SenAnder

14 ms·

91.
by SenAnder 3y ago
> replaces every string in the customer's database with a cryptographic hash [..] So unless your city is named "success", it's going to be missing from the dataset. I'm not sure I understand. Wouldn't it be
92.
by SenAnder 3y ago
Thank you for the correction. This makes the judgement much more reasonable.
93.
by SenAnder 3y ago
> It is legal to do this, apparently I am extremely skeptical of this, no matter what this judge says. This seems to be a clear case of illegal wiretapping [1]. Having an illegal act perpetrated upon one, whether it is wiretapping or ass
94.
by SenAnder 3y ago
> In other words, it's A-OK for your car to "automatically and without authorization , instantaneously intercept, record, download, store, and [be] capable of transmitting" text messages and call logs since the privacy vi
95.
by SenAnder 3y ago
It's a hack the same way that a locksmith making a surreptitious copies of his clients keys, then using those keys to plant listening devices through their homes, is breaking and entering. Or my prior example of selling secretly backdo
96.
by SenAnder 3y ago
> What we need is (a) evidence of harm When corporate servers get hacked, 'harm' is simply assumed, even if the hack only copied information. Yet when that same kind of hack is perpetrated by corporations against consumers, via
97.
by SenAnder 3y ago
These solutions don't require any new laws - parental controls are already legal.
98.
by SenAnder 3y ago
Suppose they include those features anyway. Do Firefox developers in the EU get arrested? Does the EU block US websites distributing Firefox, and arrest anyone running a local mirror? Do programmers that compile and run their own, personal
99.
by SenAnder 3y ago
> Europe ready to intercept, spy That is what this legislation would enable, so this is accurate. > EU Tries To Slip In New Powers To Intercept Encrypted Web Again, that is what this legislation would enable, so this is also accurate.
100.
by SenAnder 3y ago
> Do you seriously think the intent here is to allow, say, Italy to issue a certificate and spying on German citizens? This legislation allows and enables it, regardless of intent.
101.
by SenAnder 3y ago
How is forbidding browsers from distrusting spying CAs proposed to work? E.g. would using/distributing Firefox become a crime?
102.
by SenAnder 3y ago
In 99% cases, privacy is used to commit crime. Outlaw privacy, tracking collars on everyone, telescreens in every home and house. Turn your societies into open-air prisons, so you may live in crime and tax-evasion free utopias.
103.
by SenAnder 3y ago
> for a lot of people, "perceived willingness" is just too high concept But the smear merchants couldn't take the risk. I agree, Stallman shouldn't have been commenting on it - as the face of free software, he needs t
104.
by SenAnder 3y ago
> Where and how he said what he said was almost impossible to not be misunderstood. He was reported as saying a girl was "willing". What he said was "probably presented as willing" - i.e. Minsky was likely unaware she
105.
by SenAnder 3y ago
Other, smaller video sites exist and had existed in YouTube's early days. If they were (and are - many are still around) viable, why would growth make them less viable? Economies of scale would work in their favor (and if they didn&#
106.
by SenAnder 3y ago
Fortune has little to do with it. Google prioritizes Youtube over other video sites in search [1]. This had even greater impact before Youtube was established as the default video site. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/go
107.
by SenAnder 3y ago
> Peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict had already been difficult to achieve before Hamas’s barbarous October 7 attack and Israel’s military response. Now it seems almost impossible I don't understand. Since the year 2000, Palesti
108.
by SenAnder 3y ago
How does this differ from the status quo? I would assume targeted surveillance, without requiring 3rd parties sabotage the security of their products, is already a legal law enforcement procedure?
109.
by SenAnder 3y ago
> Labour actively avoid doing anything the Tories can spin to weaponise the electorate against them Except on immigration, where the roles are reversed [1]. That's why immigration to the UK increased post-Brexit, despite the refer
110.
by SenAnder 3y ago
> The US would not be nearly as well off As long as the economy grows, all other concerns are irrelevant.
111.
by SenAnder 3y ago
$35,000 is the cost of a high-end entirely new car - why do broken windows alone cost this much?
112.
by SenAnder 3y ago
Too big to fail, but also not big enough to be broken up. If the government's priority was safeguarding the financial system, as soon as the crisis passed the big banks would be broken up to reduce risk if any one of them failed. That
113.
by SenAnder 3y ago
That's why we shouldn't call it scanning for CSAM. We should call it mandatory submission of all private communication to government inspection. Fighting CSAM is just the alleged, first, use-case.
114.
by SenAnder 3y ago
> If you’re okay with software companies charging different prices for users from different regions, how is this any different? You're asking how is backdoor access to other people's devices different from charging different pr
115.
by SenAnder 3y ago
Wouldn't it be interesting if the consumer could remotely disable the phone they gave Samsung, if the phone Samsung gave them in return was not up to spec? Shows you who holds the power. As if their legions of lawyers and coffers of go
116.
by SenAnder 3y ago
But do you admit that a handful of giant corporations controlling public debate is a problem ? You just think one of the possible solutions is worse than the problem itself? I should point out that the Westminster Declaration also attacks
117.
by SenAnder 3y ago
> Not that one should put too much weight on the wishes or intent of a bunch of slavers Easier to sling dirt at the founders than admitting you want giant (and for most of the world, foreign) corporations to set the bounds of public disc
118.
by SenAnder 3y ago
> Governments asking or suggesting that media companies suppress a story, with the companies choosing to comply of their own free will, is nothing new. What is new is that "media companies" now includes social media. I.e. wha
119.
by SenAnder 3y ago
Don't confuse the letter and the spirit of the law. It is unlikely the writers of the US constitution intended for private corporations to become mediators, and subsequently censors, of so much speech. They would not just throw their h
120.
by SenAnder 3y ago
> In criminal law if you do something that could reasonably be expected to kill somebody without really desiring that outcome, you might still be guilty or murder or at least manslaughter. I think criminally negligent manslaughter would

More ›