A Layer-3 (network-layer) blacklist risks cutting off innocent CGNAT and cloud users. What you’re proposing is similar to mechanisms that already exist (e.g., access control lists at the ISP level work by asking computer B which requests it wants to reject and rejecting those that originate from computer A). However, implementing any large-scale blocking effort beyond the endpoint (i.e. telling an unrelated computer C to blackhole all requests from computer A to computer B) would be too computationally expensive for a use case as wide and as precise as “every computer on the Internet”.

Also, in your post you mentioned, “A host would need to have a way to identify itself as authoritative, responsible for the IP address in question.” This already happens in the form of BGP though it doesn’t provide cryptographic proof of ownership unless additional mechanisms are in use (RPKI/ROA).

I assume good faith unless clear evidence indicates otherwise. I try to adopt a more general version of WP:AGF in life.

Excess opioid use can cause dependence and increase tolerance to the painkilling effects faster than tolerance is built to the effects it has on respiration. As such, certain types of opioids are exceptionally dangerous when abused without mechanisms to deal with overdoses. Therefore, we say that abusing opioids is bad for health.

On the other hand, we can take the example of the early human who found joy in gathering food. Similar to the argument about “pathways being influenced”, we see that neural pathways are reinforced because of repeated concentration on the same goal. However, treating this as an addiction means that once this “addiction” is cured, humans will no longer want to get food. That means that humans will suffer adverse effects due to giving up the desire to gather food. Someone particularly ignorant could even extend this argument to call water and oxygen addictive.

Clearly, a line must be drawn to distinguish between things that are addictive and those that are not. You gave the example of reading and said that excessive concentration causes reading to behave in mechanisms similar to drugs and I totally agree with that statement. However, the fact remains that reading does not cause negative impacts on health despite repeated exposure to reading whereas the same is not true for drugs.

Since you asked for a narrower and non-speculative explanation of the fact that drugs do damage and books do not, let me ask a concrete question in reply. You stated that you have taken psychedelics in the past. Do you feel that if you had encountered a bad episode, you would have had the ability to leave the episode immediately? Would there have been a way to flush all psychedelics from your body? Clearly, with books, you can just stop reading the book, throw it in a paper shredder, or burn it to ash. Can you do the same with all drugs? Is reversibility really that easy for every single drug?

One could argue that binge reading is harmful and I totally agree. But the overall benefits of reading are sufficiently powerful as compared to the extremely low rate of addiction.

In fact, if looking at DSM-5 criteria, we can almost entirely ignore all points related to social impairment as reading is a major social obligation in a lot of places. Similarly, tolerance does not build up when reading. Another example of DSM-5 criteria we can ignore is the fact that physical and psychological problems do not occur. In fact, we can say that the only meaningful criteria are those related to withdrawal and those related to impaired control.

In books, the rate of impaired control is generally negligible as is the rate of withdrawal. Similar to how someone who drinks fifty litres of water a day is generally considered addicted to water, so is a person who reads instead of eating, taking care of personal hygiene, and sleeping. Yet the general rate of both water addiction and reading addiction is absurdly low when compared to the benefits.

Generally, books are considered non-addictive because they enhance one’s quality of life without causing negative health effects. It is a non-speculative fact that books have very little adverse effects. Requiring concentration alone is not sufficient to call something addictive. While it is true that anything done in excess is bad (e.g., getting too much oxygen or water), most people read in moderation. Something addictive needs to be damaging to the general quality of life. That is precisely why all pharmaceutical drugs given for medical purposes are given with one question in mind: will taking a given drug increase or decrease the quality of life in the short and long term.

NOTHING IN THIS REPLY CONSISTS OF MEDICAL ADVICE

I have not added inline citations as I do know which of these points are likely to be challenged. For further reading, please read about the DSM-5 criteria.

Yes, it is visible when a new trusted device is added. The QR code you scan to link a device contains a one-time public key for that device (ECC is used partly to fit the public key more easily into a QR code). Signal on the phone then sends a lot of information, including the identity keys, to the new device. The new device uses these identity keys to communicate. Note that the transfer of identity keys is fully encrypted, with encryption and decryption taking place on the clients. This can, of course, be bypassed if someone you’re talking to has their security key compromised, but the same risk exists if the recipient takes a screenshot or photographs their device’s screen.

Edit: The security key refers to the one-time key pair generated to initiate the transfer of identity keys and chat history. It can be compromised if someone accidentally scans a QR code and transfers their identity keys to an untrusted device.

I assumed that not only the entire app but also the entire client device had been audited. This was a client-side attack, not Meta momentarily adding itself to the trusted-device list. I’m confident it was a client-side attack because it would be impossible to hide even a momentary change in keys from the client without modifying the client app to conceal such a change.

Even in an “insecure” app without air-gapped systems or manual encryption, creating a backdoor to access plaintext messages is still very difficult if the app is well audited, open source, and encrypts messages with the recipient’s public key or a symmetric key before sending ciphertext to a third-party server.

If you trust the client-side implementation and the mathematics behind the symmetric and asymmetric algorithms, messages remains secure even if the centralized server is compromised. The client-side implementation can be verified by inspecting the source code if the app is open source and the device is trusted (for example, there is no ring-zero vulnerability).

The key exchange itself remains somewhat vulnerable if there is no other secure channel to verify that the correct public keys were exchanged. However, once the public keys have been correctly exchanged, the communication is secure.

Is there a specific “undress” button? I tried looking for proof that it exists but couldn’t find any (my searching skills clearly need work). Could you please share a screenshot or point me to a place where I can confirm that it exists?

That data might be easily accessible, but that was a choice Root made. I think that it is a safe assumption that Root knew most vigilantes keep their identity secret and, assuming a German background, had read Section 202 of the StGB and other relevant laws and court rulings. As such, Root most likely did this despite knowing their identity is at risk. It is likely they did this publicly specifically to inspire others, though I haven’t looked at all the details and there might be a different reason.

Nothing in this comment constitutes legal advice.

ASCII was interpreted as UTF because the function that checked whether the given text was Unicode checked the difference between bytes at even and odd positions. Many of the common phrases used to trigger this were in the 4-3-3-5 format (by letters), e.g., Bush hid the facts However, there was never any reason that this format of character placement was necessary for the bug (though even length was necessary)