rgblambda

>perhaps he got into hacking there because it's the only way to support his family.

North Korean hackers are state employees. They're selected for the role based on their academic ability (top achievers go to the nuclear programme). The state takes the bulk of the earnings, but it is a more comfortable existence than for the average North Korean.

Your typical North Korean doesn't have the kind of unrestricted access to the internet necessary to become a hacker.

I'm not entirely sure what I "did". Given that I don't do comms for a serious open source project, mind letting me in on your secret?

My point isn't about fighting back vs rolling over. Just that it doesn't achieve anything to guess at why Google did a certain thing.

Edit: Maybe you replied to the wrong comment? I didn't say anything about complicity and neither did the GrapheneOS announcement in the part I quoted.

I was actually just implying that it looks unprofessional. Say they cut an important security feature. Don't try to guess why.

>It appears Google cut an important security feature to save money.

If you're doing comms for a serious project, it's probably best not to speculate on the justification of an internal decision at a different org, even if you're reasonably sure.

And motorists definitely don't do any of those things.

As the Polish government have made very clear, the length of the transition period can be indefinite.

And it isn't really a negotiable. It's up to the country when it wants to join the Euro. They just have to promise that they'll do it at some unspecified point in the future.

And there was considerable debate prior to the referendum within the Leave camp as to whether to go for a "soft Brexit" (close regulatory alignment) or "hard Brexit" (what the final deal ended up being).

South Korean Intelligence and it's allies presumably have agents in the NK military who would give them advance notice.

In the UK a few years ago, they tested the government emergency alert system, which was basically your phone turning into an air raid siren, regardless of what SMS filters you had set.

I would imagine South Korea has a similar system?

I don't think anyone was claiming that or anything remotely close to it. I was explaining why the NSA wouldn't necessarily be in favour of more digitally secure infrastructure, because you seemed to be the only person in the thread who didn't understand.

The security vulnerabilities the NSA would use to spy on a system, or even just use as a jumping point to another system, can also be used by bad actors for other purposes, such as screwing with people's water.

Also, the 130 IQ Engineer usually can't afford to wine and dine the business manager the way Amazon can. Or dangle the possibility of a cushy yet prestigious sounding job in front of them.

As someone from one of the territories mentioned, it was frustrating in the run-up to the referendum, and immediately after it, watching the local media try to get the view of English voters as to how they thought that was supposed to work.

The impression I got was leave voters either thought it would all work out somehow, or that they cared so little about the non GB territories to the point that they felt they didn't need to address to question.