But they shouldn't. The key you enter as a user is actually only half of the key needed to decrypt the data. The other half of the key is generated by the secure enclave when the device was first powered on. This part of the key alone should be impossible to brute force and is stored in tamper resistant flash memory on the secure enclave co-processor.
So you would need to break open the co-processor without destroying its contents and read the secure enclave key before any brute forcing could happen directly on the encrypted data.
And no you can't just try to brute force it by sending decryption requests to the secure enclave. The secure enclave itself implements a exponentially increasing lockout time and won't respond to decryption requests during it. [0]
If the secure enclave implements the time lockout (well, supposedly I guess considering it seems broken) then the device is indeed a game changer, thanks for that information!
The lockout delay is implemented in the chip itself in newer iphones (I think starting with iphone 5S). So no, taking the chip out buys you nothing.
> To further discourage brute-force passcode attacks, there are escalating time delays after the entry of an invalid passcode at the Lock screen. ...On devices with Secure Enclave, the delays are enforced by the Secure Enclave coprocessor. If the device is restarted during a timed delay, the delay is still enforced, with the timer starting over for the current period.
That’s the same as every other fibrous cement product, though. Is this different apart from using hemp for the purposes of marketing to a certain crowd?
It has other advantages compared to fibrous cement, like being a very good moisutre buffer, having a time shift of 10…12 hours, CO2 absorption as it cures etc. It can use natural hydraulic lime or pozzolanic binders.
That's not entirely true. They ruled that silence in a non-custodial interview could be admissable at trial. Silence in custodial interviews is still not admissable and they didn't actually decide the question of whether or not silence can be taken as substantive evidence of guilt.
Not just a account, youtube requires a age of 13+ (in US) to be used at all as far as I know. This normally would have safely removed any legal problems as a parent allowing the child (<13) to use youtube (on their account, without account) would be a violation of the AGB's like a parent allowing a child to play a 18+ game can't sue the game for being violent or similar (i.e. it's parental negligence).
The problem as far as I have heard was that youtube realized that there are a lot of to young (<13y) people on youtube and that they can be targeted advertised (implicitly, in a way which just "happens to" target kids "accidentally"), and then they where so stupid as to advertise that when getting in contact with advertisers. So in a certain way they screwed them self over, or more precise they screwed part of the content creators over.
The problem with the FTC requiring content producers for youtube (13+) to label videos as "for kids" is that with the FTC rules a lot of videos which are not meant for kids and are never supposed to be delivered to kids now fall under this label and lose targeted advertisement money, which can be there major income.
E.g. there are a bunch of channels doing LEGO reviews for _adults_ (because surprise there are a lot of young adults which started to like LEGO again, parents and also that cray people thinking it's a good money investment). Now because they do LEGO reviews they will have to label this as a kids thing, even through the amount of kids on their channels is less then 2%.... Or basically any easy to understand since video gets practically demonetized, because it's naturally interesting for 12y olds and has nice animations etc. This videos are fine to be seen by kids, but the producers would prefer kids to be excluded as they need to earn money to at least cover production cost.
Also because officially there are not <13y old kids on YT it means YT can't just "not track" the kids but everyone else.
Also we should not forget that there is YT for kids, so if you produce (good) content targeted at kids this is where you should go.
So it's a pretty messed up situation. If you now consider who has very large influence over the FTC and who either hates the modern internet which made people stop watching classical cable, or would like to additional bill YT (more?) etc. it's doesn't seem likely to resolve in a reasonable way, at last I would be surprised. But then I have been surprised before so let's hope it ends not to bad.
Hm, good question. COPPA is pretty old so I'm wondering if "digital consensus by creating the account" is good enough or if you would had to send some more formal document (letter, fax with signature).
> Hm, good question. COPPA is pretty old so I'm wondering if "digital consensus by creating the account" is good enough or if you would had to send some more formal document (letter, fax with signature).
I would doubt the need for a physical artifact—I mean, even the IRS accepts digital returns.
If you are watching youtube without an account then you are not posting comments. (The FTC article gives a specific example of a child posting a comment as being a disclosure of personal information.) Where is any tracking or collection of data whatsoever controlled by the channel host in cases of people viewing without an account?
If the child DOES post a comment, then that means they lied to YouTube about their age when signing up for an account. Why is this a channel host's legal responsibility, and what possible measures could be implemented to avoid it other than requiring an identity disclosing internet drivers license to be presented before each use of the internet.
Do those services suck because of operational problems or were they designed to suck?
Its not clear from your answer how much blame you are putting on operational issues and how much blame (if any) you are putting on the misaligned incentives between governments and the people who use their services.
> Do those services suck because of operational problems or were they designed to suck?
For the worst ones (the ones that only a small fraction of people, most of whom are indigent, use), neither. They suck because of misaligned incentives, but the systems were not "designed" to suck; they were designed in response to political pressure from voters, who are mostly ignorant of the misaligned incentives and believe that, if they vote for a system that will "help the poor", for example, that the system that results will actually do that. And since most of them never have to interact with the system directly, they don't realize that in fact it is not doing what they voted for.
