McAfee was not at all stable. The last ~decade was a series of bizzare schemes flights of fancy and bouncing from country to county
Also a lot of cocaine iirc
Cocaine was the least of his drugs. Dude had his own labs to mix up chemicals so he could ingest whatever came out of it, stuff that wasn't illegal anywhere because no one had thought to mix up those specific chemicals in those specific ways to snort them, but ya know, probably not very healthy or safe.
+6
Options
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
RIP John McAfee - Programmer, Lunatic, Whale Fucker.
Enough of the "Whale Fucking is non-consensual" bullshit. A Humpback Whale weighs 70,000 pounds, is fifty feet long, can dive more than a quarter mile and can crush ships with a single swipe of its tail. If a human manages to fuck one, you damn well better believe it's consensual
Consent in the animal kingdom is a whole thing unto itself I will say. Like, I don't know that human notions of it translate very well at all. That said, whale sex doesn't strike me as a problem of consent, or even biology really. It seems like a really simple physics equation that can only end in tears. Rich people drugs must be some really strong shit is what I am ultimately getting at here.
Consent in the animal kingdom is a whole thing unto itself I will say. Like, I don't know that human notions of it translate very well at all. That said, whale sex doesn't strike me as a problem of consent, or even biology really. It seems like a really simple physics equation that can only end in tears. Rich people drugs must be some really strong shit is what I am ultimately getting at here.
You have no idea. This was a man who was exploring the bleeding edge of experimental pharmacology.
Consent in the animal kingdom is a whole thing unto itself I will say. Like, I don't know that human notions of it translate very well at all. That said, whale sex doesn't strike me as a problem of consent, or even biology really. It seems like a really simple physics equation that can only end in tears. Rich people drugs must be some really strong shit is what I am ultimately getting at here.
Enough of the "Whale Fucking is non-consensual" bullshit. A Humpback Whale weighs 70,000 pounds, is fifty feet long, can dive more than a quarter mile and can crush ships with a single swipe of its tail. If a human manages to fuck one, you damn well better believe it's consensual
Truly the Keith Richards of his field.
Well, wannabe Keith Richards. Who is still alive believe it or not.
Is this something that will likely actually be done this decade, or is it another high speed rail situation?
Spoit on
+5
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
So bumping this just to remind people that Net Neutrality hasn't been restored, the FCC still doesn't have 5 members, and the 5th seat's nomination was stalled until the end of the year and lapsed.
A year later and the FCC still hasn't broken its deadlock and become functional.
+8
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
edited February 2022
On top of being utterly fucking useless at doing anything that might actually help people, some Congressfolk are apparently taking a second swing at doing further damage to online privacy and security protections.
On January 31st the EARN IT act (which is a really shit anagram because it's basically unrelated to what the bill is actually for) was reintroduced after dying a righteous death in 2020. I'm no expert, but from basically all I've read it essentially makes companies civilly liable and open them up for state level prosecution for any child abuse imagery posted on their platform (something which they are already federally liable for) and carving out an exemption from the Section 230 protections making it easier for states to pass laws which would have a chilling effect on speech and privacy online, and most of the sources I've read contend that it will, if anything, make finding and prosecuting child abuse imagery harder, and make it easier for evidence to be thrown out on grounds of illegal surveillance, as it would allow states to pressure companies to be more invasive in their surveillance of users' data, and discourage them from encrypting user data.
I've been reading about this from a few sources, but I think the Stanford Law piece on it is a pretty good place to start.
Unless there's something I and all the sources are missing, this seems like a pretty terrible piece of legislation trying to use child abuse as a trojan horse to allow further restricting privacy and security online, and I think everyone who can should write their representatives to put pressure on them to oppose it.
Lord_Asmodeus on
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
As I understand it it removes protections for websites who would otherwise be liable for the child abuse content users post, so if child abuse is posted on a website they can be sued for it, or face legal charges, and it empowers states to create laws of their own related to websites having child abuse imagery on their sites. So I don't know if it specifically authorizes additional surveillance, but states could pass laws to that effect and even without it, it pressures companies to increase their surveillance of their users to protect themselves from liability. It also makes websites liable if their encryption is involved in a case, and their use of encryption can be held against them as evidence in court, so it discourages companies from providing encryption for user data.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
The civil liability thing makes me wonder if this lawmakers trying to see where else they can make the Texas style abortion ban stick. It worked there, so now they have to try applying it to everything else that they haven't had luck sticking before.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
...They're trying to kill TLS. They're seriously trying to kill fucking TLS. They're too stupid to realize it, but that's what they're doing.
