Some camera manufacturers offer software that uses your mirrorless camera to emulate a webcam without requiring a capture card.
For example, Fujifilm's X Webcam software[1] would allow the author to connect his X-S10 to his PC using a USB-C cable, and use it as a webcam. The downside is X Webcam lacks support for Linux.
I used this for a while with my D850. It installed okay and worked, technically. I stopped using it for video calls because it was a hassle positioning the relatively heavy DSLR on my desk during calls and because it eats cam batteries for breakfast (you need a power lead that that slots into the battery location on the camera, which I don't own).
The (free) version of the webcam utility doesn't give you full tethered photographic control of the camera, which might have made it more useful to me.
I used this to my advantage awhile ago when I needed rent a moving truck. Penske called me about 30 minutes after I abandoned their online rental process. After a bit of back-and-forth about why I aborted the rental, Penske offered me a discount that beat their competitor's price.
I've since used this technique a few times to my advantage when renting trucks. So, it can be a downside for the business if customers catch on, unless it's considered part of doing business.
As soon as my family expressed an interest in IoT devices, my compromise was the devices had to be on a separate network. I bought an inexpensive managed switch and set up a vlan specifically for our IoT devices. Our firewall segregates the IoT traffic from our LAN. Although I'm still not crazy about the potential privacy implications of Alexa devices and the like, I sleep a bit better knowing they do not have access to anything but the internet.
Until ISPs ship a modem/router combo that makes it easy for the average consumer to set up segregated networks, I don't think too many people are going to heed the FBI's advice.
Do you mean a single binary file? MailHog's mail.go file pulls in a number of dependencies that round out its HTTP and SMTP servers. In OP's case, the entire project's source code is in the main.go file.
Yes, a single binary file is what I meant. I realize in some ways it is orthogonal here, but I guess it reminded me that sometimes a single file can be useful in surprising ways...
I found the advice in Brian Ketelsen's 2018 GopherCon talk[1] helped my Go code organization. It helped me reason about the optimal way to abstract my code.
A subway map is only incidentally supposed to be geographically correct. It needs to be basically a graph diagram, ideally with distances weighted by travel time.
You can only infer that as the result of court case demanding logs. And even then, it would have to be born out of the discovery process that PIA was truthful, in my opinion. Yet that only gives you comfort that they hadn't maintained logs up to that point. You have no guarantees from that point forward, which is what we're all concerned about. We aren't concerned about PIA's past operations, but rather what this new partnership means for their future behavior.
I realize your question is most likely rhetorical, but I felt the need to articulate my concerns.
"You can only infer that as the result of court case demanding logs. "
You can't be sure. In the Lavabit case, Lavabit argued giving up the key protecting all their users... compromising them to the FBI... would cost them customers due to damaged reputation and privacy. The FBI argued they could do it without telling them. Then, Lavabit would still look private with no financial harm. The judge agreed.
That proposal and the judge agreeing changed how I looked at a lot of companies' claims about law enforcement. I already assumed this would happen with Patriot Act requests by FBI/NSA partnership given they'd be hit with secrecy orders. I didn't see a judge straight up telling a privacy company to defraud all of its customers. I figured the order would be more narrow than that. Now, I have a blanket recommendation to avoid U.S. for privacy tech over both secret government (Patriot Act stuff) and regular, court system.
While I agree with you, I think there's some nuance. In the Lavabit case, the FBI was investigating a national security threat whereas the PIA case involved the hacking of local social media sites. I can see a judge not wanting to rule against the FBI in a case of national security whereas I think a judge would be hesitant to do the same in the case of a misdemeanor offense. Then again, I'm continually surprised by the U.S. government in the "war against terror" era.
I'm not conflating anything nor am I making a judgement on the FBI's motives. The FBI issued a national security letter that Lavabit fought in court, which I feel Lavabit should have won. The point you missed is the FBI and the judge put a bit more weight towards forcing Lavabit's hand than it did in PIA's case because of the scope and severity of the offenses, perceived or otherwise.
The FBI did not issue a national security letter in the Lavabit case. A national security letter cannot require the placement of a device to intercept communications or compel turning over encryption keys to accomplish the same. The FBI presented Lavabit with a subpoena issued by a judge.
I ask the recruiter up front what the salary range is for the job to avoid the scenario you outline. I'm surprised how often they give me an answer. It's saved us both a lot of time.
That's kind of my point, although recruiters tend to get slippery here with language like "it's <x-y> but if you're good we are flexible"...then you find out they're not.
