54 karma · joined October 12, 2016
And why would I block EU ? Connection is intiated by user. So its user importing/exporting data from/to server jurisdiction. Why does not EU force their own citizens to not do business with those companies ?
Are you saying if I sell to EU tourists visiting USA, I have to follow EU laws ?
> A DVD does not collect your personal information and send them to the producer for processing.
Thats come after when we determine whos doing business where. Or replace dvd with a survilliance device disguised as a toy.
This does not make sense on web.
EU resident streaming a movie from netflix. Is netflix doing business in EU ? Or Is it the customer doing business in USA ? For example, it can be argued that its as if the customer went to USA, bought the dvd.
When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract.
So GDPR does not say its illegal, just that it will be determined on case by case basis.
For legal experts, is this facebook consent obtaining GDPR compliant ?
https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms/update
By using or accessing Facebook Services, you agree that we can collect and use such content and information in accordance with the Data Policy as amended from time to time.
Historically, taxation has been imposed at every level from small bands to vast empires
Agreed.
it certainly is not correct that they've normally been imposed by distant rulers
Then by whom is it normally imposed ? Give an example of a historic taxation voted and imposed by a small-band/.../vast-empire on itself.
Coming back to the topic, my claim is that private property social contract have been more stable than taxation (the social-contract version).
The private property I referred is land right, which IS as old as civilisation and have been acceptable by most humans ever.
Since most democracies are less than 200yrs old, the taxation cannot have been as old as civilisation.
When 100 people form a camp, they implement property rights before taxation. Historically taxations have been imposed by distant rulers not socially decided at local level.
Hopefully you picked your doctor due to his past performence. Money and review should serve as a good incentive.
Irrelevent. If you accept a statement without proof, you become vulnerable to manipulation.
This is also why topic-specific forums exist, so that short proof suffices. Though I dont know an appropriate forum for this article.
So Reputation does not imply a statement. Reputation is only used to reduce ddos on my brain.
Ironically Headline/Article basically suggest to accept it as truth because reputation.
But nonetheless spec authors picked compatibility over security. I would not. Let the legacy insecure tls servers be blocked by the browsers, I say.
I get your position now. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.
You are arguing that everyone should update to latest version asap. Because, as you say, older version is more vulnerable. I dont think thats true, case-in-point: macos root bug. What if criminals and security agencies has broken 1.3 but not 1.2 ? Dont fix it unless its broken. Fix it when its broken or predicted to be broken.
But thats different to what I was arguing for: Some poor 1.2 implmentations aborting connection when connecting to 1.3 client, is not a problem as the article says. For complete arguments, see my previous comments here.
> But either way ... the downgrade support.
What downgrade support ? Are you saying 1.3 browsers will only connect to 1.3 ? Because there is no way every/most 1.2 servers will just transition to 1.3 together. Before 1.3 becoming 99.9%, some will be using 1.3 and some 1.2. It just cannot be avoided.
In my case user will because the tls client wont accept insecure version request. Connection broken. Client will notify the user of server still using a insecure version.
I think this might be the misunderstanding: A good client/server never establish/accept insecure versions.
Yes MITM gets to pick but if he picks insecure version, there is no connection.
POODLE was never attack on the protocol but poor implementations.
No I meant a good client/server would never use sslv3.
> Completely future-proofing things is a losing game
I am not assumming any such thing. The moment 1.2 is known to be broken, every client/server should mark it insecure and never establish/accept 1.2 connection.
Assuming good client and good server are poodled, then no tls connection will be established.
> Defer connecting to your bank until you're no longer on your current, terrible MITMing wifi connection.
Which a good client already does without any anti-poodle fix.
I think this might be the misunderstanding: A good client/server never establish/accept insecure versions. If they get poddled, then no tls connection.
This thread is just now getting repeatitive.
So what ? 1.2 is not weak. Connection is still secure.
Also MITM still gets to decide whether to have tls or not. Then "Why even have tls ?". If MITM is blocking a protocol (or higher version, which is equivalent), then there is nothing to be done.
This is literally very simple, few lines of patch. Its basically tls server discovery.
Its a crisis when a upgrade makes 3% webservers stop working.
TLS is already so complex and ASN.1 makes xml look like c-struct. This begs the question: why would anyone want to make a crypto overly complex ?
Anyone who thinks RTBF wont create internet graveyard is delusional. GDPR needs to explicitly exempt legally-obtained/user-submitted public PII ASAP.
[1] https://transparencyreport.google.com/eu-privacy/overview
[2] Which is obviously very low number. Imagine GDPR for 7 billion people.
Not quite there ofcourse but they are getting there:
Democracy is too optimistic for some parts in the world as well. No system such as (Autocracy/Democracy/AnCap) can work without certain level of cooperation from everyone involved. True AnCap requires most and never-seen-before amount of cooperation but if possible, it does give/predict awesome results.
Maybe they'll become more realistic once we've either evolved or augmented ourselves to a much higher level of intelligence and conscience.
Some of us already have :).
Point is, its about who enforcing it not what. If even that does not fix your observations, I would like to request some proof/citations.