Thats the point isnt it. When you spew bile, it brings disrepute on those associated with you, and they may not appreciate it. The answer is: dont do that. Society gets no benefit from you hurling mysogynist epithets at your teacher anonymously, That isnt free speech, its just abuse and/or defamation, and if its bad enough, someone will care and they will track you down. And they should.

Edward Snowden would be dead if he were anonymous. Anonymity is no protection. If it ever matters, they will find you, and no-one knowing your name will not protect you.

My point exactly... people howling about privacy and anonymity are trying to protect something that doesnt really exist. It is, at best, a polite fiction. Countries and large companies have nicely trained cyber warfare units to identify, troll or hack any target. Does this trivial fig-leaf do anything good for us? I very much doubt it.

Its called a cell phone. You are tracked. Phone companies track you, Apple or Google track you, and in most countries, including Germany, the government can track you ( https://www.reuters.com/articl... ). You dont want to be tracked? Dont carry a cell phone. Could police ordered with enforcing a court order for someone to stay a certain distance from their ex be granted access to phone company records? Since catching the guy AFTER hes killed is ex would look bad, would the phone company be asked to produce *live* results, rather than after the fact records? I think so... Thats where we are going.

but these laws only affect the little people. If someone has sufficient resources and connection, they can track anyone. All *privacy* laws do is prevent the little people from tracking big people. I dont want this to be true, but wishing doesnt make it so.

privacy is a dead illusion. anyone in authority who cares can burst that bubble.

The trick is figuring out what criteria merit promotion in the hierarchy, making sure the higher-ups have values that we can agree to. That sounds suspiciously like a functioning democracy. Note that I said *functioning*... in practice, lets just say there are issues.

You pay for something on the internet? Youre using a card, that card traces to a bank account. You dont want to type it in every time? the account is linked to your here. Tracking you? If you have a cell phone, you can be trivially tracked, period. If a government wants to spy on people, there are some barriers in western democracies (although little, as Snowden revealed) and none at all in more authoritarian ones, but the barriers are low enough that it doesnt really stop anyone in authority.

So when people want to be *anonymous*, they just require companies and governments to investigate in a little extra metadata tracking, and they can get the job done. If someone cares, they will track you. All that current anonymity does is give a false sense of security to those emit bile on the internet. It is consequence-free because tracking is hard for normal people. Some of that bile is from state actors. surprise. Free speech is about not being punished for frankly stating a view. It is not about *anonymity.*

Believing that you are untraceable because you called yourself a silly name is silly. If anyone cares, they will track you down. Believing that internet anonymity is real is dangerous because if you start saying things that are of interest to authorities, they will find you. Its a false sense of security, and one that gives the governments and large corporations that make the investment power over all of us by giving them exclusivity over the ability to track.

Real identities are better for all of us, and more transparency will get us more than security by obscurity. Make it easier for everyone to track everyone so that that power is democratic. Yeah spousal abuse... ok, but isnt it a heck of a lot easier to enforce a court order if everyone is wearing a tracking device, that anyone can see and report?

I actually hate that future is ubiquitous tracking, but just as arguing that water isnt wet does not make sense, the technology makes it very easy to track people, and people will be tracked, the only thing we can realisticially do is track the people doing the tracking. It sucks, but calling yourself doofus doesnt do a thing.

73% of US dairy farmers' revenue is from subsidies. https://www.realagriculture.co... so, fine to get rid of them, but get rid of crop insurance, Price Loss Coverage, Agricultural Risk Coverage, Stacked Income Protection Plan, Margin Protection Program for Dairy Producers, Dairy Product Donation Program. Then there is below cost (aka subsidized) water for irrigation, subsidized electricity to pump it. "The total value of irrigation subsidies provided by state and local government has been estimated at between US$10 billion and US$33 billion" so pot? meet kettle!

IPv6 is BETTER from a traceability perspective (harder to track than IPv4), you are completely wrong on that. It isnt a conspiracy. IPv6 used to allocate traceable addresses, but it hasnt done that for a decade or more. With IPv4 NAT at home, they trace to your house (which has one public IPv4 Address) with NAT at any building, whoever runs the network can tell what your MAC address is and identify you. On your phone, the phone company has your IMEI and you are completely traceable as well. It is easy for governments to spy on people with the current tech. (all the above stuff is what Snowden and friends refer to as *metadata*)

IPv6 doesnt change much of that, but it adds the ability for true peer-to-peer connections, and allows the use of larger pools to pick addresses from, making it much harder to do network mapping. IPv6 isnt about privacy, but it doesnt make anything worse in that regard, and in some ways it makes it harder for spies.

Saying IPv6 is for traceability is the networking equivalent of being and anti-vaxxer.

