hahainternet
It looks dead in that repository though.
The article doesn't either. Yet somehow you were at the bottom of the page for me. I don't understand why.
Seems odd that it would be the first and only response given this video.
> Many defendents refuse a plea bargain of "guilty" because they don't want to be put on that list.
This is not the US.
> Non-police residents can inquire about felons on the list because of Sarah's Law
This is no different than an extended check which any company allowing you to work with children can carry out. The difference is here that vulnerable new partners of the person can enquire if they see fit.
It is about keeping people safe, not punishing people. It's literally a criminal offence to reveal information about someone having to sign the register.
We have a Violent and Sex Offender Register: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_and_Sex_Offender_Regis...
It is not public, it exists to facilitate Police intelligence.
> Unfortunately, the Ledger team appear to be asshats, so there's every reason to fear using them in the future, even if they've fixed this specific issue
Your first two lines completely contradict each other.
The Nano S is #3 in your list.
Lightning seems quite sound in theory, but I have misgivings about the order in which a fresh transaction is signed, and the secret to the old transaction revealed.
It would seem that by interrupting this chain before both old secrets are revealed, the attacker could safely claim all coins in the channel.
I'm probably wrong, but I'd like to know why.
a) Does not work b) Seems to be specific to Ethereum c) According to a mirror, has its information sourced from an unverified Reddit post.
Is there anything but FUD here?
Unless your bank considers the fraud to have been caused by a lack of care on your behalf, in which case you will not be refunded and have virtually no means of appeal
(note: Obviously depends on your country and local laws)
In lightning, you need only virtually connect them.
There's a literal world of difference between the two.
> instead they have to be given permission to transact by monolithic liquidity hubs
Completely false
> who of course must take their own fee
May, and routes aren't prescribed so they may take a fee on a payment that may be routed through them.
> I would want a rate of return similar to stocks but times some multiple to account for the very high risk of my hot wallet getting hacked and losing all my money.
What. This is completely disconnected from Lightning's functionality.
Please stop spreading FUD.
There is no requirement for this. This is FUD.
I think renaming a bunch of packages with a prefix is probably silly, but your response also strikes me as incredibly prescriptive.
I like brew, but I don't like that attitude.
It's something that has to be picked, and the parent poster will undoubtedly count as 'arrogance' for choosing a workaround.
Indeed, and once that was pointed out his response was equally polite and accurate, offering a workaround which keeps everyone happy.
Literally, what more do people expect?
Logs and error and continues? I think you're confused by Systemd exposing all sorts of frailties of traditional software. How do you propose that it differentiate between UIDs and user names?
They've had to delete multiple posts from the thread which are nothing but trolls, hell YOUR post is nothing but a troll.
On the other hand, you come here to uselessly complain and have the temerity to complain that poettering doesn't write exactly the code you want him to write.
How do you justify your ridiculous attitude?
No it's actually an appeal to both. The increase in powers here if any exists whatsoever is minimal. I'm advocating Apple comply with them.
> If your argument is any good, it will be just as good when talking about why the police should be able to search your phone for evidence of tax evasion as it is for talking about why the police should be able to search your phone for evidence of child rape and terrorism.
If they can search your home for it, they should be permitted to search your phone for it. Both should have the exact same expectation of privacy and the exact same judicial oversight.
> Otherwise, we go to a place where we say, "Well, the shouldn't summarily execute people who steal cigars from convenience stores, but when it comes to terrorists, we shouldn't let laws get in the way of their need to do what's expedient."
There is no evidence that there is any legal protection for Apple here and strong evidence that indeed the FBI can compel them. Nobody is advocating breaking the law or even going around it.
You mean can we not use the crime Apple has essentially made impossible to secure a conviction on? No, I'm sorry. Kids being raped matters.
> For every sicko who's trading child porn there's dozens, if not hundreds, more who're trying to escape an abusive partner, leaving gangs, getting away from sexual slavery, or whistleblowing on government or companies breaching the law.
None of which is remotely related to phones being unbreakable by law enforcement.
> If Apple create this ability its use will extend past the immediate issue and affect people who genuinely need this security
A fallacious slippery slope. If you let the Police search my house, they will search everyone's house without a warrant and therefore it's bad to have any searching ever.
My country does.
> How often is any crime perfect, anyway?
Significantly more often if Apple gets their way, as they provide guarantees backed by the richest company in the world. Taking a photo of your rape victim used to be idiotic and a way to get caught. Now it's a way to keep power over your victim as Apple will protect that photo.
Yeah this has a lot of benefits and helps catch criminals extremely quickly. It has virtually no privacy implications. I'm fine with it and some nations do it.
> How about requiring all citizens to carry a GPS locator, camera and microphone which are always recording into a national database? We could always just limit access behind a warrant, right?
This is about the most disproportionate act I can imagine. If you have to reach this far, you don't have any point to defend.
Nobody is asking for a remote kill switch. Searching a car is a common task, searching a phone should be the same.
> Let's think about the implications of punching a hole in the security of those devices.
Nobody is talking about uploading new software to every device. This is wildly misleading.
In public areas that are often visited? Absolutely yes, an unbiased source of evidence available to the public? Excellent.
> Law enforcement has apparently lost the ability to do on the ground investigation work in favor of whiz bang-ery
Apple has provided a child porn trading network protected by the very principles of mathematics and their refusal to cooperate with the FBI.
What they're doing is precisely what any law enforcement agency would.
Because the victims matter.
> If I want to buy strong encryption with no backdoor, and I'm not a criminal, then why would the issue of crime matter at all?
Being a criminal isn't an attribute of a person, it's the actions the person carries out. I don't give a shit about jaywalking, but I care about rape victims. This is not inconsistent.
No I'm saying that arrogantly the people behind these decisions cannot imagine a scenario in which someone else could hold information about them that would be harmful just by its existence.
They can only imagine their secrets being revealed, such as Tim Cook being outed before he was satisfied.
> you don't fear encryption being used against the average person?
I'm confused as to what you're asking, that's exactly what I fear. A rapist taking photos of his victim, the evidence being insufficient for a conviction, Apple now protects that rapist and his access to his victim's photos at the cost of the victim's mental health.
> For example if the police would search your phone in a traffic stop, that would be okay?
If they had good reason, that's the basis of the legal system after all.
> The amount of cases you could solve with a crypto backdoor
Crypto backdoors are ineffective. Service provider accountability is. This is why Apple is fighting it.
I agree it is, but my point is that despite this, it is not implemented in any way. The needs of the many in the US do not outweigh the needs of the few. Nor in most cases should they. Individual healthcare has no significant harm to it, but prohibiting the searching of communications and data on someone's primary computer has major harm implications.
So this means it's OK to withold access to evidence, even if you are simply a private company with no legal standing? No of course it doesn't.
Please, tell me how a paedophile I know exists and uses an iPhone can be prosecuted for the contents of that device. I'm fairly sure he has taken illegal photos of children he may be abusing, but he lives in Cambodia.
What can be done?