cultural reviewer and dabbler in stylistic premonitions
before a paywall kicked in
Oops, I didn’t realize there was a paywall (using tor browser w/ ublock origin there isn’t).
I’ve edited the post body to include the whole article now.
deleted by creator
also: The Oyster was an erotic magazine published in London in 1883
The tone which comes across in the video (linked from the other post I linked to in this post’s description) is unfortunately much less amicable than this article conveys.
the guy speaking off camera in the linked 3min 30s of the video is Ted Ts’o, according to this report about the session.
That label is there because I’m subscribed to XBlock Screenshot Labeller and it misclassified this image. (You can find here and here more info about how labelers in ATP work…)
i hope you’re joking but if you’re not i assume you live in the bay area? if you want to go to their pitch tonight, here’s its eventbrite.
i’m glad somebody got the reference.
(i assume the people downvoting my comment only know the word as an alt-right thing and are unaware of its earlier etymological journey which makes it a relevant response to this thread. in fairness, I’d forgotten how far they went with it in 2016 until I just read that wowpedia page 😬)
ip -br a
(-br
is short for -brief
and makes ip
’s addr
, link
, and neigh
commands “Print only basic information in a tabular format for better readability.”)
If copyright holders want to take action, their complaints will go to the ISP subscriber.
So, that would either be the entity operating the public wifi, or yourself (if your mobile data plan is associated with your name).
If you’re in a country where downloading copyrighted material can have legal consequences (eg, the USA and many EU countries), in my opinion doing it on public wifi can be rather anti-social: if it’s a small business offering you free wifi, you risk causing them actual harm, and if it is a big business with open wifi you could be contributing to them deciding to stop having open wifi in the future.
So, use a VPN, or use wifi provided by a large entity you don’t mind causing potential legal hassles for.
Note that if your name is somehow associated with your use of a wifi network, that can come back to haunt you: for example, at big hotels it is common that each customer gets a unique password; in cases like that your copyright-infringing network activity could potentially be linked to you even months or years later.
Note also that for more serious privacy threat models than copyright enforcement, your other network activities on even a completely open network can also be linked to identify you, but for the copyright case you probably don’t need to worry about that (currently).
democracy dies in dark mode
Regarding your browser-based thing: what are the specific capabilities of the “threat agents” (in your threat model’s terminology) which your e2ee is intended to protect against?
It seems like the e2ee is not needed against an attacker who (a) cannot circumvent HTTPS and (b) cannot compromise the server; HTTPS and an honest server will prevent them from seeing plaintext. But, if an attacker can do one of those things, does your e2ee actually stop them?
The purpose of e2ee is to protect against a malicious server, but, re-fetching JavaScript from the server each time they use the thing means that users must actually rely on the server’s honesty (and HTTPS) completely. There is no way (in a normal web browser) for users to verify that the JavaScript they’re executing is the correct JavaScript.
If you run a browser-based e2ee service like this and it becomes popular, you should be prepared that somebody might eventually try to compel you to serve malicious JavaScript to specific users. Search “lavabit” or “hushmail” for some well-documented cases where this has happened.
What a confused image.
actually it stands for “Privacy-Preserving Attribution”.
Ads?! in Ubuntu? Never! They were simply “integrating online scope results into the home lens of the dash” 🤡
(that is an actual quote from the sentence immediately following “We’re not putting ads in Ubuntu” in Mark Shuttleworth’s blog post responding to the entirely predictable backlash after they did this, twelve years ago…)