• 1 Post
  • 382 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 23rd, 2023

help-circle
  • Your comment said Forgejo has a disclosure process. The article says the author went with a carrot disclosure after reading the disclosure process and making a value judgement. Because your comment only mentioned Forgejo having a disclosure process, not an evaluation of the author’s evaluation of the disclosure process, it made you appear as if you had not read the article.

    In your response to me calling that out, you offer an analysis. The author is lazy for using carrot disclosure over the defined disclosure process. That’s a valid take. I’m not going to disagree with that.










  • This is exactly like the whole Lifetouch story. It beggars belief.

    Rackspace is, and has been, ISO 27001 certified. Part of that means they can’t directly access customer data. You didn’t link any documents covering the contract that “requires” Rackspace hosting; my base assumption is they’re normal contracts that define hosting for regulatory purposes. None of the documents you’ve linked show Apollo had access to Rackspace infrastructure much less encrypted customer data on Rackspace doesn’t have keys for. The pedo employee had CSAM which does not provide Apollo access to Rackspace infrastructure much less encrypted customer data Rackspace doesn’t have keys for.

    Just like with Lifetouch, if you can show that somehow the equity owners Apollo had direct access to the infrastructure of their investments and somehow managed to either hide or justify it during multiple security audits spanning a decade and somehow got access to customer encryption keys, it’s a possibility. I’m not even using Occam’s razor here; there’s genuinely nothing to even consider hanging a hat on here.

    On the other hand, if Leon Black had direct access to the company running the database, all bets are off. Law enforcement shit gets to sidestep audit shit in dumb ways. But if that were the case, we wouldn’t need Rackspace as the incredibly tenuous connection because he would have had direct access.


  • Absolutely valid. In the context of identity verification, I trust ID.me more than random companies that do not have government contracts because government contracts come with security and compliance regulations that require regular audit and make the chances of breach less likely. In either case, it’s a private company and, as any security nut would have told you, when it gets sold all bets are off like 23andme. Even more importantly, in the US, any kind of ID verification is a terrible idea, government or private, because we have no data regulation or privacy constraints. I call out the US here because we have no GDPR equivalent (CCPA wouldn’t hold up to federal data). Even if ID verification were conducted by the government, it can still be used for gnarly shit like we saw with ICE and DOGE.

    On a sliding scale of evil, ID.me is the evil I know will currently fight to continue remaining the only evil which is the only solace I have in the US.


  • The theme of this post is “what things online would I be okay giving my government ID to.” The author did not mention government services in the article, so I brought those up and differentiated which government services I think are reasonable for ID verification. In the US, social security is basically a retirement fund and a huge target for scammers. I’m willing to verify there or for my taxes (although those should just be done for me; different argument). A data portal eg census data is not something I am willing to verify my ID for because it should be public. US trademarks, for example, now require ID verification for an account. An account gives expands some access on the website and allows the ability to file. If I file a trademark, I am fine with verifying my identity. If I make an account, I don’t need to verify my identity until I file.

    I didn’t mention picture sharing websites because I agree with the author’s stance.



  • You and I are in agreement; the user I responded to seemed to be implying otherwise.

    Edit: I think it’s a bit strong to say it’s “a literal white supremacist talking point.” Your average boomer is going to mistakenly associate it with Voltaire. I think folks that are some level below terminally online have seen one of the many pieces pointing out its origin. Away from the author, it could stand on its own merits which is why “kids with cancer” is a funny response to it. In the US, at least, I haven’t seen a lot of discussion from the white supremacists who run the government on this quote which further makes me question if it’s a literal talking point. Perhaps you are aware of groups that are actively pushing it? If not, it’s a bit more reasonable to say what the first response in this thread said. Be careful.