They can do this... but ALL these measures are non-discriminatory. They affect all through traffic equally varying only where the vehicle started and ended their route, and possibly size/speed/construction of the vehicle; no matter whether the driver lives nearby or not.
They got educated in the whole public vs private roads issue as well and that roadblock was removed with haste
Well, the roads in a subdivision are primarily for access and services to the residents typically very low-volume, often used by joggers for exercise and kids at play, not designed nor safe for through vehicle traffic, so occurences of Rat Running unreasonably high through traffic IS are definitely legitimate safety concerns, disturbance to the peace through pollution, noise, unexpected traffic jams, etc and may result in reduced property values also.
Blocking off through traffic IS a common solution. Its just that some random activists with a private subdivision cannot arbitrarily take it upon themselves to install a private gate or blockade across a public roadway --- they need to get the DOT or other municipal authorities involved to prohibit certain routes (Such as Official No Through-Traffic signs), replace some of the roadway with cobblestone, install a permanent curb or concrete barriers limiting vehicle use of one of the former entrances or install traffic calming measures as commonly done such as chicanes (reducing to one narrow lane/making one-way), installing speed tables, curb extensions, additional stop signs, and Police-enforced "No Entry (during certain hours)".
Are you saying that a vote shouldn't be able to change the law?
Laws can be changed, But the regulations about travel on the public road are the purview of state authorities not your neighbors. Because laws restrict freedom there are constitutional safeguards against "tyranny of the majority" in our republic on what laws can limit or prohibit, and laws that excessively limit freedom are subject to scrutiny based on evaluation of the rational basis or bonafide interest -- there are many laws about vehicle operation that are allowable as protecting safety; However, prohibiting all autonomous vehicles seems strictly discriminatory and not supportable under that rational basis, so the prohibition could very well be unconstitutional.
Access to the publicly owned roads that happen to run through a particular neighborhood cannot simply be arbitrarily restricted by residents of that neighborhood as if they were private property.
Blocking arbitrary members of the public or types of vehicles just because locals don't like them or feel uncomfortable about them isn't an acceptable proposition in a free society. Again, while voters can cause laws to be changed (If there are enough of them to persuade their state legislature to do so) there are limits on what laws are acceptable.
Save money..... no more printing plastic cards. I imagine for version 2.0... no more visits to the DMV office -- possibly 80% of DMV employees no longer needed: Just take an interactive vision test on your phone, type in a credit card number to send the $25 plus $3 convenience fee, and your license is renewed for 4 more years.
I'm sure the 3rd party company providing the app gets all kinds of data collection and advertising opportunities by having their app on customers' phones. I wonder if the state will receive monetary compensation from the 3rd party company for that to help further lower DMV/OMV costs.
A little relaxation of the bullish trend; combined with introduction of futures and probably traditional financial companies shorting the hell out of BTC.
What you need is statistics from major exchanges/BTC financial companies on... quantities of other peoples' BTC being used to make loans for entities shorting BTC.
And how much "fake" / "paper" BTC is floating around that was created by short-sellers?
(e.g. Bitcoins where someone has deposited, and the exchange loaned them out to Short Sell, then the buyer deposited to exchange and were loaned out again to Short Sell, resulting in fractional-reserve bitcoins, and the same BTC being sold on the market multiple times resulting in multiple buyers all "Owning" the same small numbers of Bitcoins)
Yes.... this is absolutely insane and stinks of ISP greed: this is a problem created mostly by the ISPs themselves and THEY should be paying a majority of the tax burden for it by having it subtracted from their profits. We should not be trying to tax internet-based businesses to fund something that has nothing to do with supporting these businesses.. we should be taxing every broadband connection above a certain peak theoretical throughput (e.g. 1.5 megabit) to individuals and for-profits with a base charge plus a percentage of the monthly subscription fee; just like every phone line is taxed for USF --- we never had USF funded by imposing a special tax on each sale made by a company that accepts orders over the telephone.
