stevewatson301

This approach to preventing ossification is interesting, and also rather bad, since it creates cruft RFCs such as this one.

The feedback is fair enough given my phrasing. Of course, IPv6 can't give you a fixed IP address everywhere you go; because that's determined by network topology and IP assignment.

All I'm saying is that there's better segregation of the traffic from each IP resulting in easier analysis without the cooperation of NATing layers.

NATing IPv4 traffic requires maintaining a 5-tuple of connection state[1], which means the ISP must log these 5-tuples to be able to track citizens individually. Further, if there's another layer of NAT (such as a free WiFi service in an airport or a WiFi router in a citizen's home), cooperation is needed at that NAT layer too.

IPv6 obviates the need to maintain these 5-tuples since it has a larger IP address space. Each citizen can then be assigned an unique IP address which makes it easier to distinguish traffic without the cooperation of each NATing layer.

[1] https://support.huawei.com/enterprise/en/doc/EDOC1100055044/...

The model where law enforcement officers have to visit ISP facilities reduces the duration and scope of surveillance. Throw in a process where you need to get court approval into the mix, and this provides some level of oversight into the surveillance machinery. (Though abuses are certainly possible with this model, see [1]).

[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/05/foriegn-intelligence-s...

They can intercept the unencrypted section of encrypted connections, such as TLS ServerName, and the source and destination of every IP datagram which already provides a lot of information to profile individual citizens.

QUIC moves to a model where everything except the Connection ID is encrypted[1], but it is also apparently being blocked in India[2]. The mandated transition to IPv6 in India[3] would also take away the need to track 5-tuples to identify individual customers, easing the scaling of monitoring.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8999

[2] https://github.com/kelmenhorst/quic-censorship/issues/2

[3] https://dot.gov.in/ipv6-transition

You could do stuff like k-anonimity and onion routing (where every layer is run by a different company, similar to Apple Private Relay) to mitigate some of it, although it wasn't there in the initial implementation of the Perspectives project.

What kind of results do you get when you Google the term? For me, the PostgreSQL documentation[1] came out on the top.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/queries-with.html

This incident shows why CT is a poor model to recognize one-off attacks against persons of interest. A better model was the 2010-era Perspectives Project[1], which requires browsers to report the certificate fingerprints and CA to a notary server, which can then issue an alert if the certificate hasn't been widely seen.

[1] http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~perspectives/firefox_help.html

What I would like to see more of, is a good faith response that directly addresses the concerns of the article.

Unfortunately, as it stands, your response is simply arguing that articles bringing attention to a particular issue are not worthy because they don't bring up a solution, and dismisses the concerns as "petulant", which does convey your frustration but not what the article misses out on in its quality of arguments.

Razor sharp analysis; the left and the right are both involved in similar policies around "cancellation". As an example, the right wing has expressed disdain and called for a reduction of powers of the FBI[1] in the same way the left has expressed theirs for the police[2].

[1] https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-republicans-will-com...

[2] https://time.com/5849495/black-lives-matter-defund-police-de...

For anyone trying to get a better idea of what parent means, the PHP Generators RFC[1] shows the equivalence between generators and iterators. Iterators are what OP means by "struct including all the local variables used in the function".

[1] https://wiki.php.net/rfc/generators

glibc != kernel

This is a company that takes pride in the fact that during their early days, they had to use shoddy desks made out of doors[1], so this comes as no surprise to me.

[1] https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/workplace/how-a-door-became...

Between Elon Musk’s recent antics and Jeff Bezos’ insane performance expectations, one would have to wonder how billionaires manage to stay alive with their ginormous God complexes.

Stolen credit cards.

Also, the $8 price will make it useful for card testing, the practice of checking whether stolen credit cards work.

You could add a user script that redirects from twitter.com to nitter.net or any of the alternative Twitter frontends.

One of the best writeups about QUIC, and my new go to reference for anyone who asks about the topic (since the QUIC RFCs are obtuse, and I say that as someone who's read many RFCs to troubleshoot networking issues).

There are a number of websites on HN where I've faced this while on a datacenter network; though I hadn't investigated the previous instances simply because I was using a VPN on my phone.

In a rather interesting twist, this page serves up Datadome's bot management scripts; but I wonder why they don't proceed with the fingerprinting as opposed to directly blocking the user.

The path to an China-esque ICP recordal system.

URLScan has a private submission mode.

Forums are too small of an audience to be even considered by most people, including political leaders considering such regulation, who consider Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit to be the only websites with UGC, and it's difficult to explain that distinction to folks, in my personal experience.

I don't understand why some people are so hellbent on eliminating Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which would only mean the most reasonable way to have UGC is to have none at all, because anything else leaves a non-zero probability of the UGC website operator (now being considered a publisher) being sued.

This is the only good take on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and the one that I agree with the most; since it would set the First Amendment as the bar for speech on social media, bringing parity to the protections we have elsewhere.

You're making my point though. The fact that Google is successful, in part, is because of the fact that you can't copy their trade secrets and methods; which is one reason no solid competitor has come up to challenge Google.

(There are infrastructure challenges as well, but this thread is about intellectual property.)

Ironically, the high salaries the software industries is able to pay is precisely because of the copyright protection afforded that prevents the value of the software from being diluted by way of rampant copying.

This is also the same reason due to which open source projects often struggle with funding, and why many databases (among other OSS software) are moving towards stricter licenses such as the AGPL.

Just because you can buy a knife to kill someone discreetly, doesn't mean that we should just give up on the idea of making murder illegal.

Of course "killing someone" and "copying someone's artwork" are at different levels, however, I'm sure artists would beg to differ.

They’d probably use old conversion data to train their model. With time, it’ll be less useful but they only need a short term solution for now.

You can use eBPF/DPDK these days for hardware offload.

QUIC runs over UDP, and provides streams and encryption. HTTP/3 is designed to take advantage of QUIC streams (replacing HTTP/2 streams which were problematic due to TCP head of line blocking).

The RFCs are a bit elaborate so folks interested might want to look at this instead[1], which has one of the RFC authors explaining the basics of QUIC and HTTP/3.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdb7M37o9sU

There are protocols in development at the NIST such as Named Data Networking[1] that implement such a scheme through flow balance and interests.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Named_data_networking