Could you elaborate on what you are reading specifically that is leading you to say this? Seems to be about hosting, which is on the other end of that tunnel.
...They're trying to kill TLS. They're seriously trying to kill fucking TLS. They're too stupid to realize it, but that's what they're doing.
Could you elaborate on what you are reading specifically that is leading you to say this? Seems to be about hosting, which is on the other end of that tunnel.
It's not quite that extreme but it does kill any end-to-end service, eg signal or whatsapp because now providers will be liable for carrying the content of those encrypted messages. It mandates that companies decrypt and analyze and if applicable report on all your communications
...They're trying to kill TLS. They're seriously trying to kill fucking TLS. They're too stupid to realize it, but that's what they're doing.
Could you elaborate on what you are reading specifically that is leading you to say this? Seems to be about hosting, which is on the other end of that tunnel.
It's not quite that extreme but it does kill any end-to-end service, eg signal or whatsapp because now providers will be liable for carrying the content of those encrypted messages. It mandates that companies decrypt and analyze and if applicable report on all your communications
I think that's well within the realm of an overzealous prosecution and credulous judge to apply to HTTPS, tbh.
A former eBay Inc. executive was sentenced on Thursday to almost five years in prison for leading a scheme to terrorize the creators of an online newsletter that included sending live spiders, cockroaches, a funeral wreath and other disturbing deliveries to their home.
David Steiner, who along with his wife was the target of the harassment campaign, told the court that eBay former Senior Director of Safety and Security James Baugh and other eBay employees made their lives "a living hell." He expressed fear that other companies would use it as a blueprint to go after journalists in the future.
"This was a bizarre, premeditated assault on our lives ... with buy-in at the highest levels of eBay," Steiner told the judge.
Another former eBay executive, David Harville, was sentenced later Thursday to two years behind bars for his role in the scheme targeting David and Ina Steiner, the publisher and reporter who angered executives with coverage of the company in their newsletter, eCommerceBytes.
Baugh and Harville, eBay's onetime director of global resiliency, are among seven former employees who have pleaded guilty to charges in the case.
If you hadn't heard about this case, basically the (now former) head of security decided that the response to a couple of critics was to engage in a campaign of harassment and terrorism.
Google defended its use of "history-off chats" for many internal communications, denying the US government's allegation that it intentionally destroyed evidence needed in an antitrust case. The history-off setting causes messages to be automatically deleted within 24 hours.
The US government and 21 states last month asked a court to sanction Google for allegedly using the auto-delete function on chats to destroy evidence and accused Google of falsely telling the government that it suspended its auto-deletion practices on chats subject to a legal hold. Google opposed the motion for sanctions on Friday in a filing in US District Court for the District of Columbia.
Google said it uses a "tiered approach" for preserving chats. "When there is litigation, Google instructs employees on legal hold not to use messaging apps like Google Chat to discuss the subjects at issue in the litigation and, if they must, to switch their settings to 'history on' for chats regarding the subjects at issue in the litigation, so that any such messages are preserved," the Google filing said.
I currently have legal hold orders on my communications at work that make it so I cannot delete files from my OneDrive, and have to retain my emails. I doubt the court is going to look at this kindly.
Given how big a pain it is to deal with *any* data deletion policy, that they even support 1-day deletions is suspicious as hell.
It's intentional to reduce the amount of discovery. Most companies have longer than 24 hours, but it's why a lot of companies do have a retention policy on email and chat.
Given how big a pain it is to deal with *any* data deletion policy, that they even support 1-day deletions is suspicious as hell.
It's intentional to reduce the amount of discovery. Most companies have longer than 24 hours, but it's why a lot of companies do have a retention policy on email and chat.
Yeah, it's obnoxious and hampering with more reasonable lengths, which makes the extreme case really stand out.
+2
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
Even Amazon, which is very clearly attempting to do an end-run around discovery, retains emails and messages for a month.
