Things like this combined with the countless ways to hide "feature flags" in a giant codebase makes me feel that anything less than "the entire app was verified + there is literally no way to dynamically load code from remote (so even no in app browser) + we checked 5 years of old versions and plan to do this for the next 5 years of update" is particularly meaningful.
Still very important but my issue has never been with zucks inability to produce solid software, rather in its intentions and so them being good engineers just makes them better at hiding bad stuff.
Back in the days people called skype [1] spyware because it had lots of backdoors in it and lots of undocumented APIs that shouldn't have been in there.
The funny part was that skype was probably the most obfuscated binary that was ever available as "legitimate" software, so there were regular reversing events to see "how far" you could get from scratch to zeroday within 48h hackathons. Those were fun times :D
The thing that make the formula click to me is that it is written as a thriller.
By the last 10% of the book/serie he has created a problem you are 100% sure is insurmountable but by the last 5% you realise how small hints through the story could be composed to create a solution.
then you are not using any vpn service marketed or provided in the UK. if you were to sell access to your VPS to others then you would have to do age verifications on them maybe.
maybe it is still illegal, IDK, bu likely due to other laws (eg a generic "it is illegal to use workaround for X")
then you are not using any vpn service marketed or provided in the UK[0]. if you were to sell access to your VPS to others then you would have to do age verifications on them maybe.
[0] maybe it is still illegal, IDK, bu likely due to other laws (eg a generic "it is illegal to use workaround for X")
The definition section of the amendment defines a "relevant VPN service":
>“relevant VPN service” means a service of providing, in the course of a business, to a consumer, a virtual private network for accessing the internet;
I think it would be a significant stretch to say that a provider that provisions a VPS instance is a "business providing a virtual private network".
Just because you could run a VPN, it's not the VPS provider that is offering a VPN service.
I think it will successfully strech that far (especially after VPN provders move into VPS to avoid) not least because no-one but the provider could be held responsible.
I don't understand what "VPN providers move onto VPS to avoid" means? Can you clarify?
I can't see how they could apply it to VPS providers without meaning AWS, GCP, Digital Ocean, etc would all start having to do age verification checks. Can't imagine here would not be a massive push back against that.
By VPS, I mean a generic compute instance that can run whatever you want. Like a Linux instance. I'm not sure what you mean by "VPN providers offer VPS as a substitute" in that context.
Paying by card isn't enough to verify age. They'd have to specifically verify via passport or other ID.
i don't think so, it is not provided as a service. if you provide vpn service people can connect to from their router then you need to do age verification before giving them a key/password to connect to the server
The email sent from your own separate server will fail basic dmarc/SPF/dkim validation the email sent by their own servers likely will appear legitimate
It would fail in the same ways unless the from address you're using is on their domains, which is then only a problem for their own customers rather than innocent third parties, and their own customers have the sensible option to stop using their service.
In the context of the paradox you need to call it a set, otherwise it would not be a paradox
reply