Uh, yes. In this "everyone agrees to disarm" fairy tale you have to disarm the police as well. Otherwise someone who wants to wage war will create an army in SWAT uniforms and use it do conquer his defenceless neighbour.
They can publish misinterpreted version of something you allegedly said, without providing context or original source, which would send some politically motivated crowd down your trail. And then swatting, doxxing, death threats, stalking, spamming, and Hell knows what else will follow.
Not quite. The can either have one secure file encrypted with AES where they store all card numbers (with possibility of having last 4 digits in separate not-encrypted file) OR store unique tokens generated with SALTED card number (last 4 digits are in that case forbidden). You can't have both. And salting the hashes gives you full benefit of 256-bit entropy.
Name is indeed allowed, but considered bad business practice, as most customers find it creepy. Most companies responsible for terminal software don't use that option for this reason.
Some transactions can be processed offline and send to the bank in batch once a day. Most common form are contactless transactions below certain limit There are other options, which are allowed by EMV standard, but I've never seen them in the field. Of course ignorance is not a proof, so they may be out there:)
Card number is stored in secure memory encrypted by AES and merchant has no way to access it. Last four number are gave up before encryption for your convenience, so you can link the receipt wit your card. You are right with the name, though, but most payment terminals I've encountered never even ask the card for that info. I worked in the industry for 5 years and generally speaking consumers consider having their name on the terminal or receipt "creepy", so it's not used. It's optional data anyway, not needed to complete the transaction.
You sholdn't trust the magstripe - with every transaction it gives up all essential data and is immutable, so it's trivial to clone it. Meanwhile CTLS EMV uses RSA to uniquely sign every transaction, and transaction data includes unique random number, so even eavesdropping on communication between card and terminal is useless, because you cannot reuse the data (Assuming you own reasonably new card which supports DDA, old cards used SDA which is as shitty as magstripe, but SDA has been banned for years).
As for communicating with your card when it's not in use, while there are some attacks successfully performed in the lab, there hasn't been a single instance of executing them in real life, even against unprotected cards. And it's trivial to make communication with the card impossible: you can keep it wrapped in tinfoil (3 layers on both sides will suffice), buy fancy "card protector" lined with lead, or simply have two cards and keep them together. I worked with CTLS terminals for 5 years and I tested all 3 techniques and they all worked like a charm, fancy protector being the best and having two cards - the worst. Personally I use combination of second and third: I have two cards and each resides in fancy protector.
TL;DR: CTLS is superior to magstripe. You cannot secure magstripe - you can secure CTLS.
To poison their well. If you don't have an account they just shadow profile you and have only truthful data about you. If do have an account, you can create a lot of noise, which hides your genuine activities. Better yet, log from VM set up for that specific purpose to make tracking harder.
Remember:
1. The only way to hide is to blend in.
2. The best disinformation is too much information.
3. Offence is the best defence.
Better yet, poison the well. You know, friend random people, have no ties with most of actual friends, post random shit, like some pages you doesn't really care about... Generally speaking hide your genuine activities in a noise. And do all of this from Virtual Machine. And setup a script uses this VM's browser to go to random pages to generate fake footprints. As they shadow profile you anyway, you may as well take some advantage of their infrastructure giving nothing in return.
Not really. There was "People's Republic of Hungary", "People's Republic of Poland" and a country nobody wanted, as both Czech and Slovaks preferred to go their separate ways except nobody cared. All three states run by Stalinists.
It may come as a surprise to you, but experimental archaeology has nothing to do with alt-right, nazis or propaganda... https://www.change.org/p/googl... This time they were forced to reinstate it, but what if they ban all such channels at once next time, and they won't have a chance to rally their supporters?
Feel free to provide an alternative. And before you say "government should" please consider five last leaders of the government in your country and consider if giving those people even more power than they already had/have would really improve the situation.
And if you're not American ask yourself: "Would I be comfortable with Trump/Obama/Bush/Clinton (choose the president you like least) having that new power?".
We should include picture of Jimmy Wales. He founded Wikipedia, he may as well be the face of humanity on his own site. Preferably not naked, but if he insists...
Without criticism there is no free market at all. Spreading information about bad actors is fundamental if people are to make informed decisions, and that is the whole point of free market. That is why free market can only exist where freedom of speech is observed.
I've heard about Irish, but I didn't know about others. Got any citation at hand?
Also, as a Slav myself I would very much like to know how did they come to this conclusion. I mean... You don't really get any whiter than a Slav. What if someone lied? You know something like:
Some dude: "Ethnicity?"
Slav: "Slav"
Some dude: "Then you are not white!"
Slav: "I mean German..."
Some dude: "Yeah, I thought you look kinda white..."
Why WOULD you trust the government? No matter where are you from and what are your political affiliation, I sure there was at least one government in your country that you hated (or hate right now).
Assuming you're an American, answer me this: do you honestly believe ALL those individuals are trustworthy?
1. Bill Clinton
2. George Bush Jr.
3. Barack Obama
4. Donald J. Trump
Because at some point each of them was (or is, in case of Trump) the government, which, in your opinion, we should trust. But how can we trust untrustworthy people?
Now, I am not an American, and where I live we are all taught from preschool to implicitly trust the government. Trust me, you really want some healthy American scepticism toward your elected official rather than what I have to deal with on daily basis. I have met several people who couldn't grasp the very concept of a "wrong law", "unjust law' or that a bureaucrat could possibly made a mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, yes. In this "everyone agrees to disarm" fairy tale you have to disarm the police as well. Otherwise someone who wants to wage war will create an army in SWAT uniforms and use it do conquer his defenceless neighbour.
Sharpened stick? What for? All you need is to be stronger than your victim. Or gang up 10:1.
