Sad to say, Proton's onion service is for their old version. Proton has recently rolled out a new updated version of their service, and as far as I'm aware they don't offer a Tor onion service for that newer version.
So Proton users who like to connect via Tor onion services have been faced with a choice of either staying on the old version of ProtonMail, or giving up on connecting via a Tor onion service. It definitely leaves the impression that they don't care much about Tor anymore, or that it's at best an afterthought for them.
I tested this, and you're right: Their Tor service runs the (in my opinion nearly as usable) older version.
It's plausible that Proton does not care about their Tor service, but there may be another reason: The new version relies more on Javascript code than their old version, and a Tor user is more likely to browse with scripts disabled than a regular user. Proton may be holding back the rollout of the newer version until they have tested it more without Javascript. This is only a hypothesis, and I came up with it just now; take it for what it is.
Using Tor to access a regular web site, ie: through an exit node, is (nearly) no different than using a proxy. Just assume all exit nodes are "naughty" and do your thing accordingly.
I think that quote is saying that if you modify your public key locally then the data you encrypt with it will no longer be decryptable by the private key you previously sent backblaze.
> If that's true, as an iCloud user you are exactly as likely to be charged with a crime based on your photos as you were before
Is this strictly true? I feel like the evidence that a photo was present on specific device is different from evidence that a photo was uploaded by a specific account (and a specific ip address probably).
It seems like it would be far easier for the government to justify a search warrant if they have evidence the photo they are looking for was on a specific device. Just having evidence that a specific account uploaded a photo seems like far shakier grounds to search a specific device, after all accounts are often stolen to be used for criminal purposes and ip addresses don't map cleanly to people or devices.
Maybe there’s some plausible deniability if a warrant uncovered nothing - but I think they would always be able get a warrant and try to find the device and more evidence based on the upload.
From what I’ve read the on-phone scanning only alerts after multiple photos and is designed to have a 1 in a trillion false positive rate. If the iCloud scan is similar they would have a strong case for getting a warrant based on uploads.
"Freedom of the press" in US law just means the freedom to create and distribute media (as opposed to freedom of speech which is specifically about the spoken word). "The press" references the printing press not the news media or journalists who are in modern times called "the press" also in reference to the printing press. Journalists have the same first amendment rights as everyone else (actually they could be said to have less because for certain purposes such as defamation they are actually held to a higher standard).
Kind of works out to special freedoms when the govt limits the number of people who can observe events and hands access credentials out based on whether they are more legitimate-appearing journalists.
Why does the government have an approved press pool? When you think about it it’s completely barmy. Why don’t they do everything via press releases and let everyone access equally?
Why is it more transparent to let a lot of unelected people who represent nobody ask questions? We already have elected people paid to do this job - HM’s opposition.
This is a good example of letting perfect be the enemy of the good. Because everyone can't--physically--have access, nobody gets it and the elected leadership gets to hide behind press releases.
> actually they could be said to have less because for certain purposes such as defamation they are actually held to a higher standard
The higher standard you're referring to I think is the "actual malice" standard, but that applies when the target of the defamation is a public figure, regardless of whether the alleged defamer is a journalist.
Sensible definition and I think it goes even further as they have some privileges as they cannot be forced to reveal sources. I think these rights should be extended to anyone that fits the definition in the widest sense that it includes all type of whistleblowing.
They actually can be forced to reveal sources, the choice not to force them to reveal sources was executive branch policy not law and this policy was rescinded by the Obama administration. I think they realized this was pretty bad optics though so Obama and Trump mostly just relied on using their broad intelligence powers to track down reporter's sources.
By the way, in the United States copyright is owned by the author of the work unless there is a written contract assigning it to someone else. The only real exception to this is an employee can assign copyright to their employer by mere verbal agreement. Since you were a contractor they don't have the copyright unless you actually have a written contract assigning it to them.
