theregister.com

Hubi, to world in Vietnam to collect biometrics - even DNA - for new ID cards

The law allows recording of blood type among the DNA-related information that will be contained in a national database to be shared across agencies “to perform their functions and tasks.”

That sounds even worse than what the title states.

Vietnam’s future identity cards will incorporate the functions of health insurance cards, social insurance books, driver’s licenses, birth certificates, and marriage certificates, as defined by the amendment.

Imagine a single data breach eventually exposing all this information at once. What do you even do in this case, just assume a new identity?

TIMMAY,

That would be very bad but also it doesnt really feel like that isnt close to the situation we already have

CaptainPedantic,

DNA

assume a new identity?

I don’t think a new identity will be much help with your genetic information floating around…

isles,

What do you even do in this case, just assume a new identity?

A few years down the line, people will use something akin to CRISPR to alter their DNA to defeat these systems.

scratchandgame, to privacy in Vietnam to collect biometrics - even DNA - for new ID cards

They are better than those who cannot manage their own people.

Grant_M, to technology in Trump 'tried to sell Truth Social to Musk' as SPAC deal stalled
@Grant_M@lemmy.ca avatar

Ahahaaaahhahahaa

athos77, to technology in Trump 'tried to sell Truth Social to Musk' as SPAC deal stalled

It was pretty obvious that Trump would try to scam Musk. Fortunately, given his own difficulties, Musk was unlikely to agree - we're just fortunate these bills are coming due so far in advance of the election. And also that, given Musk's foreign birth, he'll never be eligible to be president or vice president (something that I'm sure sticks in his craw).

ringwraithfish,

We really don’t tell Musk to go back to his own country enough.

diskmaster23,

“Go back to Africa!”

helenslunch,
@helenslunch@feddit.nl avatar

This is amazing.

Midnitte,

Blood Diamond Miners: 😰

Neato,
@Neato@ttrpg.network avatar

It’s not like Musk has $10B anyways.

someguy3, to technology in Trump 'tried to sell Truth Social to Musk' as SPAC deal stalled

Not a bad idea actually. Just have to convince Musk that there are some Truth Social secret files that, uh, are important for, uh, that show gubment bad!

avidamoeba, to technology in Trump 'tried to sell Truth Social to Musk' as SPAC deal stalled
@avidamoeba@lemmy.ca avatar

Either way, Trump’s Truth Social woes and finances might be getting a reprieve soon. The SEC approved the deal last month, which could be worth up to $10 billion. Trump, who would hold more than half the shares of the combined company, would reportedly stand to raise his net worth by some $4 billion - more than enough to handle those legal problems without Musk’s help.

What the fuck.

SnotFlickerman,
@SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

'MURICA, land of the endless access to money for the already-rich and politically connected.

Neato,
@Neato@ttrpg.network avatar

Feb 15 (Reuters) - The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission allowed Donald Trump’s media and technology company to merge with a blank-check acquisition vehicle in a deal that currently values the parent of his social media app Truth Social at as much as $10 billion.

So someone is essentially gifting Trump billions for a “merger”.

millie, to technology in Trump 'tried to sell Truth Social to Musk' as SPAC deal stalled

The hell do these bozos have to do with the Saratoga Performing Arts Center?

Gorgeous venue.

jarfil, to technology in Trump 'tried to sell Truth Social to Musk' as SPAC deal stalled

Truth Social, essentially a Mastodon clone

Wait, what?.. 😳

The Trump Truth Social network removes the most freedom-friendly features of the Fediverse

Phew.

authed, (edited ) to privacy in Google Safe Browsing makes real-time protection private

no thanks, I like “risky” browsing. Never liked that Firefox implemented that Google feature.

Zerush,
@Zerush@lemmy.ml avatar

Agree, in Vivaldi was the first thing I desactivated in the settings. It’s nothing what an good ad/trackerblocker also do (uBO, or the inbuild one in Vivaldi, it also blocks the access to phising or badware pages)

LWD,

Kudos to you for posting the article even if you did disagree with it

Zerush,
@Zerush@lemmy.ml avatar

I can only speak for me, not for others. I have put this information for users who use browsers where the Google “Save” Browsing API cannot be disabled and for those who use Google anyway. This way at least they know that they have one Spyware less, if this information is true (at least in the EU)

haui_lemmy, to privacy in Google Safe Browsing makes real-time protection private

Google and privacy only fit in the same sentence if they got fined, called out or if its satire.

cypherpunks, to privacy in Google Safe Browsing makes real-time protection private
@cypherpunks@lemmy.ml avatar

It sure is convenient for law enforcement and others to have the ability to immediately get the IP addresses of all visitors to a specific URL. (They just need to circumvent the OHTTP by asking fastly and google to collude…)

LWD,

I thought Fastly sounded familiar. They’re partnering with everybody these days, including Mozilla to push “private” shopping ads in their latest browser shopping feature, and Invisiv in their multi-hop VPN.

LWD, to privacy in Google Safe Browsing makes real-time protection private

The Register is usually on point. What’s up?

