Re: Surprise!
The site vows to terminate users who offend "morals and good manners."
No selfies then.
2726 publicly visible posts • joined 27 Apr 2007
If the baker is in France, I would say that delivery is not possible in a timely manner if they are going to be up to French standards where day old bakings are unacceptable. Doughnuts basically go stale shortly after they cool down and even in North America are not considered prime if they're old.
That research paper did look like it was rather out of the loop regarding what's happening right now. I think they took too long to get it out. This kind of study seems to be something which has to be fresh since they're talking about a fast moving and growing market. So in this case the end result is that it comes across more as an opinion piece. The good news is that it brought an important discussion to the fore.
Good for PureVPN for jumping on this, but there is a problem in that they need to sell their service as an easy solution. Users need to know that there isn't an easy way. PureVPN may well be a stellar service, but the user needs to understand what they're doing or they will fail to achieve the security they may have been expecting.
The court said:
“. . . if a service provider is notified of a clear violation of the law, it must not only remove the content immediately, but also take precautions which ensure that no further infringements will be possible.”
So it's possible to take down content based on a "clear violation". Everything to rights organizations is "clear", that's just how they see things. And to ensure no further infringements would require YouTube to shut down, otherwise it wouldn't be really ensured. None of this makes any sense.
"The story here is that VPN providers need to support IPv6 not that IPv6 should be disabled on the host. The VPN should allow IPv6 or IPv4 for the tunnel transport and IPv6 and IPv4 for the encapsulated user traffic. When the VPN is brought up both IPv6 and IPv4 default routes can be pointed into the VPN and the DNS servers should be assigned by the VPN provider."
You're entirely right. It's just that few ISPs support IPv6 natively and the user needs to look after all that - which is not so easy. In my own case, when I'm doubting my own skills I think it is better to do what I know than what I think I know. Since my first post in this thread I've actually spent some hours reading about IPv6 and how to better implement it here. Like many people, my situation is with an ISP that uses carrier grade NAT, so I had to get a static address from them in order to even get any IPv6 to work in the first place.
I don't know what he's got, but Proxy.sh has those features.
- disable ipv6 (for obvious reasons)
- registered in Seychelles (because it requires local lawyer to sue there)
- no actual office (to make it difficult to attack users with suits)
- no logging, ever (because with non-disclosure threats you can't have it any other way)
- warrant canary (whatever ... it may, or may not be useful)
- and so on
They had some bad press which I interpret differently than many other people. They seem a bit hokey which I prefer to slick. The really slick companies always leave me wondering if they've really honest of if they just got a good writer. My theory is that if you have pimples, you're real. Anyway, there's my testimony - I don't get any affiliate points or anything for this.
If you want privacy, there's TOR. It's been designed for privacy and even in the worst case is _much_ better than any VPN solution could be in the best case.
Tor and VPN do different things. To what ever level it is a achievable, privacy is gotten by carefully choosing the right tools at the right time.
I use both Tor and VPN in different ways at different times. Sometimes together or in a different order. These are choices one has to have a long hard think about. Just saying one is more private than the other doesn't even make sense.
It's not that easy to think this through and set up your computer to be private. It's not something a common user is likely to do. One should probably turn off IPv6. Set some non logging DNS servers (Not your ISP!) in case the one from the VPN is compromised or fails. Obfuscate your mac address perhaps, but most definitely spoof your OS and browser version as that is probably a clear ID for your computer. All this takes a bit of looking at, and I don't think the VPN provider can be expected to provide everything for their users. But as someone suggested, many people just want to download stuff without easy identification, or geolocation, of their IP address.
But looking at that chart, I see one company using Google DNS. That's just not good. Google logs all DNS lookups and they can be gotten by any 3 letter agency. Another thing to look at is how much the VPN company itself logs. Personally, I think they should run entirely in RAM and not log anything. They should also not keep a record of your payment details. I chose a company which has all the above specifications and more. However, even after looking at all those things, it still comes down to trust. You never know what they really do.
