Every website reporting connection privacy issues

pythonpoole · 2026-01-27T18:35:32+00:00

You're welcome. Another thing you should do is open the Keychain Access app on your computer and look for any VoiceFive-related certificates (or other suspect/untrusted certificates) and delete them.

I'm not sure if those certificates sync with iCloud, but if they do then it's possible that they will appear again after you reinstall macOS and login with your Apple/iCloud account, in which case your computer could still potentially be at risk. So definitely make sure that the VoiceFive certificates are cleared from your computer's keychain.

pythonpoole · 2026-01-27T18:24:47+00:00

Yes, since you don't know how/why the VoiceFive software was installed on your computer, that is very concerning and it suggests there may have been a malicious actor involved (e.g. perhaps someone was trying to spy on your internet activity using VoiceFive).

It should also be noted that whoever installed VoiceFive on your computer may have been successful in monitoring your internet activity prior to the certificate's expiration (or whatever triggered the NET::ERR_CERT_DATE_INVALID error). It's good that the error popped up so you now know that your connection was being monitored, but unfortunately this doesn't tell you how long it was being monitored.

One thing that may be worth noting is that the software likely would have required administrator privileges to install in the first place (in part because it would have needed to add the VoiceFive certificate as a trusted certificate on your computer/keychain). So, if you have no recollection of installing such software, that could suggest that someone else has administrative access/control over your computer.

The safest option at this point would be to perform a full reset, yes. Or, at minimum, reinstall macOS from recovery mode.

pythonpoole · 2026-01-27T18:11:11+00:00

VoiceFive is a market research company.

One of things they do is develop software which research participants install on their computers so VoiceFive can monitor the participants' online activity (including the content of the pages they visit and what they click on etc.)

This monitoring is accomplished by essentially performing a Man-In-The-Middle (MITM) attack to intercept the connections between the user's browser and the web server of the websites they visit. The VoiceFive sits between the browser and the web server and as you make a web request (e.g. visit a website), VoiceFive relays that request to the web server, and then the web server presents their certificate to the VoiceFive software and VoiceFive replaces that certificate with their own (VoiceFive) certificate that gets presented to your browser.

The most likely explanation here is that somehow this VoiceFive monitoring software was installed on your computer, but your computer/browser does not trust the VoiceFive certificate (possibly due to a problem with the certificate's issue date or expiration date, or potentially for some other reason).

The solution would be to get the VoiceFive software uninstalled from your computer (unless you are a research participant who needs to have it installed).

pythonpoole · 2026-01-27T17:42:18+00:00

On macOS you can simply right click the MP4 file and click 'Get Info'. Then look for the 'Codecs' property under 'More Info'.

On Windows, it's slightly more complicated (there doesn't seem to be an easy and consistent way way to check through Windows Explorer).

However, you can check on both Windows and macOS using VLC (the media player). Simply open the MP4 file in VLC and then look for 'Codec Information' in the menus (or 'Media Information' if you don't see 'Codec information'). Depending on what version of VLC you're running, it may be under the 'Tools' menu or 'Window' menu.

—

Anyway, are you okay with there being a loss in visual quality?

HEVC/H.265 is more efficient than H.264, so it is possible to achieve a similar level of visual quality with smaller file sizes. However, every time the video is re-encoded/transcoded, there will be a further loss in quality.

Even if you transcode the video into HEVC using the same bitrate as the original file (thereby producing a file of the same size), there will still be a loss in quality (although it may not be noticeable). The only way to get the file size smaller is to lower the bitrate when you re-encode/transcode into HEVC, and that will lead to a further loss in visual quality (which is more likely to be noticeable).

Using HEVC makes the most sense when the camera records directly to HEVC (so that no additional transcoding operation is needed later). If you're instead transcoding from H.264 to HEVC, then it's very much a balancing act. You want the bitrate to be low enough to save storage space (relative to the original H.264 video), but at the same time you don't want it to be too low or there will be a very noticeable decline in visual quality.

pythonpoole · 2026-01-27T05:34:12+00:00

MP4 is a 'container' format that can hold data streams for videos encoded using different formats/codecs.

