Possibly, but the puritans of which you speak talked the way you do too. Puritans might be long gone, but people who do crazy assumption-piling to justify some hatred or other never will be.
Who cares who owns the foot. It’s the action, and the boot, that is the problem.
Don’t make this about the owner, make it about the action. And maybe get rid of the boots?
More that the west has a better understanding of exploitation (from experience) and is generally against it now.
China still has to learn these lessons, and it will in time. It will need to shake its authoritarian ways first, because lessons can never learned this way. Authoritarianism repeats the same mistakes over and over by reenforcement of dogma.
It’s not jealousy, it’s a warning of lessons learned.
> More that the west has a better understanding of exploitation (from experience) and is generally against it now.
You must no be aware of the CFA francs that is used in some parts of Africa and de facto controlled by France. Control that in turn has been proven to actually channel money out of Africa towards France. I guess the end of exploitation memo must not have reached Paris.
The West doesn't like that China is going to Africa because it creates competition for them. Before France et al could just call the shots and the African continent was simply supposed to shut up and take it.
Now China is there and is trying to offer something better potentially. The West doesn't want to up it's offers so the complaining starts and with it comes the moralizing.
As if the West has any lessons to give to someone else regarding anything moral.
> It’s not jealousy, it’s a warning of lessons learned.
Maybe the West should just let these people live and choose for themselves instead of whining about unfair the competition is.
What TikTok offered was abhorrent to American sensibilities:
America: we don’t want ccp censorship of people’s content
ByteDance: no problem, here are the knobs for US gov censorship, should be ok!
America: you have missed the point entirely, pls go away
Have a think why this might be, thinking about…
rule of law, acceptability to the public, democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of association, authoritarian states and arbitrary rules.
There is a reason why one place must carefully plan policy, and another place can arbitrarily restrictions on anyone or anything. State violence can be used in both cases, but typically the later will use friends and family for leverage with such state violence.
I just wish for a world without bytedance and its patrons stamping on the worlds faces forever.
What TikTok offers is compliant with American sensibilities considering it follows US laws and is massively popular with US audiences. You know rule of law... acceptability to the public etc etc. If anything PRC restrictions are less arbiturary since it applies to all platform operators, while US is arbiturary since it doesn't.
One can point out the existence of the law is designed to be not about equal application, and highlight that is reflection on quality of law and the interests behind it. Ultimately, it's applier's perogative to push unequal application. Highlighting this scenario is one where US is more rule by law vs PRC rule of law is certainly going to seem like a mistake to those who want to interpret it as the opposite.
Again, you are missing the point, which may be a product of your environment. It’s not about systemic differences, or who is doing rule of law “properly”.
One side is pointing at knobs with the word China crossed out and replaced with USA.
The other side is shocked that someone would make such knobs in the first place, regardless of their label.
The issue is not the shape of the knob, or the color, or its size. The issue is the knobs existence.
Who is shocked? It's extremely not surprising the knob exists, it's surprising so many people think the knob is one shape when it's another. The original chain is about discussing the shape, not the existence.
Getting closer!! You are not shocked, and can’t see why anyone would be surprised the knob exists. This is closer to the root issue.
I want you to think about people that might be shocked,
Not for the shape, but the existence. Or why one might even desire such knobs. Think about why this might be.
It’s all very abstract now. You are not trying to convince me of anything, and all I am trying to do is expand your perspective. Peace to all.
The dumbest decision that stupid government can make. And it’s not a partisan issue, as when this causes the current party to fail, the “malignant tuber” will ratchet it further.
Cooked either way.
Australia has always been run by technologically iterate petty tyrants. They have wanted to deanonymize Internet users, and now they will try to force the internet to give them their wish. Resist.
Ultimately, Australia will be further isolated. Internet properties will decide to block Australian IPs rather than complying with eKaren and co. Elon cancels starlink in Australia.
The advantage of everyone running the same software and hardware platform is that you can concentrate on hardening that one system. The disadvantage is that vulnerability is universal.
The advantage of everyone running a disparate environment of many of different libraries and binaries is that vulnerability is likely unique. The disadvantage is there are many more opportunities for the researcher to find vulnerability in the mess.
Choose your poison, the only secure system is powered down.
Vulnerabilities in the Linux kernel would have a similar impact to a macOS kernel bug. It’s a myth that “more eyes means more secure” for OSS ;-) - it can be true, but often that’s not the reason
IMHO their claim is invalidated by appeal to patents. Patents are a sure fire way to ensure that even the most clever of cryptographic constructions is never used in the real world.
Open is better than closed. Non-patented encumbered is better that encumbered.
Oh you are 15. I’m glad you are playing in this space! Cybersecurity is a rewarding career.
With due respect to the fact you are making an effort to get into the scene, congratulations for making the effort to share!
Maybe just hold off on saying it’s going to “change the world”. We never say unhackable.
But in all seriousness, you do not have sufficient exposure or time in the field to sufficiently understand the threats your product is trying to defend against.
You are proposing replacing people’s security systems with your new unhackable thing. But it’s missing essential parts.
Schneier’s Law: any person can invent a security system so clever that they can’t think how to break it.
Keep playing, but maybe hold off on the “products” for a few more years while you learn the rest of the field, otherwise you may be doing harm to people, people’s data, etc.
Thanks for your feedback! I just wanted to clarify that I'm not your average 15-year-old. I've been actively involved in security testing, malware analysis, and have even been in trouble after hacking into my school's system when I was 14—so I understand the weight of security and the challenges involved.
That said, I definitely respect the complexity of the field and the importance of experience. I’m still learning every day and appreciate the insights from more seasoned professionals. While I may have had some early experiences, I realize there’s always more to learn, especially when it comes to ensuring my systems are truly secure and ready for the real world.
I’ll be taking the feedback seriously and continuing to build on my knowledge. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts!
If you've not seen it already, Ross Anderson's book is both excellent and free (second edition at least, third edition has free chapters and doesn't cost much)
I did the same thing at your age, re school, so I understand. I also liked coming up with auth schemes.
One thing I would suggest is dropping the mail component and not involving it at all - you are using this as a weak second factor, exportable; monthly rotation.
Bind it to a hardware key instead and use proper cryptography.
Thanks for pointing that out. To clarify, the text and ideas are entirely mine, though I do use tools to help structure my thoughts sometimes. I’m here to learn from feedback like yours, and I’m genuinely trying to improve my understanding of the field.
I understand that the way I explain things might come off differently compared to more seasoned security professionals, and I’ll work on improving the system that as I continue learning. I’m very hands-on in my approach, from testing to developing, and the feedback I’m receiving is helping me see where I can improve, especially in how I communicate technical concepts.
I appreciate the constructive criticism, and I’ll keep working to make sure I’m approaching things with the depth and accuracy expected in the field. Thanks for the advice!
“The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia”