Nothing stopped the person from calling road service to wire the car up, save for the fact that a child was involved.
But there was. And ensuring the kid is safe takes top priority, and the last thing anyone wants to hear is another case of emergency responders dragging their feet while another kid dies. Smash your way safely into that car, THAT is what they are trained to do.
Firefighters deal with a lot of shit and receive lots of training. I would argue that most firefighters know about the issues being laid out, and policy, not lack of knowledge, dictates a process to be carried out. I really don't think this is a situation they should be vilified over if it saves lives.
Edit: If it wasn't clear, nobody is complaining about getting off work and finding out their car is dead, and having to call the fire department to show up with the jaws of life.
A better example is to explain the chaos of having to go to the grocery store and pick up some hot dogs and buns. You know the pain.
Why would you break the 2nd? Are you one of those liberal types? /s
100k voters attended. Not surprised it doesn't look the same as 100k people.
And even if it was, it would be the right move. The last thing we want is to stop risk management because there's only 2 hours left and the door hasn't fallen off so far.
AM radio is also used for time keeping and weather transmissions for embedded systems that don't need Internet or heavy computing power (like a clock on your desk or a watch). It's also good for emergencies. All of which can be passed in analog audio or digitally modulated (or both). Probably not exciting for music, but the fact that it's there and you can tune into it to find out the weather or traffic is useful.
I was a mix-up that was quickly resolved because the baby they gave my mom had the wrong bits. It happened again with my sibling. And my other sibling. For the exact same reasons. We all joke that none of us are really related.
But it really makes you think...
Close, but you are still trusting the device you own. If I were to compromise that device, I could capture that key and use it. Again, this is my limited understanding, but a zero trust solution works in such a way that the actual keys are not stored anywhere. During setup, new temporary keys are generated. A keypass binds to the temporary key for use of authentication. The temporary key can be revoked at any time for any reason, whether it's due to a breach or routine policies. It can be as aggressive as it needs, and the implication is that if someone else (either you or an attacker) got issued a new temporary key then the other would not receive it. Using an incorrect temporary key would force an initialization again, using the actual keys that aren't stored anywhere.
The initialization process should be done in a high trust environment, ideally in person with many forms of vetting. But obviously this doesn't take place online, so there is the risk that your device is not trusted. This is why the process falls back on other established processes, like 2FA, biometrics, or using another trusted device. How this is done is up to the organization and not too important.
But don't get too hooked on the nuances of passwords, keys, passkeys,etc. The entire purpose is to limit trust, so that if any part of the process is compromised, there is nothing of value to share.
Disclosure: Worked in military and this seems to be a consumer implementation of public/private key systems using vector set algorithms that generate session keys, but without the specialized hardware. It's obviously different, but has a lot of parallels, the idea in this case is that the hardware binds to the private/public keys and generates temporary session keys to each unique device it communicates with, and all devices can talk with members of it's own vector set. Capturing a session key is useless as it's constantly being updated, and the actual keys are stored on a loading device (which is subsequently destroyed afterwards, ensuring the actual key doesn't exist anywhere and is non recoverable, but that's another thing altogether). My understanding of passkey systems is solely based on this observation, and I have not actually implemented such a solution myself.
From my understanding it's the concept of trust. Basic passwords are complete trust that both ends are who they say they are, on a device that is trusted, and passing the password over the wire is sufficient and nobody else tries to violate that trust. Different types of techniques over time have been designed to reduce that level of trust and at a fundamental level, passkeys are zero trust. This means you don't even trust your own device (except during the initial setup) and the passkey you use can only be used on that particular device, by a particular user, with a particular provider, for a particular service, on their particular hardware.....etc. If at any point trust is broken, authentication fails.
Remember, this is ELI5, the whole thing is more complex. It's all about trust. HOW this is done and what to do when it fails is way beyond EIL5. Again, this is from my own understanding, and the analogy of hardware passwords isn't too far off.
It's good that you were able to quote the regulations. You're not wrong, I'm just apathetic; the question was more rhetorical. To be clear: I don't have faith that this is strong enough to deter and/or that governing policies have enough teeth to enforce. I'd like to be wrong, but I'm not hopeful.
Given that Chinese fortunes aren't fortunes and are usually proverbs....it'll probably be something like "You can walk on water too, if it's cold enough."
