💾 Archived View for dioskouroi.xyz › thread › 29393185 captured on 2021-11-30 at 20:18:30. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The Unknown Story of Phil Zimmermann

Author: 0des

Score: 27

Comments: 13

Date: 2021-11-30 15:32:30

Web Link

________________________________________________________________________________

lixtra wrote at 2021-11-30 16:23:38:

Seems to be overwhelmed

https://web.archive.org/web/20210517082014/https://www.micha...

DFHippie wrote at 2021-11-30 18:22:12:

Alas, it is doomed to stay unknown hidden behind this link.

lisper wrote at 2021-11-30 18:42:10:

"Checking your browser before accessing www.michaelrinderle.com"

WTF? What exactly is it about my browser that you want to check? And why is it taking so long?

webmobdev wrote at 2021-11-30 19:42:57:

It's just free advertisement for CloudFlare. They offer "free" DDoS protection to sites, and use this as a form of advertising too by showing this to any visitor that browses a "cloudflare protected" site that use some kind of improved privacy settings or privacy oriented browser extension on their browser. (They are the equivalent of the old _"your xxx antivirus is protecting"_ you popups). The better the privacy settings, the more it will make you go through what is now infamous as the _"Captcha hell"_.

(Ofcourse, they kindly offer you a "solution" to avoid this nagging - the _Cloudflare Privacy Pass_. Install the browser extension and sacrifice your privacy, and CloudFlare will not nag you).

I am from India, where many unsecure computers are often infected with malware, and often part of large bot networks. Thus, many indian IPs are already in blacklists or treated suspiciously. So I see this a lot. So much, that I just despise CloudFlare now (recently even recommended Netlify over Cloudflare to a client to have my petty revenge over them).

tenebrisalietum wrote at 2021-11-30 18:55:31:

Cloudflare DDOS protection?

lisper wrote at 2021-11-30 19:00:27:

Well, yeah, that's what it says. But how exactly is "checking my browser" for 30 seconds or more (I gave up on it after that) supposed to prevent a DDOS attack?

dec0dedab0de wrote at 2021-11-30 19:19:26:

I would assume it is fingerprinting you and checking you against a list of bad fingerprints.

tenebrisalietum wrote at 2021-11-30 22:11:06:

If you're serious about accessing the site and not just a script creating trouble, you'll stick around.

nickdothutton wrote at 2021-11-30 18:51:09:

I’ll save you the bother. Chances are you know everything this article tells you.

AlexCoventry wrote at 2021-11-30 19:12:54:

Seems likely that some of the details are wrong, too. I think it would have been a 1st amendment issue, not 5th. Also, I doubt the government backed off because they were worried he would become a martyr. Seems more likely that they knew they would lose.

not2b wrote at 2021-11-30 18:00:46:

s/important 5th amendment issue/important 1st amendment issue/

shkkmo wrote at 2021-11-30 16:44:29:

The voice of this article reminds me strongly of "you won't believe what happened next" crappy click-bait articles. I'm not sure why exactly but I think it has something to do with the weird tense it is written in.

asasidh wrote at 2021-11-30 17:17:07:

Potential Satoshi candidate

bob332 wrote at 2021-11-30 19:48:39:

Lol no he is far too clever to waste his time on crypto crap