That's not true, Gab actively promotes itself to people being kicked off other platforms. Since most of those people are being kicked off for extreme far right views and/or trolling, Gab fills itself with the far right and trolls as a matter of policy.
This is the level of baitshit we have reached, ladies and gentlemen. Twitter banning white people is "insightful" and not just some far right race-war conspiracy bullshit now.
I don't see how screaming into the void of some browser add-on that the EverQuest staff certainly don't have installed is helpful. I suppose it's a way to vent for people who need to let off some steam, i.e. it might reduce the moderation load a bit. I'm guessing that's not what you want though.
Also note that Fortnight, the incredibly popular game with millions of Android users, deliberately chose to use side-loading to avoid giving 30% to Google. It's clearly not that onerous.
It's just Gab trying to be relevant. They were hoping a lot of people would migrate from Twitter, following people like Carl Benjamin and Milo Yiannopoulos who got booted. But it didn't really work, not least because much of those characters' appeal was the drama when interacting with other people on Twitter, and the other people had no interest in going to Gab just to get more abuse.
In fact, Carl in particular tries to sneak back on to Twitter at least three or four times a year.
Which gave Gab an idea. What if they could be on every popular site, and no-one could stop them?
The flaw in this plan is that they will still be largely ignored, except by other people already in the echo chamber who bothered to install the add-on.
Google already tried this with a product called "Sidewiki". It failed because few people bothered to install the add-on, and because the comments were unmoderated and unfiltered and sorted chronologically they were a toxic mixture of spam and trolling. Useful discourse was impossible.
So pretty much like the main Gab site really. All the people booted off Twitter concentrated in one place. The best you can say about it is that it strongly supports free speech, but you don't go there for the quality of the content.
The judiciary in the US isn't independent either. At the top you have the politically appointed Supreme Court, and further down judges and prosecutors are elected and thus subject to the influence of both voters and money.
Welcome to click-bait YouTube politics, where every other video is "X DESTROYS feminazi sjw" but if you actually have the misfortune to watch it that's almost never the case.
Judging by the rate at which the US loses control of cyberweapons, leaks exploits and has its backdoors discovered and exploited in the wild, I'd say buying US hardware means everyone has access too.
The bottom line is you are doing it wrong anyway, if you need to absolutely trust all your hardware.
Well in theory he adds to the debate over privacy laws and corporate punishment for breeches, and also the positive publicity and public sentiment might encourage others to join her in supporting laws that address the issue.
Obviously the system is far from perfect, but it's perhaps not a total waste of time.
In practice doesn't the government usually just start ranting about terrorists to justify these things? I don't live in the US but in the UK it rarely gets any media coverage anyway.
The 80s was a golden age in many ways. I've got an original Brothers in Arms release and it sounds incredible, one of the most dynamic albums ever made. Every subsequent re-release and "remaster" ruined it a little bit more.
There was no difference in the Patreon case, or Sargon's.
Generally when the government decides to ban you, you can't just go to another payment provider. Sargon is on SubscribeStar now, for example. So I think there is a difference.
it still creates the appearance of government control and endorsement
Only among conspiracy theory aficionados. Or maybe it's different in the US, I don't know. But in Europe we have a long history of bodies funded by government but independent of it, and in cases where there is the slightest shred of evidence of interference it becomes a huge scandal.
I guess you could cite the Supreme Court as an example of where government appointments to a supposedly independent body are clearly highly political, but at the same time you would also have to acknowledge that it's not automatically so as in the case of someone like Mueller who many of the ruling class would dearly love to get rid of.
I feel like there is a fundamental difference between not assisting someone with their interstate commerce and with the government putting a stop to it. Also, in this case there is no evidence that the government had anything to do with Mastercard's decision - indeed MC needs little encouragement.
Also a more general point - being funded by the government does not make someone an instrument of the government. There are many counter examples. It doesn't even apply to non-government funding arrangements, e.g. Mozilla is not some kind of Google stooge just because it gets substantial funding from Google.
That isn't really the case for any modern systems which use an IOMMU. By default the new device is firewalled off completely, and normally won't be given complete access to the entirety of RAM or anything like that.
The problem is that if you connect something like a GPU the OS helpfully auto-configures it and mirrors the screen onto it, including copying all the hidden bitmaps composited behind the lock screen into its RAM. It automatically mounts the Thunderbolt hard drive and starts reading and parsing the filesystem. Perhaps the attacker knows of an exploit in the Intel NIC driver, so pretends to be an Intel NIC and the OS helpfully loads that driver up, ready for some code injection.
