Podcasts about bunnie huang

Three Buddy Problem - Episode 41: Costin and Juanito join the show from Black Hat Asia in Singapore. We discuss Bunnie Huang's keynote on hardware supply chains and a classification system to establish a grounded perspective on trust in hardware, Ivanti's misdiagnosis of a critical VPN applicance flaw and Mandiant reporting on a Chinese APT exploiting Ivanti devices. Plus, breaking news on the sudden firing of NSA director and head of Cyber Command Tim Haugh. We also discuss Microsoft touting AI's value in finding open-source bootloader bugs, Silent Push report on a RUssian APT impersonating the CIA, a backdoor in a popular Chinese robot dog, and Chinese dominance of the robotics market. Cast: Juan Andres Guerrero-Saade (https://twitter.com/juanandres_gs), Costin Raiu (https://twitter.com/craiu) and Ryan Naraine (https://twitter.com/ryanaraine).

In this episode, Sara Drakeley interviews Bunnie Huang, security researcher, hacker, and entrepreneur. Bunnie wrote the book, Hacking the Xbox: An Introduction to Reverse Engineering. He also helped create Chumby, a consumer electronics product designed to be modified by users and provide hackable widgets. Bunnie and Sara dive into trust models and Bunnie outlines the challenges of developing evidence-based trust. Sara asks Bunnie for his take on secure enclaves and Bunnie explains why "you  shouldn't eat out of your toilet bowl." Sara and Bunnie puzzle the biggest security flaw of all - humans.

Our whole lives are in our phones. We're addicted to feeding them data about ourselves, and we take them with us everywhere we go. But Snowden says they're tracking devices. Snowden teamed up with hardware security expert Bunnie Huang to craft a device that could tell if your phone was sending off information about you without you knowing. 00:00 - Intro02:27 – You think your phone is really in airplane mode? The results from their experiment may surprise you!04:32 – Then Bunnie went even further and decided to build from scratch a device he could actually trust. 07:57 – Some tips to help give you back some privacy on your phone, without throwing the baby out with the bathwaterWant more tips for making your phone more secure and private?Privacy Detox: 5 tips!https://youtu.be/c48mGsFyCjwHow Wifi is used by stores to identify youhttps://youtu.be/VIJEUqgODO4Watch this video on Odysee!https://open.lbry.com/@NaomiBrockwell:4/most-private-phone:4?r=9mvuwPzyZX55TFcyh5Yhwgm8HEXsrtSmEdited by Lee RennieTo make a tax-deductible (in the US) donation to NBTV, visit https://www.nbtv.media/supportSign up for the free CryptoBeat newsletter here:https://cryptobeat.substack.com/Beware of scammers, I will never give you a phone number or reach out to you with investment advice. I do not give investment advice.Visit the NBTV website:https://nbtv.mediaSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/naomibrockwell)

https://youtu.be/qUEehZ5pAgE https://open.lbry.com/@NaomiBrockwell:4/most-private-phone:4?r=9mvuwPzyZX55TFcyh5Yhwgm8HEXsrtSm Our whole lives are in our phones. We’re addicted to feeding them data about ourselves, and we take them with us everywhere we go. But Snowden says they’re tracking devices. Snowden teamed up with hardware security expert Bunnie Huang to craft a device that could tell if your phone was sending off information about you without you knowing. 2:27 – You think your phone is really in airplane mode? The results from their experiment may surprise you! 4:32 – Then Bunnie went even further and decided to build from scratch a device he could actually trust. 7:57 – Some tips to help give you back some privacy on your phone, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater Want more tips for making your phone more secure and private? Privacy Detox: 5 tips! https://youtu.be/c48mGsFyCjw How Wifi is used by stores to identify you https://youtu.be/VIJEUqgODO4 Edited by Lee Rennie To make a tax-deductible (in the US) donation to my channel, visit https://cointr.ee/nbtv Sign up for the free cryptobeat newsletter here: https://Naomibrockwell.com/cryptobeat

