Microsoft cutting crucial link to Gaza, Palestinians say(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Microsoft cutting crucial link to Gaza, Palestinians say
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cger582weplo
227 comments
utkarsh858(2)
It has R&D centers and local business centers. Skype is not in Israel and there's no reason for a VoIP solution to route through a country local facility. The "complete siege" ended ages ago. Israel provides power, food etc.
I don't know about power and food since I have friends in the North who still don't have access.
How far is Israel expected to deliver the food? Right to everyone's door?
A seige means the borders are closed. The current situation, for at least 6 months now is that Israel is letting food trucks through the border, more and more every day.
A problem exists for that last mile inside Gaza where no one wants to distribute it because militants will straight up beat truck drivers with sticks to steal the trucks and the food.
You'd think the UN would step in and do something but so far they mostly just sit on their hands bleating.
So to summarize: there are huge piles of food just inside the Gaza border that are not being distributed efficiently/at all.
I also want to point out that it's not in Israel's best interest for there to be food shortages inside Gaza. The first people who will be starved are the hostages, so Israel wants to flood the strip with so much food that some trickles down to her citizens held there against their will.
A seige means the borders are closed. The current situation, for at least 6 months now is that Israel is letting food trucks through the border, more and more every day.
A problem exists for that last mile inside Gaza where no one wants to distribute it because militants will straight up beat truck drivers with sticks to steal the trucks and the food.
You'd think the UN would step in and do something but so far they mostly just sit on their hands bleating.
So to summarize: there are huge piles of food just inside the Gaza border that are not being distributed efficiently/at all.
I also want to point out that it's not in Israel's best interest for there to be food shortages inside Gaza. The first people who will be starved are the hostages, so Israel wants to flood the strip with so much food that some trickles down to her citizens held there against their will.
Drone and bomb attacks are delivered to doors without a problem, so... Yes.
I don't think Israel cares that much about the hostages (the constant indiscriminate bombing might give a hint). But if that's true and the hostages are in the hands of Hamas, then Israel would provide food and supplies to Hamas, right?
Where are your sources about "huge piles of food just inside the Gaza border?"
Where are your sources about "huge piles of food just inside the Gaza border?"
Anyway, there are a lot of reasons, one is this :
> Aid groups say coordinating their movements with the Israeli military inside Gaza remains a complicated and time-consuming process, sometimes requiring hours to coordinate safe access to the Gaza side of the Kerem Shalom border. And despite these efforts, Israeli airstrikes have hit aid workers on multiple occasions.
I haven't found anything on the investigation that is supposedly investigating the WCK workers murder. Unless the people who did that receives exemplary punishment, what sort of NGOs could distribute that aid? And ITF forces are still on the ground, and air.
> Aid groups say coordinating their movements with the Israeli military inside Gaza remains a complicated and time-consuming process, sometimes requiring hours to coordinate safe access to the Gaza side of the Kerem Shalom border. And despite these efforts, Israeli airstrikes have hit aid workers on multiple occasions.
I haven't found anything on the investigation that is supposedly investigating the WCK workers murder. Unless the people who did that receives exemplary punishment, what sort of NGOs could distribute that aid? And ITF forces are still on the ground, and air.
It isn't just Skype, their hotmail accounts were also disabled. Many local countries definitely do have authority over services provided in their countries.
I would guess these shutdown orders came from Israeli security services and then were routed though Microsoft Israel to be enacted.
> The "complete siege" ended ages ago. Israel provides power, food etc.
Sure, whatever you say.
I would guess these shutdown orders came from Israeli security services and then were routed though Microsoft Israel to be enacted.
> The "complete siege" ended ages ago. Israel provides power, food etc.
Sure, whatever you say.
Quick fact check: According to the UN, there is now a famine in Gaza because of Israel's actions:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/10/is-there-famine-in-...
> “Israel’s intentional and targeted starvation campaign against the Palestinian people is a form of genocidal violence and has resulted in famine across all of Gaza,” 10 independent UN experts, including the special rapporteur on the right to food and the special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, said in a statement on Tuesday.
...
Three conditions must exist to determine there is famine:
- At least 20 percent of the population in the area faces extreme levels of hunger;
- 30 percent of the children in the area are too thin for their height; and
- The death rate has doubled from the average, surpassing two deaths per 10,000 daily for adults and four deaths per 10,000 daily for children.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/10/is-there-famine-in-...
> “Israel’s intentional and targeted starvation campaign against the Palestinian people is a form of genocidal violence and has resulted in famine across all of Gaza,” 10 independent UN experts, including the special rapporteur on the right to food and the special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, said in a statement on Tuesday.
...
Three conditions must exist to determine there is famine:
- At least 20 percent of the population in the area faces extreme levels of hunger;
- 30 percent of the children in the area are too thin for their height; and
- The death rate has doubled from the average, surpassing two deaths per 10,000 daily for adults and four deaths per 10,000 daily for children.
Did the 10 independent experts provide any evidence for these new claims? I can not find any in the article you have provided. I believe you should confine your assertion to “high risk” as the article states.
FTA: “ In its most recent evaluation, carried out last month, the IPC said Gaza remains at “high risk” of famine as the war continues and aid access is restricted, but stopped short of classifying conditions as a famine.
FTA: “ In its most recent evaluation, carried out last month, the IPC said Gaza remains at “high risk” of famine as the war continues and aid access is restricted, but stopped short of classifying conditions as a famine.
> Did the 10 independent experts provide any evidence for these new claims? I
somehow they can't get their people in, because big bad Israel, and at the same time, they seem to know exactly what's going on on the ground, and can make such claims. gaza seems to be the land of logical contradictions...
somehow they can't get their people in, because big bad Israel, and at the same time, they seem to know exactly what's going on on the ground, and can make such claims. gaza seems to be the land of logical contradictions...
Quick check: famine review committee was unable to find evidence of famine in Gaza [1]
[1] https://reliefweb.int/attachments/c6421cb7-c936-4145-af54-b7...
[1] https://reliefweb.int/attachments/c6421cb7-c936-4145-af54-b7...
Pretty disengenious summary on your part. From the report you linked:
> Firstly, all stakeholders who use the IPC for high-level decision-making must understand that whether a Famine classification is confirmed does not in any manner change the fact that extreme human suffering is without a doubt currently ongoing in the Gaza Strip and does not in any manner change the immediate humanitarian imperative to address this civilian suffering by enabling complete, safe, unhindered, and sustained humanitarian access into and throughout the Gaza Strip, including through ceasing hostilities. All actors should not wait until a Famine classification for the current period is made to act accordingly.
> Secondly, the FRC would like to highlight that the very fact that we are unable to endorse (or not) FEWS NET’s analysis is driven by the lack of essential up to date data on human well-being in Northern Gaza, and Gaza at large. Thus, the FRC strongly requests all parties to enable humanitarian access in general, and specifically to provide a window of opportunity to conduct field surveys in Northern Gaza to have more solid evidence of the food consumption, nutrition, and mortality situation.
