It is likely that the reader will be implemented into a phone / tablet app so will be pretty ubiquitous eventually.
FWIW it will never technically be legal to rely on visually looking at someones phone to verify age / id bc it would be incredibly easy to fake the display and physical interaction. The only reason it can work as an ID is if it is digitally verified by a reader.
But I do agree that especially in the interim there will be cases where LEO will coerce a phone handover but I don't think this will be a long term problem since physical interaction with the phone does nothing to verify authenticity. You may as well hand them a piece of paper you printed out with your info.
Places that support Apple's digital ID / Wallet state ID do so by utilizing a an identity reader that the user taps their phone against after selecting which info they want to convey. It is not meant for the owner to physically show the phone to the requesting party.
I'm sure this will happen in some cases especially in the interim where digital ID is technically not accepted but the person doesn't have their physical ID. An example would be a traffic stop in a state that currently supports digital state ID since usually the digital ID is basically only supported at TSA currently. But the cop looking at your phone doesn't add any more authenticity vs you just verbalizing the info and them writing it down which is what they usually do if someone has a photo of their missing ID.
Also, Apple cleverly designed it so if phone is in locked state and you activate wallet and select ID, the biometric scan it does doesn't unlock the entire phone and trying to get into the rest of phone requires another biometric scan or phone password.
From the article "Users do not need to unlock, show, or hand over their device to present their ID."
Odd use of Twilio for just a SIP Trunk provider. They also offer programmable voice SIP, a product that is a distinct offering from the Elastic SIP trunking used here. With PV SIP you can directly register the Grandstream HT801 ATA to a programmable SIP endpoint on Twilio and move all the programming logic, including text to speech, to a Twilio serverless "function" and completely cut out the need for a RasPi and Asterisk.
Also FYI for those who do want to use Asterisk behind CGNAT and cannot open ports - if you use PV SIP you can also register it as a Trunk in Asterisk and it can then receive inbound calls over the connection established by the outbound registration with simple a simple Twiml bin that routes whatever Twilio numbers you want to the SIP user you used to register the Asterisk's SIP Trunk. Asterisks can can then use inbound number plan to further route the inbound call as needed.
What is really egregious is that apple still touts the T2 security benefits on their site and completely ignores the fact that it can be compromised. This in fact does make it harder to take Apple's hardware security claims at face value knowing what they know about T2 vs what they put out in their resources.
Ahh sorry I forgot I'm using the Twilio ekata_reverse_phone addon that you can get in twilio marketplace so I have carrier info in the lookup response.
I guess then whether it is 100% on Twilio being the carrier is a little less likely but I tested a few more twilio numbers I know and they all returned with Twilio as carrier.
You are probably complaining about calls on a cell line but if happens to be landline, I ported one over to Twilio and actually used it to eliminate spam calls by requiring non whitelisted callers to press 2 digits to continue the call. And also saving about 7x compared to AT&T landline cost.
Connected a voip phone to it via programmable SIP.
It is not really being sprung on them with how long it has existed. Not at all like continuing recording on a webcam where you might say things never intended for the party receiving it.
Are ppl who don't even know DKIM exists but know they have shady emails saved in the cloud or on their personal really just banking on repudiation and thats why they take no other action like deleting the email or putting more thought into emails they send? Seriously doubt it.
Exactly bc of statute of limitations, they would not have to look over their shoulders for the rest of their lives because of one poorly written email.
Yes. I have seen first hand where it was used to help accelerate out of court agreement without needing a lawsuit. Basically a 3rd party had one of their outlook user accounts compromised by a bad actor who used it to tell another company new instructions for something.
The 3rd party tried to say other company fell for a phishing email and it was their fault but because of DKIM it was immediately provable that instead 3rd party was compromised and email legit sent from their o365 and they were pretending like they didn't know this. This all got disputed maybe a year after email sent.
Love Matthew Green but I personally am not a fan of this proposal. It doesn't fully achieve what he wants bc its only gmail and timing of compromise would be key. Most of the email hacks have actually been very much in the public interest despite being unethical. Breaches also lead to more productive work by companies in better securing accounts and better protecting sensitive information which google has been doing with account security and adding expiring messages.
Like do we really want companies to just continue sloppily sending customer info in email bc they can deny its legit or should they focus on not getting this info compromised to begin with?
Also, for ransomeware groups that now post data when not paid, it is not really seeming like too big of a disincentive that there is repudiation regarding the files they post.
DCS is so cool. I feel like I need to quit my job / be single again in order to learn it though.
I got the rift in order to play it only to realize that learning DCS from the ground up requires a lot of keyboard input / referencing cheat sheets so need to be pretty proficient with it before you can't see your hands and as you mentioned the resolution is not quite good enough in rift to really see things with much detail though it is still a fun experience to try out.
Looking forward to playing it on a future headset.
FWIW it will never technically be legal to rely on visually looking at someones phone to verify age / id bc it would be incredibly easy to fake the display and physical interaction. The only reason it can work as an ID is if it is digitally verified by a reader.
But I do agree that especially in the interim there will be cases where LEO will coerce a phone handover but I don't think this will be a long term problem since physical interaction with the phone does nothing to verify authenticity. You may as well hand them a piece of paper you printed out with your info.