Darkassassin07

Can't release a dead body.

Why would he expect any different; that 'prison' has never permitted any visitors, gifts, mail, nor has it ever released a live prisoner.

Bahahaha

🤡

Actually it looks like Caddy is supposed to set those automatically (I'm used to Nginx which doesn't).

You'll have to look at why the upstream isn't accepting them then. I'm not familiar with azuracast.

X-Forwarded-For

And

X-Real-IP

The application you're proxying also has to listen to these headers. Some don't, some need to be told they're ok to use. (if you enable them, but don't have a proxy in front, users can spoof their ip using them)

Rebooting just seems like a very roundabout, slow and inefficient way to get back to that initial state you describe.

It's exactly what the reboot process is designed to do; return you to that fully encrypted pre-boot state. There would be no purpose to implementing a second method that does the exact same thing.

Much of the data on your phone, including critical information that's required to run the operating system and make the device function, is fully encrypted when the device is off/rebooted.

While in this locked down state, nothing can run. You don't receive notifications, applications can't run in the background, even just accessing the device yourself is slow as you have to wait for the whole system to decrypt and start up.

When you unlock the device for the first time; much of that data is decrypted so that it can be used, and the keys required to unlock the rest of the data get stored in memory where they can be quickly accessed and used. This also makes the device more vulnerable to attacks.

There's always a trade off between convenience and security. The more secure a system, the less convenient it is to use.

Single party consent means one of the people being recorded must give permission to record ... full stop.

This is true.

What you don't understand is that a person does not have to be actively speaking or being directly spoken to in order to be a part of a conversation. Simply being present, with the other participants fully aware of your presence while continuing to converse makes you part of their conversation and thus a party able to consent to it's recording.

The key there is that the other participants are aware of your presence. You're not hiding around a corner, listening in unbeknownst to them; the people conversing are entirely aware that you are present and likely listening.

By your rational a police agent without a warrant could walk by and say "hello", plant a listening device, then record your conversation because he said hello at the start.

No. In that situation a third party inserted themselves into your conversation entirely of their own volition.

This is like you walking up to someone that's streaming/vlogging in public, beginning an unrelated conversation in front of them; then you getting upset that they are recording the conversation that you began in their presence. Even if you weren't aware they were streaming; you were the one that inserted yourself into that situation. They didn't walk up to/join you; you made them a party by bringing the conversation to them.

A really big part of these types of legal situations is 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. The people inside a vehicle are all pretty close together and obviously going to be able to hear the conversions that are happening. It's unreasonable to expect the driver who's head is ~3 feet from you isn't privy to your conversation.

I'm guessing the black parts slide like wax? For 'grinding' without a board?

In a situation like this; you've entered the drivers vehicle and began a conversation in their immediate presence fully aware that they are able to hear and listen to you. That makes the driver a party to your conversation, even without actively participating in it.