The angle formerly known as twitter

The political parties have absolutely nothing to do with democracy. They are literally fundraising organizations with 0 accountability, and the only reason they get special attention like primaries is because their candidates tend to win elections and make policy.

There is absolutely no reason for them to hold ‘elections’ internally aside from the theater of it… They could 100% legitimately throw a dart at a dartboard or read tea leaves to pick their candidate if they want. Crying about how the ‘other side’ didn’t do it how your side did is silly and disingenuous at best, and more likely just talking points to regurgitate.

The DNC and RNC are organizations, there’s no reason outside of organizational preference for them to hold votes… They could flip a coin for all ‘voters rights’ are concerned. They are literally just fundraising organizations that pick someone to throw money behind.

Party affiliation, for all intents and purposes, shouldn’t even be listed on the ballots and the only reason they are is because the two parties realize splitting the country is a better way to raise funds than any amount of policy or good intentions.

You’re probably getting suggestions for what she should do different because, at least at a starting point, it could just as easily be something her phone is doing before sending as it is something your phone is doing on the receiving end.

I’ve had a phone say ‘video to big, do you want to crop or share through abc app’ before. Don’t recall the exact message, but seems more likely than you phone downgrading something it’s receiving.

This is a really old message, but if you’re still having the same question i could try to answer, but that kind of message is pretty context dependant. For that specific one, it sounds like your program is trying to access something outside your network, like they have a website they need to access to check for updates or something.

A benign scan could just be looking for an ftp server to connect to or a repeater or relay server of some sort. There are plenty of open services people make available for free and the fact that you would consider it an attack it doesn’t make it one.

At minimum you could be alerted to look for someone attempting to connect to your ftp server with a single basic anonymous authentication vs someone flooding that port with known malicious software attacks, and block the latter across your entire network and effectively ignore the former. Really it seems like you’re advertising your lack of imagination in this context than a legitimate lack of possible uses for spoofing open ports.

That’s probably a majority of the point. Falsely report that some interesting ports are open and he’ll spend time on them and potentially trigger alerts or blocks.

Fake open ports aren’t something a normal user would bother with or understand, but with all the tools available in the nefarious side, it makes sense to have options that make their job harder if you’re willing to use them.

At a guess, you might tell the difference between some benign scan and an attempt to actually take advantage of the port, perhaps to use as a trigger to automatically ban an ip address? or a way to divert malicious resources to an easy looking target so they are less available in other areas?

The difference between someone scanning for open ports and someone attacking a port they find open seems significant enough to at least track and watch for patterns… Whether that’s useful for the majority of users or not is rarely why a feature is implemented.

Maybe think of it like one of those big walls of post office mailboxes…behind the wall is your computer and an app might be waiting for a message at box 22 or box 45678. You could close all the boxes and nothing could get in, or you could open one or all of them and allow people to deliver messages to them.

If you connect your computer directly to the internet, anyone who knows your IP address could say 'deliver message X to port 22 at ip address <your ip address> and the program watching that box would get the message.

If you put a router in the mix, and multiple computers, the router has the same block of boxes, but if someone sends a message to one of the boxes it just sets there. If you set up ‘forwarding’, sending a message to your ip address gets the message to the router, but if you forward box 22 from your router to a specific computer on your network, then the router takes a message at box 22 on itself and ‘forwards’ it to box 22 on whatever computer you specific (using internal ip addresses).

You could map box 22 on your router to any other box on your computer…like port 22 coming into your router might get sent to port 155 on your computer…this is useful if you don’t want external people just exploring and lazily breaking into your computer using known vulnerabilities. Lots of ports are ‘common’, so an ftp hack on port 22 is easy, and might be ‘slightly’ harder if you tell your computer to actually look for ftp traffic on port 3333 or something.