Future Mac OS X Features?

[MacRumors]

Appleinsider claims (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=444) that upcoming versions of Mac OS X will offer a few new features including MetaData, new Safari revision and security.

Very few details on each of the topics are available.

[johnnowak]

Oh my god, new security features AND a browser update?

Where's my $129, I can't wait!

:p

[thatwendigo]

I don't like the sound of "working closely" with the government on "security," especially since there's no specification of who's security we're talking about. It came to light that the NSA or one of the other spook operations wanted backdoors into Windows a few years ago (and it's been long enough that I don't want to claim that it was actually done, though I wouldn't doubt it).

If they're doing similar things in OS X, I think I'd have to either stick with Panther or not upgrade until someone figured out a way around it. My system is secure for a reason, and I am a US citizen. The fourth ammendment and the second are there to allow me to protect myself, and that includes my property, physical or intellectual.

[animefan_1]

I don't like the sound of "working closely" with the government on "security," especially since there's no specification of who's security we're talking about. It came to light that the NSA or one of the other spook operations wanted backdoors into Windows a few years ago (and it's been long enough that I don't want to claim that it was actually done, though I wouldn't doubt it).

If they're doing similar things in OS X, I think I'd have to either stick with Panther or not upgrade until someone figured out a way around it. My system is secure for a reason, and I am a US citizen. The fourth ammendment and the second are there to allow me to protect myself, and that includes my property, physical or intellectual.

I don't think Apple would do that. I feel that they respect their users too much to do anything like that. What I think they will be doing is working with the gov't to design special security features/technologies specifically for the gov't. I don't think we will have anything to worry about wwith respects to this.

[AirUncleP]

My system is secure for a reason, and I am a US citizen. The fourth ammendment and the second are there to allow me to protect myself, and that includes my property, physical or intellectual.

You forgot.....And I don't want any of my drug dealing records to be accessed by the goverment.

Please.

[Colman]

I don't think Apple would do that. I feel that they respect their users too much to do anything like that. What I think they will be doing is working with the gov't to design special security features/technologies specifically for the gov't. I don't think we will have anything to worry about wwith respects to this.

I'd suggest that a likely candidate is somthing like the mandatory access control (http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/mac.html) mandatory access control stuff from FreeBSD, which is very much government style stuff. This ties in with a meta-data enabled filesystem, since you need metadata on files to implement access policies.

The other possibilities are support for assorted mandated access control hardware - biometrics, cards and so on or certification of the system.

[nsb3000]

Appleinsider claims (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=444) that upcoming versions of Mac OS X will offer a few new features including MetaData, new Safari revision and security.

Very few details on each of the topics are available.

This seems like educated guessing rather than any real "insider" information.

[thatwendigo]

I don't think Apple would do that. I feel that they respect their users too much to do anything like that.

As much as I'd like to agree with you, what makes you believe they have any choice? The increasing degree of control given to federal authorities that aren't elected itno office is a little worrying, as is the domestic spying deregulation since the Patriot Act.

There's an intelligence court that isn't subject to public review. All it would take is a court order with a legal gag on discussion, in a more draconian version of the court order for Microsoft to differentiate and stop using anticompetitive practices.

What I think they will be doing is working with the gov't to design special security features/technologies specifically for the gov't. I don't think we will have anything to worry about wwith respects to this.

Sorry, but I'm not that optimistic.

You forgot.....And I don't want any of my drug dealing records to be accessed by the goverment.

Please.

What part of "unreasonable search and seizure" is confusing?

In case you hadn't been paying attention to recent happenings in the crypto world, the US is a signatory to a European Cybercrime treaty that includes the collection of encryption keys. You would be bound, by law, to surrender your keys to the authorities and to trust them not to abuse having them.

Whether people want to face it or not, we are moving into a more and more intrusive attitude on the part of the intelligence and law enforcement communities.

[603]

As much as I'd like to agree with you, what makes you believe they have any choice? The increasing degree of control given to federal authorities that aren't elected itno office is a little worrying, as is the domestic spying deregulation since the Patriot Act.

i am definitely on your side here, but remember that the USA PAtriot Act has a sunset clause, and many of its provisions will expire at the end of 2005. not all of them, not even most of them, but Congress knew that the law would be controversial. it is unlikely that it will be fully renewed given the high level of public opposition that it has received. of course, that all depends on how many cynics stay home come November, and how much terrorist activity occurs between now and the election to make people afraid. they should be more afraid of their own administration.


What part of "unreasonable search and seizure" is confusing?

i'm with you again - whoever posted the comment about drug records is out of line. he should post his name, address, phone number, email accounts (with passwords), computer logon passwords, safety deposit box padlock combination, voicemail access codes, 16-digit debit card number and 4-digit PIN, Social Security number, bank account numbers, insurance policy numbers, and shirt size here. while he's at it, he can post the same information for anyone in his family, including his children, if any. come on, you have nothing to hide... right? show us what a fine, upstanding, moralizing, idealistic citizen you are.


Whether people want to face it or not, we are moving into a more and more intrusive attitude on the part of the intelligence and law enforcement communities.

we are not necessarily moving into a time where the authorities are more intrusive, but we are moving into a time where the authorities have the technological "tools" (as the PATRIOT acronym states) to turn the country into a police state with relative ease. that being said, there's one way to prevent electronic intrusion into your personal information: don't put your personal information on the computer in the first place. if you must put it on the computer, lock it up with the best encryption you can get. don't send emails that are too personal. make phone calls to discuss things that are truly private. i never even type my passwords on a computer that i don't own for fear of a keylogger or spyware. if you're really worried about privacy's erosion (as i am), you shouldn't trust your computer that much in the first place. i you should also disable your internet connections when you're not using them.

all ideological discussion aside, i would not put too much credibility in any conspiracist ideas regarding Apple and the government. the government is simply starting to wake up to the fact that they don't have to wait for Linux to become more usable - there's a fairly modern OS on the market right now with a somewhat easy-to-use GUI, all the power of Unix, and security that blows Microsoft out of the water... government adoption of Mac OS X is a good thing.

keep in mind that the switcher campaign failed (somewhat) because you can't build computer usership from the bottom up - it has to come from the top down, i.e. people who work (in business and in government) have to start using Macs to drive the consumer marketplace to Apple. how many people bought PCs just because that's what they use at work? Dell is very successful in the home market... not because they have the cheapest PCs you can buy that are not total garbage... it's because businesses love those low prices, because all they need is a computer for someone to run one accounting application and an email client all day long and they don't care if the computer has gigabit ethernet or FireWire 800 on it. however, everyone that uses a Dell at work comes home, and they want to get into some extra stuff like video and MP3, so they actually end up buying the more expensive PCs that Dell has to offer, because they want more multimedia feaures. the Mac has multimedia features, of course, but most people don't care to learn a second operating system, and with the state of operating system usability these days, i can't blame them.

so i wouldn't worry - this is probably one of the best things Apple can do for themselves. if people pick up a New York Times a year from now and see that, because of security reasons, the State Department has mandated the use of Macs exclusively for their productivity workers, they'll start to think... hmm... i'm sure getting tired of having to patch Windows for Blaster.Q... maybe i should check out this Mac thing.

[johnpg]

For a second I forgot I was at Macrumors.com. I come here to read and talk about Apple, not to listen to people's often uneducated political opinions. Besides isn't there a forum here for that?

Anyhow, I sure hope they're right about the metadata. Although I have to agree with the post above that there's nothing in the AI post that couldn't just be educated guessing. If they can nail down the next "Expose'" then I'll be impressed. :-) If you guys remember there was a leak that discussed Expose' prior to Panther coming out, but everyone interpreted it to mean "Piles." If memory servers wasn't it a NMR column? Does anyone remember?

Cheers,
John

[P-Worm]

Actually, I think Piles is different than Exposé. Piles was supposed to be a feature where you could look at a "pile" of documents and flip through them before actually opening the one you want. Sort of like shuffling through a stack of papers. I couldn't visualize how this would work well, but I think that's what it was supposed to be.

Anyway, a faster Safari? That sounds great. The metadata sounds great too. Anything to make browsing snappier.

As far as the security is concerned, I know it is becoming increasingly important, but it isn't to me. I have nothing on my computer to hide, just a bunch of music and videos I have made.

But updates are updates and I'm excited to see what Apple has come up with.

P-Worm

[johnpg]

Actually, I think Piles is different than Exposé. Piles was supposed to be a feature where you could look at a "pile" of documents and flip through them before actually opening the one you want. Sort of like shuffling through a stack of papers. I couldn't visualize how this would work well, but I think that's what it was supposed to be. You're totally right, that's what Piles were supposed to be, but the reason that idea was brought up last year was because of a rumor that Panther would have "flying windows" or some such thing (which turned out to be Exposé). The rumor community then mistakenly took that to mean Piles, as Apple does have a patent on that idea.

