about "stingray like devices", it's about sending a letter and getting the data. End-to-end encryption protects against that, be it iMessage or BBM.
Prism collects data directly from companies that participate, and Apple has said they do not have access to iMessages contents. There was some speculation about courts being able to force Apple to abuse their authority as the iMessage certificate swapper, but I've seen no evidence or convincing argument for that to be the case.
Xkeyscore does not collect any data, but searches it.
Apple is still subject to NSLs, and like Lavabit, can be coerced into operating in such a way that they're able to provide message contents to authorities while advertising that they are in fact secure.
It's much simpler than that. Their marketing team gets their material from the R&D team, and neither group knows about the NSLs, because why would they? Only compliance and a few people on legal know, and everyone hates them already anyway.
Assuming it's actually end-to-end encrypted, it is susceptible to MITM attacks because you're trusting a centralized source with key exchange and verification.
You cannot perform an audit on your own. You are trusting that you received the correct keys without a way to verify identities outside of the network.
Can you provide the source code that shows the implementation of the end-to-end encryption? Can you verify that you REALLY have Alice's public key and she has yours? Or are you trusting that the keys you're receiving from Apple's network belong to exactly who Apple says they do?
Lavabit offered in-network public key encryption for its users. Its implementation was faulty and investigators only needed an SSL key to get the information they wanted from suspects. They also ordered Lavabit to keep operating under the pretense that they were secure.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/2609583/encryption/how-secu...
Skype was advertised as "end-to-end" encrypted AND peer-to-peer networked for years, until it was slowly exposed as a lie. Skype's content is not end-to-end encrypted and the network is centralized.
http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/05/think-your-skype-mes...
One doesn't need to break any encryption if one has other means of accessing the plaintext. There's a difference between disinformation and misinformation. Even the truth, told selectively, can be disinformative.
One should be careful not to live in or spread in paranoia where everything is a plot to deceive. For anyone looking at the source material and judging reasonably, there was no deception. Perhaps some journalists got a little carried away, but I'd blame that on the pressures of their industry, not malice.
The original DEA slide that was leaked says something very simple: traditional interception techniques do not work on end-to-end encrypted message services (e.g. iMessage). They can't just ask (or get a judge to ask) a law-enforcement-friendly cellular provider to tap the line and CC them on anything someone does. This is true for BBM and WebRTC and many other ways of communicating, as well.
They can surely force by legal means Apple to give you the wrong key for a recipient, thereby defeating the end-to-end protection.
This is the danger of the new wave of security tools that want to "solve" the hard problems (such as key verification) of secure messaging. The hard problems are still there, they're usually just bypassed by centralising trust, which creates a very tempting target for government legal pressure.
True. People polarize SC judges like they do politicians. However, they are often more nuanced in their decisions. You could strongly agree with some rulings AND strongly disagree with others from the same justice.
They announced today that they're retiring the AtScript name and using TypeScript going forward. The new version of TypeScript is a combination of the old TypeScript and AtScript.
Piggy-backing off of this, here's my short list of if-js-framework-were-languages:
angular = php : obtuse and a little nonsensical at times, yet by far the most popular tool out there in industry.
ember = ruby : highly decorative and alluring, and it's even built by refugees of rails
react = haskell : esoteric, functional, and strange enough to come with its own dialect of js; it's literally the framework built for framework developers (to learn from)
backbone = C++ : fast because it has so little and therefore so little to slow it down
jquery = C : at some level, everything else seems to be built on this
meteor = computer language when portrayed on a Hollywood movie : you know, like in the first Wolverine Xmen movie, whatever language that they used to program Ryan Reynolds with that allows the user to just type in something like "Kill him" into the terminal and Ryan Reynolds then attempts to kill wolverine (sorry spoilers). I don't know if there are any commands other than "kill him", but it handles the "kill him" command with incredible automagic.
jQuery = C seems a bit odd. AFAIK none of those other frameworks are built off jQuery, though Angular supports working with it. Many are actually hard to integrate with jQuery.
I think the idiom is "Cue the haters" but "queue the haters" does have a nice image to it. I'm imagining a long line of haters waiting patiently to dis Angular.
> Not sure how they can "recommend" 1.X when it's completely incompatible with 2.0
I'm tired of people saying this. It's simply not true. The core team has said multiple times that there will be a migration path and they just announced today that you will be able to mix v1 and v2 components within the same project.
In addition to allowing your app to share components, they are also back porting parts of v2 to v1. So far, the router and ng-animate and I'm sure more will come.
I'm also guessing that someone is going to make an "add controllers to 2.0" addon that will be hugely popular with people slowly upgrading their 1.x apps
When you see a white man standing in the room, take a moment to think about all the unjustified accusations of racism and sexism he's had to endure in his journey to get there
I think he's conflating two very different problems. One is the issue about liquidity and the other is the so called tech bubble. The liquidity issue is real, market bubbles are not.