Uh... no..... when a chartered plane lands, they will still have to go through customs. However, as a Chinese national she should likely not be prevented from easily getting the passport replaced or entering without a passport: long as she can prove her identity, which shouldn't be too much a problem for an individual with the full weight of a multi-billion$$ corporation at her disposal.
An all-electric mini-airliner that can go 621 miles on one charge
Now it just needs to be able to fit in my garage, fly itself (Take off, Navigate, and Land autonomously with no requirement for runway), AND come at an affordable price tag. That will tick the boxes for the flying cars that have been 20 years late for us....
It's too fast at 120 FPS. Just drives up costs for no real benefit. You cannot see much more than about 50 FPS at reasonable distances.
If you can't actually "see" it --- then shoot it at 64 FPS and so the TV's interpolation of the frames in between makes no difference, because as you said "You cannot see much more than about 50 fps".
The FCC has a "summarization" method.... The country is divided into map squares, each of which is approximately the size of a county or half of a county. If ANY household, even just one or two in that entire geographic square has any kind of broadband service available, then the square is colored to available
broadband speed based on the Highest speed available to ANY household in that square --- Also, when counting competition - the total number providers that can deliver qualified service to ANY house in that regional square count as providing service to that entire square.
So there can be a few dozen rich folks paying $5000 a month or so for Gigabit internet in a certain county, and if these households are not all the same ISP, then as far as the broadband map will be concerned - 1-Gigabit service is available to every customer in that county (They will have the estimated number of households for that map square based on population density statistics - and count the number of estimated customers based on that), and there are at least 2 competing broadband carriers as well. At the same time 1-Megabit "broadband" may be available to 15% of the people in the map square for $30 a month, so when they go to compute the "Average price of broadband" for that area it's going to be close to $30. And if Verizon et al. have their way.... the availability of 4G Phone service counts as "broadband" as well
That was the extreme example for how bad the broadband maps can be.
The reality is the mapping technique can totally hide the last mile problem, because it's built on an assumption that was bogus from the start. Broadband providers are cherrypicking customers to provide quality service to and not serving entire geographic areas approximately equally like a public utility ought to.
The questions about why people who theoretically have access aren't using it will be interesting and hotly debated
If they don't HAVE broadband, then they also don't have access to it ---- they might have the theoretical possibility of purchasing it, but they haven't purchased it..... Either because (A) The supplier won't sell it too them, (C) The supplier limits their use of it --- for example 2GB Data Cap then you're slowed to 600k, or (C) They're not willing to pay the price the supplier demands for it ---- That might mean that its too expensive despite their desire for the service (E.G. Monopoly local provider or Satellite broadband wants $600 upfront for a decent connection), or it might mean they're poor and can't afford much in terms of tech.
the exploit path will remain when you walk away from your car in a store parking lot..
Well, you could put the fob in a RFID-blocking wallet or use a RFID-blocking liner around the pocket and pull out the fob when ready to start the car.
I would opt-out of the wireless start tech altogether. Personally waiting for a vehicle with a more advanced feature such as Two-Factor unlock by activating a face-recognition scanner to unlock the door then entering a secret personal code onto a keypad and doing a biometric hand scan to authorize starting the engine.
Never trust a journalist to get the technical details 100% correct. godel_56 is probably right, and the article is an approximation of the facts as the jouranlist understands or chooses to simplify the details for non-technical readers -- that the fob is always talking.
Actually; I think one of those trying to drive into my neighborhood would very quickly be noticed, since such a large vehicle would fill up both lanes: even LTL delivery trucks can't get in because they're too wide for the road and too tall to clear the power lines.
Anyone seeking ways Facebook abuses its dominance will lose a talking point.
No... The fact is they already had that policy and used it as a way to extend and abuse their dominance for a long time. Furthermore, they can reintroduce such policy at any time it suits them, or use a Different clause of the terms or policy such as Facebook's discretion (or another guise)
to remove any competitor that comes to their notice as a potential threat to FB's dominance or a service/functionality FB wants to provide themself.