John

[pascalpp]

When the article discusses Apple working with the government on security features for the new OS, I don't take this to mean Apple providing means for the government to track or collect information on end users' systems. My understanding is that they are working to ensure that the next version of Mac OS X will meet the stricter security requirements that are expected of computer systems in government and military installations. I believe an earlier rumor mentioned that this included customizable login screens tailored for different branches of the government, but I'm sure the changes will go much further and deeper than that. I think this is a good thing, because if a system is secure enough to satisfy the world's largest bureaucracy, it's probly good enough for you or me. :)

[SilentPanda]

Looking at my desk in it's current state I certainly hope Piles makes things more fun... :D

[Zappa]

...If you guys remember there was a leak that discussed Expose' prior to Panther coming out, but everyone interpreted it to mean "Piles."

Then again, maybe piles and expose were the same, but someone figured out that "piles" might not be the best name for this feature. Look it up in your favourite dictionary, and you will see what i mean.

[Kelson]

Okay...you can remove your tin foil hat now....

It is simply that Apple is trying to get certified at a certain security level, mainly to be in consideration for government bids.

No one cares what is specifically on your HD. It just doesn't matter. I know the contents are important to you, but that doesn't mean they are to anyone else.

- Kelson

I don't like the sound of "working closely" with the government on "security," especially since there's no specification of who's security we're talking about. It came to light that the NSA or one of the other spook operations wanted backdoors into Windows a few years ago (and it's been long enough that I don't want to claim that it was actually done, though I wouldn't doubt it).

If they're doing similar things in OS X, I think I'd have to either stick with Panther or not upgrade until someone figured out a way around it. My system is secure for a reason, and I am a US citizen. The fourth ammendment and the second are there to allow me to protect myself, and that includes my property, physical or intellectual.

[BornAgainMac]

Then again, maybe piles and expose were the same, but someone figured out that "piles" might not be the best name for this feature. Look it up in your favourite dictionary, and you will see what i mean.

Even better, check it out in Sherlock. It's terrible name for this feature.

[spankalee]

If Apple does metadata right, and the finder really becomes something befitting it's name, something like iTunes for my files, (iFinder ? :) then they will have a hit.

Smart Folders would be the obvious big feature. Set up a folder with a preset search based on metadata and always have the files you want in it. iTunes and iPhoto almost become irrelevant after that. (almost, the document specific features of those apps would still be valuable) They are great at organizing, but the finder would do just as well.

I just hope they come up with some way to use the metadata that already embedded in certain file types. If I can search my MP3s by ID3 tags, or my graphic files by size, or my eBooks by author, without having to re-enter that data into the meta data system then I think I will have reached home computing nirvana.

They'll have to have a plug-in system to do that though. Then you can go and download all the third-party metadata plugins for PSDs, MPEGs, emails, whatever.

The other big issue is where do they store the metadata and what happens when you transfer the file to another computer. Sending files with resource forks is always a pain in the ass.

[mac15]

The metadeta plugin-in support should be API driven so developers can latch onto it.

'Innovation never sleeps'... Well now that is just plain cool :)

[fatbarstard]

Sorry... that has got to be the most god-awful name for a software feature ever!!!

For those of you that live in the US 'piles' is a medical condition that one would use Preparation H for... a bit like sitting on a bunch of grapes...

Who is the moron who came up with that working title... oh the puns I could write....

[jane doe]

Sorry... that has got to be the most god-awful name for a software feature ever!!!

For those of you that live in the US 'piles' is a medical condition that one would use Preparation H for... a bit like sitting on a bunch of grapes...

Who is the moron who came up with that working title... oh the puns I could write....


Piles isn't real, but the concept is pretty good. I always think of piles of dog crap in the yard when someone brings it up. :)

[GorillaPaws]

As far as the conspiracy theory stuff is concerned, I think we can all safely assume that Tiger won't be secretly transmitting everything we do on our computers to the NSA, or secretly turning on all of our iSights to make sure we're all being good citizens. The real question I have is about this meta data stuff. I have heard it described in previous posts as being analogous to id3 tags in iTunes but within the finder. Is that correct? How is this different from putting info in the comments section of each file (doesn't the finder search function use comments for its searches?), and using lables? I'm just not getting why this will be such a revolutionary thing. I subdivide my documents folder into other more specific folders (e.g. documents-> School-> 2004-> PHIL300). I never have a problem finding what I need, granted I don't have a massive catalogue of files either. I can see how keeping track of files may be more difficult for say a graphics designer with hundreds or thousands of files, but I still think that if they took the time to organize as s/he adds more files that it isn't that big of a deal to manage. Obviously, I'm missing something key here, can one of you graciously point it out to me?

[aid]

I can see how keeping track of files may be more difficult for say a graphics designer with hundreds or thousands of files, but I still think that if they took the time to organize as s/he adds more files that it isn't that big of a deal to manage. Obviously, I'm missing something key here, can one of you graciously point it out to me?

Well, at least my take on this... Apple's use of resource tags in OS9 was effectively meta data. The meta data was extra information about a file but not actually within the file - just more tacked on the side.

Now, if you have such a standard meta data layout the Finder (or other app) can scan though the standard meta-data format, without having to know teh format of each file type to understand comments, ID tags etc etc. I consider this an advantage.

However, what I hope apple do in the next MacOSX is to include all of this meta data in a central database, rather than small sub-files attached to each file.

Once you have ALL of the metadata describing your files in one database you have the ability to instantly search for any query based upon that data. Once could do that now but would need to run through every file on the filing system - a very, very slow process indeed..

This makes such things as Smart Folders possible.

Also, the use of meta data for introducing a more fine-grained level of security than is the Unix norm would be good for many users of shared servers.

I really hope they do it for 10.4 and put MS to shame...

aid

[advocate]

if people pick up a New York Times a year from now and see that, because of security reasons, the State Department has mandated the use of Macs exclusively for their productivity workers, they'll start to think... hmm... i'm sure getting tired of having to patch Windows for Blaster.Q... maybe i should check out this Mac thing.
No, it's more like they'll call their IT support desk and demand to know why they haven't "fixed" the "virus problem" yet. That's from an actual call I took today. Another actual call I took today demanded to know why we didn't have a dedicated position to manually filter all of the email coming into the site. She threatened to sue the IT department if she had to take any more "sexual harassment" from us in the form of spam from remote sites.

Users know less than nothing. Don't count on them to make intelligent decisions.

[sedarby]

When the article discusses Apple working with the government on security features for the new OS, I don't take this to mean Apple providing means for the government to track or collect information on end users' systems. My understanding is that they are working to ensure that the next version of Mac OS X will meet the stricter security requirements that are expected of computer systems in government and military installations. I believe an earlier rumor mentioned that this included customizable login screens tailored for different branches of the government, but I'm sure the changes will go much further and deeper than that. I think this is a good thing, because if a system is secure enough to satisfy the world's largest bureaucracy, it's probly good enough for you or me. :)

Microsoft went through this with NT 4.0. They had to meet C4 guidelines for the government to use systems with their operating system.

Paranoia aside I would not be too concerned about this but then again do you really think the government doesn't have computers analyzing traffic on the IP network you like to call the internet? Big Brother is already there and putting hooks into OS X really won't matter that much.

[thatwendigo]

Okay...you can remove your tin foil hat now....

Could we cut it with the condecension, please? Disagree with me if you like, but don't take it down to the level of insults.

No one cares what is specifically on your HD. It just doesn't matter. I know the contents are important to you, but that doesn't mean they are to anyone else.

I suppose that's why people have been investigated by the FBI for merely having "anti-American" art, opinions, or other objects that are found to be objecitonable, yes? I submitted some graphical work, post-9/11, to a number of counterculture sites, and my name is out there attached to those files. I'm a registered member of a third party, a vocal dissident, and a politically active campaigner.

I'm not first on the list, but if people have been harassed for less than that, I'd like to be sure I have at least a modicum of protection. Since the restrictions that were put into place after the COINTELPRO scandal in the 1970s have been removed, and that was because of federal agents blackmailing and harassing dissident politicals... What was your point?

Paranoia aside I would not be too concerned about this but then again do you really think the government doesn't have computers analyzing traffic on the IP network you like to call the internet? Big Brother is already there and putting hooks into OS X really won't matter that much.

Given the Patriot Act's provisions for roving wiretaps, the signing of a European cybercrime treaty that includes limitation on private use of cryptography (i.e. surrendering your keys to law enforcement, who promise not to misuse them), and all the other events of late... Packet analysis is the least of our worries.

A system is only as secure as its software, and any backdoor could be exploited if it's found. Even if there is no personal reason to worry at the moment, making holes means weakening the platform over all. That being said, I do hope that this is just qualification processes to get OS X into government departments, and I do remember the older rumors about that being a distinct possibility. If true, then it could be a major coup for getting the mac accepted in other markets.

[Fukui]

I don't like the sound of "working closely" with the government on "security," especially since there's no specification of who's security we're talking about. It came to light that the NSA or one of the other spook operations wanted backdoors into Windows a few years ago (and it's been long enough that I don't want to claim that it was actually done, though I wouldn't doubt it).



It is a great deal open source, so its likely something that is extremely low level like that could be spotted. If they added a kernel extension, then its as easy as unloading it and deleting it.

[a_iver]

Could we cut it with the condecension, please? Disagree with me if you like, but don't take it down to the level of insults.