When discussing machine learning models “Black Box” is typically deployed as a helpful metaphor but from a hardware perspective the term is meant literally. How can we open the inside processors of a phone to verify that what’s inside is actually what we thought was inside? How does the minimalist aesthetic of consumer electronics create the illusion of technology as magic? Andrew "bunnie" Huang is a hacker, maker, and open hardware activist joining us on the WBI show to discuss these questions as well as share updates on Precursor. Alongside Edward Snowden, he worked on the Introspection Engine, a device allowing journalists to identify if and when their phones are transmitting or receiving information when it shouldn't be. Precursor is the development platform working to push out a new iteration of this device.Bunnie holds a Ph.D in Electrical Engineering from MIT and is the author of Hacking the Xbox. IG + Twitter: @WeBeImaginingSupport Us: On PatreonHost: J. Khadijah Abdurahman, Ilan MandelMusic: Drew LewisLinks for the Episode:Talking with Andrew "bunnie" Huang (AdaFruit)How ‘Hoverboards’ Epitomize Our Broken Patent SystemHalf A Million 'Hoverboards' Recalled Over Risk Of Fire, ExplosionsMoore's lawThe inverted Pendulum: A fundamental Benchmark in Control Theory and Robotics`GUNG HO` SOFTLY SATIRIZES AMERICAN FEATHERBEDDINGTechnology is Not Magic - bunnie Huang, Bitmark Ambassador #2An Alternative to the American way of Innovation TEDxPickeringStreetSynchronized violin players reveal uniqueness of human networksEdward Snowden designed an iPhone attachment that detects unwanted radio transmissions(@RealSexyCyborg) Thread on IMEs/Signal/Untrustability 'We found a wiretap' Lyubov Sobol's campaign team head released from custody with bugged cell phone nytlabs : Listening Table AKA MEDIA SYSTEMTrackMeNotAdNauseam - Clicking Ads So You Don't Have ToIntroducing Precursor « bunnie's blogPrecursor.dev

Helen Leigh (@helenleigh) joined us to talk about music, electronics, books, and starting a new job at CrowdSupply (@crowd_supply). Helen was previously on Embedded #261: Blowing Their Fragile Little Minds where we talked about subversive geography, her book The Crafty Kid's Guide to DIY Electronics, and the mini.mu musical gloves. Helen has a book coming out in 2021 about DIY Music Tech including a soft version of the Michel Waisvisz' CrackleBox (Kraakdos). Check out some of the projects in HackSpace magazine issue 36 and 37 (the book will be serialised in HackSpace). Or look on YouTube for some examples of Helen’s purring tentacle and her circuit sculpture harp. Helen mentioned Bunnie Huang’s Precursor, an open mobile phone, on CrowdSupply (campaign ending shortly). The Giant German Congress mentioned is the CCC Congress Festival Helen’s preferred thread (the one you can actually get) is Madiera’s conductive threads. Hit the contact link for purchasing. (Helen notes you can use it for both sides in a sewing machine!)  

Bunnie Huang is a well known researcher and expert in hardware security. In 2016 he wrote a research paper with Snowden about how to tell whether your phone is spying on you. He wants to eventually build a phone with hardware you can trust. This is no easy feat, considering that the parts in our phones come from all over the world and pass through hundreds of hands before reaching our doorstep. We chatted about phone security and the weird and startling ways that governments can hack your devices. Video version of this podcast is available at Naomibrockwell.com/memberships

Alvaro was at Toorcamp and DEFCON. Chris from The Amp Hour and Jack from the Darknet Diaries podcast were also there. Jen went to the Vintage Computer Festival Alvaro and Jen will both be at the Hackaday Superconference this year. Call for papers is still open!!! Hardware Developers Didactic Galactic and the Mountain View Reverse Engineering Meetup A listener, David, wrote up his process for reverse engineering a robot cat litter box . Alvaro’s fridge reverse engineering twitter thread. Bunnie Huang’s book “Essential Guide to Electronics in Shenzhen” Jen mentioned playing with IDA and the Hex-Rays Decompiler Dmitri’s CortexProg ARM SWD debugger/programmer. KiwiCon We have a mirror of PoC||GTFO on the website. Have comments or suggestions for us? Find us on twitter @unnamed_show,  or email us at show@unnamedre.com. Music by TeknoAxe (http://www.youtube.com/user/teknoaxe)

