even if you do connect it to the internet and get it banned, it probably wouldn't matter if you're not planning on using it with Nintendo's online services anymore
> The thesis is that immigrants have no constitutional rights because they aren't citizens...
The constitution is quite clear on this issue and it has been affirmed repeatedly over the last 100+ years by the high courts. Anyone and everyone in the world who is on US soil and subject to US jurisdiction is considered a "US Person". This status is regardless of their nationality/nation of origin, the manner by which they arrived on US soil, or any other circumstance.
As a 'US Person' they are protected by the US Constitution with only minimal exceptions; the right to bear arms[1], ability to run for public office, or vote in federal elections[2]
This is by intent and design and is a necessary cornerstone of US democracy!
This is laid out in - Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 "Aliens in the United States"
> The Court reasoned that aliens physically present in the United States, regardless of their legal status, are recognized as persons guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Thus, the Court determined, even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection
[1] Only citizens and permanent residents are allowed unrestricted access to firearms.
[2] Some districts allow pr visa holders to vote in local and state elections
There's an issue with the flow you described; the party requesting verification shouldn't directly interact with the verifying agent (the state) as this leaks to the state the identity of the requesting 3rd party.
The correct flow for preserving anonymity is: the requesting party issues a challenge token to the user -- the token header describes the type of request (>=18yo?) and the token body is completely random(). The user then takes this token and has the challenge verified (signed) on their side, the signed token is then returned to the requester.
This way the state never knows the identity of the challenge issuer.
() Note that this scheme requires good faith on the part of the challenge issuer that the token body is actually random, although it would seem that a simple DH-key mechanism would patch this vulnerability.
I think it is a tradeoff between "everybody can request age verification" and "only state-licensed parties can request age verification". I don't think everybody's ID card should tell anyone if the holder is adult or not, especially wirelessly
Found a weird bug... I've got a 3 monitor setup and the background animations (rain + pinwheel) only appears on 2 of the monitors... If the window straddles two of the monitors the animations only play on one half of the window!
I was big fan of my HTC Evo, I found the 3D images to be immensely helpful when taking documentation photographs. I could take just two images and get all of the info I needed to capture vs taking ~8 from multiple angles and having to mentally envision the relative dimensions of the space afterwards.
I've been using IONOS (formerly 1und1) for the last 20 years for all of my DNS and hosting needs and couldn't be happier. Their uptime, non-obtrusive policies, and customer support have all been top notch. Can't recommend enough.
As an example; I had a dedicated server that I was leasing that I wanted to upgrade, the sales tech noticed that the plan I was currently on had been retired/replaced and credited my account with difference of what I had payed vs the new payment tier which amounted to six months of billing on the upgraded server. You can't really put a price on that kind of honesty!
Back when I was using them, their ToS disallowed a whole lot of perfectly benign content, like pictures of celebrities. If you had a blog about movies and posted a picture of an actor, your account would get deactivated and your data simply deleted. I wouldn't ever trust them for anything I care about.
I read this as you having to contact them in order for them to credit you for overcharging you for a retired product when the replacement equivalent was priced lower.
Why didn't they proactively inform you that your service was retired and there was an alternative available?
It sounds like this must have been going on for a while to be worth 6 months of service in difference alone.
I left 1and1 close on 2 decades ago. If you consider this a story of good service, then I would suggest you try some other provider.
Real people have to sleep at some point!
reply