I have really, really, really bad news for you about any modern SoC, including all those by Qualcomm. Their ROM private keys are widely available to the three letter agencies. Your OS, while cute, provides no protection at all to anyone who has physical access. Secure boot root keys give away the whole kingdom
There are no "ROM private keys" in Qualcomm or most other chips. The root of trust is fused in by the OEM. Apparently the exception is Apple.
They would have to individually steal keys from every OEM, in GraphenOS' case meaning Google. Then they'd have to do the right dance to fake the right stuff to satisfy the Secure Element(TM) and get it to let them use the data encryption keys. Which, by the way, I believe requires forking over a hash that may vary among individual phones; you have to know which version of the appropriate stage you want to fake.
... and you'll excuse me if I'm skeptical of your confident statements about what TLAs do or don't have access to, especially when you start talking about keys that don't exist.
if you’re denied at the border for expressing speech online at some historic point (non-violent) then how can “respecting the culture” work?
When I am in Saudi Arabia, I don’t wear shorts out of respect for their culture; but they don’t go through my instagram looking for pictures of me in shorts.
There is no culture there to respect. That is why I'd never visit at all. As for the US, probably 0.000001% or so had sad experiences at the border. Those are good odds for having a great vacation.
In fairness, all western democracies have an enormous number of laws, so most citizens are already in violation of some tiny law or paragraph somewhere.
Is this right? No, not at all. But that should not lead us to stop living our lives in search of some utopia that will never exist under democracy.
> As for the US, probably 0.000001% or so had sad experiences at the border.
Heh it’s a lot more than that. About 1/3rd of my Australian friends have a story to tell about unfortunate US border crossing experiences. I personally know two (white) people who were denied entry at the border - in both cases for allegedly ridiculous reasons.
My partner was arrested at the beach once in the US. The police wanted her to narc on someone she was travelling with and she refused. (The case was thrown out of court by a furious judge, but it was a whole thing).
in the US we have free speech for citizens (generally). People in foreign countries are not citizens of the US. they do not receive the benefit of our free speech protections (whatever those may be), since they are not, in fact, citizens of the US.
you replied with an article about the US Vice President decrying what happened. I thought that to be a non-sequitur, so i asked what you were trying to say.
You said you don't arrest people at your border for [speech].
i responded to that non-sequitur with two reports of people being arrested for speech, who cares if it's at the border? that's UK citizens being arrested for "speech", not foreigners! Like, thanks, i guess, for letting us have free speech when you don't?
and here we are.
* note: i don't think we arrest people at the border, just deny entry. i could be mistaken, though.
But I only hold guests responsible for what they say while in my home. Not what they have said to their friends in DMs 6 months beforehand.
But the analogy is imprecise because the border patrol isn’t inviting people and revoking invitations when they misbehave. They are granting access to public spaces or revoking that. And the idea that a public place should do anything more than gate on current activity in that place is insane (for speech!)
That’s why I said the analogy was imperfect. Because border guards (or the state) aren’t “inviting” anyone. It’s not an endorsement to let people in (unlike a friend to your house)
If I would push it further to the extreme, "you" are inviting yourself. You're not a guest yet, you're inviting yourself, showing up at a stranger's door asking to be let in.
Though I agree with you that analogies have limits.
I am not even sure of anything at this point, especially after reading the comments around, almost as if it was bigotry.
It could be a cultural / education difference too; I was taught that local cultures are equally legitimate as much as my personal culture.
In a world where people get canceled for things they said a decade ago, and for people whom they are friends with, and for what those friends said a decade ago, you are walking a fine line by not screening your guests’ past DMs
> Be respectful of the tradition, culture and laws of the local country that you visit and you will be fine.
> It's not your role to decide or interfere in the politics of other countries where you are not a permanent resident. Think of it like you being a guest.
> It's not your role to decide or interfere in the politics of other countries where you are not a permanent resident. Think of it like you being a guest.
Well, that's a pretty damned repulsive view.
Countries, governments, whatever, don't have a right to just do whatever they want to their citizens without anybody else noticing. All individuals morally outrank all institutions.
As a counterpoint: I lived in Melbourne, Australia during the pandemic. We were going for elimination. We tried some of the world’s strictest lockdown laws.
Apparently there were protests in NY of all places on our behalf. I don’t know what they were hoping would happen - would the state of NY ask our state to change our laws for them? How bizarre. Our local policies are up to us, thanks.
Surely NY had other things to worry about at the time? The news we were hearing of ambulances in NY queueing outside overpacked hospitals… though I suppose the media there was saying equally scary things about life in Melbourne.
Our lockdowns didn’t work, but we loved our state premier for trying. He was so popular that the following election, the other political parties didn’t really bother to show up. The opinion of New Yorkers was against the will of most locals here. It was sweet to protest for us. But it had very weird vibes.
Then pass Karen's Law and start fining the people making those calls if made without good reason to believe of imminent or reasonable danger to the child. It not only screws up society, but is a complete waste of resources.
I'd say taste is a consequence of lifestyle, which is learned by doing. And art critics often have bad lifestyle, which is visible in their bad taste. When art is virtual life, it would define a lifestyle, which is adopted by doing, in its turn producing taste.
I am confident that I do not live in a Newtonian world. Not as confident as the characters in Egan's "Incandescence" who live somewhere that those primary school spring balance experiments prove Einstein's physics not Newton's - but very sure considering.
We are already remote sensors and manipulators for the corporate and economic structures we operate under. You can't see it, but we are ants in a superorganism.
More evidence of the philosophical concept of 'technology is a life form.' Humans would be the perfect host, at least for the time being. They are certainly a willing host.
reply