notanaltaccount

His son just probably has a laptop and boots using a usb into linux. All of these christian goodie-do-gooders are going to create a nation of hackers.

No, it's shorter and more masculine... since more masculine people do hard science like physics while even a regular mom who is a little bit smart could learn biology. (I don't think this.) I am just pointing it out, it probably wasn't done with intentiinal sexism.

Youre right. And... Do you think DEI becoming a buzzword in the Republican culture war makes it more or less likely there will be more of those lawsuits?

But yes, at the end of the day, whatever the reason it just means more racism, because bias is often hard to prove and you often can't prove that bias accounts for a lack of advancement, you just feel it, and bias can make getting ahead so much harder in so many ways.

I think Republicans especially hated DEI because it could include trans and LGBT people. The existence of trans people means their made up god is fake, because their fantasy book says Adam and Eve, not Adam Eve and They/Them. If trans people are real, then the magical fantasy book is a lie, and then they've been lied to and fooled and their magic jebus bread didnt really have magical powers and they can't possibly admit to that, so here we are.

In the future there will probably white people suing for racism based on the existence of dei and the courts are now so racist those lawsuits will be allowed because the same territories that fought for slave ownership during rhe civil war have political leverage via republicans

Dei is now a legal liability instead of protecting against lawsuits. Many companies that are laying off people cant justify keeping dei in that environment when they are laying off people that do work that is closely aligned with the business. Laying off a senior programmer but keeping dei seems a bit unfair and since dei could be a liability why keep it?

There was also pressure to hire more black people in business back in covid times and post-covid and companies did that, with data showing it probably impacted other races getting hired. It's risky for them to keep doing that and likely expensive. Dei was also keeping more data allowing them to get sued to more easily either way. Many employees complained about dei and that it was all for show even when the expense was there.

Its also became synonymous with woke and republicans hate the term. Conpanies only do what the prevailing political winds say so they can fit in with legal compliance enough to keep profiting. They don't care and are mostly an illusion of a logo with greedy people worshipping money behind the veneer.

Oh my goodness, the stupidity is off the charts

The fight is over whether Apple must officially break into their code in the normal way

It doesn't preclude a back door

There could be a backdoor exploit program so people can acess the phones and see everything in them through the cellular modem in certain parts of the government.

If other parts of the government were not privy to this, they could get into an argument in open court about breaking their "privacy" generally

Do you think if there was a gag order the lawyer representing Apple would write "But wait, this is an irrelivant debate because there's actually another backdoor exploit?"

Some of these phines could have been in airplane mode also making 1 type of exploit not usable.

You do not know what the fuck you are talking about at all.

Do you think an attorney for Apple is going to go into a court and say "The secret court made us put a baxkdoor into this part of tge phone, so why are we even arguing about this?" Such a lawyer would be jailed. You are incredibly naive and your reasoning is mostly "but Apple said so"

The code is closed source.

They don't need to incur a benefit. If the government contacta their legal department with an order saying we need to talk to your developers in charge of iOS as part of a court order, they are required to do it and can face jail and fines if they don't comply.

If the government says "don't say there'z an exploit" it's not going to be disclosed in their policy and they will be protected for lying by omission if a court is requiring that.

What is their motive? Avoiding contempt.

Are you this naive about closed source code or the power of jails and fines to persuade people to lie? How would this threaten their business model? How would anyone know about the exploit given their code is closed source and law enforcement regularly use parallel construction? No one can audit the code. Do you know what closed aource code is or how a gag order works?

This is an irrelevant and stupid comment. If Apple is required by a gag order not to disclose an exploit, their legal policy would not violate the gag order.

You think if they did build an exploit after a demand they would write about it in their legal notices? That's just dumb.

That's bullshit. They would be insulated from that since they were required to put in exploits. The government doesn't say "You are required to do A B C" and then let people sue over A B or C.

This view is incredibly naive. If a backdoor exploit was added by one group of developers who did the code for the cellular modem and network parts of the operating system, there would only be certain people aware on a need to know basis. You could have other ignorant law enforcement officers unaware of the exploit making demands in court as well as Apple's legal department fighting requests and the exploit is still there. It is incredibly naive and frankly stupid to be believe that a lack of a leak about closed source code means probably an exploit like that doesn't exist. Demanding proof with closed source code, gag orders, and large development teams, only some of whom could know about an exploit and gag order, is just not really being realistic.

Are websites often implementing all creepsjs tequniques? It seems like if standard identifiers were enough they wouldn't add in more just because minimal benefit relative to extra effort.

Does TLS fingerprinting do more than fingerprint browser type?