Why?
2,063 karma · joined June 28, 2016
Does it somehow reduce the effectiveness of Signal Messenger?
The argument against Signal here seems to rest on the weakest foundation. As I understand it, it's something like:
- This could be a get-rich cryptocurrency scheme. We don't have any evidence for it, but you can assume the worst.
- The project embarking on this scheme shows they don't have users' best interests at heart.
- If they don't have users' best interests at heart, how can I trust any of their other decisions?
This is not an argument I'd want to hang my hat on.
FAANG pays well, but if you check what I’m saying against Levels.fyi, that’s a pretty exceptional situation for someone with that little experience.
The only "fix" would be to never offer fixed-rate pricing.
It's a strange complaint, to me.
> That’s where Malloc says Antistalker comes in. Malloc’s co-founders Maria Terzi, Artemis Kontou and Liza Charalambous built the app around a machine learning (ML) model, which allows the app to detect and block device activity that could be construed as spyware recording or sending data.
That's a bit of a non sequitur, right?
If sophisticated malware is bypassing the OS-level "open mic" warning, that's presumably because it's bypassed the OS security model. As such, it should just as easily be able to avoid detection or simply disable any other detection mechanism, ML-driven or otherwise.
(If the issue is sophisticated malware that does not involve privilege escalation, e.g. by executing code inside the sandbox of a trusted app, I could see how an improved detection approach would help, but e.g. NSO and similar tend to use sandbox escapes + privesc, AFAIK.)
Why would I not just pay Facebook directly for such targeting?
In that broader context, I’m surprised that so many folks in this thread are arguing, essentially, that companies have a strong incentive to push (potentially needless, or costly from a privacy-perspective[1]) features on their users.
Historically, my feeling—-and I think that of many in the security industry—-was that the market does not reward pushing security, especially not security that customers can’t see; as a result, there’s some chunk of security theater, but real security features are often under-rewarded.
shrug
[1] To be clear, I disagree that most of these things have a severe privacy cost, hence my point that FIDO allows strong pseudonymity.
It’s a risk, and I believe the batch attestation was controversial as a result. But the use cases are compelling.
This is (AFAICT) intended to be used by, say, an enterprise who wants to restrict their employees to some trusted brand, but some banks and similar have also used it.
This is somewhat discouraged and annoying. In general, most places you can use a "self-signed" authenticator, which could be software and nobody would know.
See https://github.blog/2017-07-20-soft-u2f/ for an example.
To an extent I think this is a fair argument, but it strikes me as somewhat of a Luddite one as well: yes, the better technology is also more complex, but most of the time users are simply more secure by developers choosing IaaS providers!
At the limit, you could argue against developer guidelines to use SSL or salted password storage, because those are "complex" and "encourage adoption of common providers." I don't think these security mechanisms are significant drivers of tech consolidation, and of all the things to complain about, the payoff for users--increased security--is hard to oppose!
Please, explain to me how an arbitrary number of RPs can collude to link a FIDO2 identity.
Genuinely curious.
Like, the same argument would suggest that "Who is Microsoft to say I need 256M of RAM to run Windows? If I want to run it on 128M, I should be allowed to do that!"
Er, wouldn't that be a good thing? Identities cannot be linked to the same physical FIDO key across multiple relying parties, so what's the concern?
Like, it's pretty normal for such services to demand phone numbers. Like Signal does.
If you don't like it, you can use something else? I fail to see what the big deal is here.
To your other point, the vaccines do reduce transmission, as far as I can tell (e.g. https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/mounting-evidence-suggests...).
Now, to be perfectly serious, I do think that any efforts at compulsory--or, as in this case, incentivized, since testing remains an alternative--medical measures exist in a tension between the utilitarian and the libertarian point of view. We should certainly be cautious about mandating any medical procedure, and do our best to preserve alternatives (like testing, or mask wearing, or by limiting mandates to as narrow a scenario as necessary).
But I don't think the debate is helped by getting the facts wrong.
I think we agree that the debate is, as is, not very good. I might be making it worse by highlighting the least productive comments instead of engaging more selectively with the actually constructive ones, but, well...this is the Internet, right? :)
As I noted elsewhere, in many jurisdictions it is, as is testing.
In fact, as the very article upon which you are commenting notes, under the new OSHA rules those who do not want to get vaccinated can simply take a test once a week instead!
I admit, some mornings I have a bit of dry mouth, but after my morning coffee I always have enough spit to hock a loogie into a cup. For science and the greater good.
Thank you for your service.
In comparison, it seems to me the least I can do is get vaccinated, which is a tiny risk compared to the great deeds you have done.
You've inspired me, sir.
Back in the good old days, we were really willing to take risks--to cross oceans, even, as the op wrote--to do new things that could benefit our fellow human beings. Now it's all about "Oh no, this is a novel therapy that might infinitesimally increase my personal risk".
Really kind of sad.
There's probably a reasonable debate to be had about requiring people to disclose vaccination status (but, again, significant precedent)--but I do think the hysterical reactions sound a bit funny when viewed as a reaction to being forced to spit into a cup once a week.
I agree. Lots of folks afraid to take a shot that's been well-studied and given to millions and is, in all probability, quite safe. ;)
I chalk it up to the youth, who are selfish and only able to think about themselves and their Friendster ranks and how many YouTubes they have on the FaceSpace.
I think your point--which is spot-on--is that a lot of the outraged reactions appear to be from people who are unaware (or unwilling to acknowledge) the very long history of compulsory vaccination (and who probably had such vaccines themselves as children).
That's not to say that any mandatory medical intervention shouldn't be treated with serious consideration, but the unwillingness to acknowledge precedent is bizarre and, I suspect, to some degree dishonest.
I'm never sure how to take objections like yours, because there are certainly a few different things to discuss. Is your objection to the government's role in this (such that you'd be fine with private employers enforcing whatever mandates they wish)? Or are you objecting to the mandatory vaccination (in which case, what do you have against spitting into a vial once a week)?
Or are you more of a technocrat, concerned that the ROI (in terms of, say, QUALYs, as economists like to put it) gained through these policies isn't worth the cost?
All strike me as viable arguments, but it's always hard to tell which one is being put forward.