I'd have to agree with him, you are being a little paranoid. I know the US government keeps secrets, but it doesn't mean that they plan on taking you downtown and stealing your credit card numbers. So don't be accusing Apple of spying on you whenever they make a software upgrade. For pete's sake all they said was a few security enhancements. And remember it's optional so if you think the world's out to get you, that's fine - but no reason to uneducate the rest of us.

[reaper]

What ever happened to satying on topic? :rolleyes:

Anyways, I can't wait to see the look on Bill's face when Apple trumps him in the metadata department - which, as I see it, is something Microsoft has been focusing on for a long time now with Longhorn.

Faster Safari is a decent addition too, as long as it gets some functionality and display updates as well. Must say, though, I don't know if I'll be spending another $129 anytime soon.

- reaper

[thatwendigo]

I'd have to agree with him, you are being a little paranoid. I know the US government keeps secrets, but it doesn't mean that they plan on taking you downtown and stealing your credit card numbers. So don't be accusing Apple of spying on you whenever they make a software upgrade. For pete's sake all they said was a few security enhancements. And remember it's optional so if you think the world's out to get you, that's fine - but no reason to uneducate the rest of us.

Why is it that people have such a hard time not reading things into what I'm saying?

I didn't accuse Apple of anything, and I apply the security patches when they come out. This isn't anything against our favorite computer company, and saying otherwise is completely failing to miss my point. All I said was that, if they did install backdoors, that it would be a reprehensible thing to do and that it would weaken overall security. Take a look at the internal Messenger system for Windows if you don't believe me.

Also, I can't "uneducate" anyone else. There's nothing wrong with discussion of possible problems with an update, nor is there a problem with theorizing about motivations.

So chill.

[spankalee]

Why is it that people have such a hard time not reading things into what I'm saying?


Uh, maybe because you're actually saying it?


I don't like the sound of "working closely" with the government on "security," especially since there's no specification of who's security we're talking about. It came to light that the NSA or one of the other spook operations wanted backdoors into Windows a few years ago (and it's been long enough that I don't want to claim that it was actually done, though I wouldn't doubt it).

If they're doing similar things in OS X, I think I'd have to either stick with Panther or not upgrade until someone figured out a way around it. My system is secure for a reason, and I am a US citizen. The fourth ammendment and the second are there to allow me to protect myself, and that includes my property, physical or intellectual.

Jumping from working with the government on security enhancements to spying on you is just asking for tinfoil hat comments.

The government has very tight security requirements for computers used in certain areas, like secret research. If Apple wants to sell to the government for these purposes they must meet certain standards. If the government were trying to get a backdoor into OS X you can bet there'd be no mention of it.

Don't jump to such extreme conclusions and people won't tell you to stop rigging your house to flash burn incase of an unexpected knock at the door.

[thatwendigo]

Uh, maybe because you're actually saying it?

No, I said the magic word, "if." Apparently that ones a little hard to read, though, so I'll state what I meant right out in the open:

If Apple is building in backdoors for the government, it's making the entire system less secure, and not only because it would mean that law enforcement could misuse the power. Any holes in the security programs could potentially be exploited to create new weaknesses in the OS, and so they're a bad idea overall. There are already enough things to worry about with the federal government's encroachment into daily life, but this would make for a new one that we didn't have to really consider before. I sure hope that it's only qualifications for the more rigorous standards of government security work.

Jumping from working with the government on security enhancements to spying on you is just asking for tinfoil hat comments.

Only if you accept that it's even remotely acceptable to assault someone without taking any time to understand their opinion. My point is far more complex than the "dur du guvmint's gone spy on me" synopsis that making tinfoil hat comments implies.

The government has very tight security requirements for computers used in certain areas, like secret research. If Apple wants to sell to the government for these purposes they must meet certain standards. If the government were trying to get a backdoor into OS X you can bet there'd be no mention of it.

Why not? The government isn't bothering to hide anything else that it's doing lately, or not doing much in the way of serious coverup. In any case, I already stated that I was concerned about the platform in general, overall security, and encroachment based off of current actions, along with treaties and bills that are being considered for ratification.

Don't jump to such extreme conclusions and people won't tell you to stop rigging your house to flash burn incase of an unexpected knock at the door.

Or, you know... People could have a little politeness, and others could stop excusing their poor manners. We disagree, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to be running around and posting everywhere that I find someone who's in favor of DRM and calling them deluded fools that have been suckered into the corporate machine.

It might be fun, but the admins here wouldn't like it. :D

[spankalee]

No, I said the magic word, "if."

"if" isn't magic enough to keep people from saying you're being paranoid.


Apparently that ones a little hard to read, though, so I'll state what I meant right out in the open:

If Apple is building in backdoors for the government...


Ok, we'll stop right there, because that's enough for some people to say "Whoa, where are you getting this backdoor stuff from? The article said Apple was working with the government on security advancements. Stop being paranoid. Time to take of the tinfoil hat."

If you're going to make those suggestions (oh, sorry you used "if") then don't be surprised at the reactions you get.

[JFreak]

this is no big deal.

this only means that apple and us government come together to run some scripts that proves them that a mac is a unix is a posix-compatible system, which is pretty much enough for them. after all, microsoft didn't have to do more than some minor tweaks for their nt and id expect apple having to do nothing to pass the tests.

they also need to provide means to customize the login screen, but that can be done in a minute anyway.

[Windowlicker]

Then again, maybe piles and expose were the same, but someone figured out that "piles" might not be the best name for this feature. Look it up in your favourite dictionary, and you will see what i mean.

haha! i never thought of it that way until now.. though english isn't my native language. The "World Wrestling" game on 8-bit Nintendo had this move "Pile Driver".. I remember it kicking ass :DD those were the days...

[Chip NoVaMac]

"if" isn't magic enough to keep people from saying you're being paranoid.



Ok, we'll stop right there, because that's enough for some people to say "Whoa, where are you getting this backdoor stuff from? The article said Apple was working with the government on security advancements. Stop being paranoid. Time to take of the tinfoil hat."

If you're going to make those suggestions (oh, sorry you used "if") then don't be surprised at the reactions you get.

It is not so much as wanting to put on "tin-foil" hats, as much as a mistrust when the private sector starts working with the government.

Keep in mind that the airlines "worked" with the government, and loss of privacy resulted.

[MatMistake]

No, I said the magic word, "if." Apparently that ones a little hard to read

a little off topic, but so is most of this thread:
your brain does actually have a problem picking up the word 'if'.
I can't remember the test exactly, but if you put five 'f's in a sentence, but 3 of them are in 'if's and ask someone to count the amount of 'f's in the sentence most people will only pick up the 2 not in 'ifs'...

the same thing might happen with other short words, but I've only ever heard of it happening with 'if'

[a_iver]

*Laughs at thread, turn on X-Files music, and opens thesaurus*

It's only a page two rumor anyways.

[Llywelyn]

The government has a system where you can scan a card that contains your exact clearance level and the system will give you access to those files that you are thereby cleared to see.

They are probably just working on a given security rating and making themselves acceptable for government use, which is nothing but a Good Thing™.

[Rower_CPU]

The government has a system where you can scan a card that contains your exact clearance level and the system will give you access to those files that you are thereby cleared to see.

They are probably just working on a given security rating and making themselves acceptable for government use, which is nothing but a Good Thing.

Apple already implemented this in Jaguar - kbase document (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=25526) - and DoD Common Access Card compatibility is listed on the Jaguar-Panther comparison page (http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/compare.html).

[spinko]

Sorry... that has got to be the most god-awful name for a software feature ever!!!

For those of you that live in the US 'piles' is a medical condition that one would use Preparation H for... a bit like sitting on a bunch of grapes...

Who is the moron who came up with that working title... oh the puns I could write....

excellent !!!! :D :D

[msandersen]

Man, did this thread get off-topic quick!!
thatwendigo has a right to raise the topic without being ridiculed. This may not be the Cold War 50s, where it would probably be true, but the Bush era is pretty scary too. 9/11 has been a great opportunity to take away poeple's rights and give extra powers to agencies they could never get before due to the outcry it would have caused.
Besides, America is the best at conspiracy theories. You never know, some of them could be true. And back doors are not unheard of. For instance, the CIA won't want any kind of encryption implemented they cannot crack, so they may well require there be a backdoor into an encrypted homepage, like leaving the key under the doormat.
That said, that's not how I read the article. It's not the sort of thing they'd advertise, anyway. Government agencies has worked on similar security features for Linux so they can be used in high security areas. Microsoft will have done the same. Darwin and Linux is easier to audit, being opensource, but they have seen the sourcecode for Windows too under special agreements.

