Posts made by Spintendo

Users of VPNs Might Be Placing Their Data At Risk
by Lauren Silverman of NPR
August 17, 2017

Some VPNs promise anonymous browsing for free, some with additional fees, all while claiming not to share data. But this is not always the case, according to one of the first major academic reviews of VPN providers. Researchers from across the globe tested nearly 300 free VPN apps on Google Play and found that those services don't always deliver on their promises.

"If you're not careful with choosing your VPN service provider, the medicine might be worse than the illness," says Nick Feamster, a computer science professor at Princeton University. He says tens of millions of people have downloaded VPNs — and many don't realize they're not as secure as they claim. What researchers found in their academic review was that nearly 40 percent of the VPN's injected malware or malvertising on user's hardware. And nearly 20 percent of the apps didn't even encrypt a user's traffic.

In one example of this, the Center for Democracy & Technology filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission this month alleging the VPN Hotspot Shield collects data and intercepts traffic. If true, that would be a direct violation of claims by the company's policy to "never log or store user data." When choosing a VPN, safety comparison charts such as this one comparing 183 VPN's can be helpful. Note: you must sort the columns to place VPN's with green boxes (the best) towards the top and the middle and worst columns (yellow and red) towards the bottom. The most important columns appear to be PRIVACY Jurisdiction, PRIVACY Logging, and TECHNICAL Security. You must sort each column separately - which is slightly annoying.

It's been said that the "safest" option currently available is to set up your own VPN server and connect only to that. For anyone willing to perform their own setup, Ars Technica has provided this guide on how to do so.

@raphjd:

The International Red Cross refers to an OPTIONAL PROTOCOL to raise the age to 18.

Canada subscribes to that "optional protocol." So everything you said after that is worthless, showing you have no clue what you're talking about. That's what's pathetic.

The only part of international law which is regarded in Khadr's case is how it is interpreted by the Canadian Charter. The Charter is the only "law" of significance here, and according to the Charter, 15 is a child. I noticed all your pretty "research" doesn't mention one thing about that.

Canada has a duty to protect its citizen children under Section 7 of the Charter. Knowing this, the Court ordered the government to request his repatriation. A Federal Court of Appeals upheld that order, adding that the violation of Section 7 occurred during Khadr's 2004 interrogation. That interrogation was a process contrary to Canada's international human rights obligations and contributed to Khadr’s ongoing detention so as to deprive him of his right to liberty and security of the person, something guaranteed by Section 7 of the Charter. Nothing you've said changes any of this.

@raphjd:

Canada does not have jurisdiction over it's citizens outside of Canada.

The Charter ALWAYS applies to the participation of Canadian officials in acts later found to be in violation of fundamental rights protected by the Charter. In this case, there was significant government participation in the illegal process of the deprivation of Khadr’s liberty and security of the person as it applies in the Charter. International law has NOTHING to do with this point.

More than just a jurisdictional question as you've framed it, Canada's requirement to secure a citizen's liberty and security of the person includes interrogation of a youth detained without access to counsel in order to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that this youth has been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of those interrogations would be shared with the prosecutors. This goes AGAINST the Charter's standards regarding the treatment of detained youth suspects. Despite your claim, the court HAD THE JURISDICTION and THE DUTY to determine whether a prerogative power asserted by the government infringed on the Charter and, where necessary, give specific DIRECTION to the government about the REMEDY. In this case, the courts gave that direction AND remedy to Prime Minister Harper, and he ignored BOTH.

As international law is clearly not your forte, why don't you do some studying on the Canadian Charter instead — Section 7 specifically — and when you're all done we'll see how much of it you're able to understand (although my guess is not much).  :blind:

Broken Social Scene
_S_kyline

Elektrik People
The Lost Get Loud

Cleaning a Dirty Sponge Only Helps Its Worst Bacteria, Study Says
by Joanna Klein of The New York Times
August 4, 2017

Some people may think that microwaving a sponge kills its tiny residents, but they are only partly right. It may nuke the weak ones, but the strongest, smelliest and potentially pathogenic bacteria will survive. Then, they will reproduce and occupy the vacant real estate of the dead. And your sponge will just be stinkier and nastier and you may come to regret having not just tossed it, suggests a study published last month in Scientific Reports.

