4oh9do

eBay may keep it, destroy it, or do whatever with it, who knows? The key point is that neither seller nor buyer receive it.

Even with reimbursement, it is still theft. It's like if I buy a bike from you, and the delivery truck driver decides to keep the bike for themselves and instead gives me cash and drives off, with me having no say in this.

One time a USPS delivery person stole my package.

I know this because the tracking information a USPS clerk looked up for me showed the delivery person marking the package as delivered while being nowhere near the delivery address. In fact, nowhere near an address at all. It was marked as delivered to a street-intersection which houses a vacant field.

The USPS clerk acknowledged this, but said that because there were no other complaints about the delivery person that day, there was nothing they could do.

So it seems like USPS delivery people are literally allowed to steal one item of mail a day.

At least they receive their packages back.

Compare that to the eBay Global Shipping Program - where if eBay decides that your package violates some opaque rule, neither the sender nor the recipient receives the package. eBay keeps it.

> There's an opposite example, search for Boris Nemtsov Plaza.

This is an 'opposite example' in the sense of the US modifying a street name to intentionally spite a country (naming a street after a Russian dissident to spite Putin), not an 'opposite example' in the sense I was requesting: a case of the US modifying a street name to appease an ally, like France did.

> Nonsense, that's just standard diplomacy - no reason to purposefully insult an ally.

Can you name a comparative example of the US renaming a street at the request of an ally?

> Will English speakers police the rest of the world, regardless of their language?

As long as the rest of the world willingly lets them, yes.

> This is not the first time Bitche has been caught up in a censorship crossfire. In 1881, U.S. Ambassador to France Levi Parsons Morton took issue with the location of the American embassy on the Place de Bitche in Paris, named in honor of the town's wartime effort. Morton, embarrassed by the embassy's letterhead, asked Parisian authorities to rename the square — they obliged, changing it to Place des États-Unis.

This is the anecdote that is most egregious to me in this article:

> This is not the first time Bitche has been caught up in a censorship crossfire. In 1881, U.S. Ambassador to France Levi Parsons Morton took issue with the location of the American embassy on the Place de Bitche in Paris, named in honor of the town's wartime effort. Morton, embarrassed by the embassy's letterhead, asked Parisian authorities to rename the square — they obliged, changing it to Place des États-Unis.

As long as other countries continue to willingly comply and bend to the will of the US, the US will continue being the bully that it is.

Thanks for that. The reading was a bit thick on the polemics, but I also found it an easy to read and understand overview of ebook watermark functionality for someone like me who's unfamiliar with the field.

If this is true, then it's pretty substantial evidence that this guy is a hoaxer.

But can you really tell when a key-pair was generated? This would make for a fascinating write-up if you could please spend the time to explain.

Thanks again. Can you please clarify what is meant by networked attack in this context? Someone gaining access to the mounted drive over a network, or something else?

Ah, I see. Am I correct then that the cautionary note was just in general about the pitfalls of FDE if a mounted drive is compromised while mounted? I think I misinterpreted it to mean that there was a specific problem with TrueCrypt which leads its use to endangering users.

In my own use case and in that of people I've recommended TrueCrypt to, having the hard drive apprehended while shut down, specifically during customs checks, is a far greater risk than having the computer compromised while the encrypted drive is already mounted.

Given that particular threat model, is it OK for me to continue to use and recommend using TC?

As a casual user, I would like to know how I am endangering users by encouraging them to use TrueCrypt? And what should I be encouraging them to use instead?

Instead of discussing alternative ways the "moderation" could be done, how about a different idea...stop censoring the content in the first place.