As for the metadata, that's a huge deal. Hell, you'll be able to do a search of your porn collection for hardcore pics of your favourite model shot by your favourite photographer, say Suze Randall, in a certain time frame.
But seriously, it's one of those features developed by BeOS 10 years ago that made it so good and powerful. I should think the system would recognise ID3 tags, of EXIF data from digital photos, automatically and incorporate into the filesystem metadata. That way, no need for long convoluted filenames. You can easily search for all songs by a certain band from a certain year written by a cerain person, or classical by composer etc. Much like the smart lists in iTunes. Or digital photos by date taken, daytime shots, exposure setting, camera used, whatever is in the EXIF data.
Remember, Apple hired one of the key BeOS filesystem engineers a while back, ostensibly to work on the journalling system for OSX Server. He was the one who devised it for BeOS. He may well work on the metadata too. This will be a kickass feature.
Enhanced security is always a good thing, up to a point. The most secure computer is one not plugged into anything else, inside a concrete bunker with no doors and no power supply. There will always be one crucial security flaw, and that's sitting a few inches in front of the screen.
"Excuse me, IT Support? I havea problem. It says; Insert Next Disk. Problem is, I can't fit any more in"
"Um, how many is in there now?"
"9"
"Nine??? How did you manage that??? (moron)"
"Oh, I removed them from their plastic covers. It was a little tricky."
Actual support call.

[windowsblowsass]

has anone here actually read the patriot act the real reason for it is mainly so that the fbi and cia can talk before they couldnt

[Chip NoVaMac]

Man, did this thread get off-topic quick!!
thatwendigo has a right to raise the topic without being ridiculed. This may not be the Cold War 50s, where it would probably be true, but the Bush era is pretty scary too. 9/11 has been a great opportunity to take away poeple's rights and give extra powers to agencies they could never get before due to the outcry it would have caused.


But shows the depth that there are those of us that feel strongly about personal privacy, in particular when it comes from the computer age.

The internet allows for tracking and an archive of ones comments and much more.

The ATM/Check Card allows for tracking of ones purchases and comings and goings.

The roadway "toll" collection electronic tags also allows for tracking of ones movements, as well as the "flash-passes" that are used on some subway systems.

We are more aware of it because of the Patriot Act.


Besides, America is the best at conspiracy theories. You never know, some of them could be true. And back doors are not unheard of. For instance, the CIA won't want any kind of encryption implemented they cannot crack, so they may well require there be a backdoor into an encrypted homepage, like leaving the key under the doormat.


With parents that came of age or grew up in WWII, I understand the need for intelligence. More so today, than any other time. But as governments and technology have become even more pervasive, we need to be sure that information being collected IS NOT being used beyond the scope of the intentions described.

Keep in mind my parents grew up in an era that you did right by your employer, and your employer would do right by you. Those days are gone in search of even better Stock Market performance. And the 1960's revelations of FBI investigations of Martin Luther King, JFK, and many others - as well as the McCarthy hearings shows just how the government can act.


That said, that's not how I read the article. It's not the sort of thing they'd advertise, anyway. Government agencies has worked on similar security features for Linux so they can be used in high security areas. Microsoft will have done the same. Darwin and Linux is easier to audit, being opensource, but they have seen the sourcecode for Windows too under special agreements.

As for the metadata, that's a huge deal. Hell, you'll be able to do a search of your porn collection for hardcore pics of your favourite model shot by your favourite photographer, say Suze Randall, in a certain time frame.
But seriously, it's one of those features developed by BeOS 10 years ago that made it so good and powerful. I should think the system would recognise ID3 tags, of EXIF data from digital photos, automatically and incorporate into the filesystem metadata. That way, no need for long convoluted filenames. You can easily search for all songs by a certain band from a certain year written by a cerain person, or classical by composer etc. Much like the smart lists in iTunes. Or digital photos by date taken, daytime shots, exposure setting, camera used, whatever is in the EXIF data.

<snip>

Enhanced security is always a good thing, up to a point. The most secure computer is one not plugged into anything else, inside a concrete bunker with no doors and no power supply. There will always be one crucial security flaw, and that's sitting a few inches in front of the screen.

<snip>


The point being is that our Fore-Fathers saw the possibility of words and actions being used against the citizens. Yes, of course they could never see a "shadow" enemy that targets innocent people. Yet, the basis of their beliefs can not be ignored today.

It is one thing for a government agency to provide "published rules" for companies to follow (like the car industry or the CPSC with child safety). When consumer companies are required, of feel "compelled" to work with the government without the benefit of public opinion.

In my mind it is better to be "alarmist", than rather to sit back and hope that the government does the right thing.

[Chip NoVaMac]

has anone here actually read the patriot act the real reason for it is mainly so that the fbi and cia can talk before they couldnt

I have tried to read beyond the "government" speak.

You are right that the basis is better communication between agencies. Yet it does provide the government the ability to "avoid" the Bill of Rights in the "pursuit" of "terrorists" (the quotations were intentional).

The internment of Japanese-Americans during WWI has not been shown to prevent further damage to the US. I will yield that today is a different matter. But if we allow for expanded "rights" of the "government"; how do we reel these in after the threat is over (hopefully)?

there is so much hatred in the US after the WTC attacks, it is not hard to understand how some feel. There were many of us at 40+ years of age that sought to go after Al Qeada and Bin Laden, but were turned down due to our age or physical condition. The first MLB game after 9-11, I waved the "Don't Tread On Me" flag.

The point being is that we should not be "blinded" to the hatred that fills our hearts with the loss of 3000+ lives at the WTC, the Pentagon, or in PA. We need to look deeper into our hearts and beliefs in order to find answers. Otherwise the cycle of violence will only continue.

[thatwendigo]

thatwendigo has a right to raise the topic without being ridiculed. This may not be the Cold War 50s, where it would probably be true, but the Bush era is pretty scary too. 9/11 has been a great opportunity to take away poeple's rights and give extra powers to agencies they could never get before due to the outcry it would have caused.

Actually, there are some disturbing similarities between the current administration's reaction to events and a certain action back before COINTELPRO. To put it bluntly, everyone who says that I'm paranoid should read up on Operation Northwoods (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html) and the Project For The New American Century. (http://www.newamericancentury.org/) Other things to look into are the Iran Contra Scandal (specifically John Poindexter, who now heads DARPA), Cheney's Halliburton subsidiaries selling parts to Iraq, the imprisonment of Jose Padilla and Mike Hawash, and the COINTELPRO hearings in the 70s.

The reason that the CIA and FBI were separated and not allowed to share information was they they were carrying out joint operations to blackmail, discredit, and otherwise harass civil rights leaders, dissidents, and other "undesirables" that the government didn't particularly care for. That the Patriot Act has torn this down shows how short sighted Congress is, and that Benjamin Franklin was right when he said that "Any society that sacrifices a little liberty for a little safety will have neither."

Most of all, pay attention to COINTELPRO (http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm) and Northwoods, (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html) (new link) though.

Paranoid? I pay attention to history.

has anone here actually read the patriot act the real reason for it is mainly so that the fbi and cia can talk before they couldnt

Yes, I have. (http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/hr3162.php)

Have you? (http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.html)

You are right that the basis is better communication between agencies. Yet it does provide the government the ability to "avoid" the Bill of Rights in the "pursuit" of "terrorists" (the quotations were intentional).

Tell it to Padilla and Hawash, along with the other two US Citizen detainess that are incommunicado in military brigs. Let's try to establish this, for those who doubt what I'm saying... The President has claimed the power to decide whether or not you get a trial, through the executive declaration that awards someone the dubious label "enemy combatant." If he says so, you suddenly lose your right to a jury trial of your peers, when the crime that this supposedly makes you face a military court for is the same as Treason, which we already have standards and precedent to hold hearings against in civilian court.

The internment of Japanese-Americans during WWI has not been shown to prevent further damage to the US. I will yield that today is a different matter. But if we allow for expanded "rights" of the "government"; how do we reel these in after the threat is over (hopefully)?

US Constitution, Ammendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, now shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor to be deprived of his life, liberty or property, without due process of law.; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

US Constttution, Ammendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel in his defense.

More importantly, the basic issue that should make everyone hate the Patriot Act...

US Constitution, IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The whole point of the Fourth Ammendment is to create accountability in the judicial and law enforcement systems, since swearing an oath that you need to search someone is supposed to be a big deal. The Patriot Act largely does away with some needs for Warrants, extends the powers of others, and creates a secret intelligence court that doesn't answer to Congress.

What the hell were they thinking?

there is so much hatred in the US after the WTC attacks, it is not hard to understand how some feel. There were many of us at 40+ years of age that sought to go after Al Qeada and Bin Laden, but were turned down due to our age or physical condition. The first MLB game after 9-11, I waved the "Don't Tread On Me" flag.

The point being is that we should not be "blinded" to the hatred that fills our hearts with the loss of 3000+ lives at the WTC, the Pentagon, or in PA. We need to look deeper into our hearts and beliefs in order to find answers. Otherwise the cycle of violence will only continue.

I've yet to see evidence that's more than circumstantial that it was Al Qaeda. There were supposedly fifteen Saudis on that plane, out of nineteen men. If there had been fifteen Jews, then the outcry against Israel would have been instant. If there had been fifteen Chinese, fifteen Germans, fifteen of any other country, we'd have gone after them and wanted to know why.

On that day, there was one non-military aircraft aloft, and it was gathering the Bin Ladens to get them out of the country. Why? Why do the siblings of the man we're supposedly going after get to leave, rather than being questioned?