> Firstly, all stakeholders who use the IPC for high-level decision-making must understand that whether a Famine classification is confirmed does not in any manner change the fact that extreme human suffering is without a doubt currently ongoing in the Gaza Strip and does not in any manner change the immediate humanitarian imperative to address this civilian suffering by enabling complete, safe, unhindered, and sustained humanitarian access into and throughout the Gaza Strip, including through ceasing hostilities. All actors should not wait until a Famine classification for the current period is made to act accordingly.
> Secondly, the FRC would like to highlight that the very fact that we are unable to endorse (or not) FEWS NET’s analysis is driven by the lack of essential up to date data on human well-being in Northern Gaza, and Gaza at large. Thus, the FRC strongly requests all parties to enable humanitarian access in general, and specifically to provide a window of opportunity to conduct field surveys in Northern Gaza to have more solid evidence of the food consumption, nutrition, and mortality situation.
What's disengenious about? They didn't find evidence of famine, and thus the claim "According to the UN, there is now a famine in Gaza" is factual wrong. The sprinkling of ideology on top of this fact doesn't change it.
invalidname(1)
That statement was from less than a year ago.
The whole war has been going for 9 months. Things change fast. It was a stupid statement by a stupid/evil government, but facts have changed quite a while back in relative terms.
You said "[t]he "complete siege" ended ages ago."
This specific statement was less than a year ago, from the IDF, about instituting a complete siege.
This specific statement was less than a year ago, from the IDF, about instituting a complete siege.
People use the word "ages" to indicate a significant amount of time. In the context of this war it's correct. This obviously didn't refer to the literal meaning of ages when discussing a 9 month war.
It seems to me you're trying to nitpick on a minor choice of words instead of the substance of what I said.
It seems to me you're trying to nitpick on a minor choice of words instead of the substance of what I said.
Power is still disabled in large swaths of gaza.
Food is still scarce, with far fewer trucks let in versus pre invasion (which was 500 trucks a day), which was already calibrated according to Israeli officials to be "the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis". https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikileaks-israel-intentionally-...
Food is still scarce, with far fewer trucks let in versus pre invasion (which was 500 trucks a day), which was already calibrated according to Israeli officials to be "the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis". https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikileaks-israel-intentionally-...
Those 500 trucks included other stuff besides food. Things like concrete (for tunnels) and water pipes (for mortars).
Nowadays (as in the last few months) a minimum of 250 FOOD trucks enter Gaza daily. Sometimes as high as 350.
Source, with occasional pictures https://twitter.com/cogatonline
This also means that the embarrassing US floating pier brings in approximately nothing compared to the land crossings.
Nowadays (as in the last few months) a minimum of 250 FOOD trucks enter Gaza daily. Sometimes as high as 350.
Source, with occasional pictures https://twitter.com/cogatonline
This also means that the embarrassing US floating pier brings in approximately nothing compared to the land crossings.
> Things like concrete (for tunnels) and water pipes (for mortars).
Those were both banned. The trucks were mainly food.
Also, the story was that they built rockets out of the pipes. In reality, they were remanufactured arms out of Israeli duds. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/28/world/middleeast/israel-h...
> Nowadays (as in the last few months) a minimum of 250 FOOD trucks enter Gaza daily. Sometimes as high as 350.
Current estimates are that 1000-1500 trucks a day are needed due to both the backlog of lack of food and the destruction of Gaza internal food production.
Those were both banned. The trucks were mainly food.
Also, the story was that they built rockets out of the pipes. In reality, they were remanufactured arms out of Israeli duds. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/28/world/middleeast/israel-h...
> Nowadays (as in the last few months) a minimum of 250 FOOD trucks enter Gaza daily. Sometimes as high as 350.
Current estimates are that 1000-1500 trucks a day are needed due to both the backlog of lack of food and the destruction of Gaza internal food production.
Again, I already said these things. Are you looking for an argument? To say the last word? What's your point? Why link for an article from 2011?
Power is out in specific areas because Hamas was in control of all civil offices and they're gone. So while the grid is back up, there's no engineers to connect the destroyed relays.
The trucks are back in. The problem is on the other side of the fence https://www.npr.org/2024/04/09/1243752564/hundreds-of-aid-tr...
You can blame that problem on Israel too although this isn't something Israel can fix.
You're using a typical western POV which is severely broken and damaging to the people of Gaza. E.g.
"Hamas Leader Reacts to 3 Sons Being Killed: 'Thank God'" https://www.newsweek.com/hamas-leader-reacts-3-sons-killed-t...
There's a picture of him smiling as he brings the news to his wife where you also see her smiling. I can't imagine losing a child, just thinking about him losing a child makes me tear up. It's unimaginable. Yet Hamas leaders consider the death and suffering of their own children in the Jihad as a blessing.
That is fanatic religious insanity. But they understand that the West doesn't see it that way. So they use Palestinian children in the most heinous ways possible, as couriers between their tunnels and bait. An accidental death of a child is propaganda and they live on that. Recently they published a video of an Israeli army dog attacking an old woman. They literally kidnapped that dog and used it to stage an attack for propaganda.
I'm not saying that horrible things aren't happening there due to Israeli actions. On the contrary, they are. But they are happening there for the most part because Hamas is an enemy of the Palestinian people as much as it is an enemy of Israel. It is using Hospitals, Schools and Mosques as bases. They placed a huge weapons cache under a refuge sanction, then when it exploded it was easy to blame Israel and for 24-48 hours the media reported that it was Israel.
Western ignorant good intentions are prolonging the war and making it worse because they're giving Hamas false hope.
Power is out in specific areas because Hamas was in control of all civil offices and they're gone. So while the grid is back up, there's no engineers to connect the destroyed relays.
The trucks are back in. The problem is on the other side of the fence https://www.npr.org/2024/04/09/1243752564/hundreds-of-aid-tr...
You can blame that problem on Israel too although this isn't something Israel can fix.
You're using a typical western POV which is severely broken and damaging to the people of Gaza. E.g.
"Hamas Leader Reacts to 3 Sons Being Killed: 'Thank God'" https://www.newsweek.com/hamas-leader-reacts-3-sons-killed-t...
There's a picture of him smiling as he brings the news to his wife where you also see her smiling. I can't imagine losing a child, just thinking about him losing a child makes me tear up. It's unimaginable. Yet Hamas leaders consider the death and suffering of their own children in the Jihad as a blessing.
That is fanatic religious insanity. But they understand that the West doesn't see it that way. So they use Palestinian children in the most heinous ways possible, as couriers between their tunnels and bait. An accidental death of a child is propaganda and they live on that. Recently they published a video of an Israeli army dog attacking an old woman. They literally kidnapped that dog and used it to stage an attack for propaganda.