Bacteria are everywhere, so it’s no surprise that a kitchen sponge would be full of them. But previous research had underestimated a sponge’s quantity and range of bacteria. About 82 billion bacteria are living in just a cubic inch of space, the same density of bacteria in human stool samples. The sponge attracts bacteria — which arrive via food, the skin or other surfaces — with the perfect living conditions. There are lots of warm, wet and nutrient-rich spaces for them to thrive — among them — a microbe called Moraxella osloensis, widespread in nature, it can cause infections in people with weak immune systems. Moraxella osloensis is primarily responsible for the stench of dirty laundry, due to the compound produced by the bacterium’s metabolism and excretion of fats.

Those trying to save money will try to clean a sponge that starts to stink, but it’s probably time to let it go. Disinfecting it does not necessarily work. You can microwave a sponge, throw it in the dishwasher, douse it in vinegar or other cleansing solutions or even cook it in a pot. But the researchers discovered more of the potentially pathogenic bacteria, like Moraxella osloensis, on the sponges collected that were routinely disinfected. So when people at home try to clean their sponges, they make it worse by encouraging the growth of the most resistant bacteria. If you can’t clean it perfectly, it may be best to replace it with a new one every week or so. If you have to retain it, as a last resort run it through a laundry machine at the hottest setting using a powder detergent and bleach and then use it somewhere other than the kitchen that is less hygiene-sensitive, like the bathroom.

YouTube Falls Hard for ‘In a Heartbeat,’ a Boy-Meets-Boy Story
by Christina Caron of The New York Times
August 4, 2017

It’s hard to forget your first childhood crush — and the anxiety that accompanied it. That heart-pounding, sweaty-palmed infatuation is nothing new in children’s animation, but two students decided to tell the tale in a different way, creating an animated short film that is drawing the interest of big production studios.

Here, the enamored characters are both middle-school boys. And their dovelike innocence is charming a huge audience on YouTube. Posted on Monday, the four-minute film has already been viewed more than 14 million times. Celebrities have taken note. Ashton Kutcher posted an article about it on Facebook. The filmmakers, Beth David, 21, and Esteban Bravo, 24, made the short for their senior thesis while at Ringling College of Art and Design in Sarasota, Florida.

Their animation tells the story of Sherwin, a redhead who has a crush on Jonathan, described on the film’s Tumblr page as “the most popular boy in school.” Sherwin is afraid to show his emotions, but no matter — his heart volunteers for the mission, literally jumping out of his chest and bounding toward the boy who caught his eye. The heart wants what the heart wants, a tale very personal to viewers. One secret of its charm is its simplicity, as the story is told without words — just music and animation.

Despite the mendacity of your claim, Khadr’s detention was and still is illegal under international law. The law as it deals with child soldiers is described at these three sites. (Feel free to peruse the information found there — for the next time you want to act like you know what you're talking about.)

ANOTHER mistake of yours is blaming Trudeau. By participating in Khadr's detention, it was actually Harper who violated Canada’s own international human rights obligations and Khadr’s Charter rights, not Trudeau. This is how the Supreme Court of Canada ruled more than seven years ago. Even in the face of that ruling, Harper still refused to seek Khadr’s repatriation and instead fought his return. Every other Western country which had prisoners at Guantanamo secured the return of their citizens held there. Canada was the only country which did not do so. Now they are paying the price for that intransigence. Make no mistake: Trudeau may have paid the bill — but it was Harper who incurred the charges.

@raphjd:

Under international law, he was old enough to be responsible for his actions.

Which international law would that be?  ???

James Irwin
Shabbytown

@raphjd:

So, if my mom told me to rape and murder babies when I was 15yo, you would fight tooth and nail to keep me from getting punished if I did what she told me.