In all likelihood, they won't be White House records available for anyone other than law enforcement, however. They will most likely be classified Security / Law Enforcement / Secret Service data, privileged as strategic data and part of ongoing investigations into threats
Same deal as FBI records.... they contain private personal information about people and secret info about investigations and investigative procedures -- and therefore cannot be retrieved for public scrutiny. You can request your own FBI file under FOIA but not the FBI file of another person or details of a particular investigation, that is: just the same, not the dosiers about potential whitehouse visitors --- Recall, even senators could only briefly LOOK at parts of FBI investigation files related to Kavanaugh, and that required extremely tight controls to ensure that no senator could take any notes or retain any copies about info in the files. That's how serious law enforcement is about controlling sensitive files, and the visitor listing will likely either be wiped in a few months or tightly cordoned off, so the only people who will ever see any of it are investigators in the SecretService.
It is a major corporation that already existed long before 2014, so that means nothing.
Actually... it means EVERYTHING, because you see the Date and the Registrar's identity are the only pieces of information in DNS and WHOIS that cannot be easily falsified ---- everything else can have bogus info in order to make the domain survive vetting, but the "Advanced user" has in fact been tricked or taken for a ride (They're not actually vetting if they look at that stuff --- its actually an illusion). And if the WHOIS data is false, then so is the result of anything you "think" you can authenticate via DNS. The domain Surviving for 4 years on the other hand is very strong evidence that the domain was not registered by a phishing entity for the purpose of running a false website on for phishing. Its certainly standard practice for companies to register separate e-mail domains for mass mailing campaigns as well, or for disseminating information on emergencies such as breaches.
Also, Its a very important fact here that the registrar CSC is unlike other registrars and does not provide service to just anybody... In fact, it means that EVERY domain registered by CSC is going to be a legitimate registration created by a large business entity representing that it has legal ownership of that mark and managed by CSC's brand protection services, because that's essentially what CSC's business is, AND CSC is already in a high position of trust with billions of $$ at stake.
So much so that seeing "CSC" on the registrar field can be a MORE trustworthy indicator that a domain name is a legitimate company's sanctioned domain name than the indication provided by the server holding an Organization-Validated TLS Certificate or EV Certificate from a major CA ----- the fact is, Certificate Authorities have automated the process of obtaining certificates, the vetting of CAs is expedited and the processes of TLS CAs have been exploited in the past due to bugs or fraud/social engineering, etc; Mis-issued certificates in the hands of malicious actors have occurred frequently over multiple CAs --- there are hundreds of CAs the world over, and just one rogue or compromised EV CA can issue a SSL cert for any domain.
Yes, if an "advanced user" can't vet the domain, and the message is important, that proves there is something wrong with the domain.
Nope.... because in reality the fact is an "advanced user" can't truly vet ANY domain by looking at its WHOIS. Because you see EVERY entry in WHOIS is falsifiable.
Especially, nowadays with the GPDR in place.... The WHOIS contact is not even a person that can legally pull the domain.
If I knew someone's info I could stick a domain with certain registrars and put their name, company name, address, e-mail, etc as the registrant or contacts, and in WHOIS it would appear "Legitimate", but the listed registrant and contacts would have absolutely no control and no way to get control of the registrar account or domain settings, because many registrars allow you to administer Account Control and Whois listings independently, and there's no real verification of data before it can be placed in WHOIS.
In other jurisdictions like the United States; it was never even a question, really.... Your employer can require you to use their biometric systems for access control or time and attendance;
That's false: such matters are ALWAYS open to question in the USA, because James Madison gave the USA an open-ended Bill of Rights,
Nope. The first statement above is true. And your language/arguments are so bogus for this context they begin to sound like the sort of rhetoric advanced by those so-called "Sovereign Citizens". It doesn't matter how Open-Ended the bill of rights actually is, because the Bill of Rights is a limitation on government only. Even if you want to claim an additional right to privacy: this has no affect on employers. In fact, an employer can refuse to hire you if you won't sign an agreement waiving or forfeiting your 2nd Amendment Rights, your 1st Amendment Rights, Your right to a jury trial (Compulsory Arbitration), etc. An employer can require you sign an agreement for them to search your home before hiring you if they want: and refuse you a job if they find any firearms, or find that you held a firearm's license in the past, or found out that your oldest brother's friend's stepnephew owned a gun or wrote a Newspaper article in favor of smoking or gun ownership that your employer disagreed with, for example.
giving the people the ability to assert ANY rights they desire under the 9th Amendment (unspecified rights retained by the people) and 10th Amendment (unspecified rights to the people)
.