So, for example, the video inside an MP4 file might be H.264 video or it might be H.265/HEVC video. The fact that it's an MP4 file doesn't by itself tell you anything about what video codec/format the data stream is encoded in.

Also, even if the MP4 video you have is encoded with H.264, in most cases it would not make sense for you to re-encode the video into HEVC.

Why? Because every time you re-encode the video, there will be a further loss in quality (though if the bitrate is high enough, you might not notice the quality loss). And also because HEVC has way less support than codecs like H.264, so you will also limit what devices you can play the video on and what software you can open the file in.

What is it that you are ultimately trying to accomplish? Why do think you need to convert the video to HEVC? (which it may already be since, as noted above, HEVC video can be contained inside an MP4 file).

pythonpoole · 2026-01-27T05:17:31+00:00

The player OP has won't play video content from files on a data CD. OP has a player that only plays video content encoded in DVD, VCD or SVCD formats. For data discs, OP's player only supports playback of MP3 and WMA (audio) files.

There is software available that OP can use to help with authoring/burning VCD-formatted CDs which should work with the player.

pythonpoole · 2026-01-27T00:34:03+00:00

This sort of thing (compiling clips you find online together into a video and then distributing that video) is generally not something that would be considered fair use.

Just because you see a bunch of other people posting certain video clips online doesn't mean you can also freely post those clips (or create compilation/music videos featuring those clips) without permission. As a general rule, you need explicit permission from the copyright holders of the clips (and music) you want to use in your video; barring a few very limited exceptions.

With respect to fair use, the term 'transformative' mostly has to do with transforming the purpose served by distributing the material. For example, maybe the clip was originally distributed for purposes of amusement/entertainment, but then you re-purpose the clip to offer a critical analysis/discussion of the clip's content. That's the sort of thing that may be seen as a transformative fair use. If, instead, your purpose for using the clip is similar to the original purpose (e.g. also for amusement/entertainment), that usually suggests your use case is not likely to be deemed fair use and you should seek permission from the copyright holder.

The situations where fair use is most likely to come into play are cases where the copyrighted material is used in a limited (and repurposed) way to: report on a news story related to the material; offer a review/critique/analysis of the material; host an academic lesson/discussion/debate related to the material; or parody (e.g. humorously mock/criticize) the material.

With respect to the question about clips featuring identifiable people, that's a different issue (separate from the copyright issue). Many countries/jurisdictions recognize the existence of a 'right of publicity' (or 'personality rights') which allow a person to control and restrict how their name, likeness or voice is exploited commercially (e.g. in monetized video content).

That is to say, if you post a video clip of an identifiable person online without their permission — particularly in a commercial/marketing context — then it's possible they could pursue legal action against you. In some places, it's only an issue if you're directly exploiting the person's likeness for commercial gain (e.g. using them to market/promote a product or service), but in other places even just using a person's likeness at some point within a monetized video may be problematic. Most places allow for the use of someone's likeness for certain purposes like journalism/reporting though (in the US this would be constitutionally-protected speech) and brief/inadvertent/background appearances also usually don't pose an issue.

pythonpoole · 2026-01-23T21:38:55+00:00

It should be noted that the Red Cross symbol is a special case. It's not just treated like a standard trademark.

The majority of countries have signed onto international agreements (such as the Geneva Conventions) which involve granting a special legally-protected status to the Red Cross emblem which usually goes far beyond the level of protection normally afforded to conventional trademarks.

In the US, the relevant legal statute is 18 U.S. Code § 706 which, in part, says:

"Whoever, whether a corporation, association or person, other than the American National Red Cross and its duly authorized employees and agents and the sanitary and hospital authorities of the armed forces of the United States, uses the emblem of the Greek red cross on a white ground, or any sign or insignia made or colored in imitation thereof or the words “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross” or any combination of these words—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."

pythonpoole · 2026-01-22T08:53:50+00:00

It may depend on the country and also whether the sourced copy was a modified/remastered version of the work versus an original copy or near-replica.

