dmatech

A lot of people don't realize that this sort of privacy right (ownership of data about you) is in direct conflict with free speech rights (which are far more protected than in Europe). We don't have a clear definition of what constitutes "the press" either.

Basically, anything that requires the general public to delete data at someone else's request is problematic.

There's no reason to forbid recording at all, but police should be able to give any bystander (recording or not) a lawful order to remain at 20 feet or so in order to keep things safe. You might have the right to record, but you shouldn't have the right to get the perfect shot of the event.

The lawmakers are focusing on the wrong problem.

I'm not saying this happened here, but if a journalist engaged in hacking or fraud to obtain material to publish, that would be "journalism", but it would also be a crime (the research, not the publication). Obviously, the freedom of the press doesn't include the ability to do anything they want in pursuit of a story.

It definitely facilitates the commission of crimes, but doing that isn't a crime itself unless there is a clear conspiracy. It's just being irresponsible.

Net neutrality long assumed that backbones would merely slow down traffic, not block it entirely for opaque reasons. They're only supposed to intervene to prevent technical disruptions. I haven't spent that much time looking at KF, but they do appear to follow US law and will ban people who break it (and cooperate with US law enforcement). The site is a bit of a corner case: legal but extremely reviled. They use incredibly foul language, and they seem quite proud to be on the "wrong side of history". But I still contend that no amount of mere unpopularity should knock a site entirely off the internet.

There is certain content that isn't protected by Section 230 or DMCA safe harbor, but it is pretty limited.

1. People post defamatory stuff on social media sites all the time. That's a civil matter. People can sue the poster over such things, but not the site. See "Zeran v. America Online, Inc." 2. CSAM is illegal, but people have posted it on Twitter, and they're still around. 3. I'd imagine that calling for a general strike is protected by 1A. 4. Terrorist propaganda can be posted by a US citizen, as "incitement to terrorism" is protected by 1A. You just can't provide material assistance to a foreign terrorist organization. 5. There's actually a law on the books supposedly banning this, but I don't see how it's enforceable.

What's interesting is that the FDIV bug from 1994 could also be worked around, but Intel recalled and wrote off those processors[1]. For their latest several problems, their response was more of a "sucks to be you". While they provided microcode updates and worked with OS vendors, there were performance impacts that materially affected the value of the chips.

1. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/history/history-1994...

Interestingly, .edu is mostly only for US universities, but there are a bunch of exceptions. Basically, there used to be several "generic TLDs"[1] in addition to the "country code TLDs" (of which ".su" for Soviet Union still exists), but they mostly got converted into sponsored TLDs.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_top-level_domain

The main concern these days is with people with specific mental illnesses or addictions that make them unable to comply with treatment. Schizophrenia and severe bipolar disorder are some of the more obvious ones. One can argue that there's a human right to be insane, but most of us would prefer not to be pushed in front of an oncoming subway train.

People with a good support network might find it easier to comply with medical orders than someone in a very precarious living situation. So forced institutionalization will likely affect the marginalized the most. It's still the right thing to do if the risk is severe enough.

It depends on the scenario. I can think of the following, although they're pretty similar.

1. Lost/stolen access token. 2. Lost/stolen refresh token. 3. Disabled account.

In the case of systems like Azure where access tokens have an "audience", they could theoretically send a revocation message to the audience endpoint (which would only need to care about revocations younger than the duration of access tokens, much like a CRL).

Revoking a refresh token would probably need to revoke all access (and perhaps identity) tokens associated with it.

Disabling an account would just need to revoke all tokens associated with it.

You can generally start with a full data export[1] then use the API[2] to keep up with new data.

1. https://www.fitbit.com/settings/data/export

2. https://dev.fitbit.com/build/reference/web-api/

This happened before back in 2014[1] and also involved Twitter blocking access to certain posts or accounts under the threat of a total block. What exactly are their alternatives?

I suppose they could drag their feet a day or two until after the election, but after that, they'd be subject to fines, complete blocks of the site (like what happened to Wikipedia[2] for almost three years), and who knows what else. They could attempt to fight this in Turkish courts, but that might be futile.

1. https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/a/2014/challenging-t... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_of_Wikipedia_in_Turkey

It's not difficult to learn how all this stuff works and be careful not to lose hardware keys. But most people would rather think about other things and just call customer service if they get locked out. That's understandable, but I wish people would take more responsibility for their own security.

That's because users don't have to suffer the permanent effects of their carelessness. There will always be someone they can scream at and blame for things going wrong. Because they're the customer, and the customer is entitled to satisfaction.

So all technology ends up being designed for careless and irresponsible people because it's generally profitable to do this. If you don't, someone else will.

