[–] 1 point 2 days ago

No, a much better comparison is that his backyard is already wide open. Whenever you go there he takes you all around his backyard. There are no signs saying you shouldn't go to certain parts or fences stopping you. You go there to look at other parts and he still takes you there. Then one day he gets mad and says he himself took you to a part of his backyard that he didn't want to, and rather than put up a better fence, he's going to have you arrested for trespassing with multiple felonies... no warning, straight to prison!

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 7 points 2 days ago* (1 child)

    Lol, doesn't matter if you have expensive lawyers. What matters is that you have counsel that goes to church with the judge or plays golf at the country club with them, or knows people that do. Or you're a Zionists genocide supporter and pedophile like Alan Dershowitz.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 23 points 2 days ago* (2 children)

    But he did have access via university. Besides, my understanding is he was scraping research journals, many of which would not have been possible without grants from tax dollars. Meaning the mere fact that the research is publicly funded means the journals should also be public.But they didn't even prove he distributed them. For all we know, he was planning to have an AI use them for training and apparently that isn't a problem.

    You do realize as well that almost every site you visit makes API requests. And you can then use the same API to request other data directly. And the difference between "public" and unauthorized access often comes down to whether you used the same API that your browser would call, but instead decided to make other calls to it directly.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 24 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Musk made multiple implications that Trump was a pedophile and that is why he was hiding the Epstein files, only to then go back to giving him money and hanging out with him. If you donate money to someone you think is a pedophile that makes you a pedophile. Simple as that.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    For a long time it felt like BlueSky was just a Blue MAGA version of X. It has gotten a bit better and I see more progressive discourse, but circa the 2024 election it was just a bunch of what I'm guessing were campaign-funded influencers/bots and then people that thrived off that bubble without realizing they were in an echo chamber. I think it is great that alternatives exists, especially since I got banned from X for criticizing Musk. It is at least reassuring when I see various companies/politicians not merely relying on Twitter/X these days.

  • source
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 week ago

    Nah, really I use SimpleLogin for a majority of things these days and have for a few years. This is mostly just a long-lived Gmail account I've used, where I didn't always do that, and despite trying to switch over nearly all of my accounts emails to unique aliases, it doesn't stop the plethora of companies that likely never removed my old email from their systems. Ping me in a week if you want and I'll show you another 500+ spam emails, many pretending to be real companies. I just went through my spam today.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    Honestly I don't do anything unusual with it. It's just my main account for everyday things. What is unusual is the sheer amount of cyberbreach notices I get every single year telling me almost every company and government agency I interact with has been compromised.

    If you exist in modern society, data brokers likely have a massive profile on you, and those brokers are notoriously terrible at actually securing that data.

    Take LexisNexis for example. Just look at the news from a couple days ago:

    https://www.scworld.com/brief/lexisnexis-services-offline-due-to-unusual-activity-on-third-party-vendor-servers

    And what are they doing with all this data they clearly can't keep secure? Selling it to literally anyone with a checkbook, including the government:

    https://lawreview.colorado.edu/print/volume-95/lexisnexiss-contract-with-ice-as-unjust-enrichment-lizzie-bird/

    ICE is literally paying LexisNexis millions of dollars for access to data to feed into Palantir's ELITE system so they can figure out which neighborhoods to target for raids.

    So you've got these massive, unregulated data brokers hoarding heavily enriched profiles on us (names, addresses, primary emails, who we do business with) and selling them off to power government surveillance, only to constantly get popped or have their third-party vendors compromised. That data then gets dumped straight to scammers.

    That's exactly why the phishing attacks I'm getting are so highly targeted and use real company names—the scammers already likely know what services I use because the data brokers packaged it up and failed to protect it. I'm not putting my email where it doesn't belong or signing up for shady sites. My inbox is just collateral damage in a completely broken data economy where our information leaks constantly.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] -5 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    You’re completely confusing device classes and how forensic acquisition works.

    First, it's a USB Mass Storage device, not a USB HID (Human Interface Device). Mass Storage operates via SCSI block commands wrapped in USB packets.

    Second, even if the custom firmware successfully fakes the LBA table to report 8 GB, it fails at the protocol level. Forensic tools don't just read files—they issue low-level SCSI INQUIRY and MODE SENSE commands. Commercial flash controllers (Phison, Silicon Motion) have hardcoded ASIC signatures and proprietary descriptors. A generic CH569 MCU running C code trying to fake these descriptors or pass off software-bridged microSD reads introduces packet latency, timing jitter, and missing SCSI pages that log protocol anomalies during raw acquisition.

    Finally, software doesn't matter if they look at the hardware. Modern 3D CT/X-ray baggage scanners visually isolate silicon footprints instantly without opening the casing. A standard commercial drive is a single integrated ASIC on NAND. A board with a generic CH569 MCU, voltage regulators, UART test points, and a physical microSD socket stands out.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Do you think TSA/CBP is going to check the flash data lines to see if the MCU is scanning the flash internally?

    This isn’t a standard USB flash controller… You would need to break the casing and physically probe it to figure out that something was off as far as I can tell. It’s not like the MCU broadcasts that it is scanning to the USB port.

    You would have to be hitting the stick pretty hard, not just a normal file scan to notice the timing being slightly too long in a small portion of the scans. The bigger problem would be that the flash drive would be brand-recognizable if it ends up being mass produced that they might auto-confiscate it, and of course the default file that it searches for being known.

    You’re proving my point. The device actually fails both ends of the threat model.

    If it’s a casual check, custom hardware is total overkill. You take a standard 1 TB off-the-shelf drive formatted to its full 1 TB capacity as a single partition. You put normal files on it and hide the encrypted header—plus a lightweight host-side decryption utility/bootloader—inside a single JPEG using steganography. To any border agent, OS, or disk tool, the drive is just a healthy 1 TB partition containing readable files and residual random data from a quick format. There are no custom drivers installed, no modified media file sizes, and no missing drive space to trigger software or system flags. Once at your destination, you simply extract the utility from the JPEG on a trusted machine to mount the hidden sectors.

    If it’s a high-scrutiny check, this custom hardware actively guarantees you stand out. CBP doesn't need software checks—non-destructive X-ray imaging is standard screening. Under a scan, a mass-produced thumb drive shows a single integrated ASIC on NAND. The Phantom Drive immediately reveals a generic CH569 microcontroller, buck regulators, UART test points, etc.

    It visually stands out like a neon sign under basic physical imaging. It doesn’t defeat the threat model—it actively creates the physical hardware anomaly.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  •  

    Has anyone else’s Gmail inbox just completely gone off the rails recently? At the beginning of 2025, I was getting maybe 10 to 15 spam messages a week. Now I'm easily clearing 500+ a week.

    To Google's credit, most of it does actually land in the spam folder, but calling it "spam" is letting them off the hook. The vast majority of this is straight-up phishing. Scammers are constantly spoofing real company names to target credentials—I'm seeing fakes for Apple, Ace Hardware, Lowe's, Costco, and even healthcare portals like Epic (MyChart).

    The main issue here is that Google provides absolutely zero adequate tools to limit or control this. You can't mass-report emails as phishing. You have to do it one by one. When you're getting hundreds of these, it's incredibly time-consuming, and honestly, it feels completely pointless because it’s obvious Google doesn't actually do anything with that information to stop the abuse.

    Sure, these networks have gotten a bit more sophisticated using random domains and subdomains (I see a ton of .biz, .id, and .uk domains). But at the end of the day, global IP registries exist. These blocks get allocated and assigned to specific companies and individuals. Google and other major tech orgs have direct insight into this massive increase in spam, and they know exactly which operators manage those networks. So why aren't they locating the ISPs and ranges where the vast majority of this originates and just blocking them entirely due to persistent, pervasive abuse? They should be working with the US and other governments to adequately sanction or restrict services where action isn't being taken.

    And before anyone says "just use plus addressing" (like email+spam@gmail.com)—that is totally insufficient to limit spam. It doesn't mask your real email, and anyone who knows how Gmail works can just write a script to strip the + tag off.

    The only thing plus addressing is really good for is proving who leaked your data. I was actually one of the first people to notice the massive Comcast breach because I used a plus alias. Even though plus addressing does nothing to stop spam, it gave me enough info to know Comcast had a data leak when I suddenly started receiving fake Norton and McAfee antivirus subscription invoices (which I obviously don't subscribe to) sent directly to the exact Xfinity alias I had created. I actually called Xfinity/Comcast at the time, and they were in complete denial. It took them two full years from that date to even announce the breach. That alone should have resulted in serious fines and investigations by Congress.

    These days, I rely on SimpleLogin for unique aliases, which helps limit a majority of the spam. But I still need my core Gmail account for personal use and for those annoying instances where companies actively restrict access to alias providers. Because of that, the problem on my main account has just grown rampant.

    And when you get 500+ spam messages a week, the spam folder becomes untenable because false positives start piling up. Google has been flagging way more legitimate emails as spam lately. Ironically, the emails they consistently flag as spam are verified, legitimate legal notices for class-action lawsuits against Google, just buried in the influx of junk. You'd think Google actively flagging class-action notices against their own company as spam would be a major issue to bring to class counsel and the presiding judge.

    Ultimately, this whole mess highlights a massive systemic failure: Congressional inaction and total corporate capture. Congress already permits data brokers to trade and sell our consumer info en masse. Unless you live in one of the few states with CCPA-like protections, you have zero rights.

    The US government seems completely incompetent when it comes to stopping spam and phishing. Look at the Do-Not-Call registry—it does little to nothing to stop robocalls. One can only begin to assume the government isn't addressing the issue because of corrupt companies, like the timeshare conglomerates that literally refuse to stop calling me after I participated in a discounted Vegas rental to attend a meeting. Even physical mail is screwed; the USPS is entirely captured by advertisers. I demanded to be able to opt out of the multitude of useless junk flyers I get daily, and my local postmaster literally threatened to stop delivering my mail altogether if I continued to raise the issue.

    The government neglects to understand the real-world impact of this stuff. Phishing and scams absolutely devastate the elderly. They are literally utilizing and attacking infrastructure, and many of these scammers make literal violent or financial threats against their victims—behaving in the exact same capacity and definition of terrorism. Yet, the government does nothing to actually pressure or sanction the countries harboring these operations.

    But government failure doesn't mean companies like Google are helpless. They could easily provide actual email alias solutions natively. They could give us the ability to mass-report phishing messages. They could put serious pressure on bad-actor networks by defederating actual ISPs and even TLDs if they aren't cooperative in addressing the issue.

    What really concerns me is the weaponization potential here. This influx of spam generated by a sophisticated nation-state, or even the US government, could easily be used as a way to bombard a protestor or someone they wish to create havoc for. By flooding their inbox with so many illegitimate messages, the target would be completely unable to filter through the noise without potentially missing out on legitimate, important communications as well.

    Are any of you seeing a massive spike in this targeted phishing? How are you guys keeping your primary inboxes usable?

    Baton Roue Kamala (thelemmy.club)
    submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by [M] to c/voteblew@lemmy.world
     

    "Would you have done something differently than President Biden during the past four years?"

    There is not a thing that comes to mind

    Later:

    You asked me what is the difference between Joe Biden and me — that will be one of the differences. I’m going to have a Republican in my Cabinet

     

    In the spirit of transparency, and as a new community, we are implementing a necessary rule to begin challenging the status quo and prevent potential bad faith actors.

    We are here to document hypocrisy and foster genuine debate. For that to happen, ideas must remain visible long enough to be challenged.

    The Mechanics of Silence

    It is crucial to distinguish between disagreement and suppression.

    • Passive Disagreement is simply scrolling past a post you don't like.
    • Active Suppression is using the downvote button to bury the topic so that no one else can see it.

    When you downvote without commenting, you are not engaging in the debate—you are removing the ability for anyone to have the debate. You are effectively deciding that the topic should not exist for others.

    The Problem with Silence

    Silent downvoting attempts to censor viewpoints without ever having to do the work of formulating a counter-argument.

    Since our mission is to expose and discuss double standards, we cannot function if the content is being hidden before the conversation even begins.

    The New Standard

    To ensure this community remains a place for discussion rather than suppression, we are setting a higher standard for participation.

    • The Rule: If you care enough to influence the visibility of our content (vote), you are expected to leave a comment explaining your reasoning.
    • The Logic: We are asking for substance. If a post is factually wrong or hypocritical, tell us. But clicking a button to make content disappear without explanation is a refusal to engage in the very purpose of this community.

    Enforcement & Restoring Access

    Effective immediately, users who engage in "drive-by downvoting" will be banned. However, this ban is not permanent.

    • Reinstatement Process: If you are banned for this, simply message the mods. We will unban you immediately to allow you to participate.
    • Staying Unbanned: Once reinstated, you are expected to follow the rules. You will be banned again—and this time the ban will remain in place until you demonstrate a genuine willingness to engage in good faith.
      • Defining "Good Faith": Rejoining simply to leave a low-effort negative comment so you can "technically" follow the rules to downvote again will not be tolerated.
      • Reasonable Effort: We expect a willingness to discuss and debate. Low-effort insults or trolling comments used as a loophole to justify a downvote will result in a ban.
      • Timing Matters: Even if you comment, immediate downvoting often signals a closed mind. We ask that you allow the debate to unfold and give space for the discussion to happen before trying to bury the post.
     

    YouTuber @WolvesAndFinance shows how Erika Kirk's endorsement of JD Vance at Turning Point USA's America Fest is illegal under IRS tax code which prohibits a 501(c)(3) non-profit from endorsing a political candidate, and how as tax payers we end up subsidizing this. Not a single peep from Democrats though. Why aren't they investigating? Do they have something to hide as well? Here is the timestamp for most relevant info.

     

    YouTuber @WolvesAndFinance shows how Erika Kirk's endorsement of JD Vance at Turning Point USA's America Fest is illegal under IRS tax code which prohibits a 501(c)(3) non-profit from endorsing a political candidate, and how as tax payers we end up subsidizing this. Not a single peep from Democrats though. Why aren't they investigating? Do they have something to hide as well? Here is the timestamp for most relevant info.

    view more: next ›