Your employer is also a person.... that can do the EXACT same thing: assert ANY rights they desire, including their right of free will to choose who they want to hire based on arbitrary seemingly-irrational preference and refuse you the work.
By the way, despite there's a 9th / 10th amendment --- that doesn't allow people to assert ANY right they desire against the government; the supreme court and federal courts have particular interpretations of the constitution, and a concept that also comes up often is that the People then ceded any residual rights to the current legislature through the process of Voting, So unless you are a disenfranchised voter arguing for extra rights that the congress has not respected is not going far..
Just because an advanced user has difficulty vetting the domain doesn't mean there's something wrong with it.
There's no "official" universally accepted criteria for authenticating a domain belongs to the company whose name is claimed on the domain, and even the use of a basic TLS certificate is not foolproof; However, CSC Being a corporate-only registrar that is used by most of the largest internet brands in the US has a very HIGH PRICE to engage their services, let alone register a domain ----- unless a state actor is involved or an additional major breach of CSC themself; the probability of a phishing domain getting registered through CSC AND also with DNS hosted by CSC seems extremely remote --- particularly when you look at the second positive indicator.
Registration is mature --- the domain email-marriott.com has been registered for 4 years created in August 2014. That would mean its been dormant or used for purposes not detected as phishing for an extremely long term: generally when a domain name is used for phishing abuse takedown procedures get initiated immediately, and most often the domain is shutdown by its registrar within days.
COULD the breach notification be faked? Yes, In theory. So just be cautious if you receive an e-mail to not provide personal information after clicking on a link in the message. Close the browser window and visit the company's website. Open a ticket with support if the breach notice implies you need to do something, and you can't find a way to do it on their website --- ultimately a company's call-in support should be able to confirm the message is real or not and assist.
How about people who don't have fingerprints? Due to burns or missing fingers.
Seems a like discrimination if such people cannot be provided some accessible means of entering the building.
For starters: If they have an injury causing problems with a finger or hand, then they can simply provide a different finger.
Employers certainly can discriminate against employees who don't have usable hands.. if they are needed to perform the job.
The number of people who have Zero available fingers with fingerprints AND are still sufficiently able-bodied to work at a job is going to be vanishingly small, and the vast majority of employers are likely to never encounter such a person.
For the 1 in 1 million case; the employer will potentially come up with an individualized accommodation for the specific individual who can't use the scanners for time and door access and it will be solved.
In case an accommodation cannot be made in a fiscally responsible manner for the employer --- it may also be solved by releasing the employee or refusing to hire them.
For example: If there is a special security need for their facilities that necessitates the biometric identification, and the cost of making an accommodation that would preserve the security requirement is prohibitive, then in the US the employer would be allowed to discriminate and refuse them, since they can't meet a vendor (or customer)'s contractual security requirements, for example.
This makes me wonder if this violates the GDPR's spirit.
Opt-Out by leaving the page is NOT GPDR compliant.
In fact.... Opt-Out in general is non-compliant with the GPDR.
The GPDR requires Opt-In, and the default cannot be that you Opt-In, AND the service cannot require you to Opt-In in order to have full use of the service.
That's why "closing the page to opt-out" is non-compliant: If you close the page, then you cannot proceed to use the service, because you've left the service without having use of it.
Slashdot Mirror
They can do this... but ALL these measures are non-discriminatory. They affect all through traffic equally varying only where the vehicle started and ended their route, and possibly size/speed/construction of the vehicle; no matter whether the driver lives nearby or not.
They got educated in the whole public vs private roads issue as well and that roadblock was removed with haste
Well, the roads in a subdivision are primarily for access and services to the residents typically very low-volume, often used by joggers for exercise and kids at play, not designed nor safe for through vehicle traffic, so occurences of Rat Running unreasonably high through traffic IS are definitely legitimate safety concerns, disturbance to the peace through pollution, noise, unexpected traffic jams, etc and may result in reduced property values also.
Blocking off through traffic IS a common solution.
Its just that some random activists with a private subdivision cannot arbitrarily take it upon themselves to install a private gate or blockade across a public roadway --- they need to get the DOT or other municipal authorities involved to prohibit certain routes (Such as Official No Through-Traffic signs), replace some of the roadway with cobblestone, install a permanent curb or concrete barriers limiting vehicle use of one of the former entrances or install traffic calming measures as commonly done such as chicanes (reducing to one narrow lane/making one-way), installing speed tables, curb extensions, additional stop signs, and Police-enforced "No Entry (during certain hours)".
Are you saying that a vote shouldn't be able to change the law?
Laws can be changed, But the regulations about travel on the public road are the purview of state authorities not your neighbors. Because laws restrict freedom there are constitutional safeguards against "tyranny of the majority" in our republic on what laws can limit or prohibit, and laws that excessively limit freedom are subject to scrutiny based on evaluation of the rational basis or bonafide interest -- there are many laws about vehicle operation that are allowable as protecting safety; However, prohibiting all autonomous vehicles seems strictly discriminatory and not supportable under that rational basis, so the prohibition could very well be unconstitutional.
Access to the publicly owned roads that happen to run through a particular neighborhood cannot simply be arbitrarily restricted by residents of that neighborhood as if they were private property.
Blocking arbitrary members of the public or types of vehicles just because locals don't like them or feel uncomfortable about them isn't an acceptable proposition in a free society. Again, while voters can cause laws to be changed (If there are enough of them to persuade their state legislature to do so) there are limits on what laws are acceptable.
Save money..... no more printing plastic cards. I imagine for version 2.0... no more visits to the DMV office -- possibly 80% of DMV employees no longer needed: Just take an interactive vision test on your phone, type in a credit card number to send the $25 plus $3 convenience fee, and your license is renewed for 4 more years.
I'm sure the 3rd party company providing the app gets all kinds of data collection and advertising opportunities by having their app on customers' phones. I wonder if the state will receive monetary compensation from the 3rd party company for that to help further lower DMV/OMV costs.
A little relaxation of the bullish trend; combined with introduction of futures and
probably traditional financial companies shorting the hell out of BTC.
What you need is statistics from major exchanges/BTC financial companies on...
quantities of other peoples' BTC being used to make loans for entities shorting BTC.
And how much "fake" / "paper" BTC is floating around that was created by short-sellers?
(e.g. Bitcoins where someone has deposited, and the exchange loaned them out to Short Sell, then
the buyer deposited to exchange and were loaned out again to Short Sell, resulting in fractional-reserve bitcoins,
and the same BTC being sold on the market multiple times resulting in multiple buyers all "Owning" the same small numbers of Bitcoins)
Yes.... this is absolutely insane and stinks of ISP greed: this is a problem created mostly by the ISPs themselves and THEY should be paying a majority of the tax burden for it by having it subtracted from their profits. We should not be trying to tax internet-based businesses to fund something that has nothing to do with supporting these businesses.. we should be taxing every broadband connection above a certain peak theoretical throughput (e.g. 1.5 megabit) to individuals and for-profits with a base charge plus a percentage of the monthly subscription fee; just like every phone line is taxed for USF --- we never had USF funded by imposing a special tax on each sale made by a company that accepts orders over the telephone.
Chartered private planes don't require them.
Uh... no..... when a chartered plane lands, they will still have to go through customs. However, as a Chinese national she should likely not be prevented from easily getting the passport replaced or entering without a passport: long as she can prove her identity, which shouldn't be too much a problem for an individual with the full weight of a multi-billion$$ corporation at her disposal.
An all-electric mini-airliner that can go 621 miles on one charge
Now it just needs to be able to fit in my garage, fly itself (Take off, Navigate, and Land autonomously with no requirement for runway), AND
come at an affordable price tag. That will tick the boxes for the flying cars that have been 20 years late for us....
