This bodycam video shows the aftermath of a wrongful arrest where police relied heavily on an AI facial recognition match, leading to an innocent man being taken into custody. The clip highlights not just a specific incident, but a broader problem with emerging policing tools that can produce false positives with serious consequences.
I think banning IPs is a treadmill you never really get off of. Between cloud providers, VPNs, CGNAT, and botnets, you spend more time whack-a-moling than actually stopping abuse. What’s worked better for me is tarpitting or just confusing the hell out of scrapers so they waste their own resources.
What I’d really love to see - but probably never will—is companies joining forces to share data or support open projects like Common Crawl. That would raise the floor for everyone. But, you know… capitalism, so instead we all reinvent the wheel in our own silos.
If you can automate the treadmill and set a timeout at which point the 'bad' IPs will go back to being 'not necessarily bad', then you're minimising the effort required.
An open project that classifies and records this - would need a fair bit of on-going protection, ironically.
Meshtastic is fun but limited—more of a radio chat app than real mesh infrastructure. If you're serious about decentralized comms, check out Reticulum: https://reticulum.network
It’s not limited to LoRa—Reticulum works over IP, serial, packet radio, or whatever you have. Delay-tolerant, multi-hop, encrypted, no servers needed. Still lots of work to do and apps to build, but the foundation is solid.
Presentations and transcripts of the 2nd Workshop on Research and Development for the Development of the Copernicus EU Security Service, organized by the European Commission on 12/12/2023 in the framework of the Strategic Research Agenda and hosted by EMSA.
Requested via german POI plattform fragdenstaat.de.
To legally claim asylum in a schengen state which has no external border to non-schengen states you literally have to fall out of the sky or travel into the country on a tourist visa.
Guess what happens in the moment a crisis breaks out like it happened in Syria? Yes right, all the wealthy northern european states do not give out tourist visas anymore.
But the sub-thread was about immigration policies, not about refugee policies. It is perfectly consistent to have simultaneously lax immigration policy and harsh refugee policy (or vice versa).
But there is also no possibility to ask for asylum in an embessy. Asylum is a right given by the constitution in germany and its not possible to fullfill this right because of the european border politics.
Sure you can go to turkey - where you have no chance to legalize your status in mid- or long term. Where your children are not allowed to go to school.
You won't be sued (I'm not a lawyer) as long as you're not breaking and ToC, or misleading users into using it and sending you their data.
That's the reason the actor in the article is being sued, not because they're scraping, but because it was sending it to a 3rd party without consent or knowledge.
> You won't be sued (I'm not a lawyer) as long as you're not breaking and ToC, or misleading users into using it and sending you their data.
You can probably mislead them all you want in most jurisdictions. After all, that's what Facebook is already doing - how many of its billion+ users do you think are fully aware of how much external data Facebook gets access to?
Outright lying on the other hand, that's what's going to get you in trouble:
> a privacy policy that claimed they did not collect any personal information
What they want to do, cannot be done by Wireguard, because Wireguard does not have the concept of "VPN sessions / connections". What they probably need to do is to assign each customer a fixed private IP for use within their VPN, e.g. from 10.0.0.0/8.
When those are not enough any more, they need to segment their VPN, so they can re-use the private IP space in each segment.
w.r.t. to "NeuroRouting and TrackStop not possible", they could route their stuff through a TUN interface to do whatever they want to do in user space. With a performance cost.
This is a common critic of WireGuard, but it looks like those service are looking for excuses to explain why they don't propose WireGuard yet. As far as I understang it:
> What they probably need to do is to assign each customer a fixed private IP for use within their VPN, e.g. from 10.0.0.0/8.
Actually, they can set a different IP for each session and rotate them by given it to the client out of band, for example when it authenticates to the service.
> When those are not enough any more, they need to segment their VPN
Like with all other VPNs right? They could also distribute IPv6 for the tunnel and this would not be an issue.
> Actually, they can set a different IP for each session and rotate them by given it to the client out of band, for example when it authenticates to the service.
Like I said, Wireguard does not have the concept of sessions. You could add your own proprietary "stuff" around Wireguard to add that concept, but then you don't need anything extra from Wireguard. You add the keys of the users as part of the session setup and remove them when the session is destroyed. Of course, this means that clients have to use a client tool provided by you.
