nickburns

There are tools that will parse and do the needful with a 'mixed' (i.e., containing both domains and IP addresses/CIDR blocks) feed.

To where?

I found the page quite clean (with cloudflareinsights.com, googlesyndication.com, and googletagmanager.com blocked of course).

A more measured take: https://www.osnews.com/story/142553/rumour-google-intends-to...

*está (ALT + 130) :)

Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43594850

One person's 'desire' for what now?

And that's—a problem somehow shared by someone who doesn't want to be advertised to?

This dunderhead was also tapped by CBS to weigh in on the Hunter Biden kerfuffle:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-biden-laptop-data-analys...

Yes. And one that's also an adversary of another adversary and therefore, as some have observed, a friend in this limited context, too.

Just saw that after following the link to Alec Muffett's blog and attempting to post it instead. Thanks, and sorry, y'all!

  > Finally, the Ceremony Administrator can sign the KSR with the private key-signing key. He enters “Y” on a command prompt, and the dramatic portion of the ceremony is complete.

Nerds, man. I love it.

Title should contain a "(2015)" tag though, as this blog post was written about the 22nd ceremony:

https://www.iana.org/dnssec/ceremonies/22

Last ceremony, the 56th, was held on February 12[1]; next is on April 24[2].

[1] https://www.iana.org/dnssec/ceremonies/56

[2] https://www.iana.org/dnssec/ceremonies/57

You've sidestepped my point and merely reiterated yours.

Both DoH and DoT achieve actual concealment (and therefore privacy and censorship avoidance) through encryption. That one is more obscure than the other doesn't change the fact that the whole point of both protocols is encrypted DNS queries, not obscured DNS queries.

And again, if I'm the network operator and a host can obscure/obfuscate its DNS queries, then I've lost some measure of control over my network and the hosts that connect to it. I can trivially redirect all TCP/853 traffic to my DoT-capable resolver of choice. I can't do the same for all TCP/443 traffic (i.e. redirect it to my DoH-capable resolver of choice).

I don't care that an eavesdropper can observe discrete TCP/853 traffic because it's encrypted. The whole point is maintained, and I've maintained control over my private network.

Security through obscurity is not the same as actual concealment. That DoH is specced to operate over port TCP/443 makes it no more or less efficacious than DoT over TCP/853 with regard to avoiding censorship. I.e., they're both encrypted.

Many LAN operators conclude that the pragmatic impossiblility of blocking DoH is a net-negative for both network security and censorship avoidance.

Continued back-and-forth on Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1910322#c63

You're conflating DigiCert's argument against issuance of the TRO, with the irreparable harm the complaintant (Alegeus) is alleging will occur if the TRO is not granted.

Exactly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d...

No. That's a civil discovery matter.

Ephemeral messaging is not a crime.

> its reasonable to assume they would do the same in the US (disable the feature if USG asked for a backdoor or attempted to compel them to decrypt)

I think it's more likely that Apple would challenge it in US courts and prevail. Certainly a legal battle worth waging, unlike in the UK.

Nobody has suggested that anyone, Feds included, has the present technical capability to break any of the security levels that are in widescale E2EE usage today.

Which ChatGPT likely "always does" because the vast majoity of style manuals prescribe closed usage[1][2][3], and that's therefore how it mostly appears in human-generated text. It's definitely how I learned to use it long before LLMs existed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash#Spacing_and_substitution

[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/em-dash-en-dash-how-...

[3] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/style-guide/punctuation/da...

If this is real, why wouldn't it be celebrated by every American?

I didn't vote for Trump. But I absolutely welcome this kind of reform if true.

This case is likely to get fast-tracked to the SCOTUS.

Actual lawsuit itself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43044377

Only if it's backdoored (or otherwise breakable).

Outrageous and (obviously) unconfirmed claims. But again, and as an American whose private data should never fall under the purview of FISA or FAA or any other IC intelligence gathering activities, I don't seriously doubt domestic US spying/surveillance capabilities.

That LE has to feign the need for a warrant should the need arise to make lawfully admissible that which they already know and are in possession of is the most likely scenario. Encryption really is the only safeguard.

Not doubting this whatsoever, but what are you citing here?

  This "massively growing cancer" is at most the size it has been under Reagan. It's been shrinking for decades.

From what/where do you derive these assertions?

That the American Bar Association, a voluntary, for-profit organization which mostly involves itself with issues concerning the American legal education and otherwise lobbys on behalf of its dues paying members, doesn't administer any bar exams—only the state governments do within their respective jurisdictions—aside... If you mean to refer to this statement made by its president:

  "The American Bar Association supports the rule of law. That means holding governments, including our own, accountable under law. We stand for a legal process that is orderly and fair. We have consistently urged the administrations of both parties to adhere to the rule of law. We stand in that familiar place again today. And we do not stand alone. Our courts stand for the rule of law as well."

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2...

I agree 100% that adherence to the rule of law is what separates the United States, Canada, most of Europe, and Oceania from pretty much the rest of the world.

But I don't see anything in the entirety of Mr. Bay's statement that's otherwise relevant to this discussion. Certainly nothing about Elon Musk nor "what DOGE is doing [being] illegal and unconstitutional" like you've claimed.