Even Amazon, which is very clearly attempting to do an end-run around discovery, retains emails and messages for a month.
And even a month is still very much for "Welp, this is our policy what could we possibly have done different?"
+15
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
In other news, it looks like Net Neutrality will never be restored, since the Senate has managed to stall the nomination of the new FCC member in tandem with a painful attack campaign from industry lobbyists on the nominee.
Gigi Sohn is withdrawing her nomination to serve as telecommunications regulator to the Federal Communications Commission.
President Joe Biden first nominated Sohn in October 2021, but her nomination has remained at a standstill.
After an unrelenting battle with cable and media industry lobbyists, Sohn told The Washington Post she decided to withdraw since she has been subject to “unrelenting, dishonest and cruel attacks.”
I am apoplectic. This poor woman did not deserve this and everyone involved in stalling this should be locked up for the rest of their lives. The Senate is fundamentally broken.
It's all well and good to have a policy of "delete after X hours", but it has to come with a test on:
1. Do you have different records classed appropriately?
2. Are employees educated enough to understand retention rules and record classes?
This is specifically a mechanism to avoid recording of anything, so if it's hooked up to any other monitoring stuff, generally the onus would be on them to identify the records appropriately to ensure proper retention or penalize the employees violating the retention rules. A lot of this stuff depends on how deep your compliance practices are and how frequently they're enforced, as you can't just say "we have a policy of X, but I don't know why people aren't following it" if you don't devote time/effort to training, as it's considered negligent to try to scapegoat out that way and it means your policies aren't actually real as there's no enforcement/governance.
You don't need to train people if the system does it for you. Plus you write your retention policy so that the minimum is [time], not that data MUST be destroyed after [time]. Then you just do whatever is expedient until you smell a discovery phase coming, and as long as you don't have an injunction you just... delete what you feel like, up to the retention date, before opposing counsel's lawyers show up. Even legal hold isn't a thing you have to do. It's a server-side setting that just doesn't delete your shit even if you try. It looks like it's gone from your box but it's all still there. No training is required to enforce.
You don't need to train people if the system does it for you. Plus you write your retention policy so that the minimum is [time], not that data MUST be destroyed after [time]. Then you just do whatever is expedient until you smell a discovery phase coming, and as long as you don't have an injunction you just... delete what you feel like, up to the retention date, before opposing counsel's lawyers show up. Even legal hold isn't a thing you have to do. It's a server-side setting that just doesn't delete your shit even if you try. It looks like it's gone from your box but it's all still there. No training is required to enforce.
Also best practice for any database system when you delete things is usually to just...not. An update to set the "deleted" flag is safer, faster and reversible - this is why everyone had such a problem with the GDPR, because actually deleting things is something you try not to do as much as possible.
Google should be sanctioned for failing to preserve chat messages between employees related to an antitrust case brought by Epic Games, a federal judge in California ruled on Tuesday.
The company "adopted a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy for keeping messages, at the expense of its preservation duties," the judge said in the filing.
The judge did not yet determine what sanctions Google should face, writing that, "the Court would like to see the state of play of the evidence at the end of fact discovery. At that time, plaintiffs will be better positioned to tell the Court what might have been lost in the Chat communications."
Google faces similar allegations about destroying potential evidence by the Department of Justice in its antitrust litigation against the company. A Google spokesperson said at the time of the DOJ's filing that it disagrees with the DOJ's claims.
You fuck around with discovery, the courts will make you find out.
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
So, the TikTok “ban”, I’ve been seeing a lot about it, from maybe there is a real security concern, to a method of persecuting economic warfare with China, to an end run around the laws we have that protect various parts of the internet.
How much of this (the hearings, any potential bills being considered, etc) is old people yelling at clouds, and how much of it has a serious chance of making changes to the current policy?
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
Posts
Cocaine was the least of his drugs. Dude had his own labs to mix up chemicals so he could ingest whatever came out of it, stuff that wasn't illegal anywhere because no one had thought to mix up those specific chemicals in those specific ways to snort them, but ya know, probably not very healthy or safe.
Truly the Keith Richards of his field.
You have no idea. This was a man who was exploring the bleeding edge of experimental pharmacology.