They can publish misinterpreted version of something you allegedly said, without providing context or original source, which would send some politically motivated crowd down your trail. And then swatting, doxxing, death threats, stalking, spamming, and Hell knows what else will follow.
That's the second weirdest fetish I've heard about this week.
The only legal system that isn't pay to win is trial by combat. Naked.
Not quite. The can either have one secure file encrypted with AES where they store all card numbers (with possibility of having last 4 digits in separate not-encrypted file) OR store unique tokens generated with SALTED card number (last 4 digits are in that case forbidden). You can't have both. And salting the hashes gives you full benefit of 256-bit entropy.
Name is indeed allowed, but considered bad business practice, as most customers find it creepy. Most companies responsible for terminal software don't use that option for this reason.
Some transactions can be processed offline and send to the bank in batch once a day. Most common form are contactless transactions below certain limit There are other options, which are allowed by EMV standard, but I've never seen them in the field. Of course ignorance is not a proof, so they may be out there :)
Card number is stored in secure memory encrypted by AES and merchant has no way to access it. Last four number are gave up before encryption for your convenience, so you can link the receipt wit your card. You are right with the name, though, but most payment terminals I've encountered never even ask the card for that info. I worked in the industry for 5 years and generally speaking consumers consider having their name on the terminal or receipt "creepy", so it's not used. It's optional data anyway, not needed to complete the transaction.
You sholdn't trust the magstripe - with every transaction it gives up all essential data and is immutable, so it's trivial to clone it. Meanwhile CTLS EMV uses RSA to uniquely sign every transaction, and transaction data includes unique random number, so even eavesdropping on communication between card and terminal is useless, because you cannot reuse the data (Assuming you own reasonably new card which supports DDA, old cards used SDA which is as shitty as magstripe, but SDA has been banned for years).
As for communicating with your card when it's not in use, while there are some attacks successfully performed in the lab, there hasn't been a single instance of executing them in real life, even against unprotected cards. And it's trivial to make communication with the card impossible: you can keep it wrapped in tinfoil (3 layers on both sides will suffice), buy fancy "card protector" lined with lead, or simply have two cards and keep them together. I worked with CTLS terminals for 5 years and I tested all 3 techniques and they all worked like a charm, fancy protector being the best and having two cards - the worst. Personally I use combination of second and third: I have two cards and each resides in fancy protector.
TL;DR: CTLS is superior to magstripe. You cannot secure magstripe - you can secure CTLS.
To poison their well. If you don't have an account they just shadow profile you and have only truthful data about you. If do have an account, you can create a lot of noise, which hides your genuine activities. Better yet, log from VM set up for that specific purpose to make tracking harder.
Remember:
1. The only way to hide is to blend in.
2. The best disinformation is too much information.
3. Offence is the best defence.
Maybe. But for some people FB may be a useful tool.
Better yet, poison the well. You know, friend random people, have no ties with most of actual friends, post random shit, like some pages you doesn't really care about... Generally speaking hide your genuine activities in a noise. And do all of this from Virtual Machine. And setup a script uses this VM's browser to go to random pages to generate fake footprints. As they shadow profile you anyway, you may as well take some advantage of their infrastructure giving nothing in return.
Not really. There was "People's Republic of Hungary", "People's Republic of Poland" and a country nobody wanted, as both Czech and Slovaks preferred to go their separate ways except nobody cared. All three states run by Stalinists.
Being a first-comer is not something to brag about around the ladies.
It may come as a surprise to you, but experimental archaeology has nothing to do with alt-right, nazis or propaganda... https://www.change.org/p/googl... This time they were forced to reinstate it, but what if they ban all such channels at once next time, and they won't have a chance to rally their supporters?
Feel free to provide an alternative. And before you say "government should" please consider five last leaders of the government in your country and consider if giving those people even more power than they already had/have would really improve the situation.
And if you're not American ask yourself: "Would I be comfortable with Trump/Obama/Bush/Clinton (choose the president you like least) having that new power?".
You forgot Avian Carriers: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rf...
Zug ogg 10 000 B. C. Aarrghaa. Guulasaaka!
We should include picture of Jimmy Wales. He founded Wikipedia, he may as well be the face of humanity on his own site. Preferably not naked, but if he insists...
Without criticism there is no free market at all. Spreading information about bad actors is fundamental if people are to make informed decisions, and that is the whole point of free market. That is why free market can only exist where freedom of speech is observed.
Symbolic +1 Informative
I've heard about Irish, but I didn't know about others. Got any citation at hand?
Also, as a Slav myself I would very much like to know how did they come to this conclusion. I mean... You don't really get any whiter than a Slav. What if someone lied? You know something like:
Some dude: "Ethnicity?"
Slav: "Slav"
Some dude: "Then you are not white!"
Slav: "I mean German..."
Some dude: "Yeah, I thought you look kinda white..."
Really, how did it work?
And who do you think is in the trunk of that space-Tesla?
No, they are worried he'll sell them Windows.
Why WOULD you trust the government? No matter where are you from and what are your political affiliation, I sure there was at least one government in your country that you hated (or hate right now).
Assuming you're an American, answer me this: do you honestly believe ALL those individuals are trustworthy?
1. Bill Clinton
2. George Bush Jr.
3. Barack Obama
4. Donald J. Trump
Because at some point each of them was (or is, in case of Trump) the government, which, in your opinion, we should trust. But how can we trust untrustworthy people?
Now, I am not an American, and where I live we are all taught from preschool to implicitly trust the government. Trust me, you really want some healthy American scepticism toward your elected official rather than what I have to deal with on daily basis. I have met several people who couldn't grasp the very concept of a "wrong law", "unjust law' or that a bureaucrat could possibly made a mistake.