I'm not saying that horrible things aren't happening there due to Israeli actions. On the contrary, they are. But they are happening there for the most part because Hamas is an enemy of the Palestinian people as much as it is an enemy of Israel. It is using Hospitals, Schools and Mosques as bases. They placed a huge weapons cache under a refuge sanction, then when it exploded it was easy to blame Israel and for 24-48 hours the media reported that it was Israel.
Western ignorant good intentions are prolonging the war and making it worse because they're giving Hamas false hope.
I actually find it pretty odd that it isn't normal for religious people to be happy when a loved one dies. They are in a place of infinite happiness, that's awesome.
Have you ever lost someone close?
I have friends of all religions although I'm personally an atheist. Religion has very little to do with this deep sorrow. It's not about them, it's about the personal loss. It's about the suffering prior to death. It's a deep visceral human emotion that separates out psychopaths.
Based on that logic Hamas should welcome Israeli bombs and consider that a favor. But they sacrifice others rather than themselves. Their terrorists hide in tunnels away from bombings and send child couriers to do the dirty work for them. They find the poor suicidal soles and instead of getting them help, put them in a suicide vest and send them to kill innocent people. That's insanity.
I have friends of all religions although I'm personally an atheist. Religion has very little to do with this deep sorrow. It's not about them, it's about the personal loss. It's about the suffering prior to death. It's a deep visceral human emotion that separates out psychopaths.
Based on that logic Hamas should welcome Israeli bombs and consider that a favor. But they sacrifice others rather than themselves. Their terrorists hide in tunnels away from bombings and send child couriers to do the dirty work for them. They find the poor suicidal soles and instead of getting them help, put them in a suicide vest and send them to kill innocent people. That's insanity.
Why did you put quotes around "war"? It may be other things, but it's definitely not just a "reaction", "retaliation", or "police action"...
Every time I read a story like this, about MS or Google or Twitter or which-ever big corporate it is, I'm so glad that I exited these platforms and years ago.
I left LinkedIn before MS bought it, because it was clear it was being copied by all and sundry.
I left GitHub once MS bought it (and I thank God for that, ever time I see another story about MS being awful).
I never used Google - they were obviously evil and from quite early on.
I may be completely wrong, but I think large companies are completely amoral. Not in a malicious way, but in a can't-be-anything-else kind of way; that is is an emergent property.
All large organization have absolutely no moral sense, which is to say, doing things because they are ethical, regardless of costs or benefits, or possessing a capability to assess or modify their own actions on moral criteria.
Complaining MS do these things is like complaining a cat jumps on a mouse.
I'm not a fan of brutal mouse death, so I don't own a cat.
What's critical of course is knowing this, and before deciding to buy into what these companies offer, rather than discovering it after buying into what these companies offer.
And these companies will only tell you how wonderful their services are, and nothing about what they're up - nothing about how much and what data they collect, and what they do with it (give it to the State, sell it to all and sundry, with real-time updates included), or what's done with it (mandatory State mass interception).
I left LinkedIn before MS bought it, because it was clear it was being copied by all and sundry.
I left GitHub once MS bought it (and I thank God for that, ever time I see another story about MS being awful).
I never used Google - they were obviously evil and from quite early on.
I may be completely wrong, but I think large companies are completely amoral. Not in a malicious way, but in a can't-be-anything-else kind of way; that is is an emergent property.
All large organization have absolutely no moral sense, which is to say, doing things because they are ethical, regardless of costs or benefits, or possessing a capability to assess or modify their own actions on moral criteria.
Complaining MS do these things is like complaining a cat jumps on a mouse.
I'm not a fan of brutal mouse death, so I don't own a cat.
What's critical of course is knowing this, and before deciding to buy into what these companies offer, rather than discovering it after buying into what these companies offer.
And these companies will only tell you how wonderful their services are, and nothing about what they're up - nothing about how much and what data they collect, and what they do with it (give it to the State, sell it to all and sundry, with real-time updates included), or what's done with it (mandatory State mass interception).
>I may be completely wrong, but I think large companies are completely amoral
For one, you are right, and two, they are actively incentivized to be immoral. Doing something in a moral way is to take something extra into account - morality. Taking into account, as an action, costs extra resources, which translates to money or risk, but then, risk also translates into money. So, what we end up with is that being moral is being handicapped. Money can be made by avoiding it.
The situation is especially worse when the other participants, the competitors, are also not moral. They can simply out-price a moral participants - people are less likely to buy the thing for its ethical "real price", if they can get a similar one for much cheaper. This can clearly be seen even in markets where being moral is a bonus, like, I'd say, how the current market is. "Morally superior" is a product differentiator, with labels like "bio", "organic", "fair", "ethical", "free from", "vegan" - even the ol' PU leather being rebranded as "vegan leather". So even in a context like this, non-morally-superior products sell way more than moral ones. So the incentives for companies are not really there, not just from an operational, but from a market standpoint as well.
>that is is an emergent property.
I agree, and I think it's part of the general human experience, especially with taking responsibility for anything that has impact. Attention and possibility of action is limited, so even if the perfectly moral course of action would be known, it might not be possible to enact it. And then, the arguments are endless as to what's moral and what not, and what part of that should people be engaged in. This is all too much to handle for an individual, so, even if morality is desired, sub-optimal decisions will be made on a daily, as part of life. Which is, in many ways, no different to when a company makes them - with respect to the size and impact though, of course.
For one, you are right, and two, they are actively incentivized to be immoral. Doing something in a moral way is to take something extra into account - morality. Taking into account, as an action, costs extra resources, which translates to money or risk, but then, risk also translates into money. So, what we end up with is that being moral is being handicapped. Money can be made by avoiding it.
The situation is especially worse when the other participants, the competitors, are also not moral. They can simply out-price a moral participants - people are less likely to buy the thing for its ethical "real price", if they can get a similar one for much cheaper. This can clearly be seen even in markets where being moral is a bonus, like, I'd say, how the current market is. "Morally superior" is a product differentiator, with labels like "bio", "organic", "fair", "ethical", "free from", "vegan" - even the ol' PU leather being rebranded as "vegan leather". So even in a context like this, non-morally-superior products sell way more than moral ones. So the incentives for companies are not really there, not just from an operational, but from a market standpoint as well.
>that is is an emergent property.
I agree, and I think it's part of the general human experience, especially with taking responsibility for anything that has impact. Attention and possibility of action is limited, so even if the perfectly moral course of action would be known, it might not be possible to enact it. And then, the arguments are endless as to what's moral and what not, and what part of that should people be engaged in. This is all too much to handle for an individual, so, even if morality is desired, sub-optimal decisions will be made on a daily, as part of life. Which is, in many ways, no different to when a company makes them - with respect to the size and impact though, of course.
