@forest or could do the alternative and just treat them as suspect

Treat who?

Phones?

also - tbh a phone is a computer. I do a lot of moderation

I treat them as suspect, sure. That's why I minimize my use of them.

eff.org/deeplinks/2022/05/…

:/

Here's an idea for a pentest strategy that likely won't be approved: start a fire in the building and grab some documents on the way out. Should work pretty well in a real attack since there's no time for egress checking, but too dangerous for a simulation.

@forest pastebin.com/h6Nm16SV

So, if I understand correctly, chat-service providers can use end-to-end encryption as long as they can search its plaintext content.

I do not think the writers of the proposal understand what they wrote.

> When executing the detection order, providers should take all available safeguard measures to ensure that the technologies employed by them cannot be used by them or their employees for purposes other than compliance with this Regulation, nor by third parties, and thus to avoid undermining the security and confidentiality of the communications of users.

Not only should you be able to search the plaintext, you simultaneously shouldn't be able to search it

exactly

The only way I can see to make it work is to search for illicit content in the client app, once the plaintext is decrypted. But that would expose the search patterns and that would be bypassable by the end-users.

for i in {1..5}; do curl https://salesloftlinks.com/[token]; done

If you're going to put tracking stuff in your emails, the least I can do for you is completely skew all your pretty graphs

You're welcome

404 on all

Wasn't the real link... I'm still clinging to a faint air of anonymity...

got it