Brock Beauchamp
-
Posts
32,669 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
328
Content Type
Profiles
Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis
Minnesota Twins Videos
2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings
2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Minnesota Twins Players Project
2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Brock Beauchamp
-
Yeah, it should be interesting going forward, as the best option for the party may be to keep *everyone* in the race and deprive Trump of reaching the delegate threshold by weakening all candidates. Let Cruz take 25%, Rubio 20%, and Kasich 10%. Everyone "loses".
-
Okay, some clarification on the iCloud backup. I did a bit of research. Some time after retrieving the phone, the FBI reset the iCloud password. This is an idiotic move, as they did not have access to the device to confirm the new password. Imagine resetting your Facebook password, except you gave Facebook a bad email address whose password you lost 10 years ago. Now you can't access Facebook (because it wants the new reset password) and you can't access the reset password because it's locked behind an email address you cannot access (in this case, an iPhone). Pretty dumb, right? So Apple provided the FBI with the latest cloud backup of the device, which was weeks old (pre-password reset). The FBI wanted newer data. Apple replied "You reset the iCloud password so the device cannot back up to iCloud because the device's password no longer matches the iCloud password. Here's your six week old data, you knuckleheads." Had the FBI left the iPhone alone and not changed the password, the device would have (probably) backed up to iCloud (assuming the terrorists did not disable iCloud at some point), providing the FBI with a current data set. The FBI's response to this was "Okay, so we screwed up. Now you need to write new software, potentially weaken your product security, and override your passcode limitations so we can break into the phone." Apple's reply? "LOL. Jackasses."
-
I haven't read into the technical side of it but what Apple is claiming is that they can access iCloud data if it remains untouched... But the FBI reset the password for the account. Something during that process triggered a series of events that prevents Apple from accessing the data after that point (offhand, my guess is that it changes the data's encryption token, breaking the device/cloud link until the new password is verified on the device). The FBI screwed up.
-
Ten To Extend: A Five-Part Series (Part 1)
Brock Beauchamp replied to Jeremy Nygaard's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
"Sell high" should only be referenced if at least one of the following criteria is met: 1. The team has no expectation of winning enough baseball games to matter 2. The team has a viable replacement at the position who can step in and won't sacrifice (multiple) wins in the short-term Neither applies to the 2016 Twins. Maybe in July of this season, that changes and we all feel more comfortable about Polanco's defense and bat. But right now, not so much. Over the past two seasons, Brian Dozier has posted a .757 OPS. Jorge Polanco hasn't posted a number that high since he was in Ft. Myers. -
Actually, Apple no longer data mines for external use, it's part of the pro-security movement they've been pushing the past few years, coupled with the Secure Enclave tech and encryption. They've aggressively moved out of any arena that involves mining customer data. Hell, even their own ad platform, iAds, no longer allows advertisers access to on-device information or any customer data (which is part of the reason it has been a resounding failure). Google, on the other hand, data mines the **** out of everything you do. Also, internal app security has little to do with external device security. iOS isn't super-secure... If you have access to the device (and thereby its operating system) and can upload information to it. A completely different argument than "the device cannot be accessed at all".
-
It's a bit trickier than that... Historically, the government has/had access to all of these things because the tech industry, inexplicably, was caught with its pants around its ankles when it came to security. The internet blew up everything we understood about privacy and only now is the industry (finally) catching up and securing data on both a device level and a cloud-computing level. In that regard, this isn't unique to Apple. The entire tech world is moving toward better encryption standards, Apple just happens to be the first company to draw the government's ire for it. And the tech industry isn't moving into the realm of encryption to keep the government out, it's because no one trusts the tech industry any more. Public confidence in the industry reached an all-time low a few years ago and it's because we couldn't go a week without hearing about some massive new data hack that compromised millions of people. And broken trust is bad for business.
-
I'm not as familiar with Android security (because it's dependent on hardware, OS version, and other stuff) and haven't paid attention to BB in years (Win Phone would be a better example). This is somewhat unique to all Apple devices but that's because they control both hardware and software. Depending on the device, its encryption level, and a few other things, it's possible a government agency could run into the same issue with an Android phone. Android, being quasi-open source, allows for extensive modification by hardware manufacturers; some phones are very secure, most are not. Case in point, the Blackphone. It's an Android derivative OS that focuses on security above all else. It's likely the FBI would run into a similar wall with this phone, as it's probably more secure than any iOS device. https://www.silentcircle.com/
-
I don't even know if she has mentioned Trump by name while on the campaign trail. She certainly didn't mention his name on Super Tuesday. It's pretty hard to run on a platform of "at least I'm not that guy" when you never bring up the name of "that guy".
-
Good post but I'm going to clarify something here: Apple cannot access the phone without a code modification. Apple doesn't know the passcode and without the passcode, you can't bypass the device encryption. Even if you get into the data - which Apple surely can - it's a big ol' mess of code that doesn't mean anything without the encryption key. Apple has helped the FBI in the past by granting them access to iCloud information - data Apple has stored on their own servers - but the FBI buggered that option because they changed the damn password on this iPhone, which prevents Apple from getting into the data. And in the case of my phone, the iPhone 6s (or the iPhone 6 or the iPhone 5s), even the "brute force method" the FBI is compelling Apple to enable will not work. So what does the FBI do when they come across an iPhone 6s with critical information they want to access? Here's why this is a really bad precedent to set: Let's go back to that "secure enclave" I mentioned a few posts ago. Remember how I said it was completely unhackable because it's a self-contained encrypted chip that even the operating system cannot access? I'll give you one guess where your passcode is stored on new iOS devices.
