⊥ᵒᵚ Cᵸᵎᶺᵋᶫ∸ᵒᵘ ☑️ @falken@social.cleverlibre.org

The Irony. ClearSpace-1 Couldn't Clean up Space Debris Because its Target Already Got hit by Space Debris, Creating Even More Space Debris.

The European Space Agency's ClearSpace-1 satellite was zeroing in on the spent payload adaptor from a 2013 rocket launch. Its task would be to extend arms, grab the chunk of debris, hug it tightly, and then pull it back into the Earth's atmosphere, de-orbiting and removing it from low-Earth orbit. On August 10th, mission controllers detected multiple pieces of space debris near its target - debris that was probably dislodged from it in the recent past. They're now scrutinizing the situation to plan their next step in the mission.

https://www.esa.int/Space_Safety/Objects_detected_in_the_vicinity_of_ClearSpace-1_debris_removal_mission_target

The Expanse (Season 3, 2018): UNN Thomas Prince, Truman-class dreadnought
#scifi #theexpanse #spaceship

@HcInfosec @jeroen You want an Internet voting system? You have two choices. One is to relax some of the basic requirements and civil rights associated with voting, such as the right to a secret ballot. The other option is to have elections where we can never be sure who actually won, and that are vulnerable to disruption by anyone connected to the Internet.

Neither option seems great.

@andy I used to work as a contractor on the website for Argos (who are an enormous UK retailer). Our team were tasked with making the site fully non-js compliant. Even though the number of users not allowing JavaScript was under 1% (or similar as I recall), once we'd done our fix it equated to hundreds and thousands of pounds worth of sales.

Not getting many hits unfortunately, but I'm sure there are thousands of tags here.

So, obligatory PSA: everything you buy from Decathlon has a UHF RFID tag with a unique ID. These tags can be read at a 10m range. Cut them out if you value your privacy.

(If you buy Decathlon shoes, microwave them.)

I see a lot of confusing around this due to the fact "cyber attack" gets used as an all-encompassing term for any kind of hacking at all (when ideally it should be reserved for intentionally destructive acts).

Basically, from most nations perspective, any kind of hacking for reconnaissance/intelligence gathering/data theft/whatever you want to call it, falls into the category of cyber-espionage, or cyber-enabled espionage. It's essentially treated similar to regular espionage (really annoying and definitely illegal, but not an act of war).

When countries talk about the possibility of invoking Article 5 in response to a cyber-attack, they don't mean cyber-espionage like stealing voter data, they mean an intentionally disruptive or destructive attack. Even something like accidentally taking offline a power grid while conducting espionage probably wouldn't meet the bar.

I think a lot of the confusion comes from people having a belief that cyber and kinetic attacks are fundamentally different, and thus responses must be in-kind. So if someone took offline your power grid with hacking instead of bombs, you can only respond with hacking instead of bombs. Not a lawyer, but as far as I'm aware this has never been a policy. Most of what I've seen is just official clarification of what's long been the case (we don't care if your attack uses hackers or bombs, you're getting clapped either way).

Nobody is actually insane enough to invoke Article 5 or any kind of kinetic response over basic cyber-espionage, because literally everyone is doing it and that would just be a direct escalation and also set the irreversible precedent of "you can bomb people for spying on you now". Which nobody wants.