>Extensive experimental results in real-world scenarios demonstrate that
Printlistener can attack up to 26.5% of partial fingerprints
and 9.3% of complete fingerprints within five attempts at the
highest security FAR setting of 0.01%
I'm curious about this, as well. In fact, I have 17 days left before I'm placed on unpaid leave for this very reason--despite being 100% remote and the coercion and adverse actions being violations of my state's employment law.
I'm actually in a very similar situation - in fact I'm trying to go on unpaid leave as a preemptive measure. I would happily undertake other mitigation measures, including working remote, biweekly testing, masking etc., and my (extremely supportive) boss has been trying to pull off some alternative arrangement for me, but he's not the one who decides these policies.
It depends on how you host it. If you go in with a collective for a portion of a rack in a data center, generally the transit, while not "cheap" is unmetered and therefore the "per client" cost is nearly negligible. Obviously if your service becomes insanely popular you'll need to upgrade your circuit - depending on the provider and the data center, obviously. Most providers will gently coerce you into racking a higher bandwidth optics than you're planning to use, like recommending 10gbit gbics instead of 1 or 2.5 gbit.
However the price per megabit goes down significantly after the first 100, so, assuming you're merely sharing the cost with other rack users, again, it's negligible.
I did this for 3 years and did not find a single case of spammers using one of the emails. All spam was from the sites I signed up with. Email spam filters catch spam for you.
This isn’t just good against spam. If there’s a data breach on the site, it’s another layer of insulation against you and other accounts you own.
It’s close to the equivalent of Apple allowing you to sign up to services using one of their anonymous emails — there’s clearly demand for people to want to keep their emails from being thrown around everywhere.
Wouldn't someone be able to reverse engineer the pattern? I assume everyone is doing some variation of <service@domain.tld> so someone can try to figure out your other email addresses for other sites. Although I don't know if that's worth the time investment.
Right. The method has it’s own flaws, but it’s still another layer of insulation. Someone getting your email off a large user data breach is less likely to pick out your name and attempt to reverse engineer that pattern specifically for you, unless it is a targeted attack against you. For most people, that’s a highly unlikely scenario
For the catch all email setups yes. Not with the way apple does it. They have specific mappings setup so you have no way of finding other addresses of the user since every apple user is behind the same domain and the emails are long/random.
Perhaps Hunter Biden should send out some DMCA claims. Then twitter/Facebook/etc could have their cake and eat it too, censor that content without getting blame for it being censored.
But perhaps there is a fair use argument to be made?
>People aren't asking for authoritarian restrictions. People have been asking for common-sense coordinated and effective measures that we can all rally around (like wearing masks).
Whether you agree with it or not, how would a mask mandate not be an authoritarian restriction?
- One of the main functions of any government is to mitigate the harm that people do to one another. This is the main thing that distinguishes it from anarchy. Not wearing a mask in crowded places (in expectation) causes harm to others. Obviously there is a cost/benefit involved, so welding people into their homes is too extreme.
- There is effectively zero enforcement of these mandates. I’ve never seen cops or workers enforce these rules. On the other hand, if I walked into a grocery store without pants on, I’d bet my ass that I’d get swiftly carted off to the loony bin.
- Authoritarianism can be supported by majority, and that first point is essentially argumentum ad populum. The US isn't a direct democracy for good reason, as that is essentially mob/majority rule, and erodes the rights of individuals.
- If we're referring to the US, it really doesn't matter what the functions of other governments may be. The founding fathers clearly defined the responsibilities of the federal goverment, and it isn't their job to protect you from any sort of harm. I don't see how that would line up with anything in the enumerated powers. Ignoring the US, the act is still authoritarian whether you agree with it or not, as it's an order from the top down which limits individual freedom. Again, whether people agree with it or not is a moot point.
- Your point here is anecdotal, and I don't think selective enforcement of the law is nessecarily a good thing. If it's not enforced at all, why make it a mandate and not a recommendation? Also the enforcement or lack thereof of a law/order has nothing to do with the authoritatian nature of it.
While these points you're making may be reasons you think it's a good idea, I don't think you've made a case that it wouldn't be authoritarian. I'm not even saying that inherently makes the idea bad, but you should call it what it is.
To be clear, I'm not against wearing masks. I've had N95s since before this pandemic and wear them whenever I go out in public, moreso to help proyrct others than myself. I am however very weary of granting the goverment authority like that and setting precedent during a national crisis that would erode our liberties long after the fact, like the patriot act.
You’re right that majority rule is not sufficient by itself, but public opinion should be given at least some weight in a representative democracy.
The US Constitution grants states the right to enact laws that protect the general welfare, and of course gives courts the authority to interpret the law. More specifically regarding public health, the 1905 Supreme Court case Jacobson vs. Massachusetts upheld the power of states to enforce mandatory vaccination laws (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts):
> ”real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others”
In general, John Stuart Mill’s harm principle is “far and away the best known proposal for a principled limit to the law” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-limits/#cand), and it is a core tenet of liberalism. The famous bit is:
> ”That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
This principle is echoed in the party platform of the US Libertarian Party:
> ”Criminal laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm.”
So if masks only protected the wearer, then a case could be made that mask laws are in violation of this principle. But because masks help limit the spread of a (frequently asymptomatic) disease from myself to others, it’s reasonable that states can require me to wear one in situations where it protects others.
As for the enforcement question, I’d draw a comparison to speed limits. These laws tend to be loosely enforced, yet they guide the general expectations/behavior of drivers. In practice, enforcement is reserved for repeat and extreme offenders. Partial enforcement can induce optimal behavior in an economic/game theoretic sense (if probability of being caught * cost of being caught - cost of following the law > 0, then compliance is optimal). Since the “cost” of wearing a mask is negligible (everyone has one already since you can use any face covering, and the only cost is minor inconvenience or embarrassment), enforcement does not have to be very consistent to induce compliance. That said, uneven enforcement of laws is clearly a major problem in our society (that disproportionately affects minorities).
For mask laws, I also think it gives air cover to both business and individuals. You’ll notice businesses pointing to mask ordinances (“welp, thems the rules” etc.) on their signage and such. Then, enough people comply such that it becomes socially enforced—people generally don’t like to be the odd one out. But in practice, I think you can go virtually anywhere in America right now without a mask and the worst thing that is likely to happen is that someone will politely ask you to wear one and come back.
So if you are not anti-mask but are concerned about genuinely authoritarian action, there are current examples to denounced (e.g. stoking political violence against opposing politicians [see Gov. Whitmer], undermining election integrity, state-sponsored misinformation).
The US Constitution grants states the right to enact laws that protect the general welfare
The writers of the constitution have explicitly said in the Federalist papers that the "general welfare" phrase is not meant to imply anything beyond the enumerated powers listed afterwards. That the courts interpret it the way you say they do is just an example how the Constitution became just a parchment which is taken to mean whatever is convenient at any particular moment.
I get you're responding to the other guy there saying we should look at science instead of popularity, but both are invalid if we're talking about responsibility of goverment.
There's plenty of scientific evidence that sugar, alcohol, and tobacco are all horrible for you. Scientifically, it might make sense to ban those things health wise, but that's not the role of government, and would be authoritarian rules that limit freedom for "safety".
"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
> “He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute.”
In accordance with this principle, I believe in the sacred right for an individual to smoke/chew/snort/whatever tobacco and chug high fructose corn syrup to their heart’s content (or more accurately, until their heart fails). But you don’t have the right to expose others to second-hand tobacco smoke (a new development in my lifetime!), since abundant scientific evidence says that this harms others. You can drink yourself into a coma, but you can’t get blitzed and operate a vehicle even if you insist that you’re safe driving under the influence.
This has been a fundamental organizing principle of society since at least the Code of Hammurabi.
Your argument is the worst possible faith argument but I'll bite and let you waste some of my time with your non scientific citations.
Now here's how misguided you are:
Literally from the first article you posted: (which was a fricking opinion piece!)
“"""If you look at any one paper — it’s not a slam dunk. But, taken all together, I’m convinced that they are working,” says Grabowski.""""
"It's not a slam dunk"
Anecdotal beliefs from a random person named Grabonski in an opinion piece article is not science. And this is your 'good faith' argument?
I didn't even read the rest of the links you posted because they're going to say the same thing: that mask effectiveness is inconclusive.
From the world health organization:
"""" At the present
time, the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the
community setting is not yet supported by high quality or
direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and
harms to consider."""
Not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence....
It's the world health organization saying that...
It's clear masks stop droplets but maybe at a community level continually putting a plague vector directly on your respiratory system for a virus that stays on surfaces for days is not a good idea...
Additionally Sweden has had no mask mandate and Norway has had no mask mandate and they both have the infection under control they both have less deaths per capita than the United States.
Yet you ignore all of this data that counters your narrative.
