network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | London, United Kingdom | |
| age | 28 | |
| visits | member for | 2 years, 6 months |
| seen | May 13 at 8:10 | |
| stats | profile views | 7 |
Lapsed Catholic. Luddite Geek. Shy Chatterbox. A mass of contradictions wrapped in an open enigma.
|
Mar 20 |
awarded | Citizen Patrol |
|
Mar 6 |
comment |
At what point does something count as 'security through obscurity'? +1: This is basically the more informed, intelligent, reasoned version of my snarky super-secret-crypto-port comment. |
|
Mar 14 |
comment |
XKCD #936: Short complex password, or long dictionary passphrase? @ElazarLeibovich "A lot of people will choose horse, and much less will choose trumpet. Which can also reduce the entropy a great deal." |
|
Mar 14 |
awarded | Commentator |
|
Mar 14 |
comment |
Why would someone trust DuckDuckGo or other providers with a similar privacy policy? @Dave The question was "Why should I trust them", not "Why should I trust this specific thing about them" If another site offered the same privacy policy or said that your data would be encrypted over the wire, the same concerns would be valid. Even Google's policy promises certain things, and the same question applies to them. |
|
Mar 14 |
comment |
XKCD #936: Short complex password, or long dictionary passphrase? @ElazarLeibovich I love the idea of some adorable ragamuffin going to colossal lengths to develop a heuristic data model to predict the entropy of certain password choices, in order to post "D00d so gaey" on my Twitter Feed. Surely he should just get back to his PHD Thesis. |
|
Mar 14 |
comment |
Why would someone trust DuckDuckGo or other providers with a similar privacy policy? @Yegg Based on one of the comments below, could you edit your answer to confirm how someone could verify that you're based in the US, and thus subject to privacy policy laws? |
|
Mar 14 |
comment |
Why would someone trust DuckDuckGo or other providers with a similar privacy policy? @HughAllen Also, even if it was registered internationally, these laws are generally applied globally. And in most places you'd be able to get around them, your site's reliability would be severly compromised. |
|
Mar 14 |
comment |
Why would someone trust DuckDuckGo or other providers with a similar privacy policy? @HughAllen There are perfectly legitimate reasons to guard against another site revealing your information, and just because WhoIs shows as US isn't proof that the business is registered there. Paranoia will destroy ya, but the right place to look would be a registry of incorporated businesses. |
|
Mar 14 |
awarded | Organizer |
|
Mar 14 |
awarded | Editor |
|
Mar 14 |
revised |
Why would someone trust DuckDuckGo or other providers with a similar privacy policy? Edited to make it less targeted at a specific provider, for good or ill |
|
Mar 14 |
comment |
Why would someone trust DuckDuckGo or other providers with a similar privacy policy? I've suggested an edit to this. Why single out DuckDuck? The same question applies to Google (especially to Google), Bing, Yahoo and all the others. |
|
Mar 14 |
suggested | suggested edit on Why would someone trust DuckDuckGo or other providers with a similar privacy policy? |
|
Feb 14 |
comment |
Why are hash functions one way? If I know the algorithm, why can't I calculate the input from it? +1 for being an actual answer |
|
Feb 14 |
comment |
Why are hash functions one way? If I know the algorithm, why can't I calculate the input from it? The problem with all of the provided answers below is that they seem to explain why you can't get the answer back, but then raise the issue "given this, you'd be more likely to gain access than if it stored the password in plain-text, because you no longer need an exact match." The only way this is covered is when people say "Oh, but it's really unlikely". It's still more likely than if you have to get an exact match! |
|
Nov 19 |
awarded | Autobiographer |
|
Nov 19 |
awarded | Supporter |
