The claim that Sweden would hand him over to the US. Were I to worry about anyone in the EU doing that, it would be the UK. The US and UK have a relationship literally called the "special relationship." They back each other on diplomatic and intelligence matters in a way rarely seen among other nations. So they would be the one I would peg to hand him over all quiet like, if anyone.

The UK courts heard the matter, all the way to the top, and decided that it was a valid request. Your opinion on that doesn't particularly matter, only the opinion of their courts. That is how it works in any case of a nation which has an extradition treaty with another nation: The courts of the nation being asked to extradite decide if said request is allowable per the treaty. What that requires varies treaty by treaty.

In the EU, the extradition treaties are pretty strong. Countries don't have a lot of choice to say no. If a fellow EU member asks and the paperwork is all in order, you more or less have to comply. That is precisely what the British courts found in this case. They reviewed it, found it valid, he appealed, they found it valid and so on.

Doesn't matter if you don't like it, that is how the justice process works there. This was not a case that was handled in some shady back channel matter, it went through the court system properly and the rulings fell against him. That's all there is to it.

The UK now has a case against him, and a very strong one. He fled bail, and that is a crime. That crime is still ongoing since he's still fleeing said bail. So they can arrest and charge him for that. Doesn't matter if the original matter is log dropped, he is still on the hook for this.

That's the thing with court dates, bail, and all that jazz: Even if the case against you was going to be dismissed, if you skip bail you are now guilty of another crime. You have agreed to appear in court and a failure to do so is against the law.

The UK had no beef in this originally, they were just acting on an EU arrest warrant. Sweden said "We want this guy," the UK looked at the warrant and said "looks valid per the treaty" and thus arrested him. They had no interest or ability to decide on the validity of the charges, only if the request required them to act per treaty. It did so he was arrested, and then released on bail.

He challenged the extradition all the way up to the high UK court, but the courts found it was a valid request that the UK had to honour. Nothing to do with his guilt, just that the request was a valid one and they were bound by treaty to hand him over. Had he gone to Sweden then, that would have been the end of the UK's involvement. His bail would be returned and the UK would have no further interest in what happened.

However he fled rather than handing himself over. So at that point, he became a fugitive in the UK. They now have a case against him. It is totally separate from the original case, it is simply a case of skipping bail.

Likely they'll want to act on it too, since he's been flaunting it in their face for years.

Yeah, I've gotta say I'm within a hair of dumping Firefox. I'm not a Chrome fan, and IE is just not on. I've tried some other open source browsers and they have the usability of a jello hammer.

At this point I'd be willing to pay money for a browser that just didn't flatline my CPU every time I loaded a page, that didn't stall for tens of seconds at random intervals (this is after I turned off hardware acceleration, which make things tens times worse on Windows in 38) and is simply, utterly and completely unusable on Amazon.

Why these basic usability metrics aren't the first priority for Firefox developers is beyond me. The changelog seems full of completely irrelevant stuff that's just going to bloat things more.

Dunno... maybe it's time to hold my nose and move to Chrome, but Firefox has so many features I like and know well that I'm loathe to do so. It feels churlish complaining about software I don't pay for, but I'm not sure why Firefox is being shipped any more. It certainly isn't to satisfy user needs, because it doesn't.

Or you can use pdftk to remove the arbitrary pdf restrictions and get a plain normal pdf file out of it...

If the password can be retrieved in an automated fashion then even if its encrypted, everything necessary (i.e. the key) is present, so if the host is compromised the passwords effectively are plaintext as the attacker can simply run the same process to decrypt the password.

And even if you use SSL to check your mail, that doesn't change how the email has been transmitted from one mail server to another, which is often done without using SSL, and most mail servers will fall back to plain text even if they do support SSL because so many out there don't support SSL at all.

Not necessarily in these days of social media... A lot of people have Facebook accounts and will have added relatives or people they went to school with...
For your example, you already know the school, so you find out a list of their teachers (often published online) and try them all, and if the attacker knows your age they can narrow it down further... Either way there's a relatively small number of possible answers.

All the routers i've seen implement statefull filtering on ipv6 and allow all outbound and no inbound (except traffic related to an outbound connection) by default, which is functionally identical to their ipv4 nat implementation.

Good luck trying to scan an ipv6 range...
The smallest subnet is a /64, even scanning every host there for a single port would take a LONG time.

IPv6 works fine with VPN software, even ipsec was originally a part of ipv6 and cruftily backported to ipv4... Infact, you can use ipsec properly (ie end to end without kludges like l2tp) with ipv6. The problems published recently were due to short sighted vpn providers who completely ignore the existence of ipv6. If they provided dual stack connectivity over their vpn then there wouldn't have been a problem.

Bugs could still be found in ipv4 stacks too (and are still being found), on the other hand ipv6 is much newer and addresses some of the weaknesses of ipv4.

MAC filtering will stop random users from connecting automatically, but won't stop someone who is intentionally trying to gain access... Changing your MAC is trivial.

Agreed that _optout is offensive, why should i have to change the name of *my* network to cope with this crap, and where would it end? I shouldn't have to explicitly opt out of things i never have any intention of using and might not even be aware of.

The only real solution is a dedicated (isolated) guest network, with regularly changing keys... I don't have guests visiting all the time so i could easily generate a new key each time...

Until games start requiring it...

Any device that connects to wifi has to store the passwords either in the clear or in a retrievable form...

If you compromise the device, you can extract the keys (and a lot of other stuff too). Other devices just obfuscate the keys, but they are still retrievable (e.g. try wirelesskeyview or gsecdump for windows).

That's why virtually all platforms offer device encryption these days to lessen the chances of the device being compromised at all.

Limiting sites and protocols just causes problems, people will have their devices setup to connect to all manner of things (vpns, email, im, voip etc), and restricting what they can access will invariably block some stuff and render the connection unusable, causing a denial of service if the handset automatically connects to the wifi and loses its cellular connection where everything was working.

The PSK *is* the passphrase... The only thing the passphrase gives you is access to the network, and the key does that too.