You eat pieces of shit for breakfast, you piece of shit?

Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way

This is great and all, but what I really need is an alternative picture of shel silverstein to put on the back of the book.

Not saying it’s not an internet meme, but NBC News seems to have ran the quote yesterday, and hasn’t updated the article with a correction:

he Biden campaign slammed the former president in a statement about the expected gun license revocation.

“When Trump tells the NRA he won’t do a damn thing to prevent convicted felons, domestic abusers, and other dangerous people from getting their hands on guns, he’s talking about himself,” said campaign spokesperson James Singer in a statement.

I checked James Singer’s twitter and couldn’t find a written statement, nor a rebuttal to NBC News article, so maybe this was a spoken quote off the cuff?

Ha ha!

I hope for future generations, they have to learn about the Simpsons in English class like we had to learn about Shakespeare.

Explain it like I’m 5 please?

This argument implies there’s an easy way for you to perform the reproducible builds on iOS, but it’s quite involved and requires a jailbroken iPhone. Overall this is more a limitation of apple and not signal.

Even if you were able to perform a reproducible build of Signal on a jailbroken iPhone, there’s no way to confirm that the stock iOS Signal app will match, or has a backdoor that got added in a supply chain attack that only is delivered to non jailbroken phones. You could use a jailbroken iOS device, but then it could be lagging behind updates and be even more vulnerable from zero days.

The real pressure here should be on Apple to provide a way to verify a build of an open source app matches what is being installed via the app store, but for some reason this is being framed as a Signal issue, which is disingenuous.

Not having reproducible builds is definitely weird though. Does anybody have more information on that?

They boast this as a feature, but on the instructions for how to do this for iOS, even Telegram admits “As things stand now, you’ll need a jailbroken device, at least 1,5 hours and approximately 90GB of free space to properly set up a virtual machine for the verification process”. Browsing the steps, it’s extremely complex, and doesn’t seem like something that is very user friendly and that you’d do weekly or monthly when a new version is released.

On the GitHub issue linked to in the body, it’s disingenuous to claim they refused to implement this, and that the technical hurdles Apple has in place make this extremely difficult which halted progress. In the community forums where the conversation was moved to, someone pointed out that even if you were to reproduce it on a jailbroken iPhone, that there’s no way to confirm that non-jailbroken iPhones aren’t receiving a version with a backdoor.

And even if you are using a jailbroken device exclusively and can confirm the reproducibility of the iOS app, then the risk becomes the latest available jailbroken iOS could be outdated from the real versions, and you’d have other issues with not receiving timely security updates. This same issue applies to Telegram also.

This is what I’ve read about where users in AD can be federated to FreeIPA: https://www.freeipa.org/page/V4/One-way_trust. Not sure if this covers your use case

No need to guess, it’s all outlined in the bill:

1. ByteDance has 270 days (+90 days at president discretion) to divest of TikTok and sell to an entity not affiliated with an “adversary country” (China, Iran, Russia, N. Korea).
2. If they don’t sell, hosting providers of TikTok application (servers, storage, app store, etc) will be fined up to $500 times the number of users in the US if they continue to host the application
3. ISPs are explicitly excluded from the bill, and not considered data brokers, which is what the restrictions apply to.

So basically, the law will not require ISPs to block access to TikTok domains and IP addresses. Google search results are also explicitly excluded from the term data broker, and exempt from the restrictions. The only requirement is for app stores to stop hosting the application, so existing installations of the app (after January 2025 assuming ByteDance doesn’t sell) will presumably persist and can be used, even if TikTok is banned.

It’s my understanding that FreeIPA can federate with Active Directory, but personally I haven’t tried that myself. As for Authentik, it looks interesting but it’s the first I’ve heard of it. I also rely on FreeIPA’s certmonger implementation, so I wonder if Authentik could replace that?

Just to understand your use case, you have users in Active Directory where you want to manage SSH keys and be able to login via SSH to linux machines?

Hopefully you’ll be able to be many steps ahead of the authorities

I do the same thing, and one morning, I woke before my alarm and left my phone in the bedroom to take a shower. Learned that day that my wife doesn’t know PEMDAS.

Obviously top left is a different movie, he’s got a different shirt on. The jury’s out on the other three though…

We’re actually on the 10th Linus now, so the next one will be LinuXI

Of course theft is bad, but is eroding privacy the necessary evil to solve the problem?

In the US (I couldn’t find UK numbers but don’t know where to look), the National Retail Federation’s 2022 security report did find external theft is the biggest cause of shrink at 37% while theft of inventory by employees and loss of inventory by corporate mismanagement adding up to 54%. ^[1] If companies are losing more inventory through their own mismanagement than they are from people coming into the store and stealing, should this technology be the priority?

Really, if anything is the take away from the report (this is probably more US specific and not as applicable in the UK), it’s that there has been an increase in violence and aggression in their stores over the last couple years. With regards to the always running facial recognition, I don’t see how that will make a significant impact of violence and organized retail crime.

Obviously retail in the UK is going to be different, but this technology seems to be best suited for non-violent shoplifters, and that might not actually be a whole lot in the grand scheme of things, especially to warrant draconian measures.

^[1] https://cdn.nrf.com/sites/default/files/2022-09/National Retail Security Survey Organized Retail Crime 2022.pdf

Madeleine Stone, of the campaign group Big Brother Watch, is concerned about the slow creep of facial recognition technology.

“It is unacceptable to have police and private companies writing their own rules on the use of such a powerful surveillance technology,” she says. “We urgently need a democratic, lawful approach to the role of facial biometrics in Britain, but so far there hasn’t even been a parliamentary debate on it.”

Glad they devoted 3 whole sentences about this more than halfway down the article /s

Also, no mention of machine learning training bias or false positive rates of the existing technology? There’s so much which could have been fleshed out in this article.

There are some things you can’t hide for the internet to work, such as IP addresses, so an IP address on it’s own is not privileged information. Announcing to the world that “this is my IP address” adds information and context which from a privacy perspective is privileged. If someone has an issue with you, they might target their focus to seeing if there’s a service running which is vulnerable at your IP, or they could initiate a DDoS against you.

It’s a public IPv4 address in the picture.

There are 3 ranges of IPv4 addresses which are reserved for private use:

24-bit block 10.0.0.0 – 10.255.255.255 20-bit block 172.16.0.0 – 172.31.255.255 16-bit block 192.168.0.0 – 192.168.255.255