I've learned a lot through life, one thing I've learned is about detrimental long term physical and even social effects of antidepressants, and other medications like adderal. Both I used to take.
At this point in my life, if I realized my parents gave me an antidepressant prescription when I was SEVEN years old because I said something stupid WHEN I WAS SEVEN I'd be very disturbed and disappointed in them, I'd definitely give both of them a solid scolding.
Before you respond to this remember I'm talking about me. Not your kid or your friends kid or your cousins kid.
EDIT: Quick edit to add when I was a kid I was a total outcast, I was weird, anxious, and definitely often depressed. A lot of kids in my religious schooling systems were.
My kids go to a ordinary public school. They are very bright, cautious, and thoughtful, and generally pretty happy and upbeat. There is a strong correlation between academic intelligence and mental illness. Being depressed to the point of being suicidal and having a sunny disposition are not mutually exclusive at all. I absolutely agree that it would be disturbing and disappointing for a child to be medicated because of something stupid they said when they were seven. I think medication may be appropriate if they show a consistent pattern over several months of physiological symptoms and reactions that are consistent with depression or anxiety, and cannot be explained by external factors like trauma or major life changes.
> My kids go to a ordinary public school. They are very bright, cautious, and thoughtful, and generally pretty happy and upbeat. There is a strong correlation between academic intelligence and mental illness. Being depressed to the point of being suicidal and having a sunny disposition are not mutually exclusive at all.
If my parents said this to me the moment I realized what I was on and that I had to deal with coming off of it late in life I would be beside myself.
I'd probably also look up the doctor that encouraged my parents to put their seven year old on SSRIs so I could warn friends.
If my parents were like "uh well I had virtually no symptoms" I'd lose my mind!
Life sucks, I'm depressed all the time, kids are depressed all the time. There's material everywhere explaining a decline in general mental health. I'm happy and lucky that when my parents (or the one that was paying attention, who was certainly also depressed) noticed I was depressed or sad during a few events, some long lasting, they asked me about it, listened to me, and did their best to give me advice instead of giving up when I was seven and giving me drugs.
Remember when replying, this post has all been about myself, a victim of depression.
I'm a victim of depression too, and don't think it's fair that you say we "gave up." I would never give up on my child. You imply that we didn't talk to our son, listen to him, and do our best to give him advice before we discussed medication? Don't we all try to make the most well-informed decisions we can?
This decision was made collectively by me, my wife, our pediatrician, the child therapist, the psychiatrist, and for what it's worth also my son. We did extensive research. You may disagree with our decision, but please don't cast aspersions on how much we care.
I did not know that Microsoft offers these tools to organizations.
I'm honestly shocked that this exists.
They'll 100% abuse preview to offer similar features in the future.
Over the last years/decade, they worked hard to improve their image in the tech community, and I have to admit, it worked, at least for me.
They've just lost all the respect I had for them.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but in Microsoft's defense, those controls are aimed at companies working in regulated industries. They're meant to help those companies prove they they're meeting their legal and/or contractual compliance obligations.
For example, if your company works with healthcare information and is a HIPAA "covered entity", your customers will demand to see proof that you're using data loss prevention (DLP) software. Such software does things like:
- MITMing output email to make sure you're not sending a spreadsheet full of social security numbers.
- The same but for posts to web forms.
- The same but for instant messengers.
...etc. Netskope is a big player in that space. Go read up on what all their stuff can do sometime. As an individual, a donor to the EFF, and a vocal advocate for user privacy, those things make me shudder. As someone responsible for making sure our employees didn't accidentally upload PHI to Facebook from a work computer, I gritted my teeth and accepted that they're a necessary evil.
There's no reminder that "your work laptop belongs to your employer" quite like working in healthtech. I'm willing to cut Microsoft some slack for offering those products to customers.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand that some industries require this level of action logging. However, does Microsoft check whether a company actually needs this type of logging? I didn’t read all of the documentation, just the sections that were posted, but I didn’t see anything about Microsoft verifying if the companies using these tools are vetted.
They call out a bunch of not-relevant-to-compliance uses in the marketing copy, so they lose any good will they might have otherwise maintained.
It's one thing to say “we offer this sketchy service to verified members of this highly regulated industry”, it's quite another to say “this is what that highly regulated industry uses to do the sketchy things they're required to do, and you can get it too!”
You can enable some pretty strict policies with device management and general policies. But actually recording the screen is a big breach of information if the database is not secured.
On the assumption (perhaps misplaced) that this comment is serious and not a joke, such a sentiment indicates extremely poor risk assessment. Native Australian fauna represents such an extremely small risk to tourists that it is not worth considering. (But obviously if you do encounter any dangerous looking fauna you should treat it with respect.)
But I do agree with the grandparent comment that this extreme level of airport search intrusiveness does legitimately make Australia a much less attractive tourist destination. And btw, as an Australian, I feel somewhat the same way towards the USA and its intrusive airport searches (which is what we are slavishly copying).
Julia was a plant[0] and Winston[1] is a terrorist*. It's about as romantic (look at their kill count!) as the underage fling[2] of Romeo(M16?) and Juliet(F13)?
People have to read 1984 in middle school, or at least before they have any life experience, in order not to spot the Potemkin cardboard of the frame[3] story.
[0] "so, how did you guys meet?"
[1] consider his answers when O'Brien tries to determine where his limits lie.
[2] although marrying them off has, in at least one case, been an effective way to defuse boys who had been trained as suicide bombers.
[3] "Theory and Practice" is Orwell's active ingredient; Julia and Winston are the sugar in the pill.
Off topic but I just randomly, on one of the rare occasions I do, skateboarded with a friend and was immediately hit with a skateboarding ad while reading this article afterwards.
And I certainly appreciate the irony of this happening while I'm reading an article about Orwell rofl
I've seen this enforced by the number of persons in your party (say, 6 minimum). If you come in with a ton of people at an establishment that expects tips, make a ton of noise, traumatize the front staff, completely destroy the place, then leave and tip 5%? I like the idea of an establishment financially protecting their employees that way.
Mandatory service charges cannot be counted as tip in California and must be reported as restaurant income. Also, the tipped minimum wage is no different from non-tipped minimum wage in California.
People deserve to be compensated extra for an hour of not being able to lean against the counter, playing with their phone? It's traumatizing to have a lot of business and have to work?
The standard in business is that more volume brings about discounts. If you buy a larger order of parts from a supplier, your unit price is less than if you buy a small number.
The only way surcharges for groups make sense is that groups can sometimes tie up the place due to staying longer, but that's a stretch. Groups also have a way of finishing up and getting the hell out, not much slower than someone dining alone.
Every group lunch I remember, there have always been drinks, all round. Almost everyone has at least one glass of beer, save for the odd teetotalers and designated drivers.
I will typically not order a beer if dining alone, or just with family.
You have a big group, with everyone ordering food and most of them drinks (easy money) yet want an extra tax on top.
This looks like the usual ipv6 kool aid batshit. I don't want a bunch of kids and enemy states poking at and port scanning my laptop directly, regardless of whether or not I have a firewall enabled.
And, no, I don't think it's practical for everyone and their grandma to "just set up a bastion"
This is also spec for IPv4, it was intended to be as publically routable as IPv6 is. NAT is just a consequence of everyone realizing circa early 90s (iirc) IPv4 addresses would run out at the rate the network was growing. Yes NAT acts as an inbound default-deny firewall but that isn't it's purpose.
You have a router, it has a firewall, that is meant to be used to control access to the network, you don't have to assign rules to every device you can assign default interface rules that apply to any connection.
Just because you get a publically routable address doesn't mean the internet defines physics and hops over your router and firewall.
Also as an aside - perimeter security is a very outdated way of looking at security, yes the perimeter is still important but if it is your first and only line of defense you are gonna be in for a bad time, defense in depth as it is called where you look at your systems and networks as layers to an onion is the more modern standard and NAT as a security mechanism has never been standard in either because it isn't.