We have no guest this week! Just Rob and Taylor keepin' it Originard... Originard!?! No! Not a typo! You'll have to listen to Episode 14 to get the details on that! We talk about furries, truckers, Equifax's ridiculously jank website, and Bunnie Huang's awesomeness. Taylor's flocking is on fleek! He revives a past project and gets metal with it. Bluetooth was a person? Rob tries something new and kinda contemplative about aliens, petroglyphs, time, originality and... postmodernism. Listener warning: We got arty. Check out our project photos, videos and more at http://projects.opposablepodcast.com Thanks to Nik, Luke and Kelly (http://kellymariemartin.com)! They're our top Patreon supporters! And props to Mike and Jen as well! Ya'll are great too! Join 'em at: https://www.patreon.com/opposablethumbs

What does it take to make great hardware? On this episode, Bunnie Huang discusses hardware hacking, the open source movement, and STEAM education.

The O’Reilly Security Podcast: DRM in unexpected places, artistic and research hindrances, and ill-anticipated consequences.In this best of 2016 episode, I revisit a conversation from earlier this year with Cory Doctorow, a journalist, activist, and science fiction writer. We discuss the unexpected places where digital rights management (DRM) pops up, how it hinders artistic expression and legitimate security research, and the ill-anticipated (and often dangerous) consequences of copyright exemptions.Early in 2016, Cory and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) launched a lawsuit against the U.S. government. They are representing two plaintiffs—Matthew Green and Bunnie Huang—in a case that challenges the constitutionality of Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA is a notoriously complicated copyright law that was passed in 1998. Section 1201 is the part that relates to bypassing DRM. The law says that it's against the rules to bypass DRM, even for lawful purposes, and it imposes very severe civil and criminal penalties. There's a $500,000 fine and a five-year prison sentence for a first offense provided for in the statute. Here, Cory explains some of the more subtle consequences that arise from DRM in unexpected places. An urgent need to protect individual rights and freedoms Everything has software. Therefore, manufacturers can invoke the DMCA to defend anything they’ve stuck a thin scrim of DRM around, and that defense includes the ability to prevent people from making parts. All they need to do is add a little integrity check, like the ones that have been in printers for forever, that asks, ‘Is this part an original manufacturer's part, or is it a third-party part?’ Original manufacturer's parts get used; third-party parts get refused. Because that check restricts access to a copyrighted work, bypassing it is potentially a felony. Car manufacturers use it to lock you into buying original parts. This is a live issue. Apple has deprecated the 3.5-millimeter audio jack on their phones in favor of using a digital interface. If they put DRM on that digital audio interface, they can specify at a minute level—and even invent laws about—how customers and plug-in product manufacturers can engage with it. Congress has never said, ‘You're not allowed to record anything coming off your iPhone,’ but Apple could set a “no record” flag on audio coming out of that digital interface. Then they could refuse to give license for users to decrypt the audio, making it illegal to use. Simply by using the device, users would be