ThA0x2

How are these posts even being flagged? It's on a 10 day old post. Who is reading and flagging those?

It solves none of your problems

Wrong, it solves tons of them.

adds complexity and cost

Almost zero complexity and cost. Maybe if you're a bad at sysadmin work it adds cost and complexity.

defense without corresponding increases to attacker costs.

It adds a _huge_, almost incalculable cost increase to attackers.

If you believe there are unknown OpenSSH attacks, you can't coherently believe that port knocking is a real defense, since port knocking doesn't do anything to protect the SSH channel that attacks will be carried out in.

Looks like you don't understand the concept of 0-days. Several CVEs we're listed elsewhere. I suggest researching 0-day exploits so you understand how port knocking mitigates them.

Port knocking mitigates 0-days.

Instead, if you're actually worried about OpenSSH vulnerabilities, you shouldn't be exposing SSH to the public Internet at all.

I don't disagree here, VPN is a great solution. Nonetheless, for some shops simple port-knocking on a bastion host solves, a lot of these issues, and removed the complexity that VPNs add.

I'm not super worried about OpenSSH server vulnerabilities, but I would never recommend that teams leave SSH exposed; they should just hide that stuff behind WireGuard.

No one is super worried about things like shellshock, heart bleed, etc. until they happen.

Port knocking solved a lot of problems, protects you from zero-days, and makes SSH noise a non-issue (huge signal-to-noise gains).

Used in production for years. It's fantastic.

Worked for a major bank (think top 10). We had port knocking on several publicly accessible infrastructure pieces (LBs, some VMs, etc.)

Decades of running without a single intrusion. We moved to SPA port knocking and now we rely less on the VPN for certain assets.

What I said had nothing to do with correlation vs causation. What I said was that "variables that a priori have nothing to do with race (e.g. where you live, how much money you make, etc.) are highly correlated with race."

They're highly correlated to race, but they are no caused by race, and are therefore defacto not racist and are free game, QED.

If the variable was "dark skin", it's not necessarily specific to a single race, but it is inherently a property of race, and therefore racist. How much money you make is not a property of race, or a property specific to minorities. It's fair game.

I'm speaking of signals and information theory.

Not very well.

The point is allowing variables that combine to be equivalent to allowing the variable of race ends up being the same thing.

Not really, no, this is factually incorrect. Where minorities live ebs and flows through time (Great migration), race does not. What minorities earn ebs and flows through time (Asians), the fact that they are Asian does not. QED.

Presumably you mean that blacks are _convicted_ (or maybe arrested) for sexual assaults and rapes at a higher level (since obviously what they do are what they are convicted of doing are not the same thing).

Both. Arrested and convicted.

Do you believe such a general fact has anything to do with individuals and their likely future actions? How? Why?

Now your moving goalposts. I provided a simple to digest fact. This is basic population statistics, and you can indeed inference what individuals can/will do from population statistics.

Many variables that a priori have nothing to do with race (e.g. where you live, how much money you make, etc.) are highly correlated with race. Allowing those variables is basically the same thing as allowing race into the models. I don't want to pretend like controlling for something like this isn't possible, but I rarely see it considered (and quite rarely do I even see the problem acknowledged).

They may be correlated with race, but correlation != causation. Poor people shoplift more than the well off, but that has nothing to do with race, it has to do with the culture.

What are examples these facts you refer to?

Blacks commit sexual assaults and rapes at a way higher level than Whites and other minorities, even when accounting for income.

No. Racism is discriminating on the basis of race. Hatred of a race is just a form of racism.

No, you are wrong and this is a straw man. A random definition of racism is not the mechanism underpinning racism.

If I’m a hiring manager and I turn a black person down simply because “blacks are more likely to commit crimes”, it’s racism; I’m discriminating simply on the basis of a stereotype about a race.

No one said this is not racism, definitely not me.

Even if your stereotype is based on statistics, it can be racist. Not all black people commit crimes, so saying “because statistically, your race commits more crimes, we’re going to keep a closer eye on you,” is racism. The race doesn’t commit the crime; the person does.

Not all men drive terribly and get in wrecks, so saying "because statistically, your gender wrecks more, we're going to charge you more", is sexism (which is illegal). The gender doesn't wreck cars; the person does.

Again, no one stated that race should be a category upon which these algorithms work. The fact of the matter is, even if the algorithm was 100% accurate and did not factor in race, there will still be inequity, which people will decry racist, even if it's 100% accurate and correct.

Keeping a closer watch on a group of people because of race leads to statistically more reporting of crimes committed by that race even if it’s not true (less police presence leads to less crimes being reported and visa versa).

No one, definitely not me, has suggested that race should be a factor in these algorithms. Also, these groups are "closely watched" more because they commit more crimes. Police presence does not lead to people committing violent crimes like murder and rape more; it's the other way around. Police are in these communities more because they commit more crimes, and more crimes are reported there.

Not to mention that generalizing a single statistic to an entire race ignores every other factor that causes it.

Strawman, strawman, strawman. No one has stated race should be a factor.

Systematic racism is a thing, and because of it, blacks are statistically poorer than their fellow whites. Being poor leads to people doing things that a richer person wouldn’t do, such as stealing because they literally have no money to pay for it.

Systemic racism no longer exists. Indeed there are some inequities caused by previous systemic racism that was in place (Jim Crow), but these systemically racist systems no longer exist. There are more poor White people in total than poor Black people, but Black people commit more violent crimes in total. They are WAY overrepresented per capita. Being poor does not cause rape or murder. If it did, White people and poor Asians should have their proportional share, but they don't.

Poverty can explain things like shoplifting, petty theft. It does not explain rape, murder, etc.

Drug habits can form and getting off them is hard when society shuns you because you’re “wasting your money on drugs instead of food.”

Non sequitor.

Simply put, it’s very easy to be racist without realizing it; People like easy to digest facts. But being willfully ignorant about the whole story isn’t right.

Not really, no. Some easy to digest facts are just that, facts. They're inconvenient because they go against certain narratives, so they're immediately labelled "racist", which is the point I originally made. QED.

Gibbon1's final admission of defeat.

I won.

The problem is the algorithms are designed to put people in a group and then the groups are treated differently.

That's not the problem, that's literally the solution.

That's the mechanism underpinning racism. And other disparities.

Not at all. The mechanism underpinning racism is believing that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

Disparities are not inherently racist.

Current garbage looks like this. I know three people that got popped for drugs. One served time and has a felony record. One had it reduced to a misdemeanor and did 10 hours of community service. And the third has no record at all.

One had a long rap sheet and previously was in jail, one had a few priors, and the third had a clean record.

You can probably guess the socioeconomic status each of those three and you'd guess correctly.

We can both make up dumb anecdotes all day.

And I'm sure the algorithm will also guess correctly.

The algorithm will correctly guess which of the three is more likely to flee, be a public threat, etc. Sounds like the algorithm is working.

So you see no problem in a “black box” deciding whether you could go free or not after you commit a crime?

This is a straw man.

Nonetheless, even if it was 100% transparent, FOSS, etc. people would still be screaming "RACIST!"

Why not just throw out the whole justice system then and make rulings be done by a computer?

Non sequitur.

Can someone please tell me how this makes Palantir look bad so I can go virtue signal to my coworkers about how much they're failing?

Every time I hear Matrix.org being mentioned, I giggle: https://matrix.org/blog/2019/05/08/post-mortem-and-remediati...

Describing their practices as sophomoric may be giving them too much credit.

Palantir, the virtue signalers' rally point.

Glad they spent time replacing the facist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, white supremacist verbiage "master" instead of ensuring their white and Asian employees had jobs.

"Employed middle class" typically reads as "mobile" and "9-5" frequently reads as "white-collar". Those folks feel time constrained, but they are also very likely to have e.g. PTO/flexible work schedules and access to transportation.

Not really, no: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class

"In 2005, sociologists William Thompson and Joseph Hickey estimate an income range of roughly $35,000 to $75,000 for the lower middle class and $100,000 or more for the upper middle class."

That encompasses the likes of 9-to-5ers, licensed electricians, oil field workers, etc.

It's worse for (say) unemployed people with no transportation. This is to say nothing of the disabled, bedridden, etc. There are significant numbers of people for whom this is an unnecessary burden.

It's probably even easier. With unemployment benefits, additional stimulus, and lots of time on their hands, it's a perfect time to get their voter ID. Disabled and bedridden were equally disadvantaged under prior systems; this is a red herring.

And again -- this burden is significantly higher than the requirement placed on residents who wish to carry shotguns into restaurants.

Categorically wrong. You need a photo ID to purchase a firearm, and some states require a license to carry long guns. Other states outright ban open carry of long guns.

Voter ID laws have not been shown to reduce voter fraud. At best, they add cost and bureaucracy without any proven benefit.

Voter ID laws have been shown to reduce and/or prevent certain types of voter fraud, though indeed voter fraud is rare. At best, they prevent voter fraud, speed up the actual voting process at poll sites, reduce certain types of errors, etc.

A common argument against voter ID laws is that they are of a lineage with historic disenfranchisement mechanisms in the US.

It's a common argument, but it's more of a conspiracy theory without any hard numbers to back it up.

Strategically making it difficult to get a newly-required voter ID is a direct descendant of the voter suppression schemes our parents fought against. It's absolutely relevant to bring in recent history.

It's not difficult, nor do voter ID laws suppress voter turn out. Unproven conspiracy theories have nothing to do with recent history.

Did you lose your card, or need a replacement in a hurry?

I needed to change my name, which most married females do. Nonetheless, if you lose your voter ID card and you don't have to make a change, you can similarly get a replacement without showing up to an office. This makes your entire point moot.

For decades, newborns have been able to be issued cards without anyone showing up at an SSA office. (Yes, I have personally done this for an infant. I can confirm that you fill out a form and they mail you a card, just like you'd expect.) SSA also has a site where residents of many states can request a replacement card online if they have state ID: https://www.ssa.gov/myaccount/replacement-card.html.

That website specifically outlines that you need a "driver's license or a state-issued identification card from one of the many participating states.", so, again, that absolutely negates your point.

[Edit: The SSA forms indicate that even replacements for adult citizens can be done via mail. It would be fair for you to mention that you had an atypical situation that required you to go in to get a card, but that this is not required.]

Changing your name is not an atypical situation. About 80% of married females end up changing their name. Also, the SSA form literally outlines that you need a state issued ID... like a driver's license that you can use for voting!

If voter ID proponents start advocating for Social Security cards or other 100% free-by-mail IDs as voter documents, a lot of the opposition would go away.

As I posted above, voter ID proponents are almost universally for 100% free IDs as voter documents, Texas being a fine example: https://www.votetexas.gov/mobile/id-faqs.htm

The opposition is still there though.

But then, so would the perceived partisan benefit, so that's not in the cards.

There is no effect on voter turn out, nor is there a partisan benefit. One of the supposedly most "at risk" groups to be suppressed by voter ID laws are the elderly. They overwhelmingly vote Republican.

Poor people are the least likely to have the time and means to get any of these free IDs.

I'd say it's the opposite. Employed middle class working 9-to-5 with 2 kids have less time and means. There's a Hitchen's quote somewhere here...

Voter ID laws have not been show to reduce turn out.

To add to that, states like Alabama strategically place offices to make it even more difficult for e.g. people who do not have access to a car to get said ID.

That's not a problem with voter ID laws though. This is a red herring.

The Social Security Card is a free document. They mail it to you without you having to present yourself anywhere.

This is patently false. I just personally went through this. You absolutely have to show up to a SSA office and bring documentation.

Which itself requires ID to acquire defeating its purpose as an alternative ID for people without ID.

You need documentation to prove you're eligible to vote in your locality in order to be able to vote in your locality. The is the same logic behind any type of identification/registration, Voter ID or not.

I was referring to the IDs available to the general public. A military ID being free is irrelevant to a huge majority of the US.

You specifically stated "all the federal IDs require money", which is patently false, QED.

How is that a red herring? A flaw existing in both the old and new system doesn't mean it isn't a flaw. Do you think disenfranchising homeless people is acceptable?

It is by definition a red herring because being a flaw or not is immaterial to the discussion at hand since it is not specific to Voter ID laws. You asking the question is a textbook logical fallacy.

It takes added time and requires further documentation. The time it takes to vote has been shown to have an impact on voter turnout.

Sometimes it takes time to leverage your rights. Gun background checks is an example of that, as are voter ID laws. There is no conclusive study that has shown voter ID laws impact turnout.

Also I don't know what studies you are talking about. Here is one from a nonpartisan Government Accountability Office that says the exact opposite

You linked a piece from a laughably biased news source. It even states opposite of your claim: "That change wasn't entirely due to voter ID, of course, but the GAO report suggests it played a part."

"In a 2014 review by the Government Accountability Office of the academic literature, five studies out of ten found that voter ID laws had no significant effect on overall turnout, four studies found that voter ID laws decreased overall turnout, and one study found that the laws increased overall turnout."

"Studies of the effects of voter ID laws on turnout in the United States have generally found that such laws have little, if any, effect on turnout."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_...

Which of those IDs is available for free? I just checked the state website and they charge for drivers licenses and state IDs

The Texas Election Identification Certificate ID is free.

and all the federal IDs require money.

Wrong. Military and veteran IDs are federal IDs that are free of charge.

They at least offer the alternate forms of ID, but those still eliminate people. A homeless person is probably not going to have any of those documents on hand, but they have every right to vote.

They wouldn't have been allowed to vote under the previous system either. This is a red herring.

There is also the inherent problem of singling out people without ID for further scrutiny. This added "security" has notoriously been used as a method to suppress the vote over the course of US history.

There is no "further scrutiny". You either have the documentation that proves your eligibility to vote in your locality, or you don't. Studies showed that Voter ID laws have little to no effect on turn out.