Public agenda is set by the president, and democrats are a minority in this administration.
Sure, they can try and advance something in the House, but it goes nowhere without the President and the Senate onboard.
It's too fast at 120 FPS. Just drives up costs for no real benefit. You cannot see much more than about 50 FPS at reasonable distances.
If you can't actually "see" it --- then shoot it at 64 FPS and so the TV's interpolation of the frames in between makes no difference,
because as you said "You cannot see much more than about 50 fps".
Not "gimping" ---- turning off a gimmick that's also a security risk.
So why not just record the movies at 120 frames per second? Then there's nothing to interpolate
The FCC has a "summarization" method.... The country is divided into map squares, each of which is approximately the size of a county or half of a county. If ANY household, even just one or two in that entire geographic square has any kind of broadband service available, then the square is colored to available
broadband speed based on the Highest speed available to ANY household in that square --- Also, when counting competition - the total number providers that can deliver qualified service to ANY house in that regional square count as providing service to that entire square.
So there can be a few dozen rich folks paying $5000 a month or so for Gigabit internet in a certain county, and if these households are not all the same ISP, then as far as the broadband map will be concerned - 1-Gigabit service is available to every customer in that county (They will have the estimated number of households for that map square based on population density statistics - and count the number of estimated customers based on that), and there are at least 2 competing broadband carriers as well. At the same time 1-Megabit "broadband" may be available to 15% of the people in the map square for $30 a month, so when they go to compute the "Average price of broadband" for that area it's going to be close to $30. And if Verizon et al. have their way.... the availability of 4G Phone service counts as "broadband" as well
That was the extreme example for how bad the broadband maps can be.
The reality is the mapping technique can totally hide the last mile problem, because it's built on an assumption that was bogus from the start.
Broadband providers are cherrypicking customers to provide quality service to and not serving entire geographic areas approximately equally like a public utility ought to.
The questions about why people who theoretically have access aren't using it will be interesting and hotly debated
If they don't HAVE broadband, then they also don't have access to it ---- they might have the theoretical possibility of purchasing it, but they haven't purchased it..... Either because (A) The supplier won't sell it too them, (C) The supplier limits their use of it --- for example 2GB Data Cap then you're slowed to 600k, or (C) They're not willing to pay the price the supplier demands for it ---- That might mean that its too expensive despite their desire for the service (E.G. Monopoly local provider or Satellite broadband wants $600 upfront for a decent connection), or it might mean they're poor and can't afford much in terms of tech.
the exploit path will remain when you walk away from your car in a store parking lot..
Well, you could put the fob in a RFID-blocking wallet or use a RFID-blocking liner around the pocket and pull out the fob when ready to start the car.
I would opt-out of the wireless start tech altogether.
Personally waiting for a vehicle with a more advanced feature such as Two-Factor unlock by activating a face-recognition scanner to unlock the door then entering a secret personal code onto a keypad and doing a biometric hand scan to authorize starting the engine.
Make it necessary for the CAR to initiate the conversation and ONLY when the car needs to know when the FOB is in the local area.
That may be very well what it does, but the thieves Relay the interrogation AND the responses to the interrogation..
ALSO, make sure the FOB is at least close to the vehicle by looking at the delay between the ping and pong reply.
The delay before the FOB responds is probably not predictable and measurable with sufficient precision.
Never trust a journalist to get the technical details 100% correct. godel_56 is probably right, and the article is an approximation of the facts as the jouranlist understands or chooses to simplify the details for non-technical readers -- that the fob is always talking.
And.... its gone!
Actually; I think one of those trying to drive into my neighborhood would very quickly be noticed, since such a large vehicle would fill up both lanes: even LTL delivery trucks can't get in because they're too wide for the road and too tall to clear the power lines.
Anyone seeking ways Facebook abuses its dominance will lose a talking point.