agreeing to accept and honor that no-record stipulation, and bypassing it would be illegal. DRM hinders legitimate research and artistic expression Matthew Green [one of the plaintiffs in the EFF lawsuit] has a National Science Foundation grant to study a bunch of technologies with DRM on them, and the Copyright Office explicitly said he is not allowed to do research on those technologies. The Copyright Office did grant a limited exemption to the DMCA to research consumer products, but it excludes things like aviation systems or payment systems like Green wants to research. Bunnie Huang [the other plaintiff] is running up against similar limitations on bypassing DRM to make narrative films with extracts from movies. We have one branch of the government refusing to grant these exemptions. We have the highest court in the land saying that without fair use, copyright is not constitutional. And we have two plaintiffs who could be criminal defendants in the future if they continue to engage in the same conduct they've engaged in in the past. This gives us standing to now ask the courts whether it’s constitutional for the DMCA to apply to technologies that enable fair use, and whether the Copyright Office really does have the power to determine what they grant exemptions for. Our winning this case would effectively gut Section 1201 of the DMCA for all of the anticompetitive and the security-limiting applications that it's found so far. DCMA exemptions can have serious consequences The Copyright Office granted an exemption for tablets and phones so people could jailbreak them and use alternate stores. This exemption allows individuals to write the necessary software to jailbreak their own personal devices but does not allow individuals to share that tool with anyone else, or publish information about how it works or information that would help someone else make that tool. So, now we have this weird situation where people have to engage in illegal activity (trafficking in a tool by sharing information about how to jailbreak a phone) to allow the average user to engage in a legal activity (jailbreaking their device). This is hugely problematic from a security perspective. Anyone can see the danger of seeking out randos to provide binaries that root a mobile device. To avoid prosecution, those randos are anonymous. And because it’s illegal to give advice about how the tool works, people have no recourse if it turns out that the advice they follow is horribly wrong or ends up poisoning their device with malware. This is a disaster from stem to stern—we're talking about the supercomputer in your pocket with a camera and a microphone that knows who all your friends are. It's like Canada’s recent legalization of heroin use without legalizing heroin sales. A whole bunch of people died of an overdose because they got either adulterated heroin or heroin that was more pure than they were used to. If the harm reduction you’re aiming for demands that an activity be legal, then the laws should support safe engagement in that activity. Instead, in both the heroin and device jailbreak examples, we have made these activities as unsafe as possible. It's really terrible. The security implications really matter, because we hear about vulnerabilities and zero-days and breaks against IoT devices every day in ways that are really, frankly, terrifying. Last winter, it was people accessing baby monitors; this week, it was ransomware for IoT thermostats and breaks against closed-circuit televisions in homes.