-
To reiterate a point, the word "terrorist" should not be mentioned in this argument. This isn't about San Bernardino, terrorists, or Al Qaeda. Once the precedent is set, this fundamental shift in how we treat security will apply to any case where the FBI finds a judge willing to issue a warrant (so, in essence, any case that deals with an iOS device). So stop mentioning terrorists. This is way bigger than terrorism and defining it as "we need to stop the terrorists" is how we ended up with the ****ing Patriot Act. Stop being so damned afraid of everything. 21st century America has been defined by people submitting to the will of the government on the pretense that it keeps us safe from the worst of crimes... But then the government, as it is wont to do, begins using those precedents to justify its use on a much broader scale. We need to be smarter than this. We haven't chipped away at personal privacy over the past 15 years, we ran a bulldozer over it. And we were all too eager to do it because "teh al qaeda is gonna steal mah babies".
-
Apple created a rather unique security system in new iPhones using a secure enclave on a secondary chip that handles fingerprint recognition, payment information, and other highly sensitive information. No one - and I mean no one - can access the information on that chip, not even the operating system. The chip will only accept a binary yes/no request for approval/decline of information. It has worked very well, as Apple Pay and Touch ID have not been compromised in their 3+ years on the market. Does the FBI get to demand that Apple access the information on that secure enclave as well? Where does this stop? The only correct answer is "right now, before anyone even gets to ask that question".
-
It's more than privacy, though... It's about the government being able to compel a company to create software that undermines their own product's security. You mention encrypted cyber vaults with tricky passwords... Well, what do you think iOS is? That's exactly what Apple did with the operating system. They created an operating system even they could not access because it's what their users wanted and it's one of the selling points of the OS. If someone creates a lock that cannot be picked (and destroys the information inside if you try), does the government have the right to compel the lock maker to create a new, more breakable, safe? No. No, they do not. Whether the information contained within will help someone track a terrorist cell or a shoplifting case has no relevance, in my opinion. Also, Apple has helped the FBI access several phones with iOS 8-9. The FBI screwed up in this case and changed the password, which prevents Apple from helping them access the phone. Maybe the FBI shouldn't screw up next time.
-
Oy, I dislike this question. What do I have to hide? It's no one's damned business what I have to hide. That's the fuggin' point.
-
The government should not be able to compel a company to create software that does not currently exist. It's that simple.
-
It can be overturned via Constitutional amendment. So... Yeah. Good luck with that, Evangelicals.
-
John, did you catch the velo on Hughes' fastball today?
-
I'll triple the "more scared of Cruz because, by god, he might win" sentiment. Cruz terrifies me as much as Trump but I feel he's more dangerous because he has a remote chance of winning a general election where I feel Trump's chances approach zero.
-
It's weird to say but Lindsey Graham was incredibly honest and forthright about the GOP's problems last night (caught it on CBS News and my jaw hit the floor while listening to him speak). He rails on Trump, Cruz, GOP policy, and pretty much everything he can think of in the moment. Stick through and watch the entire thing. It ramps up as the video progresses. http://www.cbsnews.com/live/video/super-tuesday-sen-graham-weighs-in-on-race/
-
To further that point, what happens when Clinton runs attack ads showing black people being roughed up at Trump rallies while Trump screams "Get them out of here!"? How do you think that plays with middle America, the people who do not strongly associate with a party? It won't play well. It will scare the **** out of people, as it should.
-
I still can't see it. I know I said that about the primaries but even now, one strong establishment GOP candidate would be giving Trump a run for his money, if not outright leading the polls. The GOP base is fractured, which is allowing Trump to walk through the door. Even last night, a resounding Trump victory, still saw him receive fewer than 50% of the votes in every state. All of them. The only state where he approached 50%, Massachusetts, has roughly a zero percent chance of turning red in the election. In a general, Clinton will take every significant non-white male demographic. Not most of them... Every single one. Trump might be able to carry several southern states but I don't see him winning anywhere else. While I know you disagree, I think his sway with independent voters is going to be very, very low. He's too blustery, not presidential enough, to win over reasonable people... And then you add in his mixture of insane policy and vague non-policy and you have a guy who isn't going to appeal to anyone who isn't running on 100% emotion (which is most of the populace, IMO). The way I see it, the only way Trump makes a run in a general is if liberal apathy goes to an all-time high. That's a possibility with Clinton but with Trump opposing her, I think there's enough fear of "good lord, we can't let that guy win" to turn out liberals and moderates.
-
It's disturbing but only because it shows how many people out there will support a candidate like Trump, not because he can win. It was, again, surreal to see multiple GOP stalwarts go on TV last night and virtually declare the death of the Grand Old Party. Lindsey Graham went on CBS and lamented how the republicans have handed away the November election because "crazy loses every time". Strange days.
-
No, he couldn't. Romney couldn't beat a guy straight up. He has absolutely no shot with his party's vote split in half. It's surreal to watch the Republican Party dissolve in real time.
-
If Trump wins the nomination, what does the GOP do with that? I can't see governors and Congresspeople lining up behind the guy with any kind of enthusiasm. This is going to be a catastrophe and I have to admit there's a morbid side of me that can't wait to see it play out. Except the part where, when traveling abroad, I have to tell people I'm an American. That'll be even more embarrassing than usual.
-
"CNN’s exit poll has Trump at 40 percent in Georgia, followed by Cruz at 24 percent and Rubio at 23 percent." The GOP base continues to pull the trigger of the shotgun pointed at its own foot. Yeesh.
-
Terry Ryan- I am not a fan
Brock Beauchamp replied to Foghorn Leghorn's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
The MSP area - and Minnesota in general - has a low cable subscriber rate per capita. The Twins are going to have a lousy TV deal in comparison to other teams for that reason. Also, the Twins' deal was inked in 2012 while the Diamondbacks received their new deal less than a year ago.