Some people do believe that non ionizing radiation has effects other than those produced by the added thermal energy (or that the thermal effects are in some way significant). The actual scientific evidence for this is minimal though.
Essentially EM fields alternating in the low to medium frequency bands (~100khz-1mhz) can disrupt cell processes by physically jiggling the polar molecules that make up portions of miotic spindles/microtubules. Among presumably other things this effect is being investigated as a cancer fighting mechanism called 'tumor treating fields'.
The carrier frequency of mobile phones is obviously far beyond the range in question, but there could be signal modulation components that alternate RF power levels in this frequency range.
If your phone emits any non-trivial amounts of RF power at 100 kHz-1MHz frequencies, regardless of whether this comes from intermodulation products or something else, it doesn't pass existing EMC regulations and can't be legally sold to consumers.
This is something that is already (or should be, in theory) rigorously tested for everything that's put on the consumer market (from your cheapest USB charger to your iPhone).
But we're talking about what happens after that GHz RF is absorbed by the tissues/fluids in the body. That becomes much more complex. It's not unlike the laser attack on MEMS microphones or a crystal radio powering a speaker in the audio range after receiving AM RF at 1Mhz.
Realistically we've been beaming our brains for decades now without a glut of brain tumors, but we might just be getting lucky, and if we don't know what to look for it could bite us later.
Yes, you can debate how much imported (or for that matter, domestically produced) stuff is actually tested, but the fact remains that existing laws and regulations do cover this, even if enforcement is maybe lacking.
I'm an ham radio operator, and shortwave spectrum pollution is sadly a big problem despite very strict regulations.
The unfortunate reality is that the market is flooded with noisy devices, often cheaply produces overseas, that vastly exceed legal limits (chargers and other rectifiers, plasma televisions, powerline adapters, and much more).
Enforcement is difficult due to how widespread these devices are.
In many places, the noise floor is to high that long-range shortwave radio communications all but impossible.
Just as a counterpoint to what everyone seems to be saying here: there most definitely is science that points towards RF fields having negative health effects for humans, and it is plentiful.
The fact that no-one talks about any of this just goes to show the extent of the lobbying done by the telecom industry.
> The fact that no-one talks about any of this just goes to show the extent of the lobbying done by the telecom industry.
If monsanto could do it, then others can too. I'm impressed by how quickly everyone decided that the scientific cover-up monsanto pulled off was a one-time event that couldn't possibly happen anywhere else.
Exactly. Thank you for sharing that. I was wondering if there is a place that collects this. Not sure if you're related to the site, but when clicking through to an article the site shows german, even though Im visiting in English.
> Some people do believe that non ionizing radiation has effects other than those produced by the added thermal energy
Some people believe vaccines cause Down's Syndrome.
"Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period." - Michael Crichton (https://tinyurl.com/vcxj2ex)
> Aren't reproducible results a form of consensus?
Not in the least. "Reproducible results" represents the technical and methodological ability to confirm that an effect is real. "Consensus" is whether a political body is willing to admit that the effect is real.
I think this is a semantic argument... If 100 independent scientists reproduce results, those results themselves are a scientific consensus, are they not?
Maybe in some degenerate form of consensus, like consensus on raw observations. If one person sees a rise in temperature during a reaction, someone else can say "nuh-uh, la la la".
Other forms of scientific disagreement happen, but those disagreements imply different predictions, and can be resolved with more experiments.
Science is a process that bootstraps broad agreements (scientific laws) from very tiny agreements (observations). The fact that a broad agreement (consensus) exists carries no weight if one lone wacky scientist can show reproducible observations that contradict it.
In scientific endeavours we only ever find what we were looking for. If we weren’t looking for non-thermal effects in cells we won’t see them, especially if our model of a cellular mass is a lump of ballistics gel, or a computer model of a skin surface in terms of resistive and capacitative networks.
The reason the scientific evidence is minimal is that we have been using simplistic models of human bodies for RF testing.