No... The fact is they already had that policy and used it as a way to extend and abuse their dominance for a long time. Furthermore, they can reintroduce such policy at any time it suits them, or use a Different clause of the terms or policy such as Facebook's discretion (or another guise)
to remove any competitor that comes to their notice as a potential threat to FB's dominance or a service/functionality FB wants to provide themself.
In all likelihood, they won't be White House records available for anyone other than law enforcement, however. They will most likely be classified Security / Law Enforcement / Secret Service data, privileged as strategic data and part of ongoing investigations into threats
Same deal as FBI records.... they contain private personal information about people and secret info about investigations and investigative procedures -- and therefore cannot be retrieved for public scrutiny. You can request your own FBI file under FOIA but not the FBI file of another person or details of a particular investigation, that is: just the same, not the dosiers about potential whitehouse visitors --- Recall, even senators could only briefly LOOK at parts of FBI investigation files related to Kavanaugh, and that required extremely tight controls to ensure that no senator could take any notes or retain any copies about info in the files.
That's how serious law enforcement is about controlling sensitive files, and the visitor listing will likely either be wiped in a few months or tightly cordoned off, so the only people who will ever see any of it are investigators in the SecretService.
It is a major corporation that already existed long before 2014, so that means nothing.
Actually... it means EVERYTHING, because you see the Date and the Registrar's identity are the only pieces of information in DNS and WHOIS that cannot be easily falsified ---- everything else can have bogus info in order to make the domain survive vetting, but the "Advanced user" has in fact been tricked or taken for a ride (They're not actually vetting if they look at that stuff --- its actually an illusion). And if the WHOIS data is false, then so is the result of anything you "think" you can authenticate via DNS. The domain Surviving for 4 years on the other hand is very strong evidence that the domain was not registered by a phishing entity for the purpose of running a false website on for phishing.
Its certainly standard practice for companies to register separate e-mail domains for mass mailing campaigns as well, or for disseminating information on emergencies such as breaches.
Also, Its a very important fact here that the registrar CSC is unlike other registrars and does not provide service to just anybody...
In fact, it means that EVERY domain registered by CSC is going to be a legitimate registration created by a large business entity representing that it has legal ownership of that mark and managed by CSC's brand protection services, because that's essentially what CSC's business is, AND CSC is already in a high position of trust with billions of $$ at stake.
So much so that seeing "CSC" on the registrar field can be a MORE trustworthy indicator that a domain name is a legitimate company's sanctioned domain name than the indication provided by the server holding an Organization-Validated TLS Certificate or EV Certificate from a major CA ----- the fact is, Certificate Authorities have automated the process of obtaining certificates, the vetting of CAs is expedited and the processes of TLS CAs have been exploited in the past due to bugs or fraud/social engineering, etc; Mis-issued certificates in the hands of malicious actors have occurred frequently over multiple CAs --- there are hundreds of CAs the world over, and just one rogue or compromised EV CA can issue a SSL cert for any domain.
Yes, if an "advanced user" can't vet the domain, and the message is important, that proves there is something wrong with the domain.
Nope.... because in reality the fact is an "advanced user" can't truly vet ANY domain by looking at its WHOIS.
Because you see EVERY entry in WHOIS is falsifiable.
Especially, nowadays with the GPDR in place.... The WHOIS contact is not even a person that can legally pull the domain.
If I knew someone's info I could stick a domain with certain registrars and put their name, company name, address, e-mail, etc as the registrant or contacts, and in WHOIS it would appear "Legitimate", but the listed registrant and contacts would have absolutely no control and no way to get control of the registrar account or domain settings, because many registrars allow you to administer Account Control and Whois listings independently, and there's no real verification of data before it can be placed in WHOIS.
