Women-only social media app Giggle for Girls taken to court by transgender woman Roxanne Tickle after her account was restricted
homura1650 @ homura1650 @lemm.ee Posts 0Comments 206Joined 2 yr. ago
homura1650 @ homura1650 @lemm.ee
Posts
0
Comments
206
Joined
2 yr. ago
I'm not familiar with Australian law, but how do you get to "discrimination on the basis of gender identity" in this case. Wouldn't the case for that be a trans man trying to join or stay on the app? (Or a cis man for that matter).
It sounds like Tickle's position is that the app should be discriminating based on gender identity. Her complaint seems more like them discriminating on (vaguely defined policy ammounting to) assigned gender at birth.
Having said that, I suspect their tune will change if a trans man tried joining.
It is literally the 2 paragraphs that OP quoted in the submission.
The thing is, that excuse actually seems worse to me than just saying "yeah, one of our people saw an aid convoy and decided to order an attack". The latter is a single bad apple. Sure, in that counterfactual Israel should have noticed the person was unfit and never let him in a command position. However, people are unpredictable and momsters exist.
However, in the story Israel gave, there was no individual monster; only a systemic one. Misreading a grainy image is not a crime. It is not even morally wrong. And, more importantly, it is going to happen thousands of times weather you like it or not. The problem was the policy that that single determination was enough to authorize a strike. According to Israel; that policy is a-ok.
There are 3 possibilities:
- Israel internationally bombed a clearly marked aid convoy after being informed of and approving their route.
- Israel internationally adopted rules of engagement so lax that they allowed for 3 accidental bombings on a clearly marked aid convoy after being informed of and approving their route.
- All of the above.
The problem for Israel is that all of those possibilities are war crimes.
He was already convicted of the financial crimes at the state level as well.
I'm one of those security specialists (although not on mastodon). To be clear, if a vulnerable version of libxz were included in a distribution that we actually use; this would be an all hands on deck, drop everything until it is fixed emergency.
Having said that, for an average user, it probably doesn't matter. First, many users just don't have the vulnerable version installed. All things considered, it was found very quickly; so only rolling release distros would have it. Additionally, it appears that only .deb or .rpm based distributions would have it. Not because they are particularly vulnerable, the attack explicitly tests for it.
However, lets set all of this asside and assume a typical use is running a vulnerable system. In my assessment, the risk to them is still quite low. With most vulnerabilities, the hard part is discovering it. Once that happens, the barrier to exploiting it is relatively low, so you get a bunch of unrelated hackers trying to exploit any system they can find. This case is different; exploiting it requires the attackers private key. Even though the attack is now widely known, there is still only 1 organization capable of using it.
Further, this attack was sophisticated. I'm not going to go as far as others in saying that only a state actor could do it. However, it is hard to think of anyone other than a state actor who would do it. Maybe a group of college kids doing it for the lolz research? But, if the motivation us lolz, I don't see them pivoting to do anything damaging with it. And even if they wanted to, there would still only be a handful of them. In short, this is one of those cases where obscurity works. Whoever did this attack does not know or care about Joe the Linux user; and they were probably never going to risk burning it by exploiting it on a large scale.
However, setting all of that asside, suppose you were using vulnerable software, and someone with the private key is interested in your home system. First, you would need to be running OpenSSH on a remotely accessible interface. [0]. Second, you would need your firewall to allow remote SSH traffic. Third, you would need your router to have port forwarding enabled; and explicitly configured to forward traffic to your OpenSSH server [1].
If all of that happens; then yes, you would be at risk.
[0] Even though the attack itself is in the libxz library, it appears to specifically target OpenSSH.
[1] Or, the attacker would need some other mechanism to get on the same network as you.
"Treat others the way you want to be treated".
This: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JebyNOvJmCM&pp=ygUfYmFsdGltb3JlIGJyaWdhZGUgY29sbGFwc2UgbGl2ZQ%3D%3D
Police audio from the incident: https://youtu.be/xzOvImnlHFc?si=INIeTXr7ThY5dAlw
The whole bridge just collapsed
And the police did stop traffic from getting onto the bridge. Listening to the police audio [0], it sounds like they were in position almost immediately after the request came in. Having said that, I don't think they were quite fast enough for the traffic already on the bridge to get off.
