I dont’ understand the issue here. Is that picture part of some specific VPS’s logo or is it part of the title/theme of the article? I think it’s very poignant, though obviously edgy, if it’s the latter. If your VPS provider isn’t censoring content, then obviously that means Nazism will be able to exist along with militant socialism advocating violence against capitalism. That is kind of the point of the article right? To determine which VPS is actually not going to censor.

Each country is free to create whatever rules they want for their country, but for people that don’t live in those countries then there is nothing more to say. There can be voluntary international cooperation (like there is with copyrighted works) but if I live somewhere that isn’t part of that international cooperation then like it or not, I am free to violate your laws all day.

And also bittorrent.

Full tunnel using routing wouldn’t work but many full tunnel implementations use a shim where once the Tunnel is connected, the system route table isn’t referenced anymore, so you can put as many static routes etc as you want, but all traffic will hit the VPN interface before routing is done. For example Cisco any connect removes route look-up from the TCP/IP stack of the local system.

This won’t mitigate this specific attack, however running your VPN as a full tunnel will.

Literally the definition of an edge case, but consider this, if you never had a car you would have never been in that situation to begin with.

How about trains? That way 99% of people dont’ even need to drive, ever.

Also breathalyzers. You can be compelled to give blood/breath/etc in the course of a criminal investigation and there are no constitutional protections covering you.

You get rid of cars and you stop designing society to accommodate the one edge case where someone lives 100miles away from a city that they have to commute by car to everyday for some reason.

We’ve all been there right? You paid for a game, it required an active internet connection and a couple of years later the publisher decided they’re done with it and shut it down leaving you with a broken game.

I actually haven’t been there, because I correctly never bought a single player game that requires an internet connection.

i absolutely support the idea of banning internet connectivity for single player games though.

This is basically the same as the voting rolls that democrats and republicans use for canvassing. The amount of information they have and have had for years predating the internet, is immense.

The only problem ShotSpotter solves is not enough public money into private hands. What information does it actually give the police, even assuming that it is 100% accurate?
At a certain time and place a gun was fired. Great? Who cares. That isn’t worth $1million/mo.
If there are 3 people in the general location and time that a gun was fired, what has shotspotter done to help?

Fortunately Chicago is getting rid of this finally. https://chicago.suntimes.com/city-hall/2024/02/22/shotspotter-contract-cost-mayor-brandon-johnson-cancel-extension-summer

Sounds like the constitution would need to be updated in that case. But there has been no successful constitutional challenges for trans-rights, so it wouldn’t apply in this case.

The government is slow, so using a yubikey isn’t authorized, but the datasur pro is, and the private key does have a passphrase.

I have a USB drive with a keypad on it, it stores my FIPS Compliant SSH-key for IL-5 government systems. I unlock it to add my key into my ssh-agent, and don’t use it for anything else. Though it is an 8gig USB stick, so I could in theory run some kind of security/pen testing flavor of linux plus a VPN Client to connect to said systems.

Sure but Cambridge Analytica isn’t “anti-democracy” or whatever anymore then political ads are.

Lol what? Actively Undermining American Democracy? I have to see the source for this.

This is a cool proof of concept and pretty easy to adapt for almost any purpose not just text. I don’t think it’s “useful” but then again “usefulness” isn’t exactly well defined in the first place.

hehe

You voted for this, probably twice.

https://moguldom.com/406482/fact-check-obama-had-chance-to-codify-roe-v-wade-but-chose-not-to-prioritize-it/

Shut the fuck up.

I’m just not voting for either. It’s the least anyone can do.

What?

I voted Working Families party in 2016 and explicitly wrote in Bernie Sanders for the top line.

I’m not worried about needing to vote for either of them. As a leftist I care more about the ideas being pushed in various ways, not the people who say them. The ideas being pushed by nikki are the same as hillary. A war on “disinformation” requires verification of who said something, Nikki is just advocating for the next step., De-anonymizing.

Yet I doubt you cared in 2016, so why do you care now?

From the article: “The technology platforms are so much more powerful than any organ of the so-called mainstream press, and I do think that there has to be not just an American reckoning but a global reckoning with the disinformation, with the monopolistic power and control, with the lack of accountability that the platforms currently enjoy,” Clinton said.

How is that materially different then what Haley said?

What should the government do about “misinformation” and how is it materially different then what Nikki Haley “vows” to do?

I didn’t realize Hillary Clinton was running in the Republican National Convention. But it makes sense that the parties of Capital both want to control non-monetized social media.

For context, remember 2016 when Hillary went to war against “anonymous” what do you think she mean by that?

Or this? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/06/hillary-clinton-guardian-disinformation-big-tech-facebook

Setting up a mitm on the internet is a non-trivial task and I’m quite confident you have neither the access, nor the ability to do that. Very few people do. So let’s just say that isn’t an attack vector that anyone should be concerned with.

Why? There is absolutely zero risk in SSHing into “random” machines especially since I’m using public ssh-keys. Of course the first time I connect to a machine it’s going to be untrusted, but who cares? I’m using SSH to ensure others can’t sniff my traffic.

I don’t really care if a site is who they say they are, I’m the one connecting to the site, if the site does what I expect, they are serving their purpose. The only thing I use SSH/HTTPS for is to make sure that whatever communication between me and the site can’t be snooped. A CA allows a third party to snoop that traffic, and I have no indication they are doing it.

Eh, they do want to maximize profits, but this is more about fighting back against the EU basically making their business model illegal not making their service worse in favor of profits.

That’s where the SSH analogy comes from. On the initial connection you get the signature of the web-site you are trying to visit and your browser trusts it from then on. If something changes later, then the scary warning comes up.

There is no way a user can know that their traffic hasn’t been man-in-the-middled by a compromised CA either. And why is it “disastrous” to trust a website after you have cryptographically verified its the same website you visited before? It would present the same public/private key pair that you already trust.

Centralized CAs were and are a mistake. HTTPs should work more like ssh-keys where the first time you connect to a website it’s untrusted, but once you have validated it the website you want, it never bothers you again unless the private key changes. Private key rotations can be posted on public forums, or emailed, or any number of other ways and users that don’t care can ignore the warnings like they do anyway, while users who DO care, can perform their own validation through other channels.

The most important aspect is that there is no “authority” that can be corrupted, except for the service you are connecting to.

If he only follows them through Instagram it’s most likely a para-social relationship, and not a real friend at all.

It absolutely is not. You are using enshitification incorrectly. This is the core business model of facebook since the very beginning. They don’t give a shit about people spending $13/mo. They absolutely do not want people to choose that option. This is literally about about a legal loophole they think they have found to get around GDPR and have people “opt-in” to the same kind of data collection their business is based on.

Ive heard of it, and want to use it, but unfortunately the only reason Im still sticking with instagram is because I have very dear friends who would never change to anything non-mainstream.

This is called the network effect, it’s a social problem and no amount of technology will solve this. So your choices are either to stop using apps where you are the product, and obviously convince your friends to stop that as well, or grin and bear it. Maybe think about what you did 20 years ago and do that instead.

Yes most people are. The you is the general you, not you specifically. But the theoretical person/people who do decide the time is right, will be glad to have that privacy.

Basically privacy is worthless if you don’t need it and priceless if you do.

Alternatively, when you’ve had enough, and you start resorting to violence you’ll be glad you don’t have a large digital footprint. Obviously if you never do anything of note, privacy has no value to you. But to those that need it, privacy is priceless.

You say you don’t “Care about internet points” and you have “things to do” yet you constantly post and comment on AI generated memes. It’s ok if you want to enjoy things online. It’s also ok if you do deeply care about internet points, but don’t outrage farm.