I like to think that whenever we discover something new, the universe just got an update and we discovered the patch notes.
From a birdeye view, nothing. And that's not what the designation attempts to address. It's not even about how fast the hardware is, as encryption doesn't require lots of processing power and key delivery systems are relatively simple devices.
It's about control. Encryption in general is robust and nobody directly tries to break the algorithm. Most breaches are done by bypassing the encryption entirely. By adding a hardware component, it makes it very difficult to do so. It also creates a one-way bridge for key delivery - once you put keys into the device you cannot remove it. The only option is to delete it. Most of the devices are also hardened - they emit no signals, resist interference, and have various preventions that will dump keys and software in the event the device is tampered with. Add to the fact that because it's physical in nature and not some boogeyman subsystem buried deep in a server, you can point to it, tell someone to guard it, and put it in a vault. Most also have an accessible wipe button, which makes it easy to prioritize what gets destroyed if the need calls for it. There are many more things, but I think I made my point.
It's still hard for the consumer market to have a physical component for encryption. Even for those that do, it's still not robust enough. You can get legitimate military-grade encryption, with all its bells and whistles, but it's incredibly expensive and requires specific requirements by the NSA. But afaik, there is no cheap alternative, and most of what you see being advertised is just marketing gibberish.
There are legitimate military-grade designations. Military-grade encryption is one. It entails a mandatory physical component. Quite expensive without even considering the logistics behind securing such a device. Not cheap by any means, and yet it really bothers me that you can buy "military-grade" encryption without the hardware for consumer products. That's.....just regular encryption guys...
For stuff that legitimately has such designations on the consumer side, it's not just cheap - it's incorrect, incompatible, or illegal.
I was always told the bugs use moonlight for navigation, and artificial light of any kind throws them off. But as a kid, I didn't question it and there was no reason to verify or prove it. It was simple and made sense. I'm not saying my interpretation was common sense, but I also never heard someone say bugs fly to light for warmth. My 7 yr old ass would probably question how bugs existed before fire or something stupid.
Simple answer: No one set out to solve big problems (computers) like that. If you went back in time to make a transistor, you'd be solving the issue that was the problem back then. Generally it was how to recreate and transmit radio signals for further distances. Ironic, considering that was an analog endeavor.
Computers emerged out of the discovery of correlations with logic. Many, many incremental steps to make things better, faster, and more reliable slowly developed into what we see now. Transistors the size of your hand had fundamentally different purposes back then than the millions found in the size of your typical processor, even if they do relatively operate the same.
No. The fallacy is believing that the stories of military service will straighten people right up is flawed. Certainly it has the potential to do that, but you ignore:
- Most people already know empathy before joining.
- The worst of the worst get kicked out.
- Lessons will stick after the fact.
What you get is survivorship bias. Of course the people who aren't getting entry level discharged or dishonorable discharge have the qualities needed to have or learn empathy, following orders and working as a team.
Fact is, military isn't a perfect fit for everyone, and forcing people to do so runs against cohesiveness, morale and effectiveness. It should only be used in the most dire of situations.
Mirroring this onto service industries wouldn't be effective at all for the people that need it. I would argue it would make it worse, as these people would see it more of a punishment than a lesson, and only serve to drag down and consume resources for the vast majority of individuals who don't need the lessons.
Bought stove last March. Was cooking on it in Dec and the glass top melted. It's clearly melted and the glass is not cracked. Called it in, and they lost my claim. I sent another and they sent out their own specialist. The guy was a Samsung shill, and he only looked at the stove and, without talking to me as I'm standing there, called it in and said it was cosmetic damage caused by user. He then left telling me that my stoves warranty ran out 3 months after I bought it and that I had to call it in again to get their determination. I did, and they said the claim was closed out citing I caused the damage.
So, either Samsung thinks I took a blowtorch to it, or they refuse to perform a proper diagnostic or send an independent technician. They would prefer my house to burn down, than to admit even a little bit of fault. Worse still, I don't know what to do, because any action I take would get ignored (they haven't responded to bbb or states consumer protection reports and both have no legal authority to make them). Trying to repair it myself would allow them to push harder on user fault, and I don't have money to take legal action.
If that wasn't bad enough, my sister is going through the same thing with a dryer she bought that died 4 days before the warranty expired.