IPv6 is an unequivocally good thing to get to, and I live in pain of IPv4 NAT (large environment) every day, and suffer greatly for it. Youre hurting me... Others in similar pain lashed out and called you clueless but didnt explain why, and abuse is unlikely change your mind. So here is an explanation:

DHCPv6 exists and is now being adopted, so any strategy used to allocate addresses in a LAN still works. You can have a lease that lasts 10 minutes if you want, and force use of a different address every time. A house typically gets one static IPv4 address. in IPv6 it typically gets a /64, which contains 2 billion entire internets, so the DHCP in any house can allocate addresses anywhere in 2 billion billion addresses and change them at the frequency they desire. good luck mapping that. I dont see any decrease relative to IPv4.

now you are probably referring to RA/SLAAC, which used to allocate an address that was calculable from the prefix and the MAC, and so easily traceable. in 2007 RFC4941 added privacy extensions which de-couples the addresses from the MAC, and uses explicitly temporary addresses that last a few days at a time at most, and its implemented everywhere. The addresses you are given are not calculable from anything, and they are not any more traceable than your public IPv4 on a NATed connection.

Using IPv4 and NAT everywhere forces people to do (fake) *peer-to-peer* using an intervening node to make contact, which is a great place to spy on people. Proper use of IPv6 would allow end-to-end (real peer-to-peer) and make spying much harder.

If you are concerned about something other than the above, then please mention it, and we will go through it. Please look into the technologies you are spouting off about and check for yourself, You will find that privacy and anti-snooping is at least as good on IPv6 vs. IPv4.

Process, process, process... Why didnt management know how many checks had been done per month? if this process were *important* why was one persons memory enough to break it? Firing this person is scape goating of the worst sort. Management is responsible for measuring employee results. Not measuring for a year, and then firing, is either abusive, or negligent or both... unless there was deceit involved, where they were asking the right questions, but she was giving deceitful answers.

A firewall with rules set to deny incoming connections, with a few allow rules for services you might have, and it's fine without NAT. There aren't any routers that come setup that way for IPv4, but all the IPv6 ones are, and it's fine. NAT works great for small offices and homes, which is where it is fine, and the side effects of not routing inbound traffic is easier than setting up rules, but many people take that small case, and make the leap to: NAT is always what a firewall is supposed to do and then apply it in enterprise settings, so that large organizations are deployed using non-routable addresses. That is a mess, especially when there are mergers or remote management or certain types of offpremises services which are all complicated a lot by enterprise application of NAT.

For IPv6, if you are doing NAT on your home router, you're doing it wrong.

Please dont advertise NAT as security. NAT just allows allocation non-routable addresses that has a convenient by-default side-effect of denying all incoming traffic. In IPv6, you want to just use access lists, rather than NAT, and NAT should die in a fire from its being terribly overused. Lots of people have this idea that NAT is "secure", and access lists arent and put NAT in places where it really has no business Its a very bad rumour that causes people to think that public addresses themselves are *insecure* and that we need to break end to end for security. Leads to many issues. NAT has it's place, but it isn't fu^%%*ing everywhere.

If both parties are on gmail... the client to server is SSL, there is no SMTP traffic traversing public networks. As long as you dont care if Google reads it (and frankly, I dont), then its pretty damn secure. Even one person on gmail,and another on hotmail is likely fine, since they exchange traffic over SSL as well.

S/MIME was made in a world where mail was passed, un-encrypted on SMTP port along a chain of mail servers for every company on the internet. anybody operating any router between A and B, and there could be a lot of them, could intercept the mail and read it. Nowadays, a lot of that has collapsed into a few big mailers with many hundreds of thousands or millions of mailboxes. Traffic between those services is SSL encrypted these days. So as long as you dont care about the service operator seeing the mail, there is no problem. This is much safer than things used to be.

cue the paranoid fanatics...

they want to bring the benefits of Intel Management Engine and trusted computing to ARM? sounds lovely...

It depends on the kind of software you want to run. The thing being described is like a raspberrypi zero, although the zero is twice the clock, so my guess would be four times the power? power consumption is something like:

https://www.jeffgeerling.com/b...

If you really need lowest power consumption, then something like freeRTOS makes a lot of sense. So yeah, it will not last for days on a coin-cell battery. But for applications where a power is not a constraint (inside an appliance, a wall wart, a solar cell, or some other kind of powered box) with a 5$ part you can run normal linux software on it, and it consumes about 200ma while tranceiving wifi. If this thing is running @ 500MHz, it could be only 50 ma.

tradeoff is relatively normal software environment in linux vs. hyper specialized rare coders and 1% of the application ecosystems available for RTOS.

uh... from the fine article: "To get the process started, MediaTek is producing the first set of these new MCUs. These are low-powered, single-core ARM-A7 systems that run at 500MHz and include WiFi connectivity as well as a number of other I/O options." so... pretty much exactly the specs of the original raspberry pi. Why didn't they just use pi's and raspbian? What did they do a custom kernel for? I've used the original pi as a dual-stack ipv4 & v6 router with iptables firewall. It runs any security stack you want... What did they actually need to build? I expect whatever it was could just easily have been built as a debian application package (like avahi say, or dhcpd, or apache) rather than into the kernel. The project does not make much sense with the information given.

Maybe they're doing some extra power management?