I have a new Android phone (Samsung Galaxy S4) which is already prompting me
to approve a firmware update. According to articles that I've read, Android
4.3 should become available for it in October or soon thereafter.
Should I proceed with the current update first, or will it be
possible/preferable to move straight to 4.3 after it's released? How reliable
is the update process for these devices? I'm trying to weigh risks/benefits
and to avoid getting a brick.
Incidentally, under "about device -> status", it shows "Secure boot status:
Samsung", which I would take to mean that it's verifying signatures against a
Samsung public key. Web searches suggest that this may not be the case
however, as people with phones in that state have reported installing
unofficial firmware. I suppose I'll find out if I decide to install
non-default firmware at some point. Interestingly, the software for doing so
is local in origin: http://www.glassechidna.com.au/products/heimdall/
Well worth the read.
- back doors, possible Intel CPU compromises
- encryption with NSA /help/ which renders encryption
to possibly be worthless.
- many encryption programs deliberately using less
strong ciphers (and defaults lower than recommended)
Essentially, anything from US may be a problem and if the US is doing
this, then why not China, and other countries?
It may be hardware and/or software, it may be by government will or
other bodies, bottom line is that nothing is safe.
Even TOR is not as safe as has been made out, the original creators of
TOR whom worked with DARPA originally now say so.....
[as per Steve Gibson SN 0420, no other reference found yet]
N.S.A. Foils Much Internet Encryption
By NICOLE PERLROTH, JEFF LARSON and SCOTT SHANE
Published: September 5, 2013 664 Comments
The above link redirects to:
[Moved to luv-talk]
Quoting Daniel Jitnah (djitnah(a)greenwareit.com.au):
> Hi Rick,
> If one thing I can take personally, after having a quick read of the
> Loxton case you mentioned, and thanks for pointing out that case, this
> is a minefield of interpretation, (as too often). BUT if I were to
> choose between incorporation and not, I'd much more likely choose
> incorporation, as to me the clarity offered by the law in being
> incorporated outweighs the complexity and uncertainties of not being so.
Incorporation _can_ have real advantages, but in truth most of them
relate to management of seriously non-trivial amounts of valuable
property (like the Loxton Club in one of those cases, and quite a bit of
prepaid Sunday school tuition in another).
One of the points I make in the Linux User Group HOWTO is that LUGs do
not ever own serious amounts of property, and I in fact advise them to
specifically avoid even having a treasury, because squabbling over small
stakes can be even more poisonous than squabbling over big ones.
Incorporation doesn't remove complexity and uncertainties: It just
changes _which_ complexity and uncertainties apply. And you always get a
significant increase in mandatory paperwork, and ongoing fees to
accompany mandatory filings with regulators, and (for groups with
income) taxation of income both when it arrives at the corporation and
subsequently again when it's paid out to owners.
Since 2001, I have been a corporate director of my local system
administrator's guild, BayLISA (http://www.baylisa.org/), organised as a
tax-exempt non-profit corporation in California. On two different
occasions, in 2002 and again in 2011, I've needed to rescue BayLISA
from disaster because the group failed to do required regulatory
The first time, in 2002, it occurred to me to find our incorporation
record at the California Secretary of State's office. Searching the
office's business records Web site, I found that our corporate status
was shown as 'Suspended'. Inquiring, I found that our Treasurer had
found the (simple) paperwork too much trouble and, several years before,
had talked a friendly Certified Public Accountant (CPA) to have his
staff do the filings on BayLISA's behalf, but that nobody had bothered
to check that the work was occurring, and they'd simply stopped and
_nobody noticed_ until I checked.
I did the research on how to 'revive' (restore the Active status of) a
California corporation through significantly more detailed and expensive
filings with the California Franchise Tax Board and the Secretary of
State's offices -- but BayLISA"s President didn't want me to do that
because they wanted to outsource the work to the CPA. A year later,
nothing had happened, so the President let me do the work -- treating me
as if he were doing me a favour(!).
In 2011, again I found through checking the Secretary of State's Web
site that our new Treasurer had gotten us in Suspended status through
failure to do simple biannual filings -- and fixed it again.