I mean, they'd need to figure out your IP address beforehand, something that's a lot harder with ipv6. You've also got a much better chance of punching a packet through a NAT than an ipv6 firewall (and it's now expected behaviour for a lot of applications, as NAT makes it too difficult to just make connections directly).
They wouldn't need to figure out anything. The "kids and enemy states" are just hosing address ranges. I don't agree with the above commenter that NAT offers any meaningful security in this regard (now they're just hosing your consumer router instead which is probably less secure than the average updates-installed Defender-enabled Windows box). But you're both making points about security through obscurity in different ways.
> The "kids and enemy states" are just hosing address ranges.
If you could scan one million addresses every second it would take about 500,000 years to scan just one /64. Not sure how practical that would be.
When I was still with an ISP that did IPv6 my Asus would block any incoming connection attempt unless it was a reply (SPI firewall), though it may have (IIRC) allowed pings in by default.
Yeah that is an absolutely bonkers amount of time so you're probably right in that the approach of low-effort wide net-casting attackers would have to change. I'm curious to know how Shodan etc. deal with this.
There is a dramatic difference in effort between ( owning a device ) and ( owning a router, configuring network access to the device, then owning the device ).
Also psychologically: If I was a rock hard piece of shit and I knew I was at the doorstep of a personal device, I would treat it much more aggressively than a router. I suppose maybe that's just me and not the kids and enemy states.
I mean, I don't know why you would when the router potentially gives you a foothold across many devices instead of one and the router is likely running multiple services. Yes, that is just you; the threat model I'm describing is widespread automated attacks, not individual or particularly motivated.
You're saying there's less incentive for widespread automated attacks on personal devices?
edit: Changing the subject to insulting me is a bad way to conclude. You're creating an illusion the debate is concluded in your favor instead of responding to points. I don't think any of my points had a sound argument against them.
No brother, I'm not, but I'm starting to feel that what I am saying might be beyond the likelihood of comprehension. Look, I'm a big fan of NAT. Huge. It's not a security control. Neither is v6. It sure is cool though.
Wouldn't IPv6 firewalls configured for typical users (i.e., denying unrecognized incoming connections) pose a similar barrier to making direct connections reliably on the application level? Not every user will be willing or able to open a hole in their firewall for every shiny new application that wants one.
Yeah, I think it is very explicitly a bad thing for all devices to be directly exposed to the entire internet- firewall or no. NAT is a pain, sure, but it does have the benefit of forcing you to have a network isolated from the internet, and only allow external access when explicitly configured to do so.
I have exactly one machine which needs to be accessible from outside the local network. The rest of them should never be. Do I want to spend extra time ensuring that each and every single device on my network is secure, or do I want to do the inverse and assume all devices are secure and only spend effort to make the one machine exposed?
I can't imagine anyone who would actually want or need their WiFi toaster to be publicly routable, WiFi cameras, every computer. There's absolutely no reason for it. Instead of relying on network isolation, we expect users to just implicitly rely on who knows how many different firewall implementations. Hopefully your router configures it by default.
Are you sure about that 'never'? that no device will ever try to use p2p fonnections?
Even then id still rather ensure every device is appropriately firewalled. 'not worrying about it's sounds like a hardened shell with a juicy center. What happens when a device does get compromised and tries to spread to your local network?
I agree with this.
I've learned a lot through life, one thing I've learned is about detrimental long term physical and even social effects of antidepressants, and other medications like adderal. Both I used to take.
At this point in my life, if I realized my parents gave me an antidepressant prescription when I was SEVEN years old because I said something stupid WHEN I WAS SEVEN I'd be very disturbed and disappointed in them, I'd definitely give both of them a solid scolding.
Before you respond to this remember I'm talking about me. Not your kid or your friends kid or your cousins kid.
EDIT: Quick edit to add when I was a kid I was a total outcast, I was weird, anxious, and definitely often depressed. A lot of kids in my religious schooling systems were.