Posts by JohnFen

Re: Nor a good solution

Not to take away from your point (which is valid, although an edge case), but...

if the payee is willing to cooperate (and payees always have to cooperate for any payment method, anonymous or not) then there are several mostly anonymous options including the use of prepaid debit cards, using masked virtual credit cards, or even using PayPal, if you're careful (there are a few considerations to take into account to do this, but the most important are to make a PayPal account that is only used for this, access it only through a VPN that hides your real IP, and to link your account to a prepaid debit card so that it is not associated with a bank account that can be traced to you.)

Re: Nor a good solution

"It can't be robbed from you: Without the encryption code for the device, the robber has only gotten your phone/computer."

It only solves the problem if you restrict the problem space to burglary. It doesn't solve the problem of getting mugged. The mugger would just do what muggers do with ATM cards: force you to do the transaction yourself.

Re: Might be?

"that's a huge boost to fact checking."

How so?

I don't understand how knowing the full provenance of a given story helps with fact-checking. Whether you know path the story has traveled or not, the fact-checking process is exactly the same: you read the story, and every time it asserts a fact, you check to see if that fact can be substantiated.

Re: Nor a good solution

I'm not a criminal, but I absolutely want an anonymous way of paying for things, if only to evade more spying.

That said, I already have such a way: paying with cash. Receipts give me an anonymous audit trail.

Re: Nor a good solution

"You can't send cash remotely other than by courier or mail service."

Sure you can. I've done it. There are several methods available, but prepaid debit cards are the easiest (you can load the card from anywhere, without having to physically possess the card).

That's not entirely anonymous, as the card company knows when and where you withdraw the money, but you can, at least, load the card anonymously.

Re: Nor a good solution

I don't think that blockchain is actually a good solution for that.

Re: @Politicians: Blockchain = public audit trail

But that isn't some sort of differentiator that explains what problem blockchain solves in this space. Public audit trails have been possible and used from long before computers existed, after all. How, taking into account all of the benefits and drawbacks of each, is using blockchain better than the existing methods?

Re: NO

"I'm sick of getting downvotes from Linux fans who can't admit an UNDENIABLE truth"

I haven't downvoted you, but could it be you're not getting downvotes because people can't admit that Linux isn't the most popular desktop OS (that's not exactly a controversial assertion, after all), but because that's not an important point?

Re: Who the hell uses Linux

"For desktops and laptops use Windows unless you're a Mac fan"

Why in the world would I want to use operating systems that spy on me, get in my way, and/or make me mad? I'd rather use one that just works right.

Re: Am I Sam Beckett?

"Name and shame one site that still needs it"

I don't know that commenter's situation, but you seem to be assuming that he needs it for web browsing. There are lots of reasons why you might need it that aren't related to the web at all.

Re: This talk, on youtube, is worth a watch.

My objection to SystemD is neither the quality of its implementation, nor that Poettering is an ass -- both of those are just aggravating factors. My objection is the fundamental design concept of the thing.It inherently destroys much of what makes Unix great, and brings in much of what makes Windows not great.

Even worse, it doesn't even bring much in terms of benefits unless you are a distro manufacturer or are deploying in container form.

So, for literally every use case I have, SystemD is a net negative.

Re: Oh, great

In my neighborhood, there are literally no other choices (outside of satellite, cellphone, and dialup, which don't count). No DSL, no WiFi, no nothing.

Indeed, if existing copyright law weren't so oppressive (particularly around the issue of the length of copyright), this wouldn't be such a problematic thing.

Re: Odd

I don't know the details of the law, but even the explainer that Sajjad Karim gave in this article certainly makes it sound like this is highly likely to suppress legitimate speech and data sharing. On the surface, this sounds like a terrible idea to me.

But I don't live there and this isn't likely to affect me, so my opinion doesn't actually mean anything.

Re: @Yes Me Let's not beat around the bush

It's not ironic, really -- that's just how naked capitalism is. Remember "capitalism" is a different notion than the "free market". The end goal of all hardcore capitalists is monopoly, with them as the monopolists.

Re: Neither, please

I'm not saying that ARM-based laptops are worthless or anything, just that they aren't of interest to me, personally. I can understand how they would be interesting to others.

Re: Help desk

I know that's the perception, but I think it's wrong. Support is both a profit center (increasing the likelihood of future purchases by the customer) and a loss-prevention center.

Re: I've been on the receiving end of this

This. I have to admit that I've fired more than one customer in my day. In my own businesses, not as an employee in someone else's.

Re: End of Chrome?

"Adblock plus will stick work"

Sortof. Under the new scheme, even Adblock Plus will be more limited, as the new API seriously restrict the number of rules that can be used.

Re: Google DNT

Here's a reliable source -- Google itself: https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2790761

"Most websites and web services, including Google's, don't change their behavior when they receive a Do Not Track request."

"I was wondering whether it's even legal to publish a (stolen) picture of someone's penis without their authorization"

If a reasonable argument can be made that publishing the picture is legitimately newsworthy, then I believe that doing so would be legal even without the subject's authorization.

But I am not a lawyer...

It depends. Activities with journalistic merit have a much wide leeway than purely for-profit activities. In any case, this isn't that -- they didn't publish this information, so they can't have broken that law no matter what. Instead, they decided to engage in blackmail/extortion, which isn't legal under any circumstances.

Re: I have some questions

Right, but that defense didn't work so well when the old mob bosses tried it. I don't think it will work so well with these mob bosses, either.

Re: I have some questions

Perhaps, but it seems that the laws against extortion would unambiguously apply. Extortion is covered under multiple statutes, but here's one that seems on the money:

18 U.S. Code § 875. Interstate communications, paragraph D:

"Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Re: I have some questions

This.

Assuming they didn't break any laws when obtaining the information, then they'd be on very safe ground if all they did was publish it. However, that's not what they did. They attempted blackmail instead.

Re: I have some questions

"Isn't blackmail against the law in the US?"

Yes, it is. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

One complicating factor is the fact that the owner of AMI is also a very close associate of Trump and has used their influence to support and protect him. Trump may have AMI's back on this.