In other jurisdictions like the United States; it was never even a question, really.... Your employer can require you to use their biometric systems for access control or time and attendance;
That's false: such matters are ALWAYS open to question in the USA, because James Madison gave the USA an open-ended Bill of Rights,
Nope. The first statement above is true. And your language/arguments are so bogus for this context they begin to sound like the sort of rhetoric advanced by those so-called "Sovereign Citizens". It doesn't matter how Open-Ended the bill of rights actually is, because
the Bill of Rights is a limitation on government only. Even if you want to claim an additional right to privacy: this has no affect on employers. In fact, an employer can refuse to hire you if you won't sign an agreement waiving or forfeiting your 2nd Amendment Rights, your 1st Amendment Rights, Your right to a jury trial (Compulsory Arbitration), etc. An employer can require you sign an agreement for them to search your home before hiring you if they want: and refuse you a job if they find any firearms, or find that you held a firearm's license in the past, or found out that your oldest brother's friend's stepnephew owned a gun or wrote a Newspaper article in favor of smoking or gun ownership that your employer disagreed with, for example.
giving the people the ability to assert ANY rights they desire under the 9th Amendment (unspecified rights retained by the people) and 10th Amendment (unspecified rights to the people)
.
Your employer is also a person.... that can do the EXACT same thing: assert ANY rights they desire,
including their right of free will to choose who they want to hire based on arbitrary seemingly-irrational preference and refuse you the work.
By the way, despite there's a 9th / 10th amendment --- that doesn't allow people to assert ANY right they desire against the government; the supreme court and federal courts have particular interpretations of the constitution, and a concept that also comes up often is that the People then ceded any residual rights to the current legislature through the process of Voting, So unless you are a disenfranchised voter arguing for extra rights that the congress has not respected is not going far..
Just because an advanced user has difficulty vetting the domain doesn't mean there's something wrong with it.
There's no "official" universally accepted criteria for authenticating a domain belongs to the company whose name is claimed on the domain, and even the use of a basic TLS certificate is not foolproof; However, CSC Being a corporate-only registrar that is used by most of the largest internet brands in the US has a very HIGH PRICE to engage their services, let alone register a domain ----- unless a state actor is involved or an additional major breach of CSC themself; the probability of a phishing domain getting registered through CSC AND also with DNS hosted by CSC seems extremely remote --- particularly when you look at the second positive indicator.
Registration is mature --- the domain email-marriott.com has been registered for 4 years created in August 2014. That would mean its been dormant or used for purposes not detected as phishing for an extremely long term: generally when a domain name is used for phishing abuse takedown procedures get initiated immediately, and most often the domain is shutdown by its registrar within days.
COULD the breach notification be faked? Yes, In theory. So just be cautious if you receive an e-mail to not provide personal information after clicking on a link in the message. Close the browser window and visit the company's website. Open a ticket with support if the breach notice implies you need to do something, and you can't find a way to do it on their website --- ultimately a company's call-in support should be able to confirm the message is real or not and assist.
How about people who don't have fingerprints? Due to burns or missing fingers.
Seems a like discrimination if such people cannot be provided some accessible means of entering the building.
For starters: If they have an injury causing problems with a finger or hand, then they can simply provide a different finger.
Employers certainly can discriminate against employees who don't have usable hands.. if they are needed to perform the job.
The number of people who have Zero available fingers with fingerprints AND are still sufficiently able-bodied to work at a job is going to be vanishingly small, and the vast majority of employers are likely to never encounter such a person.
For the 1 in 1 million case; the employer will potentially come up with an individualized accommodation for the specific individual who can't use the scanners for time and door access and it will be solved.
In case an accommodation cannot be made in a fiscally responsible manner for the employer ---
it may also be solved by releasing the employee or refusing to hire them.
For example: If there is a special security need for their facilities that necessitates the biometric identification,
and the cost of making an accommodation that would preserve the security requirement is prohibitive, then in the US the employer would be allowed to discriminate and refuse them, since they can't meet a vendor (or customer)'s contractual security requirements, for example.
This makes me wonder if this violates the GDPR's spirit.
Opt-Out by leaving the page is NOT GPDR compliant.
In fact.... Opt-Out in general is non-compliant with the GPDR.
The GPDR requires Opt-In, and the default cannot be that you Opt-In, AND
the service cannot require you to Opt-In in order to have full use of the service.
That's why "closing the page to opt-out" is non-compliant: If you close the page, then
you cannot proceed to use the service, because you've left the service without having use of it.