One easy solution is to force key holders to de-anonymize themselves if they want to take any shareholder actions, such as voting. This wouldn't be an issue for 99% of us - just because I own a few TSLA shares doesn't mean I'm ever going to pound my fist on Elon Musk' desk and demand something - But if someone does buy up a large portion of the corporation and tries to use it to vote - they would have to declare "Hi, I am Carl Icahn, I own the following private keys XYZ and I'm demanding that we liquidate our assets and build a giant statue to the sky" or whatever. This prevents the Taliban or Chinese hackers from seizing control of a US corporation.
parallel construction is retroactively finding an alternate, legal/unclassified explanation for an evidence trail, but one which is inherently incorrect; if the ssl cert scanning or other repeatable method was the route taken, nsa probably wouldn't want to tip their hand. it's probably worth noting that the only examples of parallel construction that we have confirmation of were drug cases
Yes I know what it is, but what I'm curious about is would that tactic fit the definition. Scanning IP addresses for publicly served SSL certs and comparing them with one served over TOR isn't obviously an unwarranted search is it?
If the original TOR cert was discovered in an unlawful search, and then they did a scan of the public internet to find it again in a legal search, that's parallel construction.
And let's not forget: NSA already have an almost-irresistibly useful database designed for exactly this purpose (selecting and correlating on attributes of SIGINT-captured SSL/TLS sessions, such as certificates - and they could easily just put a selector on the CommonName or the certificate fingerprint).
You don't have to be the NSA to make a database like that, but it helps. I could build a database broadly like that for certificates/ciphersuites/other metadata myself with active scanning and zmap (and it might make a good weekend project, to examine and contrast RC4 proliferation amongst TLS-encrypted web and mail servers) - but they have a near-realtime-updating passively-constructed one. If the FBI asked them for help, they'd definitely use that.
My apologies, I probably should've used the phrase "gender discrimination" or "discriminating based on gender", since there is no large scale institution discrimination accompanying it, though this particular app is institutionalizing different roles based on gender.
I note that the FDA didn't find a problem with food safety (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/RecallsOutbreaksEmergencie...) the Wikipedia page references an unreliable Vice/MotherJones article. Not finding much on its side effects from research though. Do you have some additional pointers?
I was mostly using Google Scholar to look for peer reviewed work with the keywords 'corexit toxicity' There are a about a dozen papers on the first page, of the ones I could read without jumping various firewalls the conclusions tended toward 'less toxic' than 'more toxic'. Would love to see a meta analysis too but didn't dig one up.
Obviously, but what does that comment have to do with anything? So corexit is harmful. My gp was talking about nuclear explosions and bacteria, not corexit.
The grandparent also said, "so it wasn't quite as big of an environmental disaster as first expected." The comment about corexit would appear to refer to that part.
You could argue that it was or wasn't as big of a disaster as expected, but the corexit comment was certainly relevant regardless.
it's kind of telling that he posts about alienation rooted in this community excluding him and most of the responses here are telling him how he can change himself
No, one of them being a delusional disorder, which is literally the inability to know what is reality. I think racism is a pretty minor thing to throw at the guy when he literally cannot tell whether it makes sense or not.
