akersten

86 ms·

841.
by akersten 6y ago
> Amazon's problem is in the use of data metrics on its giant store to create products that compete with its partners. The Amazon Essentials line is anticompetitive IMO, because as the operator of such a large platform, Amazon has a
842.
by akersten 6y ago
I mean, your choices for flying somewhere are what - Delta or United? Some small regional carriers? What about for internet service - just a single ISP in most areas. Sometimes a monopoly by law, where no one else can lay fiber and they&#x2
843.
by akersten 6y ago
I will continue to believe that this is another tentacle of William Barr's political harassment of Google and tech in general until he leads the same crusade against other 'monopolies' of the same degree like Comcast, Apple,
844.
by akersten 6y ago
> 'Details about the Justice Department’s legal theories for a case against Google couldn’t be learned.' That's what it seems like to me too. I understand a popular opinion is that Google is too big, should be broken up, e
845.
by akersten 6y ago
I can smell the enterprise ball-of-mud spaghetti code from here :)
846.
by akersten 6y ago
It is not constitutional for the US to make it illegal to remove content. Regardless of why you would remove it. The 1st Amendment cuts both ways there - you can't be punished for removing something from your billboard. That's y
847.
by akersten 6y ago
Probably. Or they'd subpoena your ISP and send you a letter to take it down if they could identify you personally. But who knows. Dumb laws like these are rarely thought out to a meaningful degree of detail.
848.
by akersten 6y ago
> My big question is: is AWS, or any other cloud-based hosting system, considered a platform under this law? They'll probably go after the first point of contact they can find in the chain hosting the text they don't like. Face
849.
by akersten 6y ago
Neat, and works well for the toy example with 4 tabs open. I don't really think it would work as well for the "tab collectors" as they think. They seem to be aware of this too, since none of the screenshots in the post have a
850.
by akersten 6y ago
> I believe there is precedent that you’re allowed to enter any computer system until you’re specifically warned. Didn't work that well for weev
851.
Chicago will now require food delivery apps to disclose itemized cost breakdown(nbcchicago.com)
230 points by akersten 6y ago|188 comments
852.
by akersten 6y ago
Not sure what DNT has to do with it. Do Not Track was circa 2009, we were already "here" at that point. The cookie law was like 2002.
853.
by akersten 6y ago
If only the regulators had been happy with (or even aware of?) the existing capabilities of browsers to manage cookie consent, like "Block 3rd party cookies" and "block all cookies" that have been around since the late 9
854.
by akersten 6y ago
It already is! At least in Firefox, about:preferences#privacy, you can choose even to specifically block just tracking cookies.
855.
by akersten 6y ago
The word didn't become any easier or harder to say from the moment it was launched. It was clear how to pronounce it. How do you pronounce Cuil?
856.
by akersten 6y ago
In my opinion, the success of a search engine depends entirely on its name. Look at the search engines that have failed: AltaVista, Cliqz, Cuil, Dogpile, (dozens more). They all have awful names that don't convey the idea of search.
857.
by akersten 6y ago
Yep. Most of the "complexity" that is justified by mantras like this is not necessary complexity (like the inherent baseline complexity in solving a certain problem space) but cruft/enterprise/poor coding style that wi
858.
by akersten 6y ago
Yes, certainly. And that's somewhat my point - the freedom to create these fictitious works is already limited by existing laws, we don't need new ones specific to this medium. There's no reason to think libel laws wouldn&#x2
859.
by akersten 6y ago
> If you can prove the data has never been made available, you can prove it wasnt used. Considering that Equifax announced they experienced a data breach, it is clear the data has been made available to someone that isn't Equifax .
860.
by akersten 6y ago
Even if you did not have your identity stolen yet, losses from the breach can be as simple as "I bought an identity monitoring service due to the breach happening ." It says so on the settlement's website: https:/&#x2F
861.
by akersten 6y ago
The appeals to the settlement you linked are about the appropriate compensation for the plaintiffs, not about whether claimants are eligible. I'm not sure how one would prove their identify theft was specifically due to Equifax's
862.
by akersten 6y ago
That's a fair line of thought, but their comment was: data hasn't surfaced -> can't know where an identity theft came from -> Equifax petitioners lose their right to the settlement When the reality is: Equifax agreed to
863.
by akersten 6y ago
> "I had an identity breach around this time, it must be causation" as part of their claim. If your identity is stolen by a different party, simultaneously, how do you legally have a right to use that against a different party?
864.
by akersten 6y ago
Presuming you do think it is a legitimate data breach then, why did you suggest that victims should lose their claim to having been caught up in it? Do you not think their (and probably your, if you're American) position of anxiety and
865.
by akersten 6y ago
To be clear, are you saying that in order for a data breach to be considered legitimate, the plundered data needs to be released publicly?
866.
by akersten 6y ago
How do you think ReCaptcha (at least ReCaptchaV3) works? It's gathers the same kind of "personal" data (mouse movements, etc.) to feed an ML model to determine whether the client is a robot.
867.
by akersten 6y ago
I think this part is a little off: > Perhaps you have no sympathy for web applications that store sensitive data in query strings, as that’s widely recognized as an insecure pattern. The URL fragment is more serious. That otherwise is a
868.
by akersten 6y ago
> Youtube cannot have it both ways. Either they are a publisher and if so, must be fully responsible for the content they host. Or they are a platform, and they need to be neutral. As demonstrated by the court case you mention, that is f
869.
by akersten 6y ago
I feel like you've replied to the wrong comment - I'm not defending copyright infringement, misuse of celebrity likeness, or the content of this video. I'm specifically addressing the notion that the government would carve ou
870.
by akersten 6y ago
> If you don't own the copyright to your entire training data set, you are infringing by publishing something the model produces as I see it. Imagine if that were true - a human artist couldn't create anything, because everythi

More ›