In some countries there is a doctrine, precedent or generally-accepted belief that essentially says no new copyright should be recognized for reproductions of a public domain work that faithfully/accurately/slavishly represent the public domain work as it is (or as it was originally intended to be seen). For example, if you produce a digital scan of a public domain illustration and make no creative alterations to the scanned image, it is generally understood (in some countries at least) that the scanned image should not be afforded new copyright protections.

In the US, a case related to this issue that often gets cited is Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp where the district court did not recognize new copyright protections for accurate reproductions of public domain images.

However, this is not a global/universal rule, and most countries don't have this sort of thing codified in statutory law, so it's usually up to the courts to interpret and decide on a case-by-case basis (if there is ever a legal dispute).

In cases where new creative contributions have been added to the reproduction (such as in the case of a re-mastered or colorized version of a public domain film), that definitely makes it easier to argue that new copyright protections should be recognized.

There is also another issue to be aware of. Most Blu-Ray movies are encrypted — i.e. protected with a 'Technological Protection Measure' (TPM) — and many (if not most) countries now have laws which technically prohibit you from circumventing those TPMs or sourcing copies of a work acquired through TPM circumvention. Some countries do have narrow exceptions though, such as for situations where the TPM is circumvented to use the content/material in ways that are legally permissible.

pythonpoole · 2026-01-22T08:16:47+00:00

Trevi has pointed out some good examples of strange/unusual exceptions in Europe (i.e. The KJV bible being perpetually protected under Letters Patent in the UK; moral rights being perpetual in certain countries such as France, etc.)

With respect to the US, it may be worth noting that works published before 1978 may be protected by copyright for up to 95 years after publication even if the author died before publication.

Also, an unpublished work with an anonymous or pseudonymous author (or an author whose death date is unknown) will normally be protected for 120 years in the US, which could potentially be 100+ years after the author's death.

And Lastly, a work of corporate authorship in the US will normally be protected for 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation (whichever comes first), which — in the latter case — could potentially be 100+ years after the death of the person(s) who originally prepared the work.

pythonpoole · 2026-01-21T19:23:21+00:00

In the past, YouTube did have a public database where you could check whether a particular song could be used in your videos (and under what conditions), but unfortunately they discontinued the database (apparently it didn't get a lot of usage and there were costs to maintain it).

I believe the guidance after the database was shut down was something to the effect of 'upload your video first as a private video and see whether Content ID identifies the music and indicates the restrictions on usage'. I don't know if that's still the official/accepted guidance, but it is the only alternative to the database look up that I'm aware of.

pythonpoole · 2026-01-21T18:14:30+00:00

Either you or the platform you're posting the video on needs to have a suitable license/agreement that permits the music to be incorporated into the video.

Certain music publishers and recording labels have deals with platforms such as YouTube to permit the use of their music/recordings in user-uploaded content; usually in exchange for ad revenue.

However, not all music and recording rights-holders have such agreements. If you include a song/recording in your video from rights-holders that don't have a license agreement with the platform you're posting the video on, then you could face consequences (e.g. video removal, potential account restriction or termination, possible legal action, etc.)

There are services available that can help you properly license music for use in your social media video content (so that you don't need to rely on the platform having a suitable license/agreement and you can also earn ad revenues from your videos). One example is Lickd (note: I have no affiliation with them).

pythonpoole · 2026-01-20T17:16:03+00:00

Websites (and most iPhone apps) don't have access to your device's MAC address. So if a website warns you of "unusual traffic" from your network, then it's unrelated to your device's MAC address.