That account exists purely to promote actions that would result in the destruction of the platform on which it exists. Expecting a platform to host that kind of content is unrealistic.

A lot of sites use GraphQL under the hood for the official frontend but expose more restrictive REST APIs for third party users. I suppose this is understandable because it's easier to document REST APIs and people generally can't cause quite as much unexpected trouble with them.

In that scenario, it's often because the manager has someone breathing down his neck too, so you have bad communication and high stress all up and down the org chart. But sometimes the manager is the source of his own stress and all you can do is manage that.

Neither RW nor Wikipedia are reliable sources for what is alt-right, neo-Nazi, or any other contentious term. The terms themselves are largely a matter of opinion, and the sources used to make these determinations don't even pretend to be objective.

The most straightforward reasons would be:

1. Russia would get income from the pipeline, empowering their economy. 2. This sort of infrastructure would represent increased German dependence on Russia for their energy needs. 3. This would also tend to increase economic and diplomatic ties between Germany and Russia.

Destroying the pipeline (even if it's not being used) could theoretically send the message that these infrastructure projects are not safe and that relying on Russia for energy is strategically unwise.

That's been the limit since sometime between November 29 [1] and December 13 [2]. The daily tweet limit has been 2400 since at least 2018-01-03 [3]. I'm not sure why the DM limit was reduced.

1. https://web.archive.org/web/20221129122631/https://help.twit... 2. https://web.archive.org/web/20221213164704/https://help.twit... 3. https://web.archive.org/web/20180103202353/https://help.twit...

I see far more bickering over whether or not this article is appropriate than actual discussion of the article, which is unfortunate. Unsubstantiated claims can be dismissed, but there's no requirement to do so. The NS2 destruction itself is a notable story, and it's worth discussing as resource dependence is important.

It happens with a lot of people who get burned out and just want to put their kids through college. There's nothing inherently wrong with that outlook, and those people can do good work keeping the lights on. But if you're at all driven or ambitious, it can be seriously frustrating to work with (or especially for) someone like this.

Perhaps, but the only references I saw to 2019 in the criminal complaint[1] were with respect to Tor and his phone. I don't know if he was actually under surveillance that early or if this is just stuff they later found. While there are plenty of ways this guy could have attracted the attention of California, Florida, or federal law enforcement, it's entirely possible that seeing a US residential IP address is what started this case. I can't really tell without seeing dated search warrant applications.

The latest PDF[2] states:

    In discovery, the Government has declined to provide any information related
    to its TOR operation. The Defense therefore researched and drafted a motion to
    compel such discovery. In the course of this research, the Defense discovered an
    exhibit filed on the public docket in at least two federal cases with similar issues
    (“Exhibit 2”). The document is partially redacted, purports to be the work of a U.S.
    government agency, and is marked “Top Secret.” Outside of these public docket
    filings, Exhibit 2 is widely available on public internet sources. A Google search for
    Exhibit 2’s title yields 102,000 results. All of the top results apparently provide the
    document itself, and most of these date back to 2013.

That would likely be a reference to something leaked by Edward Snowden given the year mentioned.

1. https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1279441/downl...

2. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23569961-motion-to-r...

I find this a bit less ethically questionable given that Tweetbot itself is earning monthly/annual subscription revenue from its users and then blocking ads. If Tweetbot's developer account isn't generating enough revenue to offset the ad revenue loss, this would be completely expected.

The only real workaround is to create separate accounts for each venue that aren't obviously connected. That way, you won't get banned in one place for stuff you do in another.

There are ways to do that job that don't involve poking the proverbial dragon every waking minute. You can call Elon a hypocrite for banning people who attack him relentlessly, but all humans are hypocrites. Perhaps they should take a break from the "Elon beat", because their reporting appears increasingly personal in nature.

The crowd that got banned seems unusually thick-headed, and they'll probably just attack Elon (and Twitter itself) even harder once they get unbanned. Karl Popper explained it better than I can, but Twitter doesn't have to extend unlimited tolerance to those who seek to destroy Twitter.

It linked directly to ElonJet's account there and invited people to join and follow this account. That's probably what did it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20221215174053/https://twitter.c...

There'd be much more blowback for doing that. But showing stuff on Twitter that's leaked from Twitter and intended to influence Twitter is pretty dangerous.

On the contrary. This whole episode is a test to see if we're ruled by codified principles or by angry people. While I loathe that site, it's pretty clear that it's an example of legal speech between willing participants. The notion that we can somehow make the world a better place by preventing speech from being heard is a very dangerous (but sadly common) notion.

Swatting is not free speech. Posting the address of someone (knowing that there's a non-zero chance some idiot might use it in a swatting) is generally free speech, because negligent or reckless speech is usually protected.

It's irresponsible, but it's generally protected.