All it really needs for mitigation is to block the initial configuration of new devices when the computer is locked and before login.
When connected the Thunderbolt device needs to negotiate the link and and request resources. By default it can't just DMA the entire memory space. The host has to read configuration parameters and configure the IOMMU to allow it.
Part of the problem is that the OS does a lot of that automatically, even if there is no driver available. For example when you connect a USB device the OS reads descriptors (metadata) from it, which means that there is a potential attack on the parser for that data. Thunderbolt is no different.
Good warrant canaries are designed to avoid this problem by self destructing on their own when neglected.
I doubt that would stand up in court though. If you deliberately set things up so that the fact you received a secret subpoena will be disclosed by your inaction, all you really did is demonstrate intent to violate the secrecy requirement through pre-meditation.
Courts tend not to be impressed with this kind of argument, and those who claim to have asked lawyers about it (such as Moxie Marlinspike) say they were advised against it.
Some orgs have tried things like having multiple people sign the canary, each in a different legal jurisdiction. But that doesn't really help either, unless all parties have some way of detecting when one of them is served with a secret subpoena, which seems far-fetched. It also doesn't really protect the person receiving the subpoena as it is actually just a conspiracy to thwart the court's legally issued order.
Unfortunately, canaries are not reliable, either for detecting subpoenas/LEA requests or for protecting the person issuing them.
I wonder if many of them shut their computers down regularly, so the forced restarts don't really hurt them.
Maybe some of them feel that Microsoft is an authority here, and that when the computer tells them it needs to restart that's actually welcome advice that they should follow. In other words they don't realize that he restarts may be unnecessary or excessive.
That's the basis on which many scams and viruses work after all - the computer or someone in authority like the fake Microsoft tech support guy is telling you that this is the action you need to take, up to and including giving them large sums of money.
Slashdot Mirror
We still don't know what got Carl Benjamin banned from Twitter
Oh, we do. It was tweeting porn at people.
Milo's banning for
harassing and mobbing was just the last straw after a long pattern of flirting with the ToS, trying to martyr himself.
That's not true, Gab actively promotes itself to people being kicked off other platforms. Since most of those people are being kicked off for extreme far right views and/or trolling, Gab fills itself with the far right and trolls as a matter of policy.
This is the level of baitshit we have reached, ladies and gentlemen. Twitter banning white people is "insightful" and not just some far right race-war conspiracy bullshit now.
I don't see how screaming into the void of some browser add-on that the EverQuest staff certainly don't have installed is helpful. I suppose it's a way to vent for people who need to let off some steam, i.e. it might reduce the moderation load a bit. I'm guessing that's not what you want though.
What's wrong Mashiki, run out of mod points today?
Failure to assist is not censorship or banning.
Also note that Fortnight, the incredibly popular game with millions of Android users, deliberately chose to use side-loading to avoid giving 30% to Google. It's clearly not that onerous.
You can side-load add-ons in Chrome and Firefox, so it's really impossible to ban Gab's little project. Same with the Gab app.
It's just Gab trying to be relevant. They were hoping a lot of people would migrate from Twitter, following people like Carl Benjamin and Milo Yiannopoulos who got booted. But it didn't really work, not least because much of those characters' appeal was the drama when interacting with other people on Twitter, and the other people had no interest in going to Gab just to get more abuse.
In fact, Carl in particular tries to sneak back on to Twitter at least three or four times a year.
Which gave Gab an idea. What if they could be on every popular site, and no-one could stop them?
The flaw in this plan is that they will still be largely ignored, except by other people already in the echo chamber who bothered to install the add-on.
Google already tried this with a product called "Sidewiki". It failed because few people bothered to install the add-on, and because the comments were unmoderated and unfiltered and sorted chronologically they were a toxic mixture of spam and trolling. Useful discourse was impossible.
So pretty much like the main Gab site really. All the people booted off Twitter concentrated in one place. The best you can say about it is that it strongly supports free speech, but you don't go there for the quality of the content.
The judiciary in the US isn't independent either. At the top you have the politically appointed Supreme Court, and further down judges and prosecutors are elected and thus subject to the influence of both voters and money.
Welcome to click-bait YouTube politics, where every other video is "X DESTROYS feminazi sjw" but if you actually have the misfortune to watch it that's almost never the case.
Believe it or not you have guaranteed rights in China too. It's just that like the US, in practice they are abused anyway.
Judging by the rate at which the US loses control of cyberweapons, leaks exploits and has its backdoors discovered and exploited in the wild, I'd say buying US hardware means everyone has access too.