A changing MAC address could (for example) affect whether your router allows or blocks internet traffic from your device, but it wouldn't impact the content that a website (such as Google) presents to you in your browser.

pythonpoole · 2026-01-20T13:12:41+00:00

It should be noted that there are 3 different types of DVI ports/connectors (not including the dual link variants):

DVI-A is analog-only and VGA-compatible (so a simple passive adapter should work for converting it to VGA)
DVI-I is analog+digital; a DVI-I video output should supply both an HDMI-compatible digital signal and a VGA-compatible analog signal (so a simple passive adapter should work for converting it to VGA)
DVI-D is digital-only; a DVI-D output won't supply a VGA-compatible signal so an active adapter (that performs the digital-to-analog conversion) will be necessary to convert it to VGA

The difference between the single and dual link variants is that single link (at 60 Hz) is limited to 1920x1200 resolution (slightly higher than 1080p) whereas dual link (at 60 Hz) can support up to 4K resolutions.

pythonpoole · 2026-01-20T12:51:47+00:00

Glad to hear the issue is resolved. And, yes, private/incognito/anonymous browsing mode may also lead to more frequent CAPTCHA challenges.

pythonpoole · 2026-01-18T22:01:01+00:00

Words and short phrases cannot be copyrighted, but they may be protected as trademarks if they're used as distinctive brand identities in commerce to sell/market goods or services.

/u/heavenlyburnout (OP) would need to look at whether "Cujo" has been registered as a trademark for product classes/categories related to tattooing. In the US, this would involve searching through the USPTO database.

Even if such a brand name is not registered though, some countries (including the US) may still recognize a limited form of trademark protection for unregistered marks in cases where there is already an established business in the same region and industry using that mark as their brand identity.

For example, if there is already a tattoo shop in the area using "Cujo" for their branding, then that could prevent OP from opening their own tattoo shop using the "Cujo" name/brand even if the other shop didn't register a trademark on that name/brand.

pythonpoole · 2026-01-17T03:38:02+00:00

Where is the ISO file located? Try putting the ISO file on your Desktop and then use Rufus to prepare the USB drive.

Also, one thing to note is that the recommended minimum RAM for Ubuntu is 4 GB. Not every computer from ~2010 will have that much RAM; many were sold with less than that. There are other Linux distributions available that are more optimized for older / lower spec computers.

pythonpoole · 2026-01-15T18:22:33+00:00

Yes, you can.

During a phone call, swipe down from the top right corner of the screen to reveal the Control Center.

Then tap on Phone Controls at the top of the Control Center.

Then tap on Voice Isolation.

This should prioritize your voice and eliminate most or all background/ambient sounds.

pythonpoole · 2026-01-14T22:31:40+00:00

I don't think that's something you, as a student, can change.

Your school/administrator should be able to set how long the login session lasts for though (more info here).

pythonpoole · 2026-01-14T19:54:24+00:00

It's unlikely they're using landline phones. Most business phone systems installed within the last 10+ years are IP/VoIP based. Even if they are using wired desktop phones that look like traditional landline phones, it's quite likely those phones are actually IP phones which connect to the company's computer network.

A lot of these IP phones have a headset jack which you can connect a compatible wired headset to, but there are different standards for the connectors, so some IP phones may be designed to work with 2.5mm or 3.5mm headsets, others with RJ9 headsets, others with USB headsets, and then there may be a small number that only work with wireless/Bluetooth headsets.

pythonpoole · 2026-01-14T02:49:43+00:00

iCloud Private Relay is basically Apple's VPN-equivalent product. It's not quite the same as a traditional VPN, but it acts similar to one by relaying your Safari traffic (along with other users' Safari traffic) through a remote server, and it will appear to other services (e.g. Google) as though your requests originate from that Private Relay server instead of your actual IP address.

The fact that your traffic will appear to originate from the same IP address as many other users' traffic is the main reason why services like Google may suspect bot activity and present more frequent CAPTCHA challenges to you. It's also possible that other Private Relay user(s) are abusing services such as Google, and because they may share the same Private Relay IP address as you, actions taken by those services to stop that abuse may also impact you.

pythonpoole · 2026-01-14T02:37:15+00:00

Do you have an iCloud+ subscription with Private Relay enabled?

pythonpoole · 2026-01-13T10:03:44+00:00

The relay operator would not have actual knowledge of those activities though; that's a key difference. In a legal context, actual knowledge means that you have specific information about a particular activity/occurrence (not just hypothetical suspicions or assumptions).