My tl;dr takeaway is that system administaators should not be trusted to
do administrative tasks without verifying their doing so. So, now
BayLISA has a procedure to periodically _check_ on needed filings, to
compensate for sysadmins being mostly pretty flaky that way.
Computerists generally are pretty flaky that way.
But the larger point is that that entire hassle goes away if you eschew
entirely the paperwork and fees that automatically come with
incorporation and must be done without fail -- by not bothering with
incorporation if you don't actually need it.
On Wed, September 4, 2013 5:34 pm, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> Sounds to me that the committee is pissed that this didn't get up.
The committee offered no recommendation on this motion; and that was a
As should have been obvious by the vote on the night there were some
members of the committee who were opposed to disincorporation (Les and
Daniel), some who supported it (Andrew and Russell), who respectively
spoke for and against the motion.
I can't really remember how the others voted; I suspect the majority were
against. As chairperson, I didn't vote at all.
> My view is that this topic deserves to be finalized right here, why
> should it be relegated to luv-talk where the topic never entered and
> where it could be buried because the committee doesn't want to resolve
> this fully?
Because I suspect most people who prefer to return to a technical
discussion as the primary consumer of bandwidth on luv-main.
The issue actually is finalised until the next time a motion is on the
agenda for a general, special, or annual general meeting. Everything else
Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GCertPM, MBA
mobile: 0432 255 208
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines
On Wed, September 4, 2013 1:47 pm, Daniel Jitnah wrote:
> In the case of The Melbourne Twins, the biscuit is jointly owned by Lev
> and Russel, and this will always be Lev and Russel.
> However if later on the Melbourne Twins became two other individuals,
> say Peter and Mary, and Lev and Russel cease to be The Melbourne Twins,
> it does not follow that the biscuits will belong to the new Melbourne
> Twins. The biscuit is jointly owned by Lev and Russel, not by the
> Melbourne Twins, The Melbourne Twins here is only words used to
> designate these 2 people as one. The Melbourne Twins *is* (note the use
> of the single *is*) not here an entity entitled to own property.
That is absolutely correct. Even a matter like the Register's Guidelines
for an Application to Confirm Ownership of Water Share Water Act 1989
c.f., Schedule 15, Clause 18(2) - Unincorporated Associations.
Every member of an unincorporated association must sign a statutory
declaration to indicate that they will or will not be named as an owner to
The Consumer Affairs website of the Victorian government also makes this
abundantly clear. Unincorporated associations can not hold property in
their own name. It is the individuals who a members who hold that
property, enter contracts, and liability.
Unincorporated associations only own property to the extent that
individual members own that property (and liability, and contract etc).
The association, per se, does not hold property.
All the best,
Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GCertPM, MBA
mobile: 0432 255 208
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines
By the way,
That should really be moved to luv-talk... and I plead guilty to not
doing that earlier.
On Wed, 2013-09-04 at 13:58 +1000, Chris Samuel wrote:
> On 03/09/13 19:28, Rick Moen wrote:
> > Unincorporated associations can own property.
> There are a number of HPC centres and eResearch organisations around
> Australia that are UJVs (Unincorporated Joint Ventures) and as a
> result of them not being able to own property all "their" assets are
> actually owned by one (or more) of the members on their behalf.
> I can think of ones in VIC, ACT, NSW and SA and they are all in the
> same boat.
> Consumer Affairs Victoria says (regarding the initial 1981 act):
> # The introduction of the Act addressed many of the difficulties faced
> # by unincorporated associations by providing a relatively simple
> # mechanism of incorporation which conferred the benefits of limited
> # liability of members, perpetual succession, ability to enter into
> # contracts, and power to acquire, hold and dispose of property.
> The SA govt says:
> # As an unincorporated association has no legal identity, it
> # cannot hold assets in its own name. It must appoint individuals
> # as trustees, who own the assets but hold them for the benefit of
> # the association. The trustees are bound by the Trustee Act 1936 (SA).
> NSW says similar (though not explicitly mentioning assets):
> # Unless a community organisation takes the step of incorporating,
> # it is simply a group of people doing something together, with no
> # legal identity apart from that of its individual members.
> WA says:
> # There are several significant advantages. One advantage is that
> # the individual members limit their exposure to personal legal
> # liability. Bank accounts can be opened in the name of the
> # association, it can apply for government grants and it can hold
> # property.