The bottom line is you are doing it wrong anyway, if you need to absolutely trust all your hardware.
It is screwy, and I know it's a minor thing, but can we be a bit more careful with the headlines?
"Caught" implies they were doing it deliberately and trying to conceal the fact. This doesn't seem deliberate, just incompetent.
If "I for one welcome out new X overlords" is still going I think this one has plenty of mileage left.
Well in theory he adds to the debate over privacy laws and corporate punishment for breeches, and also the positive publicity and public sentiment might encourage others to join her in supporting laws that address the issue.
Obviously the system is far from perfect, but it's perhaps not a total waste of time.
In practice doesn't the government usually just start ranting about terrorists to justify these things? I don't live in the US but in the UK it rarely gets any media coverage anyway.
You can generally look up which releases are overly compressed online.
http://dr.loudness-war.info/
The 80s was a golden age in many ways. I've got an original Brothers in Arms release and it sounds incredible, one of the most dynamic albums ever made. Every subsequent re-release and "remaster" ruined it a little bit more.
There was no difference in the Patreon case, or Sargon's.
Generally when the government decides to ban you, you can't just go to another payment provider. Sargon is on SubscribeStar now, for example. So I think there is a difference.
it still creates the appearance of government control and endorsement
Only among conspiracy theory aficionados. Or maybe it's different in the US, I don't know. But in Europe we have a long history of bodies funded by government but independent of it, and in cases where there is the slightest shred of evidence of interference it becomes a huge scandal.
I guess you could cite the Supreme Court as an example of where government appointments to a supposedly independent body are clearly highly political, but at the same time you would also have to acknowledge that it's not automatically so as in the case of someone like Mueller who many of the ruling class would dearly love to get rid of.
I feel like there is a fundamental difference between not assisting someone with their interstate commerce and with the government putting a stop to it. Also, in this case there is no evidence that the government had anything to do with Mastercard's decision - indeed MC needs little encouragement.
Also a more general point - being funded by the government does not make someone an instrument of the government. There are many counter examples. It doesn't even apply to non-government funding arrangements, e.g. Mozilla is not some kind of Google stooge just because it gets substantial funding from Google.
That isn't really the case for any modern systems which use an IOMMU. By default the new device is firewalled off completely, and normally won't be given complete access to the entirety of RAM or anything like that.
The problem is that if you connect something like a GPU the OS helpfully auto-configures it and mirrors the screen onto it, including copying all the hidden bitmaps composited behind the lock screen into its RAM. It automatically mounts the Thunderbolt hard drive and starts reading and parsing the filesystem. Perhaps the attacker knows of an exploit in the Intel NIC driver, so pretends to be an Intel NIC and the OS helpfully loads that driver up, ready for some code injection.
All it really needs for mitigation is to block the initial configuration of new devices when the computer is locked and before login.
When connected the Thunderbolt device needs to negotiate the link and and request resources. By default it can't just DMA the entire memory space. The host has to read configuration parameters and configure the IOMMU to allow it.
Part of the problem is that the OS does a lot of that automatically, even if there is no driver available. For example when you connect a USB device the OS reads descriptors (metadata) from it, which means that there is a potential attack on the parser for that data. Thunderbolt is no different.
Good warrant canaries are designed to avoid this problem by self destructing on their own when neglected.
I doubt that would stand up in court though. If you deliberately set things up so that the fact you received a secret subpoena will be disclosed by your inaction, all you really did is demonstrate intent to violate the secrecy requirement through pre-meditation.
Courts tend not to be impressed with this kind of argument, and those who claim to have asked lawyers about it (such as Moxie Marlinspike) say they were advised against it.
Some orgs have tried things like having multiple people sign the canary, each in a different legal jurisdiction. But that doesn't really help either, unless all parties have some way of detecting when one of them is served with a secret subpoena, which seems far-fetched. It also doesn't really protect the person receiving the subpoena as it is actually just a conspiracy to thwart the court's legally issued order.
Unfortunately, canaries are not reliable, either for detecting subpoenas/LEA requests or for protecting the person issuing them.
They are deleting comments pointing that out too.
I wonder if many of them shut their computers down regularly, so the forced restarts don't really hurt them.
Maybe some of them feel that Microsoft is an authority here, and that when the computer tells them it needs to restart that's actually welcome advice that they should follow. In other words they don't realize that he restarts may be unnecessary or excessive.
That's the basis on which many scams and viruses work after all - the computer or someone in authority like the fake Microsoft tech support guy is telling you that this is the action you need to take, up to and including giving them large sums of money.