[Chip NoVaMac]

What the hell were they thinking?

I've yet to see evidence that's more than circumstantial that it was Al Qaeda. There were supposedly fifteen Saudis on that plane, out of nineteen men. If there had been fifteen Jews, then the outcry against Israel would have been instant. If there had been fifteen Chinese, fifteen Germans, fifteen of any other country, we'd have gone after them and wanted to know why.

On that day, there was one non-military aircraft aloft, and it was gathering the Bin Ladens to get them out of the country. Why? Why do the siblings of the man we're supposedly going after get to leave, rather than being questioned?

The evidence I have heard of was AFTER the fact. Your questions are ones that need to be answered. We may never know the true answers till generations have past.

We have Bin Laden on video tape accepting blame for the the attacks. Keep in mind it goes to the heart of of how I feel, and that is he expressed "surprise', but "pleasure" at the collapse of the WTC. i truly wonder how we as a nation would have responded if the WTC towers would have been damaged, but not have fallen. Would the Right and many on the Left be wanting blood?

[tex210]

Is this really Mac Rumors!?
Uh... does anyone know If i'll be able to upgrade from 10.2.8 to 10.4(once available) or will I need to follow the 10.3 route? Did anyone go from 10. to 10.3? thnx.

[thatwendigo]

Is this really Mac Rumors!?
Uh... does anyone know If i'll be able to upgrade from 10.2.8 to 10.4(once available) or will I need to follow the 10.3 route? Did anyone go from 10. to 10.3? thnx.

You can almost certainly upgrade directly to 10.4, as long as your hardware supports the new version. I find it unlikely that the dependencies for th OS won't just be rolled into the entire release.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Is this really Mac Rumors!?
Uh... does anyone know If i'll be able to upgrade from 10.2.8 to 10.4(once available) or will I need to follow the 10.3 route? Did anyone go from 10. to 10.3? thnx.

There are no guarantees. For it could require a G% processor for go to 10.4....

[tex210]

That's what I want to know.

[nosleep]

The fourth ammendment and the second are there to allow me to protect myself, and that includes my property, physical or intellectual.

And I'm sure you never downloaded someone elses intellectual property for free, right?

[Trekkie]

Users know less than nothing. Don't count on them to make intelligent decisions.

Yup. That's why windows owns 97% of the market too.

[wdlove]

Is this really Mac Rumors!?
Uh... does anyone know If i'll be able to upgrade from 10.2.8 to 10.4(once available) or will I need to follow the 10.3 route? Did anyone go from 10. to 10.3? thnx.

I went from 9.2.2 and upgraded to 10.3.2 without any difficulty. As long as your computer specifications will support the 10.4 then it should be smooth sailing.

[JW Pepper]

For security, I would add that each file compiled on a machine would embed the s/n of the processor or other such code such that the file can be linked directly to the originating machine. This would enable virus writers to be tracked. It would be quite easy for Apple to compile lists of machines and owners via product registration and software update etc.

I would be happier with this and have a virus free system than worry about some theoretical threat to privacy.

[thatwendigo]

And I'm sure you never downloaded someone elses intellectual property for free, right?

Out of curiosity, because I'm not sure I know exactly what justification you have, I'd just like to know how this is at all relevant. Even postulating that I had, hypothetically, downloaded someone's intellectual property unjustly, there are precedents and procedures in place for establishing guilt. In America it's innocent until proven guilty, no matter what the Bush administration would like for us to believe.

For security, I would add that each file compiled on a machine would embed the s/n of the processor or other such code such that the file can be linked directly to the originating machine. This would enable virus writers to be tracked. It would be quite easy for Apple to compile lists of machines and owners via product registration and software update etc.

Because what we need is more snooping into who owns what, who does what, what they download, what they manucature, and where they do it from...

I would be happier with this and have a virus free system than worry about some theoretical threat to privacy.

There is no "theoretical" to that scenario. It is invasion of privacy at the deepest level that does not involve your physical body.

[geezusfreeek]

For security, I would add that each file compiled on a machine would embed the s/n of the processor or other such code such that the file can be linked directly to the originating machine. This would enable virus writers to be tracked. It would be quite easy for Apple to compile lists of machines and owners via product registration and software update etc.

Ultimately, anything of this sort can be used against you. The best security isn't storing more information about the authors and contents of data, but is storing less.

[redJag]

I don't like the sound of "working closely" with the government on "security," especially since there's no specification of who's security we're talking about. It came to light that the NSA or one of the other spook operations wanted backdoors into Windows a few years ago (and it's been long enough that I don't want to claim that it was actually done, though I wouldn't doubt it).

That is not what it means. Apple is going for security approval so higher level government sectors can use their computers and operating system. If Apple WERE doing something like that, I'm sure it wouldn't be advertised:)

[nosleep]

I'd just like to know how this is at all relevant.

Don't download music (I know you've only done so hypothetically) and then turn around and preach, "The fourth amendment and the second are there to allow me to protect myself, and that includes my property, physical or intellectual." It's hypocritical.


Even postulating that I had, hypothetically, downloaded someone's intellectual property unjustly, there are precedents and procedures in place for establishing guilt. In America it's innocent until proven guilty, no matter what the Bush administration would like for us to believe.

So if I go out and steal a car and a court fails to convict me, my conscience should be clear?

[deeq]

I don't like the sound of "working closely" with the government on "security," especially since there's no specification of who's security we're talking about. It came to light that the NSA or one of the other spook operations wanted backdoors into Windows a few years ago (and it's been long enough that I don't want to claim that it was actually done, though I wouldn't doubt it).

If they're doing similar things in OS X, I think I'd have to either stick with Panther or not upgrade until someone figured out a way around it. My system is secure for a reason, and I am a US citizen. The fourth ammendment and the second are there to allow me to protect myself, and that includes my property, physical or intellectual.

I quote again,
"FileVault uses the latest government-approved encryption standard, the Advanced Encryption Standard with 128-bit keys (AES-128)."
The author of PGP points out that (official knowledge) the AES, even though it is very secure is designed in such a way that the NSA can access it any time if they had access to the file itself. This Encryption standard was designed to keep the public away from the encryptions that the NSA really would have to put some effort into decoding... so, the government ALREADY is making a joke of your "so called security".

[duvalin]

I rememer reading about 5 years ago about a system called wolverine, it was ment to scan all internet traffic. Now, I am no conspiracy type, but that does sound like a long time for them to not have implimented it yet.

[tex210]

As I recall, wolverine was stopped by congress, but has continued being used under another name(for our sanitary safety). Consumer encryption will never be allowed to keep the Government in the dark.

[spankalee]

I quote again,
"FileVault uses the latest government-approved encryption standard, the Advanced Encryption Standard with 128-bit keys (AES-128)."
The author of PGP points out that (official knowledge) the AES, even though it is very secure is designed in such a way that the NSA can access it any time if they had access to the file itself. This Encryption standard was designed to keep the public away from the encryptions that the NSA really would have to put some effort into decoding... so, the government ALREADY is making a joke of your "so called security".

You're so wrong on this. AES/DES were developed to enable secure communications between people in the government. They were never originally intended to be used by the public. When I worked for the Navy we had AES equipped phones that we had to use for any secure conversations. Parts of the government are paranoid of other parts of the government and I seriously doubt that the DoD would give the NSA keys to all their conversations. Not only that, but if the algorithm really could be easily cracked by the NSA then its weak enough to be cracked by other governments - not an acceptable situation for our national security.

[thatwendigo]

Don't download music (I know you've only done so hypothetically) and then turn around and preach, "The fourth amendment and the second are there to allow me to protect myself, and that includes my property, physical or intellectual." It's hypocritical.

Even assuming I do download, I fail to see the connection that you're trying to establish here. The right of an individual to protect their own property with self defending measures such as encryption, the ownership of firearms, and perhaps even force, do not at all touch on intellectual property law.

Even if one accepts the convenient legal fiction that corporations are individuals that have rights, that only entitles them to do similar to what I have - encrypt and secure their own data, with reasonable assurance that the federal government won't be trying to build backdoors or take their keys.

So if I go out and steal a car and a court fails to convict me, my conscience should be clear?

Your conscience is your own business. The law shouldn't touch you without a warrant, should not imprison you without a trial, and should pull you before an impartial jury of your peers should it be determined that you stand accused. If you are acquited of charges, then as far as the government is concerned, you are innocent of criminal wrongdoing. That is what our legal system is supposed to be.

As I recall, wolverine was stopped by congress, but has continued being used under another name(for our sanitary safety). Consumer encryption will never be allowed to keep the Government in the dark.

Magic Lantern, I believe the new name is.

Regardless... If people used thinks like encrypted VPN and secure operating systems, while practicing good information hygeine (rotating passwords regularly, supporting strong encryption standards, and keeping their passwords secure), then we'd not really need to worry about this. Using a sufficient bitrate key, one can circumvent even decent packet sniffers and traffic analyzers like AirSnort through the sheer difficulty of breaking the cypher.

However, I'm not sure that you're right on the last part. The internet has made this a tricky proposition, and while I don't doubt that whatever codebreakers are now in US hands, they're also classifying some encryption as weapons-grade information.