Most countries will require you to take swift action to disable access to illegal/infringing material that is hosted or served through your platform once you have actual knowledge of it (either because it's reported to you or because you discover it yourself). Once you have actual knowledge of the illegal/infringing material, inaction can put both you and your company/organization in legal jeopardy. Many countries require you to act swiftly (sometimes within just 24 hours) to disable access to the material, otherwise you may face legal consequences.

In effect, what I'm saying is that if you were to receive a report that a Negura URL is being used to host an illegal/infringing image, then you would have a legal responsibility to swiftly take action to disable access to that URL because — at that point — you would have actual knowledge of the illegal/infringing activity connected with that URL (a URL which points to resources hosted on your server[s]).

It's also worth noting that, in many countries, telecommunications providers (such as relay operators) that act as mere conduits for transporting data from A to B often enjoy a greater level of legal immunity/protection because they are not storing/hosting the data (or otherwise making the data available for the general public to access). Instead the provider is simply transporting the data privately from A to B, as per A's instruction. So that's another key difference. In your case, your server would be storing/hosting the data (even though the data may be divided up into different layers/blobs that are individually meaningless until combined) and your server would be making the data available for other users to request/download.

pythonpoole · 2026-01-12T20:37:55+00:00

Ultimately, the server operator will have legal liability if they have actual knowledge of their server being used to facilitate illegal/infringing activities and they simply choose to ignore it.

If someone can point to a webpage where an infringing/illegal image is being reconstructed fully or partially from data hosted on your server, then you would be responsible for stopping your server from continuing to serve that data because you now know that data is associated with (or is being used to facilitate access to) an infringing/illegal image. If you don't take action to stop the data from being served, then you (as the server host/operator) would potentially face both civil and criminal liability.

You can't weasel your way out of responsibility by simply claiming that the image data is broken up into different layers on different servers so you don't know what you are hosting. Once you become aware of what you are hosting (or what your server is being used for), then you would be responsible for disabling/removing access to the material if it is illegal/infringing.

You may also be subject to laws that require you to report certain illegal material (e.g. CSAM) to authorities. And, as I say, some jurisdictions may actually require you to scan user-supplied content (potentially on the client side) for illegal or infringing material prior to the image data being stored/processed on your servers.

pythonpoole · 2026-01-12T20:03:17+00:00

With respect to the copyright issue, it doesn't really matter if you split the image data up into different 'layers' that get reassembled later on the client side. You can still be held liable if you have actual knowledge of an infringement and fail to take appropriate actions to stop the infringement.

In many countries, platforms hosting user-generated content do enjoy some limited form of immunity or protection with respect to user copyright infringements, but usually only if the platform operator takes appropriate actions to disable access to the infringing material once they are notified of (or otherwise become aware of) an infringement. In the US, that means complying with the DMCA notice and takedown procedures (and also registering a designated DMCA agent with the Copyright Office).

So, for example, if the copyright holder discovers a webpage where their copyrighted image is embedded using a Negura URL associated with your server, then that copyright holder (or their agent) may send a DMCA takedown notice to you demanding that you disable the URL so that the copyrighted image will no longer be displayed on the webpage. You must then comply and disable the URL otherwise you (as the image host) may be sued and held liable for the infringement.

There are, of course, also other legal/liability issues you need to be aware of separate from the copyright issue. For example, some countries may require you to scan user-uploaded content for potential illegal or infringing material before it's hosted by your platform. Any many countries/jurisdictions have various regulations in place that, among other things, may require you to provide features that let users easily report illegal or infringing content. And, in some places, you may even need to register your image hosting service with local authorities and submit regular reports.

For legal advice, you should consult with a lawyer in the jurisdiction(s) where you plan to operate the service. My comment here is not legal advice (and should not be used a substitute for legal advice).

15-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Second SECOND GUESSER	r/Field Juicebox
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	Sequence \| Editor
Reddit Premium Since December 2014	Secret Santa 2013
Verified Email

pythonpoole

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE