derek @ derek @infosec.pub

Posts

0

Comments

62

Joined

1 yr. ago

Neither of those facts preclude the application of the 14th. The barrier is whether or not someone holding public office, having taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, breaks that oath via insurrection against the same. It does not matter that Trump was not punished. The acquittal does not erase the reality of the past: it is a dismissal of immediate consequences. Nothing more.

The fact that Congress acknowledged the reality of January 6th is more than enough for the 14th to apply.

Nope. I read it. The language of the 14th doesn't require an impeachment or other formal conviction to apply. The fact that Trump was successfully impeached for inciting an insurrection is enough. The Senate's failure to execute its duty does not erase reality.

At this time, on this topic, I am not concerned with what makes for interesting conservation. I am interested in bringing attention to the ongoing Constitutional crisis of Trump's tentative second term.

It's not too late. The 14th amendment Section 3 specifically prohibits an insurrectionist from holding public office unless a special Congressional vote is held and passes with a 2/3rds majority.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

All US citizens should call their representatives and demand they uphold their sworn Constitutional duty to refuse the certification of Donald Trump's victory as he is disqualified from holding office.

This is not speculation. Donald Trump was successfully impeached for inciting insurrection. The US is in the middle of a Constitutional crisis which Congress must resolve.

Finding your reps is easy. Go here:

https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member

Either let the site use your location or enter your home address. It'll pull all the info you need in one click.

It's clear you're arguing from ignorance as your argument is patently absurd.

The judgement is partisan, inconsistent with established case law, and relies on (at best) specious distinctions between "information service" and "telecommunication service". Griffin creates a distinction without a difference to manufacture the perception of judicial leverage where none exists.

It's like arguing the DEA has no purview over cannabis because the Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973 refers to "marihuana". It's clear what the intention of the law is even if the language is imprecise. To argue that ISPs provide some new class of service that's legally distinct from all other telecom service and therefore immune to regulation is an argument made out of ignorance, stupidity, corruption, or some combination of the three.

The features would break if they were built in.

You can't know that and I can't imagine it would be true. If the plugins many folks find essential were incorporated into GNOME itself then they'd be updated where necessary as a matter of course in developing a new release.

GNOME has clear philosophy and they work for themselves, not for you so they decide what features they care to invest time and what features they don’t care about.

You're not wrong! This is an arrogant and common take produced in poor taste though. A holdover from the elitism that continues to plague so many projects. Design philosophy leads UX decision making and the proper first goal for any good and functional design is user accessibility. This is not limited to accomodations we deem worthy of our attention.

Good artists set ego aside to better serve their art. Engineers must set pet peeves aside to better serve their projects. If what they find irksome gets in the way of their ability to build functionally better bridges, homes, and software then it isn't reality which has failed to live up to the Engineer's standards. This is where GNOME, and many other projects, fall short. Defenders standing stalwart on the technical correctness of a volunteer's lack of obligation to those whose needs they ostensibly labor for does not induce rightness. It exposes the masturbatory nature of the facade.

Engineers have every right to bake in options catering to their pet peeves (even making them the defaults). That's not the issue. When those opinions disallow addressing the accessibility needs of those who like and use what they've built there is no justification other than naked pride. This is foolish.

Having a standardised method for plugins is in my opinion good enough, nobody forces you to use extensions. And if you don’t want extensions to break, then wait till the extensions are ready prior updating GNOME.

I agree! Having a standardized method for plugins is good, however; the argument which follows misses the point. GNOME lucked into a good pole position as one of the default GNU/Linux DEs and has enjoyed the benefit of that exposure. Continuing to ignore obvious failures in method elsewhere while enshrining chosen paradigms of tool use as sacrosanct alienates users for whom those paradigms are neither resonant nor useful.

No one will force Engineers to use accessibility features they don't need. Not needing them doesn't justify refusing the build them. Not building them as able is an abdication of social responsibility. If an engineer does not believe they have any social responsibility then they shouldn't participate in projects whose published design philosophy includes language such as:

People are at the heart of GNOME design. Wherever possible, we seek to be as inclusive as possible. This means accommodating different physical abilities, cultures, and device form factors. Our software requires little specialist knowledge and technical ability.

Their walk isn't matching their talk in a few areas and it is right and good to call them to task for it.

Post statement: This is coming from someone who drives Linux daily, mostly from the console, and prefers GNOME to KDE. All of the above is meant without vitriol or ire and sent in the spirit of progress and solidarity.

Not at all. American Conservatives are just being pragmatic! With American public schools defunded and turned into war zones they weed out the weak kids without having to lift a finger. The ones who survive are already desensitized, comfortable wearing body armor, and conditioned to willingly die for the State like all good children should be.

Whichever species, if any, rise to sapience after the age of mammals comes to its close.

Hey. ADHD diagnosed person here. Only diagnosed this year after a lifetime of feeling like a lazy former gifted kid. This looks a lot like my over-analysis spiral from a few years ago. My psychiatrist broke it down like this:

ADHD, like most things, is a spectrum. If your brain and body have trouble regulating norepinephrine then you're probably on that spectrum. There's no stolen valor here... Only treatment options based on diagnostics (educated guesswork). You meet the diagnostic criteria and I am confident that treatment is your best path forward to mitigate and control the reasons you scheduled time here in the first place.

</paraphrased_dr_words>

Some days my symptoms do not get in the way and I could easily pass for neurotypical. On "bad brain" days I feel like I'm losing my mind. Neuro-divergence is complex and life is weird. A diagnosis isn't about having direct answers: it's about narrowing down which mitigations, meditations, and medications we want to trial to increase our control over and quality of our lives.

If you accept that ADHD diagnosis, start treating it, and the treatment improves your life, that's a huge win. If it doesn't? Also a win. You've eliminated an option via experimentation and you know more about yourself. Time to try the next option. The important bit is being receptive to the attempt at making your life better.

Uh oh. Was someone grumpyyyyy? Poor thing. Thanks so much for taking the time to leave such an insightful and well considered contribution to the discussion. Invaluable stuff.

TL;DR: Check out the KeyChron K3 V2 Non-Backlight edition. Decent quality, inexpensive, no lights, and no knowledge required.

ZSA make good stuff, sell it at reasonable prices, provide incredible support, and give a shit about artists/humans/the world. Any time mechanical keyboards are mentioned I feel compelled to inject their name into the conversation. I've owned a Moonlander for a while now and I have nothing but good things to say about it. I'd recommend the ZSA Voyager for someone checking out not shitty keyboards for the first time.

With that out of the way: it's tough to find a lightless mech keyboard these days because backlights make sense and, so long as you're putting lights behind keycaps, you might as well use full color range LEDs and let the user set a low brightness white color or turn them off if they don't care for it. Some companies make non-backlight versions (KeyChron's K series for instance) but they're a rarity. Why produce and stock inventory that's not moving?

I recommend doing some research on how mechanical keyboards are built (watch a 10 minute video on the internet) and then using RTINGS' keyboard table for some comparison shopping. You're looking for a well rated keyboard with hot swappable PCBs designed to accommodate south-facing LEDs (they point down - less bright). One of the advantages of going mechanical is customization. Don't want the LEDs at all? Remove them from your build. Even without PCB hot swapping: no one will stop you desoldering LEDs from your keyboard.

Building out something like a Gem80 from NuPhy or a 60HE from Wooting will net you a high quality mechanical keyboard that won't get in your way but is customizable enough for you to avoid RGB-induced eye sores.

The only effective answer to organized greed is organized labor.

Unionizing every industry so there is nowhere for the owning class to practice naked greed sans consequence or feel any pressure to do otherwise is our only answer. It's not one which matches the aesthetic or level of ease most are looking for. So that's the current goal. Shift public perception of unions and collective bargaining from "talking about that will get me fired" to "unionization is essential for any working class person". Shift the current climate from "violence is inevitable" to "striking is necessary".

Our owners cannot steal our wages if we refuse to produce goods and services for them. Yes this means workers will experience pain. Not being able to pay bills, buy groceries, etc. This is the intention of the current economic reality we find ourselves locked in mortal combat with. Keeping us too scared to bite the hand that feeds for us to realize we can starve out our oppressors by doing nothing and being loud about it. Picketing is a siege on the fortress of oligarchy.

They concentrate wealth like dragons protecting a hoard not for the love of money. It's not about the money. It's about insulating themselves so securely from such a siege that we starve before they do. History tells us that's a winning strategy. It's how the aristocracy survived and evolved into the modern era. Knowing this we can reason about what is necessary to avoid repeating the past.

One may argue for governing reforms, better voting systems, government-backed protections for workers, more public sector jobs/industries, kai ta hetera, et cetera, and so on... And these things may help voters weed out elitists/sympathizers or insulate an industry for a few decades. They are placations though. Not solutions. These capitulations leave workers in stasis and package today's injustice up as an inheritance for those next in the human assembly line. That sounds like deja vu to me.

Similarly goes violent direct action. Yes, the civil rights movement was lifted by the pressure or the threat of violence from aligned and allied movements and, yes, such methods may yield short term results in any righteous struggle. No, workers do not require the same assistance for success. Labor is not fighting against any government. Governance is the medium through which the owning class wishes to arbitrate. Refuse this entrapment. No one is coming to save us.

Organize, vocalize, and strike, or lose.

Long time guitar owner here. You could get some wood glue and use a small amount to affix the chip back to the guitar pretty seamlessly so long as you've got a steady hand. In my experience it's harder than it looks.

My direct advice? Keep the missing chunk in a safe place and live with the guitar as-is for a month. There's no rush and this will give you some time to process.

