luv-talk September 2013

luv-talk@luv.asn.au

20 participants
17 discussions

Safest firmware upgrade strategy for an Android phone?

by Jason White

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/

9 years, 6 months

You cannot trust anything / encryption / privacy ... least of all M$ and NSA ... perhaps not even TOR

by Andrew McGlashan

Hi, 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 https://www.accessnow.org/page/m/3717cfad/13a757b0/7348f2b8/1de05321/200989… The above link redirects to: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/nsa-foils-much-internet-encryption.htm… Cheers AndrewM

9 years, 6 months

Re: [luv-talk] Fwd: Disincorporation: why I changed my mind and will vote yes

by Rick Moen

[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 filings. 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.

9 years, 6 months

Re: [luv-talk] What happened at the AGM?

by Lev Lafayette

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 considered decision. 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 is talk. Regards, -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GCertPM, MBA mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

9 years, 6 months

Re: [luv-talk] Fwd: Disincorporation: why I changed my mind and will vote yes

by Lev Lafayette

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 share. 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. http://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/clubs-and-not-for-profits/incorporated-assoc… 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 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

9 years, 6 months

Re: [luv-talk] Fwd: Disincorporation: why I changed my mind and will vote yes

by Daniel Jitnah

By the way, That should really be moved to luv-talk... and I plead guilty to not doing that earlier. Cheers, Daniel 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): > > http://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/library/publications/resources-and-education… > > # 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: > > http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch08s02.php > > # 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): > > http://www.legalanswers.sl.nsw.gov.au/guides/law_handbook/pdf/Ch9_community… > > # 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: > > http://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/associationsguide/Content/01_Introduction/1.0… > > # 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. > > cheers, > Chris

9 years, 6 months

discount Nexus 4

by Russell Coker

https://play.google.com/store/devices/details?id=nexus_4_8gb The Nexus 4 Android phone is now only $249, until very recently it was about $350. This is a really good deal, when that sells out it will be difficult to get a comparable phone for that sort of price. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/

9 years, 6 months

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

luv-talk September 2013