It adds to the count of incidents responded to. Given that they don't actually encounter anything I doubt it'll justify purchasing of a departmental M1 Abrams but I could see it being spun for negotiation of additional SWAT officer hours or a new training facility or something.
There are plenty of YouTubers swatted whose response is significantly downgraded after 2 or 3 false calls. I think DarkSydePhil just gets a welfare check (no pun intended) at this point.
If the current setup can't, plugging the cameras and the NVR into a separate switch and none of that traffic will go near the rest of your LAN.
Wifi on the other hand, there's really no (practical) segregation to speak of - the spectrum has limited bandwidth, it doesn't matter if it's a different SSID / wifi network, it'll affect your Wifi!
I don't get why people don't get that part. What they mean by "Up to 1234 Mbps" on the box is "1234 Mbps shared". It's a giant wire occupying 1/4 mile around the AP, whereas, in wired Ethernet it's 1Gbps per link per direction.
A GbE switch with wire-rate transfer guarantee can handle 1Gbps traffic between arbitrary combination of ports. All the camera traffic coming from port 9 to 16 going to NVR on port 7 have no impact to traffic between upstream router on port 26 and your PCs on port 3 and 5. That cannot happen with Wi-Fi because everything is inherently on the same shared port 1(sometimes literally); each 4Mbps incoming is 4Mbps of download speed taken from your laptop. Double if destination is also on Wi-Fi.
This might be fine if there's just few cameras, but it's something to be aware of.
If you live in a sufficiently low density area (rural or suburban with large lots) you can put the two networks on different channels and they won’t meaningfully interfere with each order.
The chances are, if you live somewhere like that, somewhere that actually has a low noise floor for RF, then you likely also have a lot of space to cover with your wifi - and that means sacrificing range (via additional access points) for the second network..
For me: Wifi is great! But, whenever it's practical, I avoid it... Everything with it is a tradeoff!
As far as I know, inbound TCP/UDP connections are not supported on Starlink natively. You can of course use a VPN or various types of reverse port forwarding.
That said, you can often still communicate between two NATs using various traversal techniques, although that's generally less likely for carrier-grade NATs, so NAT traversal solutions usually need relays as a fallback anyway.
While technically, yes, you are correct. It kinda misses the point - developers are more and more working with containers. Doing this on a Mac is an awful experience compared to doing it on Linux (or, Windows - I hear docker + WSL2 is pretty decent - but I've not tried it!)
I understand the point and totally agree, but in my opinion it doesn't fit to this kind of list in the article which is about features of the OS that don't work on macOS but on Linux. "Linux can't ran Adobe Creative Cloud Apps natively which a lot of designers use" would also not fit this kind of list.
While it's a good reason to choose macOS or Windwos over Linux it's not a valid criticism of Linux because they can't do anything about it. It would be valid criticism of Adobe. Like I said the list of the posted article is about OS features and explicitly not about third party software
> this device can handle a lot: firewalls, user management and access control for home media and file servers, and even some traffic control in data centers – without the need for a stand-alone router.
It's definitely got home networks as a target market. It's one of the suggested use cases.
I'm sure they are perfectly capable of signing up. But, I'd bet they are expressly forbidden from doing it.
Signups typically involve agreeing to some terms, and you absolutely don't want company employees working their official job duties agreeing to random T&C's.
Why wouldn't the terms and conditions the developer agrees to resolve this problem? i.e. "by submitting this application you grant us a waiver allowing our review team to test your application without agreeing to your terms and conditions"
As I understand it, it's not a signup as such. Account details are stored locally only. It wouldn't make much sense to require signup for an app whose whole point is to be decentralized.
> 1. Since 2020, it's illegal to send PII (personally identifiable) data to the US because of the removal of the Privacy Shield Framework [2]
Minor nit - "PII" really isn't the right term to use, because it suggests the info itself must be personally identifiable to an individual. The GDPR covers much more than this, and uses the term "Personal Data".
Honestly, it's not that big a leap to reach this interpretation.
1) Your IP address is considered personal data, as it can be used to identify you. In general, everyone can see and agree with this.
2) In the absence of additional protections and/or contract terms[1], the transfer of personal data out of the EU is an offense under the GDPR (well, technically it's not out of EU, but transfer to a country without GDPR equivalence).
So - embedding code / data from a 3rd party into your website results in a transfer of personal data.
[1] The idea of additional protections/contract terms is even questionable, but that's a whole other thing...
It is enough to identify whoever is paying for the internet access, which is enough, in itself. And it might be enough to identify the actual user with "reasonable" certainty, e.g. if the user was home alone at the time the IP was used.
Courts found that it doesn't have to be demonstrated that a user can be identified, the abstract reasonable risk that a user could be identified is enough to turn an IP address into PII (and this ruling explicitly mentions this).
In reality, as a service provider, you have no ability to determine if the client IP belongs to an individual or not - so you have no choice but to assume it does identify an individual.
You're not sending your nginx logs to Google, a well known advertiser, do you?
In this case you can store IP addresses if you have a legitimate reason (e.g. you can show you need it for troubleshooting etc), as long as it's reasonable and doesn't infringe on the rights of the user, and you have documented it along with the retention strategy.
That's not strictly true - or at least - it's missing a piece.
When a company decides to use a product, it needs to ensure that product is legal to use in their jurisdiction(s).
If it gets to a court, it's likely that the consumer/client is the claimant and the Company who chose to use US Product X is the defendant. The company who makes US Product X is likely nowhere to be seen.
> When a company decides to use a product, it needs to ensure that product is legal to use in their jurisdiction(s)
This is the proximal decider. They’re predicting the decision of the ultimate decider, which remains the courts. Providers would have to make the proximal deciders comfortable that the ultimate deciders will accept their compromise.
*Serious as in, supposed shootings / murders / kidnappings etc - not serious as in "a legitimate call out"