wav-part

9 ms·

31.
by wav-part 9y ago
IP and location have no legal relationship. They barely have actual relationship. I used UK vpn on google.com but it thinks I am from HK. If google cannot get a correct ipdb what chances do others have ? And why would I block EU ? Connectio
32.
by wav-part 9y ago
> I wrote "don't do business in the EU / with EU citizens". Are you saying if I sell to EU tourists visiting USA, I have to follow EU laws ? > A DVD does not collect your personal information and send them to th
33.
by wav-part 9y ago
> "don't do business in the EU" This does not make sense on web. EU resident streaming a movie from netflix. Is netflix doing business in EU ? Or Is it the customer doing business in USA ? For example, it can be argued t
34.
by wav-part 9y ago
GDPR Article 7(4) When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of per
35.
by wav-part 9y ago
We are taking about subset of taxation not all taxation, namely "politically constructed taxation" as described by ajnin. Historically, taxation has been imposed at every level from small bands to vast empires Agreed. it certai
36.
by wav-part 9y ago
Taxation is old. Democratically-decided taxation is new.
37.
by wav-part 9y ago
You are talking to a libertarian and you assumed a right granted by state is a private property. Why ? The private property I referred is land right, which IS as old as civilisation and have been acceptable by most humans ever. Since most d
38.
by wav-part 9y ago
Concept of private property is as old as civilisation. Whereas taxation (at current depth and scale) is barely 50yrs old and already showing cracks.
39.
by wav-part 9y ago
Technically you are correct. You must also educate yourself. Get mutiple opinions etc. Hopefully you picked your doctor due to his past performence. Money and review should serve as a good incentive.
40.
by wav-part 9y ago
> Arguing a debate from 0 to its conclusion is tiresome Irrelevent. If you accept a statement without proof, you become vulnerable to manipulation. This is also why topic-specific forums exist, so that short proof suffices. Though I do
41.
by wav-part 9y ago
If you give a statement with proof that can be confirmed in short time then reputation is irrelevent. Otherwise I am not going to spend time to think about provability of your statement, unless you are reputable or I trust you. So Reputatio
42.
by wav-part 9y ago
By normal version negotiation if you mean rfc7507/TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV then even that wont work for legacy systems last updated before April 2015 (publish date of the rfc). But nonetheless spec authors picked compatibility over security.
43.
by wav-part 9y ago
Looks like we are making case for different things. You are arguing that everyone should update to latest version asap. Because, as you say, older version is more vulnerable. I dont think thats true, case-in-point: macos root bug. What if c
44.
by wav-part 9y ago
> The user doesn't notice, and the attacker gains some control over the cryptography used. In my case user will because the tls client wont accept insecure version request. Connection broken. Client will notify the user of server
45.
by wav-part 9y ago
> So yes, why would a client ever enable downgrade attacks - intentionally, no less - is a very, very good question. No I meant a good client/server would never use sslv3. > Completely future-proofing things is a losing game
46.
by wav-part 9y ago
If a client and server both dont upgrade to secure version and still use old now-broken version, there is nothing to be done. This thread is just now getting repeatitive.
47.
by wav-part 9y ago
> It means anyone with a MitM position gets to decide you don't have TLS 1.3. So what ? 1.2 is not weak. Connection is still secure. Also MITM still gets to decide whether to have tls or not. Then "Why even have tls ?".
48.
by wav-part 9y ago
Hows downgrading to _secure 1.2_ insecure ? Regarding sslv3, why would client ever use it, downgrade/POODLE or not ? This is literally very simple, few lines of patch. Its basically tls server discovery. Its a crisis when a upgrade mak
49.
by wav-part 9y ago
Ofcourse CL should never downgrade to non-secure versions. SSLv3 is discouraged so CL wont try this. But 1.2 still ok.
50.
by wav-part 9y ago
1.2 is still secure. This downgrading/oiling is simple and works for all future versions. TLS is already so complex and ASN.1 makes xml look like c-struct. This begs the question: why would anyone want to make a crypto overly complex ?
51.
by wav-part 9y ago
I dont get the crisis. If 3% disconnect with 1.3, then retry again with secure 1.2. Its only a performence penalty for those 3%. Its obviously less than lets-talk-about-it penalty.
52.
by wav-part 9y ago
Even without vpn, if non-preferred takes most of the bandwidth for a user, it will be apparent to him that he is getting less speed than what he paid for.
53.
by wav-part 9y ago
Google handles 500 000 deletion requests per year [1][2]. But can DuckDuckGo ? This kills every google competitior startup right on spot. Anyone who thinks RTBF wont create internet graveyard is delusional. GDPR needs to explicitly exempt l
54.
by wav-part 9y ago
In autocracy, cooperation can be called subordination. But not otherwise.
55.
by wav-part 9y ago
Its a jab. AnCap is next evolutionary stage of a society (atleast for some socities). Autocracy --> Democracy --> AnCap. Not quite there ofcourse but they are getting there: https://www.seasteading.org/floating-city-pr
56.
by wav-part 9y ago
For my taste, though, both anarchism and libertarianism seem to be based on an overly optimistic view of human nature. Democracy is too optimistic for some parts in the world as well. No system such as (Autocracy/Democracy/AnCap
57.
by wav-part 9y ago
What about voters ? They are money-seeking. Who would save them from themselves ?
58.
by wav-part 9y ago
Lets say I disagree with EU-enfoced regulation ? Do you count it as anti-environement ? What if agree to same regulation if enfoced by UK ? Point is, its about who enforcing it not what. If even that does not fix your observations, I would
59.
by wav-part 9y ago
Citizens may be thought as the shareholders. Anycase what does it prove ?
60.
by wav-part 9y ago
Strawman. Anti-BigGovernment != Anti-Environment.

More ›