If the gouge ends up sticking in your mind as something you want gone? Call a local luthier, explain what happened, that you'd like it restored, and ask for an estimate or evaluation if you want to budget for the expense. If you have a preference for a kind of repair you can ask for that too. Mending a wound on an instrument can be an opportunity to add beauty instead of simply removing a blemish. What kind of repair you want is entirely up to you and a temp fix now might make the repair more difficult / expensive.

If none of that sounds appealing and if after a few weeks the idea of a nail polish scar or other punky hack makes you happy then go for it! It's your instrument and best is conditional so go nuts. 🙂

My only concern with leaving the natural wood exposed would be moisture and cracking/paint flaking over time. Even if you think the chip looks bad ass and you end up wanting to keep it: I would ask a luthier to seal it up to preserve the instrument (battle-scar and all).

I find it more likely because it's pathetic.

Would you elaborate on this concern? I'm not sure I understand but I'd like to.

I don't know what tools they use but if Windows is an issue then the artist could use Linux.

How? What mechanisms, conditions, etc, are we manipulating which produce such a significant effect? After a bit of searching I found this write up:

https://thor3d.ca/wp/the-effects-of-print-orientation-on-strength/

Is this what we're referring to? To summarize (if I've understood this properly): Printing at 45 degrees ensures none of the print's three axes are aligned with the printer's least accurate axis of movement.

And a one 🎶 and a two 🎶 and a one, two - one two three four!

There's some good advice in the comments already and I think you're on the right track. I'd like to add a few suggestions and outline how I think about the problem.

Ask if the vendor has installation administrator guides, whitepaper, training material, etc. If yes: ask that they send it to you. You may also be able to find these on the vendor's website, customer portal, or a public knowledgebase / PDF repo.

I would want to know three things.

1. How do users authenticate through the application?
2. What are all of the ways users may access the application (local only, remote desktop, LAN only, full server/client model)?
3. Does the vendor have any prescribed solutions for defining who has access to the application, at what privilege level, with access to what features?

i.e. What parts of the user access, authenticate, authorize pipeline do application admins or system admins have control over and how can we exercise that control?

Based on some context I assume that the app is reading from Active Directory using RADIUS or LDAP for user auth and that people are physically logging into the machine.

If this is the only method of authentication then I would gate the application with a second account for each employee who requires access for business reasons defined in their job description (or as close as you can get to that level of justification - some orgs never get there). You can then control who has access to the machine via group policy. Once logged in the user can launch the application with their second account (which would have the required admin access) via "Run as..." or whatever other methods you'd prefer. No local admins logging in directly and yet an application which users can launch as admin. Goal achieved.

This paradigm lets us attempt balancing security concerns with user pain. The technically literate and daringly curious will either already know or soon discover they can leverage this privilege to install software and make some changes to the system. The additional friction, logging, and 1:1 nature of the account structure makes abusing this privilege less attractive and more easily auditable if someone does choose the fool's path.

I can imagine more complex set ups within these constraints but they require more work for the same or worse result.

Ideally you run the app with a service account and user permissions are defined via Security Groups whose level of access is tied to application features instead of system privs. There are other reasonable schemes. This one is box standard and a decent default sans other pressures.

If other methods of auth are available (like local, social, cloud, etc) then you'll have more decent options. I would define the security objectives for application access, define the user access objectives from the Organization's perspective, and then plot each solution against those two axes (napkin graphs - nothing serious). Whichever of the top three is the least administratively burdensome is then selected as my first choice for implementation with the other two as alternatives.

An aside: unless there is only one reasonable choice most folks find one option insufficient, two options difficult to decide between, and four options as having one option too many - whenever possible, if another party's buy-in is desired, present either three options or three variations on one option. This succeeds even when the differences are superficial, especially when the subject is technical, and 2x if the project lead is ignorant of the particulars. People like participating.

I'd then propose these options to my team/direct report/client, decide on a path forward together, and plan the rest from there. There's more to consider (again dependent on org maturity) but this is enough to get the project oriented and off the ground.

Regarding FOSS alternatives: you're likely locked in with the vendor's proprietary software for monitoring the cameras. There are exceptions but most commercial security system companies don't consider interoperability when designing their service offerings. It might be worth investigating but I'd be surprised if you find any third party solutions for monitoring the vendor's cameras which doesn't require either a forklift replacement of hardware, flashing all of the existing hardware, or getting hacky with the gear/software.

I hope this helps! <3

Your statement is too vague to convey an actionable suggestion. I'm intrigued by the thought you seem to be hinting at. Would you expand on this, include a recommended method, and reason about why it's an alternative to violence?

Not necessarily. You're correct that we cannot account for intention. Neither can we assert whether we are simulated. Even if we can prove this reality is simulated we cannot be sure if we are part of the simulation or inserted into it (a la The Matrix) from our current position.