Biometrics are non-revokable usernames and should never be used to assert identity. They're easy to forge, have been proven forgeable by many studies and worst yet you can't change them if something goes wrong.

Again and again this comes up as a solution. It is the "convenience" side of the security triangle of cost, convenience, and security. While it makes things easy, it makes things a lot more insecure.

I hope that any engineer at Dynascale quits in protest, and the upstream providers refuse to provide service to these fools.

Hosting services are "uncancelable" until you piss off your domain, peering, and other providers. Then you're cut off.

Twitter had full XMPP Support for years, and we turned it off.

Citing “consistent feedback” from partners [Please don’t take away our surveillance capitalism money], Google is “expanding the testing [revenue] windows for the Privacy Sandbox APIs before we disable third-party cookies in Chrome, [and cut our ad money]” with that phase out now set to begin in the second hand of 2024. (edited)

A reminder that every a company says "Your trust and safety is a top priority," or "We take security very seriously"

Your data has already been stolen.

Wait, no.

There's a reason why we invented things like caps and voltage regulators. These electrical problems are long solved, and while I agree that the power may be somewhat dirty, it's quite clean by the time it reaches the main cpu...

The 90 day renewal cycle is "overly aggressive" to make sure your renewal scripts actually work!

How many times do we have to tell people that biometrics are irrevocable usernames and should never be used for authenticating payments?

I feel like every time this comes up it's chosen because it's gimmicky, sci-fi, and people are convinced it's more secure. It's not.

EFF chimes in here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/03/new-filter-mandate-bill-unmitigated-disaster

An "unmitigated disaster."

There are no "standard technical measures" that do not involve a massive degree of surveillance into a host, hosted by a hosting company or full and complete control. The danger present in this proposal is massive.

Perhaps this sort of model works when the hosting company is vimeo, youtube, or google drive which controls the content and application but once this is attempted to be applied to say, an ISP where individuals manage said hosts, all bets are off.

So much of the web is (fortunately) encrypted these days that they'd have to surveil the hosts themselves, and that is going to make for a very aggressive environment.

The Southern Pacific Railroad case made that to be not true, and Corporate Personhood became a thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#:~:text=In%20Santa%20Clara%20County%20v,Fourteenth%20Amendment%20applied%20to%20corporations.

I think this entire article doesn't matter.

The demand is high enough that someone will eventually port Linux to the M1, regardless of Linus' opinion here. People will want Linux working on these systems, in the form factor that Apple's created.

We spend years maintaining processors in the Linux Kernel that practically no one uses. The M1 demand will force this function forward.

Am I crazy here or did Ajit Pal make an excuse that the FCC couldn't make mandatory laws and regulations when they were asked to mandate broadband speeds and Net Neutrality? Or is it now that they want to modify CDA 230 suddenly it's okay?

June 2010:
The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC has no powers to regulate any Internet provider's network, or the management of its practices: "[the FCC] 'has failed to tie its assertion' of regulatory authority to an actual law enacted by Congress", and in June 2010, it overturned (in the same case) the FCC's Order ....