The O’Reilly Security Podcast: DRM in unexpected places, artistic and research hindrances, and ill-anticipated consequences.In this best of 2016 episode, I revisit a conversation from earlier this year with Cory Doctorow, a journalist, activist, and science fiction writer. We discuss the unexpected places where digital rights management (DRM) pops up, how it hinders artistic expression and legitimate security research, and the ill-anticipated (and often dangerous) consequences of copyright exemptions.Early in 2016, Cory and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) launched a lawsuit against the U.S. government. They are representing two plaintiffs—Matthew Green and Bunnie Huang—in a case that challenges the constitutionality of Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA is a notoriously complicated copyright law that was passed in 1998. Section 1201 is the part that relates to bypassing DRM. The law says that it's against the rules to bypass DRM, even for lawful purposes, and it imposes very severe civil and criminal penalties. There's a $500,000 fine and a five-year prison sentence for a first offense provided for in the statute. Here, Cory explains some of the more subtle consequences that arise from DRM in unexpected places. An urgent need to protect individual rights and freedoms Everything has software. Therefore, manufacturers can invoke the DMCA to defend anything they’ve stuck a thin scrim of DRM around, and that defense includes the ability to prevent people from making parts. All they need to do is add a little integrity check, like the ones that have been in printers for forever, that asks, ‘Is this part an original manufacturer's part, or is it a third-party part?’ Original manufacturer's parts get used; third-party parts get refused. Because that check restricts access to a copyrighted work, bypassing it is potentially a felony. Car manufacturers use it to lock you into buying original parts. This is a live issue. Apple has deprecated the 3.5-millimeter audio jack on their phones in favor of using a digital interface. If they put DRM on that digital audio interface, they can specify at a minute level—and even invent laws about—how customers and plug-in product manufacturers can engage with it. Congress has never said, ‘You're not allowed to record anything coming off your iPhone,’ but Apple could set a “no record” flag on audio coming out of that digital interface. Then they could refuse to give license for users to decrypt the audio, making it illegal to use. Simply by using the device, users would be agreeing to accept and honor that no-record stipulation, and bypassing it would be illegal. DRM hinders legitimate research and artistic expression Matthew Green [one of the plaintiffs in the EFF lawsuit] has a National Science Foundation grant to study a bunch of technologies with DRM on them, and the Copyright Office explicitly said he is not allowed to do research on those technologies. The Copyright Office did grant a limited exemption to the DMCA to research consumer products, but it excludes things like aviation systems or payment systems like Green wants to research. Bunnie Huang [the other plaintiff] is running up against similar limitations on bypassing DRM to make narrative films with extracts from movies. We have one branch of the government refusing to grant these exemptions. We have the highest court in the land saying that without fair use, copyright is not constitutional. And we have two plaintiffs who could be criminal defendants in the future if they continue to engage in the same conduct they've engaged in in the past. This gives us standing to now ask the courts whether it’s constitutional for the DMCA to apply to technologies that enable fair use, and whether the Copyright Office really does have the power to determine what they grant exemptions for. Our winning this case would effectively gut Section 1201 of the DMCA for all of the anticompetitive and the security-limiting applications that it's found so far. DCMA exemptions can have serious consequences The Copyright Office granted an exemption for tablets and phones so people could jailbreak them and use alternate stores. This exemption allows individuals to write the necessary software to jailbreak their own personal devices but does not allow individuals to share that tool with anyone else, or publish information about how it works or information that would help someone else make that tool. So, now we have this weird situation where people have to engage in illegal activity (trafficking in a tool by sharing information about how to jailbreak a phone) to allow the average user to engage in a legal activity (jailbreaking their device). This is hugely problematic from a security perspective. Anyone can see the danger of seeking out randos to provide binaries that root a mobile device. To avoid prosecution, those randos are anonymous. And because it’s illegal to give advice about how the tool works, people have no recourse if it turns out that the advice they follow is horribly wrong or ends up poisoning their device with malware. This is a disaster from stem to stern—we're talking about the supercomputer in your pocket with a camera and a microphone that knows who all your friends are. It's like Canada’s recent legalization of heroin use without legalizing heroin sales. A whole bunch of people died of an overdose because they got either adulterated heroin or heroin that was more pure than they were used to. If the harm reduction you’re aiming for demands that an activity be legal, then the laws should support safe engagement in that activity. Instead, in both the heroin and device jailbreak examples, we have made these activities as unsafe as possible. It's really terrible. The security implications really matter, because we hear about vulnerabilities and zero-days and breaks against IoT devices every day in ways that are really, frankly, terrifying. Last winter, it was people accessing baby monitors; this week, it was ransomware for IoT thermostats and breaks against closed-circuit televisions in homes.