A .sig line that is illegal to allow people outside the country to view. (http://www.cypherspace.org/adam/rsa/)
The shirt that was made to satirize this decision. (http://www.cypherspace.org/adam/uk-shirt.html)

[Bendit]

For security, I would add that each file compiled on a machine would embed the s/n of the processor or other such code such that the file can be linked directly to the originating machine. This would enable virus writers to be tracked. It would be quite easy for Apple to compile lists of machines and owners via product registration and software update etc.

I would be happier with this and have a virus free system than worry about some theoretical threat to privacy.

A virus writer would just use a different compiler.

[Danrose1977]

Piles makes things more fun... :D

I don't know about America but in the UK Piles= Hemaroids..... and I can tell you that they do not make things more fun! Apple would need to change the name before a European release....

[deeq]

You're so wrong on this. AES/DES were developed to enable secure communications between people in the government. They were never originally intended to be used by the public. When I worked for the Navy we had AES equipped phones that we had to use for any secure conversations. Parts of the government are paranoid of other parts of the government and I seriously doubt that the DoD would give the NSA keys to all their conversations. Not only that, but if the algorithm really could be easily cracked by the NSA then its weak enough to be cracked by other governments - not an acceptable situation for our national security.

This is only what I read in the document from PGP's author. Check out his website, www.pgp.com

[spankalee]

This is only what I read in the document from PGP's author. Check out his website, www.pgp.com

Mind pointing me to the page where he says that? I can't find any reference to the NSA on his site, and the only reference to AES is a page stating that PGP supports AES.

That the NSA put a backdoor into DES has been a rumor since the '70s. This started because the NSB (now NIST), asked the NSA to review Lucifer, IBM's encryption method that became DES. NSA came back with two changes. First they reduced the key size to 64 bits (effectively 56) from 128, and second they changed the table of values that Lucifer used. The first request is probably so that they could do a brute force break is they need to. At the time 128 bits would have been nearly unbreakable, but 64 bits could be broken with a bit of time and money. The second change is what made people think that there was a backdoor because the NSA didn't offer a reason for it. However in the almost 30 years since DES was released no one has found a backdoor, and many, many crypto-analysts have been looking for one.

DES can be broken by brute force in a matter of hours now, AES takes considerably longer. I do think that if anyone can break AES, it's the NSA. We hear about the Top 500 super computers, but you can bet that the NSA actually holds the top spot, if not the top few. I still think that AES needs a brute force attack right now, but if the NSA can find the key in a few hours or days they're probably happy. The expense of breaking AES is so great though that they're not reading everyones data in the clear, but if they really need to, they can break any encryption. This is fine by me because most government agencies won't be able to, and if I ever had anything that was so sensitive that I was worried about the NSA going after it I'd do what they did when they knew DES was weak and use a triple AES, or triple PGP.

[pjkelnhofer]

No, it's more like they'll call their IT support desk and demand to know why they haven't "fixed" the "virus problem" yet. That's from an actual call I took today. Another actual call I took today demanded to know why we didn't have a dedicated position to manually filter all of the email coming into the site. She threatened to sue the IT department if she had to take any more "sexual harassment" from us in the form of spam from remote sites.

Users know less than nothing. Don't count on them to make intelligent decisions.

At my company it is the IT guy who knows nothing. He sends out emails to tell that Outlook is not working (relatedly he often tells tell people to email him the problem when they say they cannot log onto the network). He spent twenty minutes trying to set up my computer to print to a network printer and was unsuccessful. After he left, I did it myself. He actually has the firewalls set on several computers so that you cannot even access our companies Intranet site properly.

Idiots are everywhere, even working in the IT field.

[pjkelnhofer]

However, I'm not sure that you're right on the last part. The internet has made this a tricky proposition, and while I don't doubt that whatever codebreakers are now in US hands, they're also classifying some encryption as weapons-grade information.

A .sig line that is illegal to allow people outside the country to view. (http://www.cypherspace.org/adam/rsa/)
The shirt that was made to satirize this decision. (http://www.cypherspace.org/adam/uk-shirt.html)

I just went to the pages you linked to, but it according to that page, the .sig encryption file is no longer illegal to export.


The US export laws were relaxed in 1999. Crypto software can exported with minimal restrictions now. So the t-shirt is at this time legal to export as is the perl-rsa signature.
The rest of this page is of historic value only. It may be that the RSA sig played some small part in the eventual relaxation of the US crypto export laws.


It just takes the government a long time to catch up to technology, what it is, and how it works.

[mrsebastian]

*Laughs at thread, turn on X-Files music, and opens thesaurus*

It's only a page two rumor anyways.

lol, that's funny. some one get the lone gunmen on the case!

[cgc]

If Apple does metadata right, and the finder really becomes something befitting it's name, something like iTunes for my files, (iFinder ? :) then they will have a hit.

Smart Folders would be the obvious big feature. Set up a folder with a preset search based on metadata and always have the files you want in it. iTunes and iPhoto almost become irrelevant after that. (almost, the document specific features of those apps would still be valuable) They are great at organizing, but the finder would do just as well.

I just hope they come up with some way to use the metadata that already embedded in certain file types. If I can search my MP3s by ID3 tags, or my graphic files by size, or my eBooks by author, without having to re-enter that data into the meta data system then I think I will have reached home computing nirvana.

They'll have to have a plug-in system to do that though. Then you can go and download all the third-party metadata plugins for PSDs, MPEGs, emails, whatever.

The other big issue is where do they store the metadata and what happens when you transfer the file to another computer. Sending files with resource forks is always a pain in the ass.


Apple will call it "Finder EXTREME"

[qubex]

There seems to be some kind of a "flap" concerning the implications of Apple "working with the government on security". I think it is pointless to worry. Rembember OS X is based on an open-source core, Darwin, and that its sourcecode is free for everyone to download and read (or at least for those who have the technical expertise and inclination to do so). So any tinkering with cryptographic key escrows mechanisms, covert back doors etc. would be very rapidly identified. And if you are suficiently paranoid to think that Apple might load kernels onto your machines that aren't strictly speaking derived from the Open Source code in the Darwin project - i.e. if you fear the code has been deliberately trojanised after the event - you can always go ahead and compile your own kernel from source. Help from techie friends is strongly advised.

I'd also like to point out that one of the largest purchasers of NeXT equipment and software was the federal government of the United States. Jobs, being the erstwhile CEO of that company, and OSX being the natural successor to the NeXTStep OS and OpenStep environment, will be eager to re-acquire that very profitable market. Inevitably that requires some verification and testing procedures. I don't see any cause for serious alarm. Vigilance, maybe; but not alarm. At the very least, not yet.

I'm pretty sure Jobs will show off some impressive new features and harp on about how this-and-that Changes Everything. Personally, I have two simple hopes for OSX 10.4.

Firstly, I hope they finally manage to put together a decent Finder. Unlike most, I really like the Brushed Metal theme and as an oldtime NeXT user I appreciate pretty much every controversial aspect of the GUI. But I sure wish they could make the Finder multithreaded so its mount operations etc. weren't so slow and it preserved its responsiveness. Right now, as of 10.3.3, I find the Finder slow and unresponsive, and prone to crashing. We've all experienced it: glacial mounting of SMB shares and FTP directories, crashes when you move around a bunch of Previewed graphics files, the Trash getting itself jammed, etc. Isn't it about time they fixed this pathetic state of affairs?! They should have a feature freeze until they manage to make the whole Finder experience more bearable. Fix it, then improve it. Don't improve it and neglect to fix it.

Secondly, I hope they recompile everything with IBM's new optimised-for-PowerPC XCC compiler rather than GCC 3.3. GCC may well be the standard for portability and even offer decent performance under x86, but when it comes to PowerPC code it really is inefficient and wasteful. Compiling with XCC can sometimes boost performance by more than 20%. A fifth faster: I'm sure that'd make for a lot of very happy users. I'd certainly be one of them.

As for the metadata filesystem: good job. I hope they implement this. It's one of those features that will open up a whole range of hitherto unimagined possibilities. For both consumers and professional users, it could prove to be an excellent upgrade. Forget about iPhoto- and iTunes-like metadata systemwide. Think of user-definable extensible filesystem permissions: philosophically akin to Folder Actions, but at the filesystem level, and systemwide! Geeky? Maybe. Useful? Definitely.

That the NSA put a backdoor into DES has been a rumor since the '70s. This started because the NSB (now NIST), asked the NSA to review Lucifer, IBM's encryption method that became DES. NSA came back with two changes. First they reduced the key size to 64 bits (effectively 56) from 128, and second they changed the table of values that Lucifer used. The first request is probably so that they could do a brute force break if they need to. At the time 128 bits would have been nearly unbreakable, but 64 bits could be broken with a bit of time and money. The second change is what made people think that there was a backdoor because the NSA didn't offer a reason for it. However in the almost 30 years since DES was released no one has found a backdoor, and many, many crypto-analysts have been looking for one.