Because the Corona cult... was wrong about lockdowns and are wrong about masks...and are trying desperately to justify their mistakes so they don't feel bad for putting 40 million people out of work and crushing people's lives for a year.
Your thinking is as bad faith as it gets and I really hope the Corona cult gets the karma that's coming to it at some point.
Your arrogant ignorance is hurting a lot of people unnecessarily.
The second link I posted was co-authored by the director of the CDC. The others are reviews of current evidence that are readable and reputable. There are abundant studies on this subject.
> “ Masks are a key measure to suppress transmission and save lives. Masks reduce potential exposure risk from an infected person whether they have symptoms or not. People wearing masks are protected from getting infected. Masks also prevent onward transmission when worn by a person who is infected.”
> ” Within wider environments where the virus is spreading, masks should be worn by the general public in settings where it is not possible to maintain at least 1 meter from others. Examples of these settings include indoor locations that are crowded and have poor ventilation, public transport and places of high population density – among others.”
Also, masks are not “plague vectors”. Best practice (from WHO) is to clean the mask daily:
> ” If your fabric mask is not dirty or wet and you plan to reuse it, put it in a clean plastic, resealable bag. If you need to use it again, hold the mask at the elastic loops when removing it from the bag. Clean your mask once a day.”
Your rant is not really worth addressing further. Find a better way to spend your time than spreading obvious misinformation.
Are all legal restrictions on what clothes you should wear in public authoritarian to you? Many of them exist to make sure you don't die (eg. food prep/serving sanitation, medical practice) of preventable causes.
If "authoritarian" includes every rule that affects how we interact with each other in public you've pretty much gone into nihilistic territory it seems to me.
A significant political contingent does indeed object to any and all rules. They call themselves nice words like "libertarian" and "small government", but the basic ideology is really just anarchy.
Except, by definition, you are. We, as a society, have determined that certain freedoms are given up for certain benefits. Is it age discrimination to prevent having a driver’s license before age 16? Yup! Is a freedom taken from you by having a law preventing arson? Yep, and we mostly all agree that is good.
The important part of a new rule or law is that we accept the trade offs. I’m not convinced we’ve reached consensus that we all need to be wearing masks but most are obliging.
> The important part of a new rule or law is that we accept the trade offs. I’m not convinced we’ve reached consensus that we all need to be wearing masks but most are obliging.
The key factor here is that there are very good and obvious reasons to wear a mask, while the trade-off is a minor inconvenience. It's arguably less effort than shovelling snow from the front of your house.
If the vast majority of us are obliging due to the hope that it has an effect, with little to no negative effects, why are people making this a hill they want to die on? Worse still, why are people making this a hill for others to die on?
No, you don't have the freedom to destroy someone else's property.
I get the point of view that "you don't have the freedom to infect others", but where do you logically draw the line with something like that? Why weren't we already required to wear biohazard suits in public? Humans have been spreading disease as long as we've been around.
Your reasoning is so blunt, saying that just become some laws are justified, all laws are justified. Should you not have the privilege to drive, because every time you do you risk your life and others?
I'm only being blunt because I was responding to a blunt assertion.
The fact of the matter is that the temporary restrictions for the purpose of public health are mild inconveniences. Those measure are, by and large, reasonable and proportionate. It's the pushback that isn't.
You're confusing the ease of compliance with the nature of the order itself.
As an example, banning certain words could be considered a "mild inconvenience", but it's clearly a violation of the first amendment.
Border patrol and other police checkpoints, are a "mild inconvenience". They may very well help catch more criminals, but police need to have probable cause and can't just go on fishing expeditions.
As far as a _federal_ mask mandate, it's clearly not within the enumerated powers. I think you could potentially make an argument for state/local mask mandates when it comes to _public_ areas, given that all powers not granted to the federal goverment are reserved for the states and the people. I would still probably consider that authoritarian in nature.
That's just for masks as well. As far as locking down or limiting size of gatherings, while it may be a very good idea to do something like that during a pandemic, Imo it wouldn't be constitutional, as the freedom of assembly is explicitly protected in the first amendment.
Freedom can be dangerous, but I prefer it to the alternative.
Well I just quickly tested, and NoScript doesn't seem to block that, whereas it would if it were externally loaded or inline JS on a web page.
So that's one difference. Not that the type of person to use NoScript would likely paste obvious javascript into the address bar...
Edit: Doesn't look like you can create a valid URL with that format, but it can be launched via pasting in (obviously), a bookmark (which the contents of which could be obfuscated by telling a user to drag an image to the bookmark bar and click it), and can be launched via command line, e.g.
