I had no idea Madagascar was a French colony. TIL. Welp hopefully they become a secular workers collective and not just another flavor of fascist.

Well I haven’t see the arguement for why Quantum resistent encryption would somehow be weaker to traditional cryptographic techniques. I understand that early “quantum encryption” alogrithms were flawed, and it’ll probably be a long time before we get the DES of Quantum Encryption. But all that means is that we don’t have vetted “strong” quantum encryption techniques yet, and should stick with traditional encryption since quantum encryption isn’t worth it yet. If Quantum encryption becomes worthwhile, we shouldn’t have “traditional encryption”, because it will be obsolete.

If the first cylinder lock was easily bypassed compared to my old reliable wafer lock, then why should I use the cylinder lock at all? Now that cylinder locks are better then wafer locks why should I use a tumbler lock at all? There is no added security by using a wafer lock.

You can always encrypt the payload twice if you want. But really what are you arguing? That every time you encrypt something, you should encrypt it serially with all known encryption algorithms “just in case?” Hell why not do it again just to make sure?

A key component of encryption is efficiency. Most cryptographic processes are going to be occurring billions of times across billions of transactions and involving billions of systems. It’s worthwhile for robust encryption algorithms to be efficient and avoid unnecessary calculations unless those calculations demonstrate some advantage. For example PBKDF2, where the multiple rounds of identical encryption convey a demonstrable increase in time to decrypt via brute-force mechanisms. If the standard is 4096 which it was in 2005, you coming along and saying, but why isn’t it 4097? The CIA is using >4096, therefore that means that 4096 is insecure! Isn’t really understanding why 4096 was chosen to begin with. Additionally no one is stopping you from using one million iterations with key1 and then doing another million rounds with key2.

If you identify as an “antifa expert” you are at best a liberal, but more likely an american conservative. Fuck off the fewer of you here the better.

The only “antifa” i care about are dead ww2 soldiers, or modern strictly-anti-capitalist marxists.

Ok government here are the messages i’m legally required to provide you.

U2FsdGVkX1/FEry+/NeyfmzA3icvpchwSo5qySzajv87f9PwhJyog+zS1Qv+j8bzYXG5sCLZMbFqUJn9Cp7RkVY79wuUArUaxE59LtdO0LKT+0+d220DxFVioHe8Vlaq

When did she do that? I’ve lways thought of her as liberal with rich parents who get’s to do high-publicity protests that achieve nothing and distract from the economic problem.

“Clean Coal” has been an extraction industry green washing of Coal/Natural Gas/etc since the 90’s. While there does exist a technique that captures the majority of Coal Particulates and storing the CO2, it isn’t economically feasible (it’s cheaper to just not use coal at all.) However since there isn’t an interest in NOT using coal, the mining industries have been pushing the concept of clean coal. And then letting the public assume that Coal is now clean. This isn’t the coal from the old days, this is new futuristic “Clean Coal.”

https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/news/a27886/how-does-clean-coal-work/

A example of industry green washing article. Nothing they say is a “lie” per se, however the lies are in the omission and lack of comparisons to how much CO2 could be captured, vs how much is actually produced. In addition to the lack of cost-comparison for retrofitting coal plants, vs building new Nuclear Plants or even Gas plants.

From the article:

A 2019 report from the Global CSS Institute estimates it could cost “$100 billion annually” to develop CCS, and that the technology represents “a classic catch-22 scenario.

100-billion a year can build A LOT of Nuclear Plants, let alone Solar Panels, Wind Farms, etc.

I wasn’t referring to the privacy relay, though if you want to use it that’s fine too. More of just easy ways to reduce your digital footprint.

It’s the most private and secure phone OS you can get today. You have to have minimal trust in Apple that they won’t change the terms, but that is miles better then using google who will explicitly use your data for anything they want.

It comes down to the hostile actor you are trying to defend against. If you are Jason Bourne and you have been burned by your agency so multiple nation-states are looking for you, then you have to go fully off-grid and live a quiet life without ever communicating with anyone in your prior life again. It doesn’t matter if you are using Signal, or SMS, or even a dial-up BBS. If you are communicating with people that are also under heavy surveillance, you cannot hide.

If you want to reduce your “digital footprint,” then not using google/facebook/other social media is the most worthwhile thing you can possibly do. Your phone doesn’t matter. Use iOS, never install any of the social apps, use Safari in incognito mode, and you’ll never be tracekd across websites again.

Nice semantic solution to the intentionally misleading question. I approve.

Yes. There won’t be a problem, assuming that the devices in question are indeed ethernet devices and not just using cat5 wiring. That said you will need to be aware about what kind of PoE device you are plugging in. There are several evolutions of the PoE standard.
802.3af 802.3at 802.3bt

So make sure that if the devices requires 802.3at, the switch is rated to provide that.

Was also the Aunt of the rapper Tupac Shakur and was part of a prison break in 1979. She was a real one.

Theocracies must never be supported.

Yikes binary morality framed by evil. Maybe try thinking outside of your box.

Fuck the “lesser evil.” The government of Iran sucks, and every country that bombs them is righteous in that specific action, even if the country performing that action also sucks. When enemies of humanity fight it’s always a good outcome.

I’m using “open source” colloquially. The point is that your specific nitpick about imessage not having some specific text file and license associated with it, isn’t important in a world where there doesn’t exist an alternative that is nearly as robust and supported. Ultimately you are upset that imessage is run by a corporation (a valid complaint) but there is no indication that the corporation is lying to you about the privacy of their messaging service.

While in the ideal world a non-opensource app would be a deal breaker, in the current world, there is no indication that imessage has any privacy concerns associated with it. It’s not just taking Apple at their word, there have been a lot practical analysis of how the protocol works. Plus the underlying cryptography is sound.

https://security.apple.com/assets/files/Security_analysis_of_the_iMessage_PQ3_protocol_Stebila.pdf <- hosted by Apple.
https://www.douglas.stebila.ca/blog/archives/2024/02/21/imessage-pq3/ <-original author
https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurity25/sec25cycle1-prepub-595-linker.pdf <- Independent analysis of the protocol and implementation.

Sure you could claim that actually Apple is lying about how they are securing imessage, but that is a lot of effort when they could just take the Facebook approach and straight up admit that they have the ability to read your texts, much easier, and safer legally.

Chasing the hot new app that was created by some one-person dev team for “privacy” reasons is a little like chasing amy. You are looking for an ideal app that doesn’t exist, so you can’t really suggest a better alternative. Instead you are just nagging people for using discord or imessage even though those apps are perfectly fine for 99% of people. Even privacy focused people. imessaage specifically is great for privacy and unless you have strong evidence of an apple installed backdoor for the p2p imessage encryption I’d question why your are against it.

Self-approval leads to a road of sadness. For example, a theoretical company needs to self-renew an ssl cert. No problem, the cert will be stored with the rest of the secrets and retrieved in a secure way on deployment. Unfortunately if you don’t store the cert key in a secure way, the deployment still works fine and you don’t need to figure out the “onerous” encryption process.

So you push the private key to the company git repo, and then deploy the cert! Done and Done.