It's interesting how no matter how much that we'd all like for technology to be this nice tidy domain of knowledge which doesn't intermingle in any messy way with philosophy or religion - where there is much less exactitude and clear boundaries - alas, this intermingling of morality comes around sooner or later.
Morality/ethics/religion/philosophy can't help but come to bear on any and all technology, once it becomes widespread, systemic and seemingly "too big to fail."
Morality/ethics/religion/philosophy can't help but come to bear on any and all technology, once it becomes widespread, systemic and seemingly "too big to fail."
Curious, what sort of phone do you use?
I tried running Debian (Mobian) on a Fairphone, but Mobian on FP isn't useable yet, so I had to switch to /e/OS (de-Googled Android)
No SIM, don't want my location tracked.
Wifi only.
I use Linphone for POTS.
No SIM, don't want my location tracked.
Wifi only.
I use Linphone for POTS.
[deleted]
This is why I have my own domain and control the MX records on the DNS on it, so that I can reroute email to a new email provider, if needed (I pay for Fastmail).
Another nice thing about having a catch-all on own domain is that you can sign up to each service with a unique email address, e.g. <microsoft>@<your-domain.com>, which makes it easy to see if any services ever sold your address.
Another nice thing about having a catch-all on own domain is that you can sign up to each service with a unique email address, e.g. <microsoft>@<your-domain.com>, which makes it easy to see if any services ever sold your address.
You can even put <hn-2024-07-11>@<some-domain.tld>.
Let’s note however that even "owning a domain" is an illusion of control, as IANA is ultimately a retainer of uncle Sam. I don’t know if there is any functional distributed alternative that promote more autonomy to end users that can works out of the box (or even just a few basic install steps away) in most digital terminal out there.
Let’s note however that even "owning a domain" is an illusion of control, as IANA is ultimately a retainer of uncle Sam. I don’t know if there is any functional distributed alternative that promote more autonomy to end users that can works out of the box (or even just a few basic install steps away) in most digital terminal out there.
> Let’s note however that even "owning a domain" is an illusion of control
That’s not true. It’s definitely not complete control, but it’s far more “sovereign” and independent than having a user account with some corporation that can change its ToS overnight. To seize a domain, a lengthy legal process is needed. Not to mention, you can choose a domain that doesn’t fall under a specific country’s jurisdiction or choose a registrar company located in another country. For example, you can register a domain like .ch or .no, and a legal US order won’t be effective, especially if you didn’t use a US-based registrar. Furthermore, you can host your own domain name (1). It isn’t entirely safe, but the process and efforts to seize it are far more complicated than a click in an MS dashboard. Unless that person is doing something extremely illegal, no one will bother.
(1) https://blog.technitium.com/2022/06/how-to-self-host-your-ow...
That’s not true. It’s definitely not complete control, but it’s far more “sovereign” and independent than having a user account with some corporation that can change its ToS overnight. To seize a domain, a lengthy legal process is needed. Not to mention, you can choose a domain that doesn’t fall under a specific country’s jurisdiction or choose a registrar company located in another country. For example, you can register a domain like .ch or .no, and a legal US order won’t be effective, especially if you didn’t use a US-based registrar. Furthermore, you can host your own domain name (1). It isn’t entirely safe, but the process and efforts to seize it are far more complicated than a click in an MS dashboard. Unless that person is doing something extremely illegal, no one will bother.
(1) https://blog.technitium.com/2022/06/how-to-self-host-your-ow...
Didn’t the US give up direct control of IANA years ago?
This is technically correct, indeed. Now it’s ICANN, a non-profit organization to which the responsibility was transferred to. ICANN is based in California and if I’m not mistaking, operates under usual law regime of this state — unlike embassies or consulates for example.
https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/networking/icann-still...
https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/networking/icann-still...
IANA/ICANN will not act on customers of others gTLDs, would they?
> you can sign up to each service with a unique email address, e.g. <microsoft>@<your-domain.com>, which makes it easy to see if any services ever sold your address.
Pro tip on this, use gibberish if you want a true canary. I know it's tempting to use microsoft@ or ms@ or msft@ etc, but companies are getting smarter about selling emails and filter those out.
Pro tip on this, use gibberish if you want a true canary. I know it's tempting to use microsoft@ or ms@ or msft@ etc, but companies are getting smarter about selling emails and filter those out.
Anecdotally backing this up, I did the less obfuscated address with Tractor Supply and they flagged my account as fraud and nullified a gift card that a company gave me. I tried working with their customer support but they were openly joking with one another on the calls treating me as a scammer.
That’s exactly why I’m doing it. Most people don’t need a canary, they just want to be left the fk alone.
Problem solved!
What if your domain registrar kicks you out because you once logged in from <embargoed country>? You can't win here if corps want to hurt you.
ICANN has rules that limit how much power a registrar has when they choose to stop doing business with someone. As a rule, registrars can't just cancel your domains.
>> Another nice thing about having a catch-all on own domain is that you can sign up to each service with a unique email address
This is true when services support sign-up with a password and you are an advanced user. I'm not sure that this is easy for many vulnerable people that need this. The advice you may need to add is that you should use these unique email addresses to create burner accounts on login providers (Microsoft accounts, Google accounts, etc.) because that's how you have to access some services.
This is true when services support sign-up with a password and you are an advanced user. I'm not sure that this is easy for many vulnerable people that need this. The advice you may need to add is that you should use these unique email addresses to create burner accounts on login providers (Microsoft accounts, Google accounts, etc.) because that's how you have to access some services.
> you can sign up to each service with a unique email address, e.g. <microsoft>@<your-domain.com>, which makes it easy to see if any services ever sold your address
You don't need your own domain for that. Gmail (and probably the other big ones) support it as well, just add a plus sign and whatever after your username: [email protected] will end up in the inbox of [email protected].
You don't need your own domain for that. Gmail (and probably the other big ones) support it as well, just add a plus sign and whatever after your username: [email protected] will end up in the inbox of [email protected].
Fastmail handles this "unique email address" scenario really well, even tying into Bitwarden so you can insert a unique address into a web form with just a couple clicks, and then efficiently block/remove the email address later, as desired.
Where can I read more about this "catch-all" domain setup? Interested to implement this solution. Any resources you recommend?
Literally just register a domain, choose a popular mail provider and read their docs on how to use your own domain with them. It’s widely supported.
Thanks! For some reason my brain interpreted that I needed to setup my own mail server but it doesn't seem to be the case.