No one told Khadr to rape and murder babies. From the age of 9 Khadr was told that Americans and Canadians were his enemies.

@raphjd:

comparing willing throwing a grenade at soldiers vs being raped by some old pervert.

Strong evidence shows that Khadr most likely couldn't have thrown that grenade as he was alleged to have thrown. And besides, Khadr was raped — he was raped psychologically by his parents from the age of 9 to the age of 15 — six long years of psychological abuse for which he was powerless to end. The sexual abuse of one child is no different than the physical or psychological abuse of another child.

@raphjd:

Clearly you have no idea how war zones and "police" zones work.

Clearly the Canadian government had no idea how its own Charter works with regards to how prisoners should be kept, or else they wouldn't now be liable for 10 million.

@raphjd:

Trudeau planned it so he would not have to inform Parliament.

Harper was the one who planned it by ignoring the issue for the breadth of his administration. Why didn't Harper address this issue when his policy experts were telling him to do so? Why didn't he allow his diplomats to place pressure on the US to hand Khadr over, even when those same diplomats were warning him that not doing so risked violating the Charter?

@raphjd:

According to you, you should always obey your parents.

No, I said it was inevitable that children obey their parents because the deck is stacked against them acting independently. Parents control access to food and shelter, something a child might be deprived of if they don't follow along. The incentive is always for the child to follow a parent's directions, and that should count for something if that child does something wrong at the behest of those parents.

@raphjd:

There is a huge difference between knowing right from wrong as in the case we are discussing, and your parents signing you over to be fucked by some pervert.

Does a child who is sexually abused by an adult have a solid grasp on what constitutes right and wrong in maintaining a healthy relationship? If so, why are they allowing an unhealthy relationship with an adult? You ask "Didn't Khadr know killing was wrong?" Well, doesn't someone being sexually abused know that abuse is wrong? If they do, then why are they allowing themselves to be abused?

It's because they, as children, do not have the power to shape their own destiny when that destiny is being shaped for them by their abusers, sexual or otherwise. Your expectations for a boy raised by two religious extremists as ought to be having solid views on what is right and wrong are way off base here. It's not about knowing the difference between right and wrong — it's about having the power to change your physical circumstances. Sexual abuse victims often don't have that power, and neither did Khadr. Neither of them should be blamed for it.

Khadr was fucked over by religious extremist parents who took advantage of his unwavering love for a mother and father and twisted that love into hatred — all for their own religiously-perverted reasons. Khadr was their victim as much as anyone else. Instead of being liberated from the hell his parents put him through, Americans took him to another hell - Guantanamo Bay - where he was subjected to more abuse for an amount of time equal to almost as many years as he'd been alive (12 years vs. 15 years at capture).

@raphjd:

If I commit a crime in a country, I expect to be prosecuted by that country.

It's precisely because what you just said didn't happen in this case, that Khadr is receiving his "lottery" settlement. As the only military authority in Afghanistan at that time, the US (or if they had deferred in the case, to Canada) should have prosecuted Khadr in a court of law. They never did. They held him for an interminable amount of time and would only release him if he agreed to confess 12 years after the fact.

@raphjd:

I noticed you ignored the other questions surrounding the deal itself, such as why it was done in total secret, why it was done only after Parliament was in recess, etc.

Criticising the deal as "secret" is a non-sequitur, because the Canadian court which made the decision which allowed Khadr to receive a settlement was a publically made decision while the apology that went with it was released to the press.

Your upset because the government chose not to propose the settlement publically beforehand and thereby open it up to public debate. You're very naive if you think governments seek out public criticism on their own. The right of the Canadian government not to consult beforehand with the public over every lawsuit it settles is a longstanding practice and it's no surprise that happened here. If anything should be criticized, it's Canada's Harper government (2006-2015) which carries the bulk of blame for kicking the "Khadr can" down the road for so long. Their inaction years ago leads directly to the monetary settlement we see today.