And it was advertised:
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Well, wannabe Keith Richards. Who is still alive believe it or not.
It’s rough for the first few hundred meters, until you can match their stride
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
I believe it is a Letterkenny refence, where there is a character who fucked an ostrich [allegedly!] and everyone just stays the fuck away from him.
Or the dude really fucked a bird, god knows with that nutball.
A healthy ostrich? Cause that sounds like a two or even three man job.
damn you for making me spend over ten seconds seriously considering the logistics of this.
I imagine it looks something like this:
(language, ostriches mating)
Damn Letterkenny, which is hilarious, and I was paraphrasing.
California says "fuck it", is building state-wide fiber network.
Bonus: passed unanimously.
Looks like it still relies on ISP's to do the last mile connection but it's a good start
A year later and the FCC still hasn't broken its deadlock and become functional.
On January 31st the EARN IT act (which is a really shit anagram because it's basically unrelated to what the bill is actually for) was reintroduced after dying a righteous death in 2020. I'm no expert, but from basically all I've read it essentially makes companies civilly liable and open them up for state level prosecution for any child abuse imagery posted on their platform (something which they are already federally liable for) and carving out an exemption from the Section 230 protections making it easier for states to pass laws which would have a chilling effect on speech and privacy online, and most of the sources I've read contend that it will, if anything, make finding and prosecuting child abuse imagery harder, and make it easier for evidence to be thrown out on grounds of illegal surveillance, as it would allow states to pressure companies to be more invasive in their surveillance of users' data, and discourage them from encrypting user data.
I've been reading about this from a few sources, but I think the Stanford Law piece on it is a pretty good place to start.
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2022/02/earn-it-act-back-and-it’s-more-dangerous-ever
Unless there's something I and all the sources are missing, this seems like a pretty terrible piece of legislation trying to use child abuse as a trojan horse to allow further restricting privacy and security online, and I think everyone who can should write their representatives to put pressure on them to oppose it.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Could you elaborate on what you are reading specifically that is leading you to say this? Seems to be about hosting, which is on the other end of that tunnel.
It's not quite that extreme but it does kill any end-to-end service, eg signal or whatsapp because now providers will be liable for carrying the content of those encrypted messages. It mandates that companies decrypt and analyze and if applicable report on all your communications
I think that's well within the realm of an overzealous prosecution and credulous judge to apply to HTTPS, tbh.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Unless you're playing Shadow Hearts, then it's just scary to your enemies.
If you hadn't heard about this case, basically the (now former) head of security decided that the response to a couple of critics was to engage in a campaign of harassment and terrorism.
That is not hyperbole, just a statement of fact.
I currently have legal hold orders on my communications at work that make it so I cannot delete files from my OneDrive, and have to retain my emails. I doubt the court is going to look at this kindly.
It's intentional to reduce the amount of discovery. Most companies have longer than 24 hours, but it's why a lot of companies do have a retention policy on email and chat.
Yeah, it's obnoxious and hampering with more reasonable lengths, which makes the extreme case really stand out.
And even a month is still very much for "Welp, this is our policy what could we possibly have done different?"
CNBC
I am apoplectic. This poor woman did not deserve this and everyone involved in stalling this should be locked up for the rest of their lives. The Senate is fundamentally broken.
1. Do you have different records classed appropriately?
2. Are employees educated enough to understand retention rules and record classes?
This is specifically a mechanism to avoid recording of anything, so if it's hooked up to any other monitoring stuff, generally the onus would be on them to identify the records appropriately to ensure proper retention or penalize the employees violating the retention rules. A lot of this stuff depends on how deep your compliance practices are and how frequently they're enforced, as you can't just say "we have a policy of X, but I don't know why people aren't following it" if you don't devote time/effort to training, as it's considered negligent to try to scapegoat out that way and it means your policies aren't actually real as there's no enforcement/governance.
Also best practice for any database system when you delete things is usually to just...not. An update to set the "deleted" flag is safer, faster and reversible - this is why everyone had such a problem with the GDPR, because actually deleting things is something you try not to do as much as possible.
You fuck around with discovery, the courts will make you find out.
How much of this (the hearings, any potential bills being considered, etc) is old people yelling at clouds, and how much of it has a serious chance of making changes to the current policy?
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain