There's a huge difference between anti-diversity, and anti-forced-diversity for the sake of diversity.
I don't see why this is so complicated, other than perhaps it seems SJW types can't fathom the idea that hiring managers are actually capable of talking to a person, getting to know them, and then capable of deciding whether or not they're qualified for the job without checking off a list of what should be considered irrelevant qualifiers.... Skin color, penis girth, propensity for future development of diabeetus, etc.
Also, it's quite clear that you didn't read the memo at all. Maybe the Buzzfeed condensed op-ed on it. Did he have some inflammatory opinions that maybe aren't correct? Hell yeah, but they're his opinions, he said a lot of other stuff that was entirely poignant, relevant, and accurate.
This yes/no true/false BS has got to stop. You don't get to hone in on somebody's one solitary opinion that might open up conversation to a "non-safe space", cry misogynist/racist/rapist, and then auto-dismiss the rest of their arguments like you've discovered some sort of irl Konami Konversation Kode.
That's terribad debating and awful human communication.
James Demore's firing really only proves that he was mostly right.
Yeah, there was a bugzilla for the packaging, 'changes' are done on the wiki and are for things more than 'just' packaging up software (where guidelines are needed, in this case).
Someone got a draft up last night [0], and discussion is happening on -devel. If things go well this may make it in F25.
Will Fedora ever rename/relogo Copr? Surely it was a joke to use the Greek word for faeces (κόπρο) and a logo of a side-on view of a sphincter pushing out a fresh coil.
Yes. It makes three requests to googleusercontent.com and one to fonts.googleapis.com.
It's interesting because the site has gone to some length to host jQuery, Bootstrap and other stuff you could see referenced in HTML source, but CSS file requires stuff from Google servers. So maybe they simply missed that one.
Right, so Google end up with the IP address of the NAT gateway that my mobile provider puts me through. Hundreds, if not thousands, of other people will be sharing the same gateway.
In addition, DNS doesn't send my GPS co-ordinates along with the request, so it will just be IP geolocation data which Google will collate for their own stats on their DNS servers (So they can see/log what regions people access from, etc.).
Just because it mentions storing location doesn't mean they are trying to monitor every step you take when using their DNS.
Yeap. BUT between trashing your phone and filling it with proprietary apps there is a huge gap. This is what this post is about. I don't claim you'll get ultimate privacy. I'm sure that most people reading my post or commenting here are using a smartphone.
Well the post mentioned NSA several times as a motivation for those privacy changes. But the NSA can "talk" to cell operators, and cell operators can talk to baseband chips, and baseband chips can "talk" (DMA) to the rest of your phone, so let's be explicit here: this will not protect you from intelligence agencies / state actors. This only might protect you from overly targeted ads.
True, but NSA is mentioned just because it made these discussions more vivid and relevant over the last months. The post doesn't claim that you get an NSA-proof phone. I don't think such thing exists.
Not sure if you really did this by accident, or if you're playing dumb, but the article does sound like claiming it'll make a phone NSA-safe. Yeah, now that you said so, I notice that it doesn't explicitly claim so, but first paragraphs are sure sprinkled with the name; if you really cared about the reader's safety, it would be responsible then to explicitly state that this advice does not protect against NSA.
Well, if you already mention the NSA to make discussion "more relevant" to recent events (which were about... NSA surveillance), then it would be also good to mention that the advice from your article are not meant to secure you from the NSA :).
It's good for people to know exactly how much security they get by following particular advice :).
Agree, but when discussing privacy/anonymity it would be good if people talked more explicitly about the end result. Because most of the solutions that "will improve your privacy" and/or "security" will do so only against targeted ads and technically inept stalkers. Without calling out limits to which the solution improves our "privacy", we're just creating false sense of security in people.
Is there any reason in particular that Twitter is one of the apps that you're putting on your ideal privacy-phone? I would've imagined that stuff like http://dcurt.is/twitter-is-tracking-you-on-the-web would would put them in the same boat as the other services that were rejected.
There is usually little or no security boundary between the AP and complex peripherals (like the baseband, cameras, GPU, audio subsystem, etc.) Usually these will have direct access to main memory (like having a DMA channel given to them), and will have firmware loaded into them by the AP at boot. After which, they can damage the integrity and privacy of your 100%-OSS AP software.
The baseband, particularly, is of concern because it's connected to the outside world, and is powerful and complex. And almost always closed, and provided by an American company (Qualcomm).
The firmware that runs the baseband processor manages communication via the radio (and sometimes wifi and bluetooth as well)[0]. Once loaded, that firmware will have plenty of opportunities to phone home or otherwise provide information about your location, activities, etc.
e.g. The camera firmware blob could be tagging all your pictures with some kind of hidden watermark. Who knows ?
EDIT: Just to clarify, firmware blobs are not executed "on their own", they are normally executed on a micro-controller that is embedded in the baseband / power management / gpu / any other chip.
That my have been what you meant, but it wasn't what you wrote in the blog post. And besides, it's irrelevant if it runs "on its own" or not; in fact, technically, only the bootloader runs on its own, everything else has to be loaded by some piece of software, including the OS itself.
FYI the cameras in most phones (at least the ones I've played around with) contain no firmware. It's just a relatively dumb image sensor connected via a MIPI interface to the main SoC, and is under control of it. It cannot access memory on its own.
Don't know of any particular blogs/articles but you can e.g. Google "OV5647 datasheet" and read the datasheet for the RPi's camera chip. There's not much that could be a security concern on the camera module itself, since it's relatively dumb; it's what controls it that's a different issue.