@raphjd:

First off, he is a terrorist and a war criminal.

According to you the honorable thing for Khadr to have done was to confront his parents on how wrong they were, insist upon explaining to them how the killing of Americans was wrong, and then refuse to join them in their cause of action. I'm curious, what should he have done if that didn't work? How was he supposed to survive after confronting them? When you have a situation where a child literally knows of no other way to live life without his parents and their support, how can you hold that child responsible for simply following the rules?

@raphjd:

His age has nothing to do with it.

And yet, just last month you were complaining about Gov Christie's veto of a bill banning child marriage.

@raphjd:

Massive homophobe Gov Chris Christie vetoes a law banning child marriage.

Care to explain why you apparently support a ban on child marriage? Is it because you believe that they are too young to make life altering decisions at that age? Is it because of your belief that children at that age are more prone to being taken advantage of? I'll bet whatever your answer is, it would prove very interesting to this part of the discussion.

But setting the age question aside, Canada has a personal responsibility to its own citizens when they commit crimes abroad. Instead of taking charge of the situation, Canada allowed a neighbor state to punish Khadr. A personal point of interest of raphjd's is that people constantly ignore or put off their own taking of responsibility. What does this say about Canada? If the law says someone arrested for killing a person must be brought to trial within a reasonable amount of time, then that law must apply to everyone equally, especially Khadr. Canada ignored that requirement for 15 years. Why shouldnt they be held responsible?

Arcade Fire
Electric Blue

You've painted this story with an interesting but implausible villain. An entire nation's pride wounded by a boy barely old enough to drive a car? I don't think so. Allow me to propose a more complex and convincing villain.

Omar Khadr, a 15 year old teenager, is taken into US custody after he is found in the rubble of a building that had been destroyed in a battle. Discovering they have a Canadian minor on their hands, the US — believing him to be a source of information — convinces skeptical Canadian authorities not to petition for his return to Canada. The US assures Canada that they would handle everything having to do with him. Canada is hesitant, but agrees, believing that justice will eventually be served. But as the years go by, they began to feel more and more uncomfortable about the situation. Canadians notice he isn't being charged or brought to trial. They find out that what the Americans are doing is using controversial enhanced interrogation techniques on a 15 year old boy, again and again, all for the sake of the War on Terror.

But Khadr is not a terrorist. His age means that Khadr was never in a place to shape his own destiny. While most kids at 15 are pondering their next afterschool activity, Khadr was being taught to handle AK-47s and make improvised explosive devices. From a very early age he was made to live in some of the most dangerous areas in the world, and fed with much extremist nonsense. As many teens would, he did exactly what he was told by his parents. Details of his torture by American military and civilian officials at both Bagram and Guantanamo soon paint a vivid and disturbing picture of what he is subjected to, as uncertainty begins to build over whether in fact he committed any crime at all. Canadian officials were greatly worried, leading to conversations which must have resembled something like the following:

(Canada) "Hey, remember when you took all those prisoners in Afghanistan, one of them was a Canadian boy…remember you told us you'd handle it.... well there still hasn't been a trial. How can you hold him for that long, are you guys sure doing that is legal?"

(USA) "Yeah well these things take time. And dont worry about a thing. Its all legit."

(Canada) "Ok well, are you sure? None of your laws actually say holding him for this long without a trial is ok to do."

(USA) "Yeah, umm well the thing with that is well, we know our laws….and besides, all the info we get from him we're sharing with you so why complain? History will eventually say what were doing here is ok. You dont need to worry."

But the worrying continued. Lawsuits were beginning to be filed, and eventually something would need to be done about Khadr. Instead of the long-promised trial, a plea bargain was offered. It stated that Khadr would be released back to Canada to serve an amount of time, but first he had to confess to everything, including brand new charges that he threw a grenade which killed a medic — a charge which before had never been put to paper. Realizing this was his only way out, he agreed. Unfortunately every fact in the case would be prevented from coming to light because there would never be a trial. This is what the US always wanted. That way, they can tell the story any way they want to.

But not Canada. It's now come to light what Canada agreed to all those years ago. All the while assuring its citizens of its belief in jurisprudence, Canada instead sat on its hands and did nothing while Canadian citizens sat in jail. Canada took its citizen's tax monies, money which could have been spent on building hospitals and improving roads, and spent it on the tacit support of American detention centers for the torture of a teenaged prisoner at Guantanamo. And despite American assurances to the contrary — these actions were never declared legal. It turns out those Canadian worries years ago were justified, because they involved actions which go against the Canadian Charter. There were legal scholars who foresaw Canada's agreeing with the confinement and torture of a child as an issue which would likely come back to haunt them, but those concerns were ignored.

The Canadian government assures its citizens if they are detained and charged with a crime, they would all have access to a fair and impartial trial. Canadian jurisprudence assures Canadian citizens they will be presumed innocent until proven guilty. We now know this isn't always the case. And now everybody is upset at Canada having to pay for its mistake. Think how differently things would have gone, if instead of the previous conversation, the following interaction had occurred between the USA and Canada:

(USA) "We found a Canadian citizen in Afghanistan. We'd like your permission to keep him. He may prove useful."

(Canada) "We're going to have to say no to that request. You see, since Khadr is a Canadian citizen, and especially because he is not an adult, it would be best if we took charge of what happens to him. Its our responsibility in the end, not yours. As there is no precedent for prosecuting child soldiers, we see no need to keep him in Guantanamo. Kindly return him at your earliest convenience. Thank you."

If only the Canadian government had done its job and abided by its own legal doctrines the whole mess would have never happened. There would have been no civil suit and Canadian taxpayers would have had $10.5 million more to spend on Moose shirts, maple syrup and hockey sticks.

@Frederick:

The change of course is suspicious if that cargo ship made a course change 10 minutes before impact and hit the destroyer.

I think this course change actually turned out to be a U-turn which the cargo ship made 30 minutes after the collision. The initial reports got the time of impact wrong.

@Frederick:

Could it be that the cargo ship intentionally made a course change to ram the destroyer?

From the position of the people on the bridge of the cargo ship, as long as the destroyer was appearing to them to be left of their centerline, they were legally obligated to [desc=If the other crossing vessel is in your port sector, then you are the Stand On vessel, and you ought not slow down or change course.]stand on[/desc] without changing course or speed. This would only change if the destroyer suddenly appeared to the right of their centerline, in which case evasive action would be required to avoid a collision. Evasive is a misnomer because it takes >10 minutes to make a meaningful course correction in cargo ships of that size.

If I'm the ship in the diagram below then I should expect every ship I pass to stay to my left. As long as they stay there, I can continue full speed ahead. If their plan is to cross in front of me, this changes only their obligations in the passing—not mine. I would remain, from their point of view, to the right of their centerline, where they are obliged to [desc=If the other crossing vessel is in your starboard sector, then you are the Give Way vessel, and you must stop or slow down.]give way[/desc]. Those ships would be seeing my red light, which is a stop sign for them. I would be seeing their green light telling me I am free to 'Go'. Since we know the destroyer was hit on its starboard side, this green light was what they were displaying to the cargo ship — all while dashing in front of them.

Interestingly enough this is the same location where the Andrea Doria was hit—on its starboard side. If you have a ship passing you on the starboard side and you don't give way then you are inviting the collision—because your green light is telling the other ship to "Keep on Movin Dont Stop."

California's Top Judge Finds Her Voice — And Uses It To Call Out Trump's Policies
by Maura Dolan of the Los Angeles Times
July 18, 2017

Judges and lawmakers had originally demeaned her as a lightweight whose first instinct when confronted with a problem was to create a task force. Many state legislators were openly dismissive of her. Seven years later though, the Supreme Court of California's Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye is not so easily dismissed. She has been speaking her mind, calling on the Trump administration to keep its immigration agents away from state courthouses, as she was constantly hearing reports of anxious immigrants showing up. They wanted to know: How can I protect my kids if I am deported? If I obtain a restraining order against a violent boyfriend, will immigration authorities be tipped off to my existence? My children were born in this country — can they stay if I am deported?