Scolding0513,

journalism is all but dead sadly. all blogs and papers sold themselves out

GolfNovemberUniform, to linux in Linux kernel 4.14 gets a life extension, thanks to OpenELA
@GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml avatar

So 90% of the Android devices can still get custom kernel updates? Nice

pastermil,

Brave of you to assume this gets backported to custom vendor kernel packages.

bigkahuna1986,

vendors: we’ve back ported the kernel by allowing you to purchase a new phone!

taladar, to linux in Linux kernel 4.14 gets a life extension, thanks to OpenELA

Personally I think it would be of great benefit if Enterprise vendors just stopped doing that extremely long term support. It just enables the people who want to pretend they can stop the world around them and those people are bad for everyone, especially in a security context but also because they pretend that “stability” is achieved by using old versions.

caseyweederman,

I hope that the community at large can wrestle kernel livepatching away from the commercial distros. No reason the big names should have a monopoly on that.

Even where those are concerned, it’s not a silver bullet for seamlessly jumping major kernel versions, but it’s a start.

Atemu,
@Atemu@lemmy.ml avatar

Kernel livepatching is super niche and I don’t see what it has to do with the topic at hand.

caseyweederman,

I feel it was a direct reply to the comment above.
Dinosaurs don’t want to give up their extended LTS kernels because upgrading is a hassle and often requires rebooting, occasionally to a bad state.
So how can you bring your userbase forward so you don’t have to keep slapping security patches onto an ancient kernel?

Atemu,
@Atemu@lemmy.ml avatar

I feel it was a direct reply to the comment above.

At no point did it mention livepatching.

Dinosaurs don’t want to give up their extended LTS kernels because upgrading is a hassle and often requires rebooting, occasionally to a bad state.

No, Dinosaurs want LTS because it’s stable; it’s in the name.

You can’t have your proprietary shitware kernel module in any kernel other than the ABI it’s made for. You can’t run your proprietary legacy service heap of crap on newer kernels where the kernel APIs function slightly differently.

how can you bring your userbase forward so you don’t have to keep slapping security patches onto an ancient kernel?

That still has nothing to do with livepatching.

taladar,

No, Dinosaurs want LTS because it’s stable; it’s in the name.

Mostly they want LTS because if they never upgrade nobody can blame them for the failures that are happening because “not doing things” is seen as less blame-worthy than “doing things”. Actual stability is not achieved by running ancient version numbers with backported fixes. Nor is it achieved by never rebooting and then wondering why nothing works when you are inevitably forced to reboot by some unpreventable external circumstance. Actual stability is achieved by testing updates before applying them and doing so frequently so increments are small and causes of problems thus easily identifiable and fixable.

Atemu,
@Atemu@lemmy.ml avatar

Amen.

fruitycoder,

I think Arch has FOSS support kernel live patchingNixos also has an open issue where they seem to be discussing an implementation they might consider.

With upstream support and kpatch being FOSS I think the willingness is just low to maintain patches at a distro level and announcing it as a thing you can do yourself has limited audience.

I agree its super cool though and with containers and some of systems work for system level reboots and portable services I see a lot of potential for high uptime systems (like my laptop lol).

corsicanguppy,

Personally I think it would be of great benefit if Enterprise vendors just stopped doing that extremely long term support. It just enables the people who want to pretend they can stop the world around them and those people are bad for everyone, especially in a security context but also because they pretend that “stability” is achieved by using old versions.

This is how I know you need to learn more about the Enterprise, about long-term support, and stability. Everything you wrote sounds like “Smoke detectors and seat belts are for chumps”

taladar,

I know a lot more about those topics than I ever wished I would.

Stability doesn’t magically appear because you leave the version number unchanged. Stability is the result of qualified people (hint: people backporting patches in 100s of projects they barely know aren’t very qualified in comparison to the main developers of those projects) making well-informed changes to a project and then testing them.

Old versions with backports are still new versions, just new versions with a smaller user base and less testing.

Stability is also much harder to achieve if you do certain tasks rarely, e.g. only every 10 years, since nobody will remember how to do them.

Upstream supports those old releases only begrudgingly because every feature that needs support across all versions in use is held back by those extremely long term support versions.

I am not objecting to the goal of stability, I am objecting to the snakeoil that pretends you can achieve it by using the same version number all the time basically with a forked branch of the code that contains cherry-picked changes.

fruitycoder,

Agreed at a certain point supporting an old enough ABI is just a practice in preservation and shouldn’t be where any serious work is done on.

There are still companies that treat software development as if they craving stone for future generations instead of living collections of logic, idioms, and ideas (that reasonbly should be expected to adapted or replaced as conditions change!)

caseyweederman, to linux in Linux kernel 4.14 gets a life extension, thanks to OpenELA

I do like the point about encouraging the major distros to combine their efforts on kernel versions. Everyone would benefit from that (which is why they don’t do it, not when they’re making money off of extended LTS services)

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • fightinggames
  • All magazines