You really do provide a reassuring, good service -- thank you.
It's also worth stating that the client (including the cli client -- which, with a bit of work, you can get running in most situations where you'd use native wireguard) by default has a key rotation interval of I think 72 hours.
`mullvad tunnel get` will show it and `mullvad tunnel set rotation-interval <hours>` will change it. This is the preferred mitigation method of the post.
I personally don't mind having a pseudo-static IP (some other suppliers offer a static IPv4 as a feature!) as I wish to prevent network-level snooping from my ISP and governments. It's also worth stating that I think having a smaller IP space is an advantage for a privacy VPN: there are more potential users acting behind any given externally visible IP. Combined with technologies like DAITA (which effectively adds chaff to the tunnel) and multi-hop entrances and I personally think that this service really does plausibly make harder the life of those who snoop netflows all day.
I really have an odd nostalgia for longwave. I grew up listening to radio 4 lw in the middle of nowhere and it was the only station that had consistently good signal. The fact that it carried somewhere out into the Atlantic blew my mind!
I understand it's closing because some insanely high powered, insanely expensive valve or thyristor or triac or generic high power "niche" component is reaching the end of its life, but I will be sad nevertheless when this goes.
DAB doesn't work reliably with my phone charging in the same room...
For BBC World Service the shift to digital led to a 11% drop in audience. Maybe not quite the same, as the target market is often developing countries (I live in a EU country and they are only just introducing DAB this year).
I distinctly remember being an 8 year old in primary school and not being believed by a teacher that tungsten existed. I was told I must be wrong about the density of this metal being higher than lead and unless I could find a book to prove it I should shut up about it. In reality I'd been to a museum and learnt all about wonderful wulfram and probably just must have been insufferable.
Very ironically I get this error trying to read the article:
403 ERROR
The request could not be satisfied.
Request blocked. We can't connect to the server for this app or website at this time. There might be too much traffic or a configuration error. Try again later, or contact the app or website owner.
If you provide content to customers through CloudFront, you can find steps to troubleshoot and help prevent this error by reviewing the CloudFront documentation.
Generated by cloudfront (CloudFront)
Qui blockat blockodiodes? Cloudfare, it turns out....
I know that the interim releases had issues with zfs and trying to update gave the message "Sorry, cannot upgrade this system to 25.04 right now System freezes have been observed on upgrades to 25.04 with ZFS
enabled. Please see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PluckyPuffin/ReleaseNotes for more
information. "
The release notes don't seem to mention zfs. I hope these issues have been fixed?
One thing I noticed is that github's "clone" drop down menu used to include instructions on how to do so via git git (i.e. `git clone /path/to/repo`). Now there are only instructions provided by default for `gh`, their client.
I do often wonder about stories like this in the context of forensic science – my (incomplete!) understanding a lot of the time suspect DNA samples are taken from small areas and amplified significantly with high-cycle count PCR. I'd worry that any jury presented with a statistical argument about a fragment of somebody's DNA being very unlikely ("1 in 100 million") to be different to the sample found at the scene would not be aware of all of the potential systematic reasons why the actual true probability may be much, much higher.
Depends on how they're using it. To find an unknown person and prove they were at a scene - yeah you'll have the 100 person's worth of DNA to sort through and then match against a (presently) incomplete DNA database. But if you already have a suspect and need to place them at the scene, if their DNA is one of the 100 then they have shown that.
That's something that would have to be addressed at the trial by the defense attorney raising challenges.
If the DNA is present, it's present - barring any procedural mistakes by the forensics technicians (mislabeled sample, dirty lab equipment, didn't follow manufacturers instructions, etc). Or deceit by one or more members of the forensics team to implicate the suspect.
>That's something that would have to be addressed at the trial by the defense attorney raising challenges.
This is the wrong point at which to correct the problem. When prosecutors are allowed to introduce "science" as their evidence, jurors give this way too much deference. It's the prosecutor basically saying "you're too stupid to understand it, so indulge my appeal to authority" and jurors tend to happily acquiesce. This is why judges are supposed to gatekeep expert testimony and not just let any quack step in and make outrageous claims... and despite their attempts, quacks have repeatedly done just that these past few decades.
If is true that the presence of DNA means essentially nothing, then it shouldn't be permitted to be introduced at trial. Protection from wrongful conviction shouldn't rest on someone having an attorney expensive enough to be able to unsway too-easily-swayed jurors with counter-specious arguments.
Forensics never relies on a single piece of evidence. It takes several corroborating accounts and pieces of evidence to reach "beyond reasonable doubt."
This is why even breathalyzers have to be done twice, with a gap in between (and preferably with different sensors). It's also why several witnesses are examined. It's why fingerprints and lie detectors alone don't pass the muster. Nearly anything can be faked, or misinterpreted. All these things have to be used together to create an unbreakable story.
So there is next to no risk with DNA in the air.
As an example, there recently was a guy who went into a police station and claimed that he was relocating there from another province. The officer on duty was suspicious, and found there was no record of this officer in the entire country, and arrested him. In court, the guy got off the hook, even after impersonating a police officer and trying to infiltrate a station, because the officer on duty did not collect the appropriate evidence. The camera footage looked entirely normal. It became entirely hearsay.
You can pretty much expect him to charge that officer with wrongful arrest now.
We may never know what that guy was up to. But he certainly had chutzpah!
> Forensics never relies on a single piece of evidence
An uncharitable characterization is that forensics relies on many pieces of _stuff_ that cops and attorneys can reasonably convince a judge meets the rules of evidence and a jury that it is in fact evidence, while hoping the defense can't afford an expert (mind you, almost never a practitioner, but a professional legal consultant) to convince the jury it isn't evidence.
Most forensic analysis is complete bullshit, and it takes decades to convince judges to forbid the junk science.
So I wouldn't say there's "no risk." There's tons of risk.
What I would add is that you almost never have to worry about forensics if you're committing crimes, because the forensics are only going to be used to prove your guilt in court should you choose to fight it. If you're not committing crimes and become the focus of an investigation, you should be terrified of forensics.
This isn't unlike "the right to remain silent." It's weird that people don't fully understand that to mean stfu for your own good, 'cos the only notes they are writing are toward building their case against you.
Forensics isn't the way you characterized. There are forensic teams for both sides of every coin that needs forensics. It's literally a battle of what side can make the most compelling argument, and nothing more or less.
The most compelling argument is the one that has lots (the term "a preponderance" gets used in law where I am) of corroborating evidence through tools/techniques/people that are presumably not sharing and comparing notes or data with each other.
Samples are normally things like your semen being found in the dead body or your blood on the broken window, or the victim's blood on your shoes.
Air contamination is very unlikely. You aren't going to get air contamination inside the victim's bedroom... And if somehow a whiff of your air travelled a hundred miles into their bedroom and all over their corpse, other evidence would be used to rule you out.
It's also worth stating that the client (including the cli client -- which, with a bit of work, you can get running in most situations where you'd use native wireguard) by default has a key rotation interval of I think 72 hours.
`mullvad tunnel get` will show it and `mullvad tunnel set rotation-interval <hours>` will change it. This is the preferred mitigation method of the post.
I personally don't mind having a pseudo-static IP (some other suppliers offer a static IPv4 as a feature!) as I wish to prevent network-level snooping from my ISP and governments. It's also worth stating that I think having a smaller IP space is an advantage for a privacy VPN: there are more potential users acting behind any given externally visible IP. Combined with technologies like DAITA (which effectively adds chaff to the tunnel) and multi-hop entrances and I personally think that this service really does plausibly make harder the life of those who snoop netflows all day.
reply