The O’Reilly Security Podcast: The chilling effects of DRM, nascent pro-security industries, and the narrative power of machines.In this episode, I talk with Cory Doctorow, a journalist, activist, and science fiction writer. We discuss the EFF lawsuit against the U.S. government, the prospect for a whole new industry of pro-security businesses, and the new W3C DRM specification.Here are some highlights from our discussion around DRM: How to sue the government: Taking on the DCMA We [Electronic Frontier Foundation] are representing [Bunnie Huang and Matthew Green] in a case that challenges the constitutionality of Section 1201 of the DMCA. The DMCA is this notoriously complicated copyright law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, that was brought in in 1998. Section 1201 is the part that relates to bypassing digital rights management (DRM), or digital restrictions management as some people call it. The law says that it's against the rules to bypass this, even for lawful purposes, and that it imposes very severe civil and criminal penalties. There's a $500,000 fine and a five-year prison sentence for a first offense provided for in the statute. The law's been on the books, obviously, for a very long time—since 1998. Given that all digital technology works by making copies, it's hard to imagine a digital technology that can't be used to infringe copyright; no digital technology would be legal. Recent changes add urgency A couple things changed in the last decade. The first is that the kinds of technologies that have access controls for copyrighted works have gone from these narrow slices (consoles and DVD players) to everything (the car in your driveway). If it has an operating system or a networking stack, it has a copyrighted work in it. Software is copyrightable, and everything has software. Therefore, manufacturers can invoke the DMCA to defend anything they’ve stuck a thin scrim of DRM around, and that defense includes the ability to prevent people from making parts. All they need to do is add a little integrity check, like the ones that have been in printers for forever, that asks, "Is this part an original manufacturer's part, or is it a third-party part?" Original manufacturer's parts get used; third-party parts get refused. Because that check restricts access to a copyrighted work, bypassing it is potentially a felony. Car manufacturers use it to lock you into buying original parts. This is a live issue in a lot of domains. It's in insulin pumps, it's in voting machines, it's in tractors. John Deere locks up the farm data that you generate when you drive your tractor around. If you want to use that data to find out about your soil density and automate your seed broadcasting, you have to buy that data back from John Deere in a bundle with seed from big agribusiness consortia like Monsanto, who license the data from Deere. This metastatic growth is another big change. It's become really urgent to act now because, in addition to this consumer rights dimension, your ability to add things to your device, take it for independent service, add features, and reconfigure it are all subject to approval from manufacturers. How this impacts security All of this has become a no-go zone for security researchers. In the last summer, the Copyright Office entertained petitions for people who have been impacted by Section 1201 of the DMCA. Several security researchers filed a brief saying they had discovered grave defects in products as varied as voting machines, insulin pumps and cars, and they were told by their counsel that they couldn't disclose because, in so doing, they would reveal information that might help someone bypass DRM, and thus would face felony prosecution and civil lawsuits. When copyright overrides the First Amendment There are some obvious problems with copyright and free speech. Copyright is a government monopoly over who can use certain combinations of words or pictures, or convey certain messages in specific language, all of which seems to conflict with First Amendment rights. In both the Eldred and Golan cases, the Supreme Court said the reason copyright is constitutional, the reason the First Amendment doesn't trump copyright, is that copyright has these escape valves. One is fair use. The other is what's called the traditional contours of copyright, which determine what is and isn’t copyrightable (i.e., copyright only covers expressions and not ideas, copyright doesn't cover non-creative works, and so on). But the DRM situation is urgent. Because DRM can be used to restrict fair use, because it can trump the traditional contours, and because it has criminal penalties, we were able to bring a challenge against it. When there are criminal penalties, you don't have to wait for someone to sue you. You can sue the government. Related resources: EFF is suing the U.S. government to invalidate the DMCA's DRM provisions (BoingBoing) America's broken digital copyright law is about to be challenged in court (The Guardian) 1201 complaint in full