If they had responded faster, they might have made it in time for the one officer to be on the bridge evacuating the workers when it collapsed. With the benefit of hindsight, that would have accomplished nothing except 1 more death.
I'm often pretty critical of police, but I see absolutely nothing they could have done better in this case.
Police audio from the event:
It sounds like police got their just in time to stop traffic. One of the officers says that as soon as backup arrives to take over stopping traffic he would go and evacuate the workers; when we get the report that the bridge is gone.
If you watch the stream of the crash, you can see that traffic was flowing just moments before it fell.
Around 2 years ago, I got an email from a products team asking me for urgent help extending a program in time to make a sale.
I looked over the program and wrote back sonething along the lines of "this program was written almost a decade ago by an unsupervisered highschool intern. Why TF are we still using it?".
Of course, I ended up helping them, because that highschool intern was me, and I ended up helping because no one else could figure out what highschool me was thinking.
Java did have a Security Manager that can be used to prevent this sort of thing. The original thinking was that the Java runtime would essentially be an OS, and you could have different applets running within the runtime. This required a permission system where you could confine the permissions of parts of a Java program without confining the entire thing; which led to the Java security manager.
Having said that, the Java Security Manager, while an interesting idea, has never been good. The only place it has ever seen significant use was in webapps, where it earned Java the reputation for being insecure. Nowadays, Java webapps are ancient history due to the success of Javascript.
The security manager was depreciated in Java 17, and I believe removed entirely in Java 21.
But he can be held responsible for the US's actions.
The extant to which treaties carry weight under US law is untested. Congress tried going to court over this in Goldwater v Carter over Carter's withdrawal from the Sino-American mutual defense treaty. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the case as "unfit for judicial review".
Biden is also arguably violating the Foreign Assistance Act, which provides that:
Except under circumstances specified in this section, no security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.
However, the Senate voted 72-11 against attempying to enforce the relevent provisions in this case.
This is not a privacy bill. Anyone referring to it as a privacy bill is lying. Not even the bill title claims to be about privacy. It is the "Protecting Americans’4 Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024".
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
The US navy also has the world's second largest air force. Beaten only by the US air force.
More aid is irrelevant once you have enough aid. And you can get enough aid in through land. More importantly, we have the roads and trucks to get food in today. We have been using the land route to get food into Gaza for years. The problem is that the most powerful military in the region is blocking the land route.
Now, instead of applying pressure on that military, we are going to spend months building a port to go around them.
By itself that makes sense; except that military is our close ally. We are their biggest shield on the international stage, and biggest supplier of weapons and defensive systems. However, instead of trying to leverage any of that to try and solve the actual barriers to aid delivery, we are going to spend months building a water route.
If this approach ends up working, it would not be because water routes are more efficient. It would ve because the US war ships operating the dock exert enough pressure that Isreal would not dare oppose them.
Of course, even success here only gets food into Gaza. It does not address internal distribution. Ideally, we would use established networks for that. However Israel has running a largly successful campaign to dismantle the only aid network that has been operating at scale within Gaza (unrwa)
When there is a severe shortage of food; any food is at risk of being targeted by desperate people. Food is a tier 1 need. It doesn't matter if the food is being delivered by land or sea. The solution to this is to provide enough food that people know they are not going to starve to death even without resorting to violence to get what food they can
Additionally, this judgment is for his civil fraud trial. Where he was found liable for inflating the value of his properties in order to obtain loans against them.
Given that, I can understand a general reluctance to loan against the value of his properties.
Under what law? I'm not familiar with Australia, but here the the US, transfolk are just piggybacking off of legal protections against gender discrimination; which were never actually intended to protect trans people.
In most cases, that actually works out fine. If you discriminate against a transwomen, it's because you think they are a man presenting as a women. However, you have no problem with a women presenting as a women, so you are running afoul of gender discrimination laws. Legally speaking, your problem was discriminating against her for being a man.
In instances like this though, that argument doesn't apply. Once you get to the "you are discriminating against her for being a man" stage of the analysis, the response is simply "yes, and I'm allowed to discriminate against men".
It seems like Australia would need to have a law that specifically protects trans people for her to prevail here.