Even with "E2E" encryption with iMessage, you're still trusting Apple completely and totally with key distribution. If a new device is added to your account by an attacker or by Apple themselves, your existing devices will happily loop them in to share iMessage access with them. The vast, vast majority of iMessage users are never going to dig into the Apple keychain app to actually check what keys are being trusted and this is something that can be targeted to a single account so no one outside of Apple never even needs to know it happened.
> An unrecognized new device was added to that person’s Apple Account. This alert might mean that the person you are messaging has an issue with one of their devices, or that a sophisticated attacker might be attempting to eavesdrop on the conversation.
My understanding is that iMessage implements PFS. To get around PFS and access older messages, one needs to get their hand on a backup, which needs fully enrolling a device, not just messaging key exchange hackery.
And as far
as trusting Apple with key exchange, well, if you're running their OS and hardware, I suppose that trust of key exchange is the least of your concern (or part of the whole deal anyway depending on how you look at it)
Uh-oh, I have that turned off. I’m used to seeing a message when someone on Signal gets a new phone, but I’d be none the wiser with a snooper on iMessage. Any downsides to enabling you know of? Assuming all my logged-in devices are on a current/supported version.
How does this square with FOIA obligations? I get ICE sidestepping transparency by avoiding creating the responsive footage in the first place, but once the body cam footage exists, what basis could they use to withhold it other than redacting footage for the typical reasons?
ICE doesn't exactly have a track record of following any laws or courts in general. So I wouldn't expect them to answer any FOIA obligation.
This is the fundamental flaw uncovered in the US system by the current administration. Turns out that if one agency decides to go rogue and declare that no laws apply to them, there is no mechanism in place to prevent that.
“In April 2026, the Trump administration's Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion declaring the 1978 Presidential Records Act unconstitutional.”
There is certainly an assault on government record keeping.
Also there is an assault on non-partisan governmental employees. This administration is politicizing government at all levels — bureaucrats are losing their legal cover in the fight for compliance.
Emily Bazelon of the Slate Political Gabfest talks about the federal government in legal cases is losing their _presumption of regularity_. Which is to say courts had previously dealt with justice department under the assumption they would follow laws and court orders. Not so much these days.
Funny side note. I had a BS moving violation ticket. I called to request camera footage from the police vehicle. I was told how to request it and received in the mail a polite refusal stating it was being used in an ongoing investigation. Ha! Mine. (I did have a court date, no video, but I did win my case).
Some people are calling it the administration with the biggest thumb-sucking babies of all time. Terrified little cowards, everywhere.
Things they have said are a threat to national security that must be prevented:
* Bodycam releases, broadly
* Windmills
* Not having a $400 grifted ballroom they had no approval for
They'll probably say the same about the golf course Trump is trying to install, as he takes over jogging/biking/picnic spaces from DC's Haynes Point this fall.
It's all made up. It's just an excuse to betray democracy, a cloak of darkness. Their own National Insecurity.
You need at least twice the frequency range for sample rate in order to represent the original signal. That's slightly misleading though, that's from the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theory and it's a mathematical fact but that is true for exact numerical samples, once you add in quantization that muddies the water a bit. Taken at the extreme, it's straightforward to see why a 1 bit quantization per sample at 44.1 kHz would not capture a perfect representation of some analog signal even if there's only a 1 kHz frequency component to the signal. If we instead decide to sample at 10 MHz but still one bit quantization, now that 1 kHz frequency component can be much more accurately represented even though we're still using the worst quantization possible. Don't think of quantization like a square wave or a step pattern, think of it as "the signal is closer to here than any other discrete value".
Now in terms of realistic audio encoding, 16 bit at 44.1 kHz is designed to be a faithful representation as far as human hearing is concerned. Can someone with a trained ear potentially tell the difference between that and 24 bit at 192 kHz? In a studio environment it's possible. Most audiophile claims are dubious and a blind A/B test catches them out on most of it but the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem does not directly apply to quantized samples, it's about exact samples and with quantization, sampling rate is intertwined somewhat with the quantization depth.
That's a halted firewall setup. Normally as part of shutdown you would tear down networking in SysVinit or systemd but you don't actually have to do that. When shutting down you can choose whether to power off or just to halt. It's basically like the old Windows "It is now safe to power off your PC".
Like when Runescape allowed you to purchase membership via a premium rate number. Lots of fraud going on back when that was a thing and a big part of why it's no longer a thing.
There are some typos like "if" instead of "of" that seem to imply at the very least, some of it is verbatim written by a person. Given the subject matter, I'd be extremely surprised if this was 100% AI but one thing I've totally done for similar technical writing is ask AI for help refining a rough draft. There's some suggestions I'd ignore but the larger grammatical and sentence structure suggestions I'd usually adopt.
A bootable container, kernel included, is not a container. Building a whole new OS image for patches isn't a bad idea, but depending on the workload this might be a non-starter. At the very least, make updates to the OS image incremental ala OSTree. kexec can also be a nice speedup on server hardware but that carries its own risks from kexec itself but also from lack of exercising cold boot. It's not nice to find out about a few percent of hosts failing to boot all at once because nothing tested it for months until the power outage.
IMHO, optimizing your update process and treating whole OS environments like we do containers is good, but there are plenty of environments like stateful services where a rolling reboot can still take months to complete if done in a naive way.
While DAOS looks cool, from their roadmap it looks like they still don't have a fault domain larger than a server... Their erasure coding profiles also look pretty thin. I'm ex-Meta, our infra had vastly different availability and reliability requirements but that looks like it'd be painful to support at scale.
