Are you referring to hashicorp with recently changing license terms? IIRC the change in license was to prevent competitors (i.e. AWS) from releasing a service using the open source software from directly competing with their cloud offerings. It’s sad it had to come to it, but I think the reality of the situation is that AWS could come up with a competing cloud offering, has the built in user base, and can run the service at a loss, because they make money elsewhere.

A company like Amazon totally could afford to pay, but won’t if they don’t have to. Ultimately, I think part of the license change was in response to Amazon and AWS being a monopoly. Without the license change, their company was at risk.

Everyone knows children are used as excuses to get what you want pushed through. Just look at UK’s Online Safety Bill trying to get a backdoor to E2E messaging, claiming it’s to prevent CSAM.

There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

It says that they’re auto deleted, there’s no action needed every 4 week by the user.

Ok wise guy, tell me this, who’s on first?

Which Mario Kart is this?

:wq

You need to use an IP address (as opposed to FQDN) for DNS because when your computer starts up, it won’t be able to resolve the FQDN to do DNS lookups.

Cloudflare DNS over TLS famously is using the IP address of 1.1.1.1: https://developers.cloudflare.com/1.1.1.1/encryption/dns-over-tls/

This probably won’t work if the hard coded DNS is DNS over HTTPS

I CAN’T HEAR YOU

So you’re saying the issue is the president’s precedence precedent?

I think the many cases of regular officials having classified documents in private residences is a more a sign of a systemic issue of how documents are classified and handled within Washington. Things are classified when they shouldn’t need to be, and sometimes you receive thousands of pages of documents you’re expected to read. With Pence/Biden handling of the classified documents, once they realized they had the documents, they went through the proper channels to disclose this and get them to the National Archives.

Trump did the opposite and it’s clear he showed he knew he had the documents and withheld that information from his lawyers and the National Archives, even going so far as to moving records around to hide where they are. This isn’t a normal situation of accidently having documents, there was clear criminal intent, which Jack Smith’s statements have shown. Treating Trump’s behavior equal to that of Biden or Pence or whoever is disingenuous.

Dealing with a criminal ex-president who is running for reelection has never happened before to the country, so there’s not an operating procedure to follow.

Taking the bait, with Trump’s national security documents case, I’d imagine they didn’t want to Trump to claim Biden’s Justice Department was vindictive (even though he still said it). They gave him several opportunities get out, but he kept doubling down and dug his own grave. As long as the Justice Department answers to the president, anything they do can be seen as politically motivated, especially when a former president of the opposite party is involved.

it’s just after 10pm, which means you can drink if you want, and we can say whatever the hell we want

Fever The Ghost - SOURCE: https://youtu.be/9RHFFeQ2tu4

Maybe the first time it set the cookie which is why on subsequent tries it isn’t happening

Of course theft is bad, but is eroding privacy the necessary evil to solve the problem?

In the US (I couldn’t find UK numbers but don’t know where to look), the National Retail Federation’s 2022 security report did find external theft is the biggest cause of shrink at 37% while theft of inventory by employees and loss of inventory by corporate mismanagement adding up to 54%. ^[1] If companies are losing more inventory through their own mismanagement than they are from people coming into the store and stealing, should this technology be the priority?

Really, if anything is the take away from the report (this is probably more US specific and not as applicable in the UK), it’s that there has been an increase in violence and aggression in their stores over the last couple years. With regards to the always running facial recognition, I don’t see how that will make a significant impact of violence and organized retail crime.

Obviously retail in the UK is going to be different, but this technology seems to be best suited for non-violent shoplifters, and that might not actually be a whole lot in the grand scheme of things, especially to warrant draconian measures.

^[1] https://cdn.nrf.com/sites/default/files/2022-09/National Retail Security Survey Organized Retail Crime 2022.pdf

Madeleine Stone, of the campaign group Big Brother Watch, is concerned about the slow creep of facial recognition technology.

“It is unacceptable to have police and private companies writing their own rules on the use of such a powerful surveillance technology,” she says. “We urgently need a democratic, lawful approach to the role of facial biometrics in Britain, but so far there hasn’t even been a parliamentary debate on it.”

Glad they devoted 3 whole sentences about this more than halfway down the article /s

Also, no mention of machine learning training bias or false positive rates of the existing technology? There’s so much which could have been fleshed out in this article.

There are some things you can’t hide for the internet to work, such as IP addresses, so an IP address on it’s own is not privileged information. Announcing to the world that “this is my IP address” adds information and context which from a privacy perspective is privileged. If someone has an issue with you, they might target their focus to seeing if there’s a service running which is vulnerable at your IP, or they could initiate a DDoS against you.

It’s a public IPv4 address in the picture.

There are 3 ranges of IPv4 addresses which are reserved for private use:

24-bit block 10.0.0.0 – 10.255.255.255 20-bit block 172.16.0.0 – 172.31.255.255 16-bit block 192.168.0.0 – 192.168.255.255