4 ms·

I'm out of the loop, here. Is there any context beyond this tweet?

viraptor 8y ago
https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2018/07/28/administrative-purgatory/ https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2018/07/28/administrative-purgat...
- mirimir 8y ago
  > 1. I'm the main author of curl ... > 2. I'm the main author of libcurl ... > 3. I use the name haxx.se for ... email address ... I'm betting on #3. Is there that much hate for curl?
  - cryptonector 8y ago
    It's almost certainly not hate for curl. It's just some silliness somewhere, probably about "haxx". My consulting company's name got me into some minor trouble where I had to explain to my corporation's bank some "detected activity" that turned out to be just the business' name. Apparently when Treasury started cracking down on cryptocurrency businesses someone got the bright idea to search for "crypto" and use that as an indication that whatever matches is related to cryptocurrencies. I don't know if that someone was someone at the particular bank or someone at Treasury. I wrote a lengthy letter explaining all of my activity (much of which the bank itself could confirm on its own) and the source of the company's name, and I never heard from them again. I had to guess that this was the reason, and get an very indirect confirmation from a bank agent on the phone... My guess is that Daniel Stenberg needs to at least explain away his domain's name. BTW, if they are going to verify 15 years' worth of personal information, that's probably going to take time, time during which more pressing things will come up to take the time of whoever is doing the review. 100 days is probably nothing in that context.
    - viraptor 8y ago
      > It's just some silliness somewhere, probably about "haxx". I'm not sure why people keep saying that. We've got no information to confirm that. People have been denied travel before just because they shared the name with someone on a no-fly list. There can be lots of different reasons for the rejection.
      - cryptonector 8y ago
        I gave an example where something like that definitely happened. It's just an example. It might have nothing to do with Stenberg's case, but here's the thing: simplistic filters are a thing, and they are not useless, so I think we should suspect that they are in use. I gave my bank an earful about how silly it was of them to use a search for "crypto" to find money services businesses, and if it was someone at my bank who came up with that, then "silly" is quite right. But what if it was someone at Treasury who told my (and other) bank to do this? Then it's not so silly. Suppose this dragnet netted 1,000 non-MSBs and three MSBs two of which were in violation of Treasury regulations... Then from the perspective of Treasury a simple request to the banks netted two violators at almost zero cost to Treasury! What would be silly for my bank to do would be brilliant for Treasury to ask them to do. For me both are equally annoying, but I can't deny that a very simplistic filter can be brilliant for a bureaucrat to apply, not if I look at it from their perspective. Now, the Administration has been on about extreme vetting for visas. We can assume it's not just for Iraq and friends, but across the board. What does "extreme vetting" mean? Well, asking an applicant for 15 years' worth of travel and other information sure is extreme, will discourage the applicant, and if they continue they will likely make mistakes (they may not even have old passports whose entry/exit stamps to look at to make a list of all foreign travel!). The key for State bureaucrats is to have filters tuned such that they {plausibly claim to be doing extreme vetting, or actually be doing extreme vetting} but also such that the impact on legitimate business is not so bad as to cause members of Congress to be ringing State's phones off their hooks! How many non-black-hat "hackers" are being caught in a silly dragnet cast by a bureaucrat who has no idea what they are doing? It depends on the specifics of the dragnet, but I bet you the bureaucrat has the tools to tune it so that it catches hundreds not thousands, or whatever. And that brings me to an obvious piece of advice: Mozilla should talk to their Representative and Senators and put some pressure on State in order to resolve this issue. After all, while Stenberg has personal interests in visiting the U.S., Mozilla has a business interest in Stenberg visiting the U.S., and business almost certainly trumps the personal as far as State goes.
- chopin 8y ago
  Funny. Giving out personal details of others without consent is an offense under GDPR. I'd be severely pissed if my siblings did this.

https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2018/07/28/administrative-purgatory/ https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2018/07/28/administrative-purgat...

mirimir 8y ago
> 1. I'm the main author of curl ... > 2. I'm the main author of libcurl ... > 3. I use the name haxx.se for ... email address ... I'm betting on #3. Is there that much hate for curl?
- cryptonector 8y ago
  It's almost certainly not hate for curl. It's just some silliness somewhere, probably about "haxx". My consulting company's name got me into some minor trouble where I had to explain to my corporation's bank some "detected activity" that turned out to be just the business' name. Apparently when Treasury started cracking down on cryptocurrency businesses someone got the bright idea to search for "crypto" and use that as an indication that whatever matches is related to cryptocurrencies. I don't know if that someone was someone at the particular bank or someone at Treasury. I wrote a lengthy letter explaining all of my activity (much of which the bank itself could confirm on its own) and the source of the company's name, and I never heard from them again. I had to guess that this was the reason, and get an very indirect confirmation from a bank agent on the phone... My guess is that Daniel Stenberg needs to at least explain away his domain's name. BTW, if they are going to verify 15 years' worth of personal information, that's probably going to take time, time during which more pressing things will come up to take the time of whoever is doing the review. 100 days is probably nothing in that context.
  - viraptor 8y ago
    > It's just some silliness somewhere, probably about "haxx". I'm not sure why people keep saying that. We've got no information to confirm that. People have been denied travel before just because they shared the name with someone on a no-fly list. There can be lots of different reasons for the rejection.
    - cryptonector 8y ago
      I gave an example where something like that definitely happened. It's just an example. It might have nothing to do with Stenberg's case, but here's the thing: simplistic filters are a thing, and they are not useless, so I think we should suspect that they are in use. I gave my bank an earful about how silly it was of them to use a search for "crypto" to find money services businesses, and if it was someone at my bank who came up with that, then "silly" is quite right. But what if it was someone at Treasury who told my (and other) bank to do this? Then it's not so silly. Suppose this dragnet netted 1,000 non-MSBs and three MSBs two of which were in violation of Treasury regulations... Then from the perspective of Treasury a simple request to the banks netted two violators at almost zero cost to Treasury! What would be silly for my bank to do would be brilliant for Treasury to ask them to do. For me both are equally annoying, but I can't deny that a very simplistic filter can be brilliant for a bureaucrat to apply, not if I look at it from their perspective. Now, the Administration has been on about extreme vetting for visas. We can assume it's not just for Iraq and friends, but across the board. What does "extreme vetting" mean? Well, asking an applicant for 15 years' worth of travel and other information sure is extreme, will discourage the applicant, and if they continue they will likely make mistakes (they may not even have old passports whose entry/exit stamps to look at to make a list of all foreign travel!). The key for State bureaucrats is to have filters tuned such that they {plausibly claim to be doing extreme vetting, or actually be doing extreme vetting} but also such that the impact on legitimate business is not so bad as to cause members of Congress to be ringing State's phones off their hooks! How many non-black-hat "hackers" are being caught in a silly dragnet cast by a bureaucrat who has no idea what they are doing? It depends on the specifics of the dragnet, but I bet you the bureaucrat has the tools to tune it so that it catches hundreds not thousands, or whatever. And that brings me to an obvious piece of advice: Mozilla should talk to their Representative and Senators and put some pressure on State in order to resolve this issue. After all, while Stenberg has personal interests in visiting the U.S., Mozilla has a business interest in Stenberg visiting the U.S., and business almost certainly trumps the personal as far as State goes.
chopin 8y ago
Funny. Giving out personal details of others without consent is an offense under GDPR. I'd be severely pissed if my siblings did this.