The simple act of requiring someone to state on a government form they can't "reasonably" obtain an ID is going to scare some people off from voting.

No doubt, but in Texas and in many other states, they are reasonably attainable, and have no fees. Somewhat of a straw man here. Again, studies showed that Voter ID laws have little to no effect on turn out.

What is "reasonable"? Am I going to be charged with voter fraud if I simply didn't want to spend the money on an ID?

No, you just won't be allowed to vote. You won't be charged with any crime. Also, you don't spend money on fees, the above ID mentioned is free.

Will I end up in jail for voting? There is a chilling effect here.

This is all conjecture. There is no chilling effect on requiring a free voter ID according to the studies.

It is not. In Texas, you cannot purchase alcohol with a school ID.

The IDs that are required to vote in Republican states are either free of charge, or they allow alternative ID documents.

Texas being a fine example: https://www.votetexas.gov/mobile/id-faqs.htm

There are free options that are easy to aquire. Not sure why there are so many myths about this.

The WaPo article has some glaring falsehoods. Of course in Texas you can vote with your concealed handgun license, it's the hardest one to get.

The IDs that are required to vote in Republican states are either free of charge, or they allow alternative ID documents.

Texas being a fine example: https://www.votetexas.gov/mobile/id-faqs.htm

There are free options that are easy to aquire. Not sure why there are so many myths about this.

The IDs that are required to vote in Republican states are either free of charge, or they allow alternative ID documents.

Texas being a fine example: https://www.votetexas.gov/mobile/id-faqs.htm

I live in a major city and the state doesn't seem to take care of anyone here, millennial or not.

Their parent's generation for sure, and the liberal educators at the time.

Hilarious how entitled the author is. It's delusional to believe that millennials, or anyone else for that matter, are owed living in some of the most expensive cities on the planet.

So many people just BELIEVE that if you fumble through college, you're magically owed an affordable, nice house/apartment in some of the most desirable metros on the face of the planet.

Whitelist. You can spell it out here.

Why?

Another instance where zero-trust networking has utterly failed.

Security comes in layers. That first layer of requiring a VPN can stop many types of attacks from happening.

Next layer is requiring MFA for VPN access. Then for admin access, require MFA only from approved devices on the domain.

Large banks and the DoD have been doing this for years.

The "fail often and fail fast" crew are always reinventing the wheel after bad experiences. I honestly feel sorry for them.

Law enforcement wants to brand protesters as rioters because it helps law enforcement aims and goals, which is to end the protest and the riots.

Categorically false. There were dozens upon dozens of peaceful protests across the country in the past weeks that were decidedly not branded as riots. Very few police departments have declared groupings as riots, fewer than ten. Orders of magnitude less than the amount of protests.

This should be obvious, as they have allowed looting and rioting in instances, as well as curtailing and meaningfully impeding constitutionally protected protest activity.

This makes little sense and actually disproves your point? City councils and mayors oversee the police departments and tell them to stand down.

When law enforcement is allowed to designate people or groups as rioters indiscriminately, and then brutalize them, then arrest them, it’s clear that your rights are being impinged.

So you just said they're not able to since in other areas they've been told to stand down and not enforce or designate anything. You can't have it both ways.

and can do as much or more “journalism” on a Twitter account today than William Randolph Hearst could on a good day in 1898.[1][2]

An interesting historical footnote from

Total non sequitur.

Solaris hasn't beaten Linux in performance in the past 5 years in anything.

As a matter of fact, you can't point to a single source that proves your point.

"That which is purported without evidence can be disregarded without evidence."

Politicians who describe whole categories of persons as “criminals” are imputing to them permanent character traits that are frightening to most people, while simultaneously positioning themselves as our protectors.

What category specifically is the Portland Police describing as "criminals"? They are specifically calling those partaking in a riot "rioters". None of this is race related, and as a matter of fact, the vast majority of these rioters are white.

Such language undermines the democratic process of reasonable decision making

The decisions have been made. Defacing and burning down buildings and assaulting officers is illegal. Partaking in this illegal behavior in large groups is what rioters do.

Another salient example in the U.S. context is the use of the term “riot” to describe political protests.

No one is describing the peaceful protests as riots. The riots are described as riots.

The rest of your post is full of illogic and is clearly not describing what we're seeing in Portland. By no legal definition is what's going on in Portland now considered a "peaceful protest".

Discussion that uses terms like “criminal” to encompass both those who commit multiple homicides for pleasure and those who commit traffic violations

Homicides are criminal, many traffic violations are decidedly NOT CRIMINAL, and instead are civil infractions. Much like riots are criminal and protests are civil. Perfect example actually, thanks for proving my point.