Actually, it is likely that the reason has already been found. In the early 1990s civilian (non-NSA) cryptanalysts developed a "new" and very powerful technique called "differential cryptanalysis", that basically allows you to guess the key of DES-like ciphers by encrypting different (known) cleartexts and observing the ciphertext that comes out. By comparing the different inputs and outputs, a reasonable guess can be made as to the key. But guess what: DES was found to be very resistant to this attack. Why? It was discovered that the exact nature of the S-boxes (the "substitution boxes" or "tables of values", as you refer to them) were formulated in such a way as to thwart the technique. What does this tell us? Firstly, that the NSA had already developed differential cryptanalysis (or an analogue thereof) in the mid 1970s, a full two decades ahead of its rediscovery by civilians. Secondly, and this is the clincher, it tells us that the NSA didn't weaken DES: it strengthened it immesurably. Talk about irony. (Bruce Schneier discusses differential cryptanalysis in his definitive tome Applied Cryptography, Second Edition.)

I'd like to add that breaking the 56-bit encryption of DES by brute-force is only just within civilan capabilities now. I think it is reasonable to assume that at the time (mid-1970s) it is unlikely that the NSA possessed the computing power to break DES by brute force, or by any other means. Furthermore, "strong" 128-bit encryption such as that offered by AES is totally unbreakable by brute-forcing with a conventional (non-quantum) computer. I remember reading that iterating through each and every one of the keys in a 128-bit keyspace, even if each keybit were represented with a single electron, would require more energy than the mass-energy equivalent of the sun. I can't remember where I read it, but it was a sufficiently reputable source for it to remain stuck in my mind.

[cjc343]

If apple is working on a backdoor, I'm pissed, but I doubt they are...


I think that everyone who suggested that the Government just wants to use macs is the reason for apple working with the Government, however, I don't think that this is actually a good thing.

Government + Macs = Viruses for mac + Hackers after macs


just my opinion....

[cait-sith]

those that would trade liberty for temporary security deserve neither.

[SpiceMustFlow]

Of course, Tiger (10.3.4) will be optimized for iPod = it's only the real new hardware available!!! And decrypt all Steve Jobs strategy until the end of the world :-) Smile! I'm just kidding! :p :) :rolleyes: :D :cool: :o

[ingenious]

Of course, Tiger (10.3.4) will be optimized for iPod = it's only the real new hardware available!!! And decrypt all Steve Jobs strategy until the end of the world :-) Smile! I'm just kidding! :p :) :rolleyes: :D :cool: :o


um tiger would be 10.4.0 not 10.3.4 which is a point Panther upgrade, sorta like a service pack on windoze.

[mlrproducts]

So 10.x.X updates are like windows service packs? WOW - I must have missed features as prominent as Expose in SP1! Bill Gates wishes that statement was true!

As for the privacy, gov't talk - it is not relevent. This is MacRumors.

Has anyone even slightly entertained the notion that Apple is working with Gov't so that GOVERNMENT would be HELPING APPLE, instead of the other way around as everyone keeps saying? (IE: gov't tells apple you actually must write random info to the hard drive thiry-FIVE times to make it safe!, how about encryption, etc)

[FFTT]

It makes perfect sense that Apple is going to do all it can to make OSX
qualify for government security standards.

Apple has a government sales and training facility in Reston VA
with a vast multitude of top level security & D.O.D. companies working just around the corner. A real world Silicon Valley East with heavy emphasis on
government agencies.
I frequent all of these buildings in my line of work.

So if motive were an indicator, I can see a clear reason for these security
upgrades.

A different motive also inspires Apple to increase DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT (DRM) in upcoming systems.

Nearly every single Apple software application has been made easily available, free within a month or two from release, costing them a tremendous loss in software sales.

Earlier versions of OSX along with earlier versions of Toast,
allow nearly every single application to be copied.

So, in some cases older may be considered better for the user,
while the newer OS versions may prevent this in the future and be better for Apple.

The snoop theory also warrants attention.

There are WAY too many financial motives for our legislators to act
under pressure from the likes of BSA, RIAA for this to be completely ignored.

The overall big picture tends to make me believe that there's simply too much money involved for any user to trust those that wish to control
and monitor what we do on our computers.

[ingenious]

So 10.x.X updates are like windows service packs? WOW - I must have missed features as prominent as Expose in SP1! Bill Gates wishes that statement was true!


i just meant that it was a point upgrade... similar to service packs only in that they r released to update a current os.


on a side note, i think that 10.4 should improve new user usability (system usability). we have too many newbies asking for help on these boards... it should be simpler

[GregA]

So 10.x.X updates are like windows service packs? WOW - I must have missed features as prominent as Expose in SP1! Bill Gates wishes that statement was true!Didn't Expose come in 10.3, not in 10.3.1? Our point upgrades (10.3.2, 10.3.3.) are quite similar to windows service packs. They fix some bugs and update security - and they also offer small increases in functionality.

[ingenious]

Didn't Expose come in 10.3, not in 10.3.1? Our point upgrades (10.3.2, 10.3.3.) are quite similar to windows service packs. They fix some bugs and update security - and they also offer small increases in functionality.


yes it did. it came with 10.3.0. apple doesn't usually put new features like that into point upgrades.

[Steven1621]

hopefully we will see a revision to ichat so that one can have a AIM profile with it.

[ingenious]

macfora.com (http://macfora.com) and other rumor sites have been reporting that safari v. 1.33 has been circulating with the latest Tiger build, 8A85.

also reported here:
macdonkey.com (http://www.macdonkey.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1403)

im hoping for auto to tab on clicked links (click an link and it automatically goes to a tab).

[cjc343]

if you hold down the Apple key when you click, it will send it to a new tab... I don't think that a new tab for every page would work well, imagine trying to browse these forums, everytime you click on a link you get a new tab? that would clutter up pretty quickly...


of course, it's just my opinion....

[ingenious]

if you hold down the Apple key when you click, it will send it to a new tab... I don't think that a new tab for every page would work well, imagine trying to browse these forums, everytime you click on a link you get a new tab? that would clutter up pretty quickly...


of course, it's just my opinion....


i know u can do that. i mean for links that are coded to open in new windows.

[cjc343]

oh, I get what you mean... that would be nice... sorry, I had thought that you wanted all of your windows in new tabs....

[ingenious]

oh, I get what you mean... that would be nice... sorry, I had thought that you wanted all of your windows in new tabs....


ya... i wouldnt want every link opened in a new tab. just to be able to open new links in a tabs as a default or at least be able to set that in a preference.

[GregA]

if you hold down the Apple key when you click, it will send it to a new tab...
i know u can do that. i mean for links that are coded to open in new windows.I've noticed on websites that open new windows - when I hold down the Apple key it opens those new windows in Tabs instead.

Of course, you don't know it wants a new window until you've clicked. Then closing the new window, and Apple-clicking again, isn't as quick.

[ingenious]

I've noticed on websites that open new windows - when I hold down the Apple key it opens those new windows in Tabs instead.

Of course, you don't know it wants a new window until you've clicked. Then closing the new window, and Apple-clicking again, isn't as quick.

which is y i want to be able to have safari automatically open new window links into new tabs so i dont have to go back and command click the link.

[redkore]

Of course, you don't know it wants a new window until you've clicked.

Look in the status bar.

[147]

Hello,

piles is not a hoax. Apple holds a patent on this, and someone took the time to represent it: just look how brilliant it will be the day it will be implemented (because it will be one day, that's for sure):

http://homepage.mac.com/rdas7/piles.html

This has all been posted on MR before...

[nesbitt_a]

Apple has recently filed a patent for translucent windows that automatically adjust the opacity as information is updated (or not updated): "overlaid, Information-bearing windows whose contents remain unchanged for a predetermined period of time become translucent. The translucency can be graduated so that, over time, if the window's contents remain unchanged, the window becomes more translucent. In addition to visual translucency, windows according to the present invention also have a manipulative translucent quality. Upon reaching a certain level of visual translucency, user input in the region of the window is interpreted as an operation on the underlying objects rather than the contents of the overlaying window."



- Could be interesting in tiger :)

[ingenious]

Look in the status bar.

um what status bar?

[Cooknn]

Here's my vote for UDF Packet Writing in 10.4 :)

[BrianKonarsMac]

You forgot.....And I don't want any of my drug dealing records to be accessed by the goverment.

Please.I don't want the government looking on my computer for anything, i doubt any drug dealer stupid enough to keep records would be able to afford a computer.

[svenmagnus]

All I really want is a tabbed Finder. The finder window is too klunky in Column view, if they could put tabbs in there it would get bigger, but you would only need one finder window. I don't know about you people but i use 2-3 finder windows at a time.

[dcollierp]

I really want to be able to edit a pdf file. Or maybe a "lite" OCR application.

[GregA]

I really want to be able to edit a pdf file. Or maybe a "lite" OCR application.Ahh... if Apple released a new word processor that saved files in PDF format or web pages, that would be truly brilliant.

As a company you send all your files to clients in PDF format, and request for files to be sent in PDF format (plus convert Word files they send you, with 95% accuracy). And it allows links within the files and conversions for HTML. Hmmmmm....