US gov tells companies that xyz groups are under sanctions (which is good, actually) and that they must put effort into preventing them from using their products (also good, actually). The problem is that they are punished for true negatives (in the press and potentially by the gov) but not for false positives (except for articles like this). The end result is overzealous bullshit that ends up hurting innocent people. For another example, the US gov told Paypal that they need to prevent transactions related to a weapon smuggling shell company "Tarigrade Limited" (which as I've said before, is good actually) but they implemented it to just block transactions and freeze accounts if "Tarigrade" is in the notes. Similarly, I know of a small store that sells patches that got their account frozen for some time because they released a patch with a firearm in it and had the gall to put the name of the firearm in the name of the product.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7wg3w/paypal-tardigrade-err...
https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7wg3w/paypal-tardigrade-err...
You get to an important issue: Type 1 vs Type 2 errors - precision vs recall. Any system is going to have errors, so what do you prioritize? The company has only limited control over this choice, as you also point out that the gov't will punish them for false negatives but not false positives. So the company prioritizes recall over precision.
But you also imply that the gov't should punish BOTH types of errors, but I'm not sure that's fair. By extension it implies that the company should have a perfect system, with no errors of either type. That's not realistic, and a company should be punished for meeting an impossible goal.
Better is for the government to just be explicit about it: we're requiring companies to employ broad sanctions, and even if some innocents get swept up, we think it's worth it to stop the bad guys. Or the verse, if that's the gov't decision.
But you also imply that the gov't should punish BOTH types of errors, but I'm not sure that's fair. By extension it implies that the company should have a perfect system, with no errors of either type. That's not realistic, and a company should be punished for meeting an impossible goal.
Better is for the government to just be explicit about it: we're requiring companies to employ broad sanctions, and even if some innocents get swept up, we think it's worth it to stop the bad guys. Or the verse, if that's the gov't decision.
I'm not advocating for the gov to punish false positives, I don't know what exactly the issue is that's causing them, maybe incomplete information, maybe lack of resources, likely a combination of issues. Ultimately you're right though, there will be innocent people who are affected by sanctions
If technology becomes necessary to participate in society, and if we cede control of that technology to unaccountable dystopian hypercorporations like Microsoft, Google, and Apple, then we're setting ourselves up for disaster.
yes. the only alternative i know of is free software and peer-to-peer networking on a cryptographically secure basis. unfortunately there isn't currently either a viable free software political movement or a viable cypherpunk political movement, so the near future looks very dark. perhaps after a few generations of hitherto unimaginable atrocities things might start to improve, but it is now too late to prevent those atrocities
however, historically speaking, regimes of oppression have often been dismayingly stable, long outliving the states that establish them—consider that the traditional liberties eliminated by julius caesar in 049 bce, diocletian in the late third century, and constantine in the early fourth century were not regained until the late medieval or even modern era (the final end of the roman empire in 01453, the end of serfdom in the 13th through 19th centuries, the confederation of eight cantons in about 01315, the re-establishment of a senate in the us in 01789, the french revolution in 01799, etc.)
federated systems like mastodon (or email) are a step in the right direction, but we need a decentralized system, without single points of failure, rather than just a federated one
however, historically speaking, regimes of oppression have often been dismayingly stable, long outliving the states that establish them—consider that the traditional liberties eliminated by julius caesar in 049 bce, diocletian in the late third century, and constantine in the early fourth century were not regained until the late medieval or even modern era (the final end of the roman empire in 01453, the end of serfdom in the 13th through 19th centuries, the confederation of eight cantons in about 01315, the re-establishment of a senate in the us in 01789, the french revolution in 01799, etc.)
federated systems like mastodon (or email) are a step in the right direction, but we need a decentralized system, without single points of failure, rather than just a federated one
It's worth pointing out that this same lockout situation can and has happened in many more cases than listed here. It happens that the timing coincides with a specific service use, but the problem of people getting locked out of their life because Google blocked access to their account is an old one. Unfortunately, your point will be forgotten by many once this episode passes, and we'll be back to ignoring how much control has been ceded.
I get nothing positive or useful out of writing this comment but the negative potential is infinite. When the www started someone attempted to convince me that you should never interact using computers unless there is no other choice. Turns out he was right, you are not going to buy me beer, invite me, introduce me, collaborate or help me. The new contract is useless.
Anyone know why this post is flagged? I get that there is an aspect of 'Most stories about politics' but at the same time the tech censorship angle here is high and likely in-line with 'Anything that good hackers would find interesting.'
It's flagged because dang didn't unflag it, ultimately.
Which is concerning.
Which is concerning.
dang unflags a lot of these, but the conversation is rarely productive. I don't think it's a particular bias or attempt at censorship.
But it's probably for the best. Once it's unblocked, it becomes a tug of war on both ends to flood the site with propaganda.
But it's probably for the best. Once it's unblocked, it becomes a tug of war on both ends to flood the site with propaganda.
It is incredibly frustrating to realize that a lot of companies are within their right to deny you service as soon as you even _appear_ to pose a risk to them.
Geico recently denied my renewal of insurance because they said their underwriters received notification that I use my vehicle for business. (I don't.) I have spent hours trying to explain to them that this is a mistake, but they have zero interest in providing me with insurance. I've heard this is common for people in CA.
I'm not sure what legal recourse the people in this story have. Hopefully they have a legal right to at least download an archive of their data so they can recover old emails, attachments, photos, etc.
Geico recently denied my renewal of insurance because they said their underwriters received notification that I use my vehicle for business. (I don't.) I have spent hours trying to explain to them that this is a mistake, but they have zero interest in providing me with insurance. I've heard this is common for people in CA.
I'm not sure what legal recourse the people in this story have. Hopefully they have a legal right to at least download an archive of their data so they can recover old emails, attachments, photos, etc.
I've never felt comfortable using Microsoft, Google, Meta, etc products.
In the recent months and with the increasing possibilities of surveillance with AI and how they are controlling the narrative of things, it made me feel incredibly uneasy. No more of these products on my devices.
In the recent months and with the increasing possibilities of surveillance with AI and how they are controlling the narrative of things, it made me feel incredibly uneasy. No more of these products on my devices.
If you are in Europe and this happens to you, the GDPR gives you at least a partial solution: they don't have to give you your account back, but at least they have to provide you access to a backup of your data.
NOYB has a list of what your rights are [1] and "My Data Done Right" [2] provides a handy tool for finding out who to contact and how.
[1] https://noyb.eu/en/exercise-your-rights
[2] https://www.mydatadoneright.eu/
NOYB has a list of what your rights are [1] and "My Data Done Right" [2] provides a handy tool for finding out who to contact and how.
[1] https://noyb.eu/en/exercise-your-rights
[2] https://www.mydatadoneright.eu/
We live in a world where large corporations, FAANG companies in particular have greater money and resources than entire nations. This is not a situation with historicla paralel. But it's remained largely irrelevant militarily because those companies remaining neutral - like Switzerland. If they become politisized, and act on that alignment; it potentially openes up a whole new vector of military targets which are otherwise unthinkable. I don't like thinking about the future consequences on that trajectory.