The O’Reilly Security Podcast: The chilling effects of DRM, nascent pro-security industries, and the narrative power of machines.In this episode, I talk with Cory Doctorow, a journalist, activist, and science fiction writer. We discuss the EFF lawsuit against the U.S. government, the prospect for a whole new industry of pro-security businesses, and the new W3C DRM specification.Here are some highlights from our discussion around DRM: How to sue the government: Taking on the DCMA We [Electronic Frontier Foundation] are representing [Bunnie Huang and Matthew Green] in a case that challenges the constitutionality of Section 1201 of the DMCA. The DMCA is this notoriously complicated copyright law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, that was brought in in 1998. Section 1201 is the part that relates to bypassing digital rights management (DRM), or digital restrictions management as some people call it. The law says that it's against the rules to bypass this, even for lawful purposes, and that it imposes very severe civil and criminal penalties. There's a $500,000 fine and a five-year prison sentence for a first offense provided for in the statute. The law's been on the books, obviously, for a very long time—since 1998. Given that all digital technology works by making copies, it's hard to imagine a digital technology that can't be used to infringe copyright; no digital technology would be legal. Recent changes add urgency A couple things changed in the last decade. The first is that the kinds of technologies that have access controls for copyrighted works have gone from these narrow slices (consoles and DVD players) to everything (the car in your driveway). If it has an operating system or a networking stack, it has a copyrighted work in it. Software is copyrightable, and everything has software. Therefore, manufacturers can invoke the DMCA to defend anything they’ve stuck a thin scrim of DRM around, and that defense includes the ability to prevent people from making parts. All they need to do is add a little integrity check, like the ones that have been in printers for forever, that asks, "Is this part an original manufacturer's part, or is it a third-party part?" Original manufacturer's parts get used; third-party parts get refused. Because that check restricts access to a copyrighted work, bypassing it is potentially a felony. Car manufacturers use it to lock you into buying original parts. This is a live issue in a lot of domains. It's in insulin pumps, it's in voting machines, it's in tractors. John Deere locks up the farm data that you generate when you drive your tractor around. If you want to use that data to find out about your soil density and automate your seed broadcasting, you have to buy that data back from John Deere in a bundle with seed from big agribusiness consortia like Monsanto, who license the data from Deere. This metastatic growth is another big change. It's become really urgent to act now because, in addition to this consumer rights dimension, your ability to add things to your device, take it for independent service, add features, and reconfigure it are all subject to approval from manufacturers. How this impacts security All of this has become a no-go zone for security researchers. In the last summer, the Copyright Office entertained petitions for people who have been impacted by Section 1201 of the DMCA. Several security researchers filed a brief saying they had discovered grave defects in products as varied as voting machines, insulin pumps and cars, and they were told by their counsel that they couldn't disclose because, in so doing, they would reveal information that might help someone bypass DRM, and thus would face felony prosecution and civil lawsuits. When copyright overrides the First Amendment There are some obvious problems with copyright and free speech. Copyright is a government monopoly over who can use certain combinations of words or pictures, or convey certain messages in specific language, all of which seems to conflict with First Amendment rights. In both the Eldred and Golan cases, the Supreme Court said the reason copyright is constitutional, the reason the First Amendment doesn't trump copyright, is that copyright has these escape valves. One is fair use. The other is what's called the traditional contours of copyright, which determine what is and isn’t copyrightable (i.e., copyright only covers expressions and not ideas, copyright doesn't cover non-creative works, and so on). But the DRM situation is urgent. Because DRM can be used to restrict fair use, because it can trump the traditional contours, and because it has criminal penalties, we were able to bring a challenge against it. When there are criminal penalties, you don't have to wait for someone to sue you. You can sue the government. Related resources: EFF is suing the U.S. government to invalidate the DMCA's DRM provisions (BoingBoing) America's broken digital copyright law is about to be challenged in court (The Guardian) 1201 complaint in full

Bunnie Huang (@bunniestudios), founder of Bunnie Studios and Kosagi, joined us to chat about building hardware companies in Asia. From his early experience in hacking the XBox and Chumby to his recent open hardware projects: Safecast Geiger Counter Reference Design, Novena Laptop, Chibitronics: peel and stick electronics, he shared great advice and thoughts on trends The post Episode 23: Hardware 101 with Bunnie Huang appeared first on Analyse Asia.

Andrew Huang, known as "bunnie" (lowercase) to his friends, first came to the public eye when, while a graduate computer-science student at MIT, he cracked the proprietary wrapper around Microsoft's Xbox operating system in 2002, which allowed it then to run any software of his choosing. Microsoft didn't like this and MIT told him it wouldn't provide any support if a legal defense were needed. Fortunately, Microsoft quickly realized how embarrassing the situation could be, never pursued legal action, and bunnie published a book on the topic. He went on to design the Chumby, a squeezable interactive personal app device, and now works on a variety of projects for the public good, including an open laptop design and an open design for a radiation detector in the wake of the nuclear plant disasters in Japan. Sponsored by An Event Apart, the design conference for people who make websites. Onepager helps you build a beautiful, single-page website for your small business.