[tophat]

In the early 1990s civilian (non-NSA) cryptanalysts developed a "new" and very powerful technique called "differential cryptanalysis", that basically allows you to guess the key of DES-like ciphers by encrypting different (known) cleartexts and observing the ciphertext that comes out. By comparing the different inputs and outputs, a reasonable guess can be made as to the key. But guess what: DES was found to be very resistant to this attack. Why? It was discovered that the exact nature of the S-boxes (the "substitution boxes" or "tables of values", as you refer to them) were formulated in such a way as to thwart the technique. What does this tell us? Firstly, that the NSA had already developed differential cryptanalysis (or an analogue thereof) in the mid 1970s, a full two decades ahead of its rediscovery by civilians. Secondly, and this is the clincher, it tells us that the NSA didn't weaken DES: it strengthened it immesurably. Talk about irony.

This explains quite well why they never published how they derived their constants in S-boxes. They would have helped others to discover differential cryptoanalysis.

I'd like to add that breaking the 56-bit encryption of DES by brute-force is only just within civilan capabilities now. I think it is reasonable to assume that at the time (mid-1970s) it is unlikely that the NSA possessed the computing power to break DES by brute force, or by any other means. Furthermore, "strong" 128-bit encryption such as that offered by AES is totally unbreakable by brute-forcing with a conventional (non-quantum) computer. I remember reading that iterating through each and every one of the keys in a 128-bit keyspace, even if each keybit were represented with a single electron, would require more energy than the mass-energy equivalent of the sun.

You can also imagine another example on breaking 128-bit encryption by brute force: if all human beens on earth used a million computers it would only take a million years to loop through all the alternatives. Actually it would be even longer because todays computers cannot test a billion alternatives per second which I used in my example.

So next time when someone claims that NSA can break 128-bit encryption by brute force, you know they simply can't. Off course, they may break 128-bit encryption, but it would not happen by brute force. They need to figure out how to eliminate unfortunate key ranges without actually testing them. And that requires a closer analysis of the algorithm.

[DJMad]

Ahh... if Apple released a new word processor that saved files in PDF format or web pages, that would be truly brilliant.

As a company you send all your files to clients in PDF format, and request for files to be sent in PDF format (plus convert Word files they send you, with 95% accuracy). And it allows links within the files and conversions for HTML. Hmmmmm....

You can already do that, take any open file in textedit or word and hit print. You should see a button that says save as pdf.

[GregA]

You can already do that, take any open file in textedit or word and hit print. You should see a button that says save as pdf.Sorry I wasn't clear. I know we can send a final copy in PDF. I guess I wanted a replacement for Word documents that is already universally accepted - and PDF is the one I can think of now.

I'd like to purely use PDF files, if it was possible. Save as PDF files, open and edit PDF files, etc.

In reality, if I (and collegues) worked on files of any format, and when we emailed them externally they went as PDFs, it would solve 90% of the issue. Maybe Apple could get email to offer "convert to PDF" any time we attach a file (of a specified type). Start people expecting PDFs rather than anything else.

edit: come to think of it -
- imagine working on a document you want to email,
- clicking on "File / Print", and
- seeing an "email" button (just like "Fax"), so click email, and
- email starts with your file AS A PDF (optional of course).
Would that be useful for you?

[Crowspeaker]

edit: come to think of it -
- imagine working on a document you want to email,
- clicking on "File / Print", and
- seeing an "email" button (just like "Fax"), so click email, and
- email starts with your file AS A PDF (optional of course).
Would that be useful for you?

You really ought to start making some noise on the Apple discussion boards with this one. What a great idea!

[macfan76]

Hey guys, I thought this (http://www.macshrine.com/) was an interesting read about the features of 10.4. What do you guys make of it?

[allebone]

Hello All,

I noticed that this topic has danced around to many different areas of government involvement, even though I was originally reading for new Tiger features. Let me just say that paranoia is defeinately not called for in the government inclusion arena. There are a few different reasons why:

!. NSA involvement does not mean that "Big Brother" is watching you surf the web now. If memory serves most people right, the NSA has the largest lab for creating encryption technologies...hence newer features that rely on them, WPA...NSA AES encryption...PKI technologies. The NSA is a government agency, but they are the standard for encryption technologies, and that goes for everyone, users, other governement agencies, and the military.

2. The "government" is a big work for "fear" for alot of people. When people said earlier without naming a specific agency, that denoted not being knowledgeable. To be exact, the "government" has been working with Apple for almost a decade without most people saying things. By this I mean, every Air Force base in the world has a visual information shop...that a place that makes big signs for posters and things...guess what they use to design them. Of course, the Air Force has been working with them recently...you could have guessed that by the third cd of the Panther release....since it was mostly tailored for them. On the third CD you will find information about the CAC system, thats the Common Access System, and DOD-WIDE, Air Force accepted card/PKI system...well before the AF would agree to work with Apple, they needed some things, like the ability to check secure mail, or to login using their PKI certs. AF has been working with Apple since OS X began, because they were no more or less expensive than a SUN workstation to run UNIX utilities. Plus, you had two less complicated buttons than a three button mouse.

3. The AF specifically has worked with Apple on things that needed to be fixed so that it could be used...Safari to this date doesn't allow access to official websites...because of the DOD Pki infrastructure...so Apple is working on it, so people can check their mail.

4. GOV. buyers couldn't buy Apple before 3 years ago, because until they worked together...Gov buyers can;t buy anything unless it has a GSA schedule contract...well Apple dealt with schools mostly, which didn't use anything other than a regular credit card or PO system to purchase.

New features in Tiger than are governemtn approved, are just improvements to entice, government purchase.

[macfan76]

Features Include:

ADDED EXPOSE FUNCTIONS (NEW)
Everyone must remember that blue blob the came up if you did a hidden command in the terminal, or how about the black box that everything flies into and you can drag around scree. Remember those? Well they will be real functions in Mac OS 10.4, and selectable in the Expose control panel. It was hidden for a reason you know!

SLOWING DOWN RELEASES (NEW)
After 10.4 is released, which should be August if Apple's schedule is on time (but when is it ever!) There will be a slowdown of software releases, the next update coming in around 1.5-2 years. 10.4 should be thought of as a Public Beta for 10.5 which will be the 'perfect' OS. 10.4 will be avalialble for free, as a way of saying Thank you for paying $129 3 times. EDIT : This was confirmed today when Avie Tevanian said "We're slowing that (pace) down a little bit... because that's not a sustainable rate" today at the SIIA Enterprise Software Summit. "But you'll still see us go really fast."

iSIGHT 2 & iCHAT (NEW)
The iSight 2 is expected to be released sooner than we expect, but it will be for defiante at WWDC. This new iSight differs from the previous gen because it is developed by OrangeMicro and manufactured by Apple. This will create a driverless iSight that can be used in any app where a webcam is allowed without special drivers. The iSight is slightly different in terms of looks because the back of it is curved and features the new iChat logo. iChat 3 does not differ alot, we will have more info on that soon.

REMOTE DESKTOP SHARING
In Mac OS 10.4 you will be able to control another computer remotely (ie. similar to the Windows Remote Assistance) You will have full control of your friends desktop, simply by logging into their account, complete with the Cube effect, and you have full control over the desktop, you can move cursor, open files, delete files....Your friend will have a Window Manager, so they can see what you are doing, and can kick you off if your bad!

PILES - ICON ARRANGEMENT
Piles has been rumored so many times before for inclusion in Jaguar and Panther, but now finally it will come. It narrowly missed out being in Panther, but the last 9 months have helped create it into an even better feature. You can drag all your icons in any folder, and your desktop, and arrange them into stacks. This stacks can then be placed anywhere in your folder. When you want to un-pile, you can simple do so by RIGHT CLICKING and selecting UNPILE or via the the CONFIGURE FOLDER ACTIONS button in the finder.

DVD PLAYER 5.0
Apple is sprucing up the DVD Player to mak it like VLC Media Player. It will be able to play every Video format out there and have support for captions too. It seems odd not to implement this into QuickTime Player, but the recent Movie Trailers in iTunes suggest QuickTime may just be turning into a hidden API, not an actual app.

[aswitcher]

Features Include:

iSIGHT 2 & iCHAT (NEW)
The iSight 2 is expected to be released sooner than we expect, but it will be for defiante at WWDC. This new iSight differs from the previous gen because it is developed by OrangeMicro and manufactured by Apple. This will create a driverless iSight that can be used in any app where a webcam is allowed without special drivers. The iSight is slightly different in terms of looks because the back of it is curved and features the new iChat logo. iChat 3 does not differ alot, we will have more info on that soon.




A new iSight camera...so soon? I can understand another software upgrade but a new camera. Glad I dont own one yet IF this proves to be true. Wonder if they will offer a bit of a zoom/macro at soem stage to allow for imporved other users like security and multiple speakers on one end...

[ingenious]

This is interesting:

I had to call Apple Support the other day for help on a quirky eMac, basically to confirm what I thought I was supposed to do to fix it was correct thinking.

As he was searching for the answer, he read an internal email that I don't really know what in it, but it was something to do with certain files in the UNIX core. Will we see a major update there?