Natanael_L

12 ms·

61.
by Natanael_L 6y ago
Yes. And they have much better mechanisms than DKIM available which they should use instead. In fact, with reliance on DKIM you create the distorted incentive that one company might want to fake getting hacked to claim an email they sent is
62.
by Natanael_L 6y ago
It's already common to use unsigned documents in court, as long as you can show provenance is legit or if the counterparty is willing to acknowledge authencity. In fact, it's quite common that the issue over unsigned documents in
63.
by Natanael_L 6y ago
No, destruction of evidence involves things like making something impossible to analyze and evaluate. Publication of a key doesn't erase the original messages and does not make it impossible to look into their contents to try to establ
64.
by Natanael_L 6y ago
Many DKIM keys uses outdated key generation defaults with 512 bit RSA keys. Google used to have such weak DKIM keys too in ~2012.
65.
by Natanael_L 6y ago
This isn't likely very viable, though. In particular because most emails won't contain full context. You can't even really tell from digitalized text if a person in an oppressive society believes in what they're writing
66.
by Natanael_L 6y ago
Imagine stuff like abusive relationships where one party cherry picks emails to release to hurt the other. It's not really that complicated. Stuff like revenge porn already exists. Let's not make the problem worse.
67.
by Natanael_L 6y ago
What do you think of reflective screens like Qualcomm's Mirasol?
68.
by Natanael_L 6y ago
I seriously doubt that. Network effect "just" makes a particular means of communication more favorable - it doesn't prevent the use of any of the options. Not being able to use the phone cuts you of from a lot of services whe
69.
by Natanael_L 6y ago
Again, is that because you literally don't have the physical option of communicating by other ways, or because the people you want to communicate with are too lazy to use another option? If I ask you to meet me at the bar and you'
70.
by Natanael_L 6y ago
Is that because you can not replace Facebook, or because it's merely inconvenient to do so? Because the law doesn't protect convenience in these contexts.
71.
by Natanael_L 6y ago
Then they would only have ToS violation claim against those particular users. It's not legally straightforward that FB could demand that the tool can't be distributed. Any 3rd party that didn't agree to the ToS would not be b
72.
by Natanael_L 6y ago
Utility regulation doesn't depend only on importance. It depends on importance plus access. That's why your local grocery store can ban you even if food is necessary for your survival, because you didn't lose access to other
73.
by Natanael_L 6y ago
All of this assumes an equivalence in function and access that just isn't there. If my phone company decides who I can call, then I got issues. I can't trivially change carrier however I want. If a website arbitrarily bans all kin
74.
by Natanael_L 6y ago
The one I recall was about streaming OTA transmissions captured from individual antennas, one per user, essentially renting remote access to the antennas. The court essentially said relaying the stream is a new broadcast and needs its own b
75.
by Natanael_L 6y ago
In this case though, the license on Steam follows your account on the platform and not a single time downloaded digital or physical copy. So the lack of license argument doesn't make sense. At best they can put an explicit term in the
76.
by Natanael_L 6y ago
The ToS can't guarantee what other users will or will not do with the data displayed to them, though.
77.
by Natanael_L 6y ago
Something can both be a shitty thing to do, and still be allowed because we'd be worse off if we tried to ban it. (Usually because detection and enforcement is absolutely unreasonable)
78.
by Natanael_L 6y ago
Intentionally making time be permanently stupid is a bit stupid, IMHO. Lots of existing scientific standards that are stuck with old cruft that makes things annoying (like the definition of electrical minus/plus poles), why add more cr
79.
by Natanael_L 6y ago
Even they doesn't actually strive to allow everything that's legal.
80.
by Natanael_L 6y ago
Depending on Amazon's mood that day, the answer might be "yes"
81.
by Natanael_L 6y ago
Literally everybody has their own personal definition, and if you decide to rely on the choices of other people then their definitions will apply.
82.
by Natanael_L 6y ago
That gets people banned https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-donald-trump-suspend...
83.
by Natanael_L 6y ago
As a moderator in a smaller technical subreddit myself, I mostly agree with that assessment. The best subs I've seen usually have small communities and/or strict enforcement of the community rules (doesn't always need to be t
84.
by Natanael_L 6y ago
Sometimes drastic actions like this is the only way to maintain high quality
85.
by Natanael_L 6y ago
On reddit you can do that natively for a whole thread by locking, but for individual comment chains you can only do it with mod bots.
86.
by Natanael_L 6y ago
How's this different from email? Management of server reputation, spam filters, etc. One and gone spam servers are frequent and are dealt with through putting low trust in new servers and using heuristics to flag behavior that look abu
87.
by Natanael_L 6y ago
Mostly for in-app payments of a bunch of variants, primarily for digital content, yes.
88.
by Natanael_L 7y ago
We don't need the ability to switch to new algorithms as much as we need the ability to ditch old ones. Agility in cryptography only needs to mean the ability to deprecate what's broken. We're still going to see newer and mor
89.
by Natanael_L 7y ago
From what I read, x.509 allows the signer to specify the curve parameters along with the signature. And yes, the bug here would be that Windows accepted parameters B without confirming they match A, it only checked that the public key was t
90.
by Natanael_L 7y ago
Twitter on mobile.....

More ›