Another example of why we need FLOSS and open platforms, so instead of calling via Skype and maybe using Windows he/she use GNU/Linux and call via Ring or host a small GNU SIPWitch, and maybe also offer wireguard to hes/shes peers to reduce snooping.
If such use of tech that already exists since decades became spread ALSO the giant will learn to be good citizens not "state-like entity" acting as bully.
If such use of tech that already exists since decades became spread ALSO the giant will learn to be good citizens not "state-like entity" acting as bully.
I've spread my life around several email providers, including myself. I have at least 50 email accounts (inc pre-Microsoft Hotmail).
In the last 10 years, I've lost access to ~5 accounts, usually when the provider axed their free offerings (is fine). In every case, I had warning and time to switch.
If I lose access to one w/o warning, it would be a problem but not catastrophic.
In short: What is the trivial solution to not risking sudden catastrophic loss of email? I don't think there is one. The answers are high-effort, high-maintenance. Technical ability can lessen that some.
In the last 10 years, I've lost access to ~5 accounts, usually when the provider axed their free offerings (is fine). In every case, I had warning and time to switch.
If I lose access to one w/o warning, it would be a problem but not catastrophic.
In short: What is the trivial solution to not risking sudden catastrophic loss of email? I don't think there is one. The answers are high-effort, high-maintenance. Technical ability can lessen that some.
note: The reason I don't lean into self-hosted mail harder is spam filtering. I've hosted mail for small biz and have put many, many hours into reducing spam. On top of the usual edge solutions, I write scripts to help mitigate spam and malware campaigns.
But the more visible my domain, the more anti-spam work is required and that state only ever ratchets one way.[deleted]
In order to maybe stop a few from engaging in acts that may harm people we actually harm many and accept it as collateral damage. It is doubly unfortunate that when it comes to Palestinians 'collateral damage' in all forms is acceptable for even the most trivial of potential gains.
> They’ve suspended my email account that I’ve had for nearly 20 years
Another reason why you should have your own domain and be independent from any services is that it can happen to anyone, never put your eggs in one basket.
Another reason why you should have your own domain and be independent from any services is that it can happen to anyone, never put your eggs in one basket.
This absolutely rocks. Buying at least 20k of MSFT tmrw.
I've just read this https://medium.com/@notechforapartheid/a-marriage-made-in-he...
For me the mass killing of children is completely unacceptable and there's absolutely no excuses, zero. And Microsoft's participation in that is a real shock for me.
For me the mass killing of children is completely unacceptable and there's absolutely no excuses, zero. And Microsoft's participation in that is a real shock for me.
as of 2023 the US officially sanctions 26 countries. If we are to expect that for every phone call to one of these 26 untouchables we will receive holy retribution from the US corporate class, then im afraid sanctions have defeated the very west they were intended to empower.
Microsoft has an infuriating habit of doing this; its not just a one-off. They routinely lockout international github users and feign innocent compliance when caught.
Microsoft has an infuriating habit of doing this; its not just a one-off. They routinely lockout international github users and feign innocent compliance when caught.
If you're in a country sanctioned by country X, then you shouldn't use products from companies in country X. It's common sense.
> Microsoft has an infuriating habit of doing this; its not just a one-off. They routinely lockout international github users and feign innocent compliance when caught.
Two Iranian co-workers have gone through some Kafkaesque bullshit with Github blocking them, even though both are living in Europe for more than a decade they got flagged and had their accounts suspended, taking months to re-activate them.
Two Iranian co-workers have gone through some Kafkaesque bullshit with Github blocking them, even though both are living in Europe for more than a decade they got flagged and had their accounts suspended, taking months to re-activate them.
These companies want to become as ubiquitous as a public utility. Therefore they should be regulated like a public utility
Indeed. I think that if a person cannot participate in modern society without being a customer with only a few competitors to choose from, then such businesses should have a "universal service obligation" and not be allowed to refuse service without a good reason. Such a reason should be mediated by the legal system.
For example a major chain convenience store with few similar competitors could ban someone for shoplifting, but someone innocent caught by this should be able to sue and win if the store cannot convince a court that such an event actually occurred. A mom-and-pop store wouldn't be within scope of this.
And the same for online businesses.
For example a major chain convenience store with few similar competitors could ban someone for shoplifting, but someone innocent caught by this should be able to sue and win if the store cannot convince a court that such an event actually occurred. A mom-and-pop store wouldn't be within scope of this.
And the same for online businesses.
Suing isn't as useful as you'd expect. It costs $10,000's and months to even get to court.
Criminal liability for improper bans, and allowing citizens to directly charge the company with the crime (some states do this) would probably be more practical.
Alternatively, some variant of streamlined court (similar to small-claims court) could be established, where you could automatically use the court if the defendant had already been sued more than 10 times in the last decade for the last thing. The court would provide some sort of legal or financial resources to allow the customers to quickly sue without paying out of pocket, or spending much of their own time.
Criminal liability for improper bans, and allowing citizens to directly charge the company with the crime (some states do this) would probably be more practical.
Alternatively, some variant of streamlined court (similar to small-claims court) could be established, where you could automatically use the court if the defendant had already been sued more than 10 times in the last decade for the last thing. The court would provide some sort of legal or financial resources to allow the customers to quickly sue without paying out of pocket, or spending much of their own time.
This could be solved with something like CFPB, but with the Chevron Deference repealed, courts are pretty much the only remedy now for anything until congress decides to write much more specific and in-depth laws.
The Digital Markets Act and/or Digital Services Act ought to have something to say about this, especially the "this secret decision is final and we refuse to say anything else" part of the story.
That wording sounds like the decision was made in Israel and not the US.
I would guess the shutdown requests came from Israeli security services. Thus it is final and not appealable and can also the reasoning can not be revealed.
I would guess the shutdown requests came from Israeli security services. Thus it is final and not appealable and can also the reasoning can not be revealed.
However, if they've adversely affected an EU resident or even worse an EU national, the DMA forces them to allow an appeal and recourse.
I'm not familiar with what army the EU has to enforce that recourse. Ultimately, rights depend on the threat or actual application of force.
Microsoft have to choose whether to operate in the EU. There's been a long struggle between conflicting rules of US unaccountable intelligence access vs. EU privacy law ("safe harbour") that is relevant here. https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2015/10/06/a-messa...
Honestly, the day may come when some US corporations decide operating in the EU is more trouble than it's worth. I don't really expect that--it's a big market--but it could happen.
Naturally — one cannot be a servant of two masters, and some US legislation does at least seem to be incompatible with EU legislation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Schrems
Same is of course true for Chinese companies deciding to not bother operating in the USA, or UK companies deciding it's not worth the effort to operate in Argentina.
But it's not likely to be a big deal if it does, because software … how can I put this?
