291–300 of 323 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Importantly "egregious" is also opinion. The other point of view is that they "very reasonably" ignored Texas law because they're not in Texas. The Supreme Court found that the law was valid, but that ruling doesn't mean it necessarily applies in a situation like this.
Article IV, Section I Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes, they provided services to Texas because someone in the extended family was in Texas and now they don't have an extra relative.
Has there been a single attempt at pressing this issue judicially, or is this just hypothetical? Common law legal systems are not based on "neener neener, gotcha!" technicalities, and are not computer systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Article IV, Section I Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
That doesn't give them nexus.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has there been a single attempt at pressing this issue judicially, or is this just hypothetical? Common law legal systems are not based on "neener neener, gotcha!" technicalities, and are not computer systems.
So it's impossible to say what could happen until it actually happens? Then I think vacuum instability will destroy the Texas court.
I don't think there's a vacuum so much as a wealth of "I don't like what's happening!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you add this [1] function to your shell and do fp www.texasattorneygeneral.gov What do you see? Do you get the same fingerprint? I get: Testing via IPv4: texasattorneygeneral.gov. 104.18.152.79 104.18.94.91 sha1 Fingerprint=D7:6B:D1:D8:58:5B:16:4A:0B:D8:41:5F:FF:4E:DA:2F:FA:90:4F:4D sha256 Fingerprint=94:4F:66:36:A5:AA:AF:17:3A:FD:9C:B6:F0:79:95:17:62:1C:8A:B8:B3:44:61:DD:61:BB:C1:26:C6:77:4F:0F notBefore=Jul 4 12…
This is what I get: Testing via IPv4: SHA1 Fingerprint=A3:27:99:AA:0A:21:D8:11:B1:86:6E:CC:3A:12:CA:EC:2E:ED:F6:DA SHA256 Fingerprint=0B:77:CB:2F:80:87:98:6B:A8:C3:75:E7:4B:BF:04:4E:C5:5A:CD:00:7A:78:E9:FD:32:2A:72:24:4D:B1:79:EF notBefore=Jul 17 03:19:04 2026 GMT notAfter=Oct 15 03:19:03 2026 GMT Testing via IPv6: But the distro I am using is still on openssl v2, patched with recent updates
Do you have a security proxy or a corporate VPN? Some corporate IT setups will route people through a stack of security devices that may or may not decrypt your traffic. In the past there have also be anti-virus applications that have acted as a man in the middle proxy.
Or worst case there could be malware on your machine. Either way you should figure that out before putting anything sensitive on that machine or logging into anything sensitive. Make a physical note of all the sites you have logged into and find a clean secure machine to change all the passwords starting with your email provider(s) as attackers can prevent password changes if your email access is locked out. If this is a corporate laptop call your security operations center.
The certificate transparency site keeps timing out for me but maybe it will eventually respond for you or your team. [1]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't give them nexus.
Verisign does business in Texas, right? Are they just allowed to do that with no restrictions? Texas can't say "no, you may not sell services to Texans?"
Verisign might be bound by Texas law, but they're not the one accused of breaking any laws here. This isn't a law for registrars, it's a law for websites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So it's impossible to say what could happen until it actually happens? Then I think vacuum instability will destroy the Texas court.
Good luck with this theory. The site in question's domain was seized, they now have to fight to get it back. I don't think there's a vacuum so much as a wealth of "I don't like what's happening!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Damn, I didn't even considered this angle. Lot's 18+ items dont actually require age verification online. Yet porn/socials are being subjected to it. Just shows what priorities are.
Guns are good and equal freedom. Boobs are bad and lead to degeneracy. I hate this place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even .horse?
Take a look at the list of new generic TLDs that are run by Donuts LLC now Identity Digital, a US based company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_Digital
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English-language_gener...
I suppose they're in California really, but perhaps not for legal purposes. Likewise Uniregistry (.lol) "was registered in the Cayman Islands", for what good that does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't tell if it's Texas or Porn sites that are supposed to be the gangster in this metaphor.
> so I don't know why we are acting so naive about Texas and co. It's a bad metaphor. I'm just saying they don't have to directly say what it is they want these sites to do to coerce them to do it.
This seems like a reasonable ask and a reasonable response to me, so I don't understand who the bad guy is supposed to be here.