Nope. I don’t talk about myself like that.

  • 1 Post
  • 473 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 8th, 2023

help-circle


  • Each one of these events is easily shown to have good merits for being public record. Even ignoring the obvious case of “we want to track what the police/courts were actually doing”.

    Traffic accidents

    Occurs in front of your property and cause some amount of damage to your stuff that officers didn’t outline in any reports. You want to be able to figure out who did it so you can send them the bill/sue them. Hiding these records doesn’t make sense. Other obvious uses would be to find out where someone went/is missing, eg if someone died.

    traffic citations

    You’re attempting to hire someone for a job, part of that job is some amount of driving. Being able to lookup if they have any record of driving poorly would be due diligence you’d expect a company to do. Hell getting into an Uber or Lyft… You might want to lookup your driver. You could be surprised.

    bankruptcies

    Hire someone to do something related to finances in your company? Or to file your taxes? Might want to actually double check they’re not idiots on their own dime either. Someone asks you for a loan, or any other financial related stuff. Records of them defaulting are important.

    buying a house

    Your dog ran up to me and bit me, then ran away. Being able to get the property details can be highly important.

    getting divorced

    Can trigger a number of things. If divorce has any kid related issues… and one parent no longer has rights to the child… Schools/doctors can validate that one parent no longer has those rights without just blindly trusting random documents one parent provides.



  • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.comtoSelfhosted@lemmy.worldEmail wowsers continue
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    18 days ago

    Well… No offense… but duh? It’s not like OP can migrate his spouses “Spouse@gmail.com” address to his mail server.

    I was under the assumption (and I could be wrong) that OP owns the domain… And wants to run their mailboxes. If she wants to keep her own mailbox and use it, just forward it to her gmail if that’s what she wants. I’m also not insinuating forcing someone into something.

    I own my domain(you guessed correctly) and host my own emails. My spouse does use an inbox on my server(actually a few)… If she didn’t want to anymore she can open a mailbox where-ever she wants… and I’ll even forward whatever I get to her. That’s it. Wouldn’t stop me from running my own inbox on my own server. And I’m not forcing her to do anything at all. She can use it or not.

    This is the mentality I have when I made the previous comments. Just forward her stuff off, she can go wherever she wants.





  • Can you provide the ruling?

    As far as I understand it was simply an “agreement”. Not a legal decision/ruling. Nothing stops M$ from appealing it regardless with this new information. And pointing to MacOS and Android and asking why they’re not being enforced the same way.

    And just because a current ruling OR agreement is in place. Doesn’t mean they don’t want to do it. They can easily just make the process harder for those that want Kernel access which could still have the same effect.








  • That being said, from a security standpoint, any gain in entropy by adding characters would be negligible past a certain point.

    That would be completely based on the hash being used. In the example above I showed SHA512 which is 64Bytes. If we’re using ASCII (7 bit per character) as our input then 64 Bytes is just over 73(73.1428…) characters. After that you’re losing data in the hashing process and by that effect it would be negligible… (There’s some wiggle room here in that we can’t type hidden ASCII characters so some passwords over 73 characters would fill those spaces… but detecting collisions is silly and non-trivial… better to just not worry about those at all.)

    Extended ASCII would be same premise, just 64 characters instead of 73.

    The reality is that nobody is using much more than 64 Bytes for their hashing algorithm for passwords… 64 characters is a good number to max out most of them. Databases don’t need to store much at all regardless of the length of your actual password. If you’re developing an app you can set the database to limit based on the algorithms you’re using. If you have no idea what the web-dev will actually use… then 128 characters on the database field is probably pretty safe (88 I think if storing as Base64, 128 if storing in Hex. Could be off by one here.) and literally trivial to store. The point being that even if every one of your users submitted 10000 character long passwords… that’s irrelevant and trivial for storage as hashes.


  • I sort of get it. You don’t want to allow the entire work of Shakespeare in the text field, even if your database can handle it.

    You don’t store the original text. You store the hash of it. If you SHA512 it, anything that’s ever given in the password field will always be 64Bytes.

    The only “legit” reason to restrict input to 16 character is if you’re using an encryption mechanism that just doesn’t support more characters as an input. However, if that’s the case, that’s a site I wouldn’t want to use to begin with if at all possible.




  • So question… How much of a % before it counts? We all shat on Elizabeth Warren (rightfully so IMO…). Considering that Kamala is majority Indian… and some minority white… that leaves some amount less than half “black”. With it being truly unknown what that amount is. What counts?

    My sister is half white/half black. Dead down the middle genetically. She’s been called white nearly all her life just because she is lighter skinned. How come Kamala gets to claim it when my sister can’t who ostensibly is more black?