The saying goes "the first 90% takes half the time, the second 90% takes another half of the time, the third 90% puts you over-budget", etc. but that same effect also means it's easy to catch up most of the value even with something relatively mediocre.
Same is of course true for Chinese companies deciding to not bother operating in the USA, or UK companies deciding it's not worth the effort to operate in Argentina.
But it's not likely to be a big deal if it does, because software … how can I put this?
The saying goes "the first 90% takes half the time, the second 90% takes another half of the time, the third 90% puts you over-budget", etc. but that same effect also means it's easy to catch up most of the value even with something relatively mediocre.
The combined armies of every member state of the EU, if it came to that.
Well before that point, they can just go through a normal court process because the EU has been empowered by the governments of each member state to write such legislation.
Well before that point, they can just go through a normal court process because the EU has been empowered by the governments of each member state to write such legislation.
DMA is enforcable by the member states of the EU rather than the EU itself. EU member states do indeed have armies.
[deleted]
The decision might just as well have been taken place on the moon, laws such as DSA, DMA, and GDPR tend to protect the resident and rarely cares where a decision affecting that resident was taken.
Example where GDPR tries to resolve the problem, but unfortunately not strongly enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_explanation#European_...
Example where GDPR tries to resolve the problem, but unfortunately not strongly enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_explanation#European_...
It's worse than that - they're gradually becoming a new form of governance - and one that you can't vote out.
The term "Facebook Jail" might be coined jokingly (and the consequences of being there are pretty trivial) but the mere existence of the term is a tacit acceptance of the idea of judicial oversight by a private corporation.
Yes, you can choose not to engage with meta or its products, or (less easily) Microsoft or Google - but we're close to the point where refusing to use the products of (and thus be defacto-governed by) one of the tech giants will have implications beyond self-imposed inconvenience.
Already you'll be excluded from a significant proportion of social plans if you don't have either WhatsApp or Messenger.
The term "Facebook Jail" might be coined jokingly (and the consequences of being there are pretty trivial) but the mere existence of the term is a tacit acceptance of the idea of judicial oversight by a private corporation.
Yes, you can choose not to engage with meta or its products, or (less easily) Microsoft or Google - but we're close to the point where refusing to use the products of (and thus be defacto-governed by) one of the tech giants will have implications beyond self-imposed inconvenience.
Already you'll be excluded from a significant proportion of social plans if you don't have either WhatsApp or Messenger.
I used to disagree with this. Recent conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine (regardless of who you side with) made me change my mind.
How is it that some rich Californian CEO with their own bias and agenda can decide to shut off service to entire groups of people in an active war zone? These decisions could cost people their lives! That's insane.
How is it that some rich Californian CEO with their own bias and agenda can decide to shut off service to entire groups of people in an active war zone? These decisions could cost people their lives! That's insane.
I don't think that would help in this case: being regulated as a US public utility would still embargo Gaza and treat contact with it as radioactive.
I'm not sure that's true for what they would be regulated under: common carrier rules.
Case in point: gaza's area code isn't banned by us pots operators.
Case in point: gaza's area code isn't banned by us pots operators.
Regulations are why Microsoft is banning users who call Gaza.
The real solution here is to use Signal (or something like it).
And I don't mean to criticize Microsoft or regulations. Microsoft is faced with an impossible task here, I assume they're doing the best they can.
The real solution here is to use Signal (or something like it).
And I don't mean to criticize Microsoft or regulations. Microsoft is faced with an impossible task here, I assume they're doing the best they can.
>The real solution here is to use Signal (or something like it).
The article discusses that they are unable to contact their family over the internet because Israel is shutting off internet. So they were using Skypes Skype to Phone service to call their family's mobile phones over normal cell service in Gaza.
The article discusses that they are unable to contact their family over the internet because Israel is shutting off internet. So they were using Skypes Skype to Phone service to call their family's mobile phones over normal cell service in Gaza.
Interesting, I missed that. I wonder if there is a version of that service that isn't managed by Microsoft.
> I assume they're doing the best they can.
I think you mean “they’re doing the absolute minimum to barely meet their compliance requirements”
I think you mean “they’re doing the absolute minimum to barely meet their compliance requirements”
> Regulations are why Microsoft is banning users who call Gaza
I shall have to add this to the list of counterexamples wherever anyone says "America has an inalienable right to free speech".
I shall have to add this to the list of counterexamples wherever anyone says "America has an inalienable right to free speech".
I don’t think that’s the real solution.
To be able to come up with a solution you’d first need to be aware of a problem, which in many such cases you wouldn’t be, until one day you are banned and lose all your accounts, and solutions in hindsight won’t help with that.
To be able to come up with a solution you’d first need to be aware of a problem, which in many such cases you wouldn’t be, until one day you are banned and lose all your accounts, and solutions in hindsight won’t help with that.
There should be market share limits on providing identity and currency, or those should just be handled to the government (like they used to be).
Similarly, big vertically integrated computing platforms should be broken up (in-house applications should have exactly the same access to APIs documentation, support, etc, as third party ones).
Similarly, big vertically integrated computing platforms should be broken up (in-house applications should have exactly the same access to APIs documentation, support, etc, as third party ones).
They're nothing like utilities and it makes no sense to treat them that way.
Instead the u.s. needs laws that protect user digital rights, and all companies should have to adhere to those laws, not just big ones.
Instead the u.s. needs laws that protect user digital rights, and all companies should have to adhere to those laws, not just big ones.
That could have a huge chilling effect on start ups, indi devs, and hobbyists
I don't see the harm for start ups to think about their user's rights early on. Better it becomes part of their Startup DNA than having to learn it later and adopt their company.
Not at all, smaller players would be exempt. Only if the service becomes massive enough and starts to police their users with secret courts in this way do they get treated like a utility.
> smaller players would be exempt
Yesterday we had the discussion on FCC rules, and CE marking, from which small players are not exempt. There's no reason to assume there would be de minimis exemptions, there aren't for the GDPR.
Yesterday we had the discussion on FCC rules, and CE marking, from which small players are not exempt. There's no reason to assume there would be de minimis exemptions, there aren't for the GDPR.
So be it. From a user perspective it doesn't matter if a big company or a small company is abusing custody of user data.
Especially if they don't give you access to you data (impossible in the EU thanks to the GDPR). They have to be taken to court for this.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Jamie9912(1)
kazinator(3)
tyho(5)
Some people forget that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
You can’t be innocent or guilty if you’re never accused of anything.
Some people forget the right of free association means companies have a broad (though not universal!) right to reject someone as a customer.
Some people forget that when they signed up to a service, they granted the service provider the right to decide when to cease providing the service, at the service provider's discretion.
Some people forget that when they signed up to a service, they granted the service provider the right to decide when to cease providing the service, at the service provider's discretion.
[deleted]
[deleted]
In court
Typical sentence of people that are guilty, just like those who pretend they should be able to hide information outside of the protective gaze of the glorious all-powerful elites who know better than thouh.