Other judges were telling her that immigration agents were going into courthouses, intimidating immigrants there to testify or to deal with other legal matters. "This was ongoing," she said of the reports. Her aim, she said, was to get the federal government to add courts to a list of sites that agents should avoid. She didn't want immigrants to be afraid when seeking legal services.

In a letter to U.S. Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly, she asked that immigration agents stop stalking immigrants illegally at California's courthouses. "Courthouses should not be used as bait in the necessary enforcement of our country's immigration laws," she wrote. The chief justices of Oregon, Washington and New Jersey's Supreme Courts have all endorsed her stance.

Calling Trump's criticism of federal judges "very threatening to the third branch of government," the Chief Justice is fast becoming one of the Trump administration's most vocal critics, from a judiciary which in California is growing increasingly liberal. Her tenure has seen high turnover, with the older Republican appointees retiring and being replaced by more liberal picks made by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown. By the end of the year, Brown will have chosen a majority of the court's judges. Some expect the Chief Justice to move even more to the left, influenced by the apparent shift of the California electorate away from harsher, punitive laws. So far, the California Supreme Court under her tenure has sided with environmentalists, open-government advocates and workers in many cases.

U.S. Warship Stayed on Deadly Collision Course Despite Warning - Says Container Ship Captain
Reuters
June 26, 2017

TOKYO - A U.S. warship struck by a container vessel in Japanese waters failed to respond to warning signals or take evasive action before a collision that killed seven of its crew, according to a report of the incident by the Philippine cargo ship's captain. Multiple U.S. and Japanese investigations are under way into how the guided missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald and the much larger ACX Crystal container ship collided in clear weather south of Tokyo Bay in the early hours of June 17.

In the first detailed account from one of those directly involved, the cargo ship's captain said the ACX Crystal had signaled with flashing lights after the Fitzgerald "suddenly" steamed on to a course to cross its path. The Crystal steered hard to starboard to avoid the destroyer, but hit the Fitzgerald 10 minutes later at 1:30 a.m.

The Fitzgerald sustained damage to its starboard side in the collision, which initially trapped the commanding officer in his quarters. The time of the collision remained murky in the days following the fatal collision. The Navy initially placed the time of collision at 2:20 a.m. local time. Japanese coast guard officials later revised the time of the collision to 1:30 a.m. after interviewing Crystal crew, last week.

A tracking of the Crystal's route by the vessel-tracking service MarineTraffic showed the massive container ship made a sudden turn as if trying to avoid something at about 1:30 a.m. before continuing eastward and making a U-turn before returning to the collision area at about 2:30 a.m., the AP reported. As several U.S., Japanese and Philippine investigations into the crash get underway, what remains unclear is how the hulking cargo ship was able to get that close to the advanced, Arleigh Burke-class Fitzgerald.

Minor Victories The Thief

@Frederick:

outraged over the $41 million settlement handed over

$41 million for all 5 of the defendants equals 8.2 million per person. As each defendant served about 8 years, that's equivalent to:

$1 million per year, or
$2740 per day, or
$114 dollars for every hour they were locked up.

If someone wanted to force you to live in a prison cell from which you couldn't physically leave, how much money might you charge them per hour to do it? Does not $100 per/hr seem reasonable?

Let's suppose that Charles Kushner, the father of Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, was exonerated by DNA evidence of committing the crimes he spent time in federal prison for, and the goverment wanted to settle with him out of court. Is there anyone here who believes a person like Kushner would agree to accept only $100 an hour as compensation for their jail time? I think not.

@mhorndisk:

Your assertion is meaningless.

It's the report authors' assertion — not mine. To the extent that their assertion and report were both evidently meaningless to you, I have no doubt.