I use VPN all the time and sometimes I care a lot, but most of the time it's not so important to be really secure. When I care a lot is when I'm trying to learn how this works and how to be private in the best possible way. That's mostly educational as I don't have life/career threatening issues to protect in this regard.
Most times it's a matter of obfuscating my IP for the purposes of accessing the free and open internet. I have no interest in media downloads. However, I've come to see just how censored Google search is because they give me results as if I'm located in some specific area. That's censorship. I prefer to get a wide range of results from all over the world. Moving my IP around is an easy way to achieve that.
That's just plain practical stuff. But as a matter of principle, when I'm using a browser it's nobody's business where I live. It certainly doesn't need to be advertised to Google or other on-line giants. If some person wants to find me, they can take a moment to look me up by my real name and they'll have my address. I welcome human visitors. Robots, not so much.
I got tired of waiting for medium.com to respond so went to Wikipedia instead, and saw this:
Users can only create accounts or log in to Medium with a Twitter or a Facebook account.
From my perspective, if they can't operate independently, they don't get my participation. In other words, I won't be needing any password anyway.
Perhaps user education would be helpful here. I avoid Google services and I avoid ads. I also discovered that by using a VPN I can get search results which are more "neutral". It puts the world (and wide) back in WWW. The average user won't know how to do that stuff, but there is no reason why vendors like Firefox can't help people get a better experience. Or is there?
total failure, as we have no reliable mobile phone signal here, so that option was out of the door.
No cell coverage here either, but that's not needed for this to work. In our case they decided to use satellite. Apparently it costs a bit more for them to do so, but it's well worth it them. (Their cost benefit analysis is almost 600 pages so I won't link to it.)
I never quite figure out why a creator suddenly isn't allowed to get the profit of his or her actions throughout his/her lifetime.
They are allowed to get profits. They can press records or make medicine or build and make profits on their own creation. Many people, when they get older, continue to do what they figured out how to do when they were younger. However, when you die, you personally don't get paid any more.
I realize that the Pirate party is young and consists mostly of young people newly awakening to politics, but have felt that they were on track to help us into a new era in the digital and general rights world. Now I seriously worry that we may have a generation of kids who have been bought. My "get off my lawn" comment might refer to too much TV. Just yesterday I commented on the Reg to the effect that I thought that Reda was our best chance. Now I'm seriously doubting that. Great article Andrew.
". . . it is alleged." and "German newspaper Bild claims Merkel's computer was one of the first systems to be infected with malware linked to miscreants in Russia."
Instead of discussing the veracity of Merkel's computer skills, it might be more fruitful to question the source of the story. What kind of credibility does the Bild have?
Someone with a penchant or motivation for learning things will deal with whatever computer they need to and a Mac is probably a sensible choice for most scientists.
For me the problem with Macs is actually Mac users. Many are no problem, but I don't believe that users who struggle to figure things out are helped by using a Mac. They still struggle. I'm always getting non-standard files from them (dot pages anyone?) and e-mail attachments which can't be opened on any other system.
The Google announcement contains some interesting lines which reveal an alternate universe.
"people think it’s important to control access to their personal information"
Access my personal information? I don't "access" my personal information. I have it. If they (or anybody) has it, then it's not personal.
"When you trust your personal information with us, you should expect powerful controls that keep it safe and private"
I do. But not by Google's inverse definition of private. It goes on and on, but the bottom line is that Google keeps a profile on its users which is comprehensive and they make the assumption that it is OK for them to do so. But it isn't.
How is the "push 9 to connect" thing arranged? It sounds useful.
My phone company is CallCentric who has it on their extensions option menu, but other companies are implementing similar features. If you run a PBX you should be able to do it on any line. My axe to grind is say good buy to the featureless and overpriced old companies and take control of your own phone.