![]() |
|
![]() |
| No inside information, but presumably this means Delivery to other organizations, which, among other things, includes maintaining outbound IP reputation, which is closely related to Spam and Abuse. |
![]() |
| If an algorithm is looking through private stuff and making a decision based on it or is sending signals where the signal depends on the private stuff, then it's pretty much by definition leaking private information.
An algorithm that leaked no private information would not be useful to a business. It would do a bunch of computation and then throw it away. So realistically anything that looks at private information is privacy-relevant. That includes even just the email headers. To quote the former head of the NSA "We Kill People Based on Metadata" https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/05/ex-nsa-chief-... You can have debates about how much private information should be leaked and for what purposes. But I don't think having a threshold like "it's all private unless another human reads it" is a good way to think about the issue. |
![]() |
| I've never encountered this requirement in many years of daily use - pip for me has always happily installed anything if it can.
Now I've definitely seen customized distributions of python from package managers that have taken steps to prevent you from using pip. IIRC, the python you get from `apt-get install python` in Debian does this? I.e., it's designed to support system utilities, not as a user's general purpose python environment, and they want `apt-get` to control this environment, not pip. So they've removed pip and ensure_pip and easy_install from your core system python environment. TLDR: In my experience, that requirement doesn't come from pip, it's your distro taking steps to prevent https://xkcd.com/1987/ |
![]() |
| been using PyPI a lot recently for non-Python stuff such as FFmpeg and Eigen. Part of the reason why I have been able to ditch Homebrew entirely! |
![]() |
| For me on desktop, the version seems to be the fourth thing down in the right column, under weekly downloads, and there's a checkmark. (Or maybe I'm missing something.) |
![]() |
| One thing that the Go module system solves that seems to be unaddressed in CUE's design based on OCI is the sum database / transparency log.
I could add a "Statement that we might wish to make for a module M" to the "Module contents assurance" section: - The content of module M is the same content that everyone else sees for the same `$path@$version`. Though I guess users can utilize existing solutions like https://github.com/sigstore/cosign or rekor (mentioned elsewhere itt). |
(I am a former Google SAD-SRE [Spam, Abuse, Delivery])