What are you trying to hide, you seditious terrorist, hmm?
What are you trying to hide, you seditious terrorist, hmm?
There is a symmetry, an equation if you would prefer. On the left hand side you have rights, on the right hand side you have duties.
If you break this symmetry, now we can look at YOU. Why should we all respect YOUR presumption of innocence if you don't respect others?
If the response is some stereotype related crap I don't want to hear it.
Rights = Duties
If you break this symmetry, now we can look at YOU. Why should we all respect YOUR presumption of innocence if you don't respect others?
If the response is some stereotype related crap I don't want to hear it.
Given your comment and the negative note of its parent, I'm wondering if its sarcastic nature was missed or if people interacting with it did got it was intended to be a caricature but were pissed of by its actual critic of state mass surveillance and its ridiculous "think of the children" pedonazis scarecrow.
I don't buy duality as you present. Two points is just an invitation and opportunity to envision interpolations, extrapolate some spectral scales, wondering about additional dimensions, and fathom how it might interfere with the rest of our representations.
Rights and left are just two points. Intimate mind experiences can modulate interpolations in-between.
Duty and rights are all parts of the same object, it's just a matter of perspective that can make them appear to be separated consideration. Just like creation and constraints. Nothing exists without ontological restrictions that allows its form to happen.
I don't buy duality as you present. Two points is just an invitation and opportunity to envision interpolations, extrapolate some spectral scales, wondering about additional dimensions, and fathom how it might interfere with the rest of our representations.
Rights and left are just two points. Intimate mind experiences can modulate interpolations in-between.
Duty and rights are all parts of the same object, it's just a matter of perspective that can make them appear to be separated consideration. Just like creation and constraints. Nothing exists without ontological restrictions that allows its form to happen.
That is a really complicated deflection that I am not going to even bother fully reading as it is flatus vocis.
The person banned from Skype could have been an American dual citizen, nondenominational Christian, calling the Gaza strip from a phone with an American flag case, while listening to country music, from a pickup truck, with multiple bald eagle tattoos, while holding a can of American light beer. Or could have been someone else. There is no way of knowing.
The person banned from Skype could have been an American dual citizen, nondenominational Christian, calling the Gaza strip from a phone with an American flag case, while listening to country music, from a pickup truck, with multiple bald eagle tattoos, while holding a can of American light beer. Or could have been someone else. There is no way of knowing.
Nice atronym.
Like a typo of aptronym/aptonym or like a neologism mixing -nym and atro- from Latin atrox which gives atrocity in English? :D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptronym https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atrox#Latin https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atrocity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptronym https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atrox#Latin https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atrocity
Damn, both.
Your doamian come
> can no longer access his bank accounts, which are tied to his Hotmail account, he says.
Come on. This is such exaggeration. Surely he has contacted the banks (note: plural as per article) and he can access his accounts. Not even one?
Banks routinely handle identification via phone to access your account and transact.
Come on. This is such exaggeration. Surely he has contacted the banks (note: plural as per article) and he can access his accounts. Not even one?
Banks routinely handle identification via phone to access your account and transact.
One of my banks uses email two factor auth- if I lost access to the email account and had no accessible backup email set I can see how being locked out of the email account would deny access to the bank account.
but surely you can show up at your bank with identification and get the email changed?
What if your bank account is at Monzo, or any other online-only bank that seem to be the fastest growing personal banking sector at the moment.
Last I used one of those they wanted me to take a photo of myself with ID and I think record a video.
This is a good reason why you should probably avoid neo-banks.
Unless your bank is IN Gaza ...
Depends how close your closest physical branch is. It may be hours away because of where you live. Or it may be a flight away because you're abroad.
You can call your bank. They can verify your identity over the phone and banks do so routinely.
Some banks do so routinely.
Not all banks in all countries do this. One of my banks required me to email my passport, drivers license, and case number to the person I was talking to over the phone in order to prove my identity.
My passport was 1000 miles away. My drivers license was expired (was living in NYC at the time, and not driving). My bank had no physical branches outside of the state of Louisiana.
All of this after answering the security question, and providing my SSN. How I eventually was able to re-enable my account was calling a friend who worked in the mortgage department to have my account reset. If I didn't have a friend at the bank, I wouldn't have been able to reset my account without flying either back to NYC or having a family member drive me from Texas to Louisiana.
Not all banks in all countries do this. One of my banks required me to email my passport, drivers license, and case number to the person I was talking to over the phone in order to prove my identity.
My passport was 1000 miles away. My drivers license was expired (was living in NYC at the time, and not driving). My bank had no physical branches outside of the state of Louisiana.
All of this after answering the security question, and providing my SSN. How I eventually was able to re-enable my account was calling a friend who worked in the mortgage department to have my account reset. If I didn't have a friend at the bank, I wouldn't have been able to reset my account without flying either back to NYC or having a family member drive me from Texas to Louisiana.
The BBC has edited the article and the line I quoted I can no longer find. I was pretty sure that particular person the quote was from was described as living in the US (as is another one of the examples in the article).
One of the other individuals in the article lives in Saudi Arabia, which has a very highly developed banking system.
One of the other individuals in the article lives in Saudi Arabia, which has a very highly developed banking system.
Not all banks have a physical presence.
Well, if you truly cannot operate without access to your email account should also have a game plan for if you forget your password to your email and cannot access your email account.
well, consider the life of an immigrant ( mine ).
i have bank accounts in India and the US.
when i need to access my Indian accounts from the US, they provide me a 2fa code via sms and email.
i don't have international roaming on my Indian SIM. Its active, but not really working in the US.
losing email access means i lose access to some of my bank accounts.
My grocery story requires email 2FA to log into it these days. Losing access to my email address would probably be more work than if I found myself having to move house.
Why does your grocery store require a login?
There's a lot of neo-banks these days out there who have no physical offices, no phone numbers to call, nothing. If you lose access to them, you're basically going to have to pray that their support staff is willing to listen to you (assuming you can even reach them) and believe you when you tell them who you are.
Unfortunately I suspect more and more people are making accounts at banks like that and storing significant amounts of money in them.
Unfortunately I suspect more and more people are making accounts at banks like that and storing significant amounts of money in them.
in part yes, if you have a physical bank next to you it’s easy right? just go
but if the bank is in another country … it might be literally impossible to recover it
but if the bank is in another country … it might be literally impossible to recover it
Israel is currently at "war" with Gaza and having Israeli employees of Microsoft having the ability to disable anyone's account calling civilians in Gaza is pretty horrible.
Is Microsoft via Skype and Hotmail participating in what Israel's leaders are call the "complete siege"? https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defense-ministe...
No appeal and no explanation available does suggest to me the shutdown orders may have come from Israeli security services or the Israeli army.