Skip to content

Trump social media site brought down by Iran hackers

Technology
174 112 2.9k
  • 184 Stimmen
    28 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    gnulinuxdude@lemmy.mlG
    Why does this story magically no longer become interesting because of a group that helps defected NKs? There is nothing magic about it. The organization that's cited isn't the problem. The problem is the BBC cites that org as proof that this person's claims are true. But neither that org nor the BBC have said, "we have corroborated Jin-su's story." On the contrary, the BBC just admits they didn't or couldn't corroborate the story themselves. So in my mind I may as well have read this article on any rando's blog post, or in the NYT in 2001 under a Judith Miller byline. It lacks credence. I wouldn't have had anything to say if BBC said that they reviewed some documents that showed Jin-su's claim. Maybe a few of the "hundreds" of fake IDs that he used, for example. But instead they just read another testimony from PSCORE. Was that other testimony verified? They don't bother explaining. So they just use an unverified testimony from PSCORE and pass that off to make the reader believe that that's good enough in place of actually verifying Jin-su's testimony!
  • 117 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    F
    "Emails" It's a messaging system where you pay like $.25/message, you have to be manually approved by the prison to contact the inmate and all messages are saved and screened for things like PII and criminal activity. You can be permanently suspended if either person breaks the rules (I think the inmate can be put in the box and lose gain-time also), the screening process often just rejects things without explanation, and it may take 24-48 hours to be delivered It's better than the $.15/minute phone calls, but it isn't exactly a Gmail account. It's basically another service provider that DOC has given their blessing so that they can fleece the families of inmates. It's cheap, breaks all the time and costs a ridiculous amount. It is completely unsurprising that this happened.
  • 117 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    42 Aufrufe
    M
    I keep getting propaganda from the terrorist staye of israel
  • What is this new Bitchat scam that crypto-bros think is good?

    Technology technology
    6
    7 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    69 Aufrufe
    I
    It's fully Bluetooth, so it's not exactly the same as the internet messaging apps
  • Millions of websites to get 'game-changing' AI bot blocker

    Technology technology
    28
    1
    149 Stimmen
    28 Beiträge
    341 Aufrufe
    D
    How would you legally enforce robots.txt? It's not a legally sound system.
  • FuckLAPD Let You Use Facial Recognition to Identify Cops.

    Technology technology
    11
    411 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    129 Aufrufe
    R
    China demoed tech that can recognize people based on the gait of their walk. Mask or not. This would be a really interesting topic if it wasn’t so scary.
  • 1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    18 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 92 Stimmen
    42 Beiträge
    341 Aufrufe
    G
    You don’t understand. The tracking and spying is the entire point of the maneuver. The ‘children are accessing porn’ thing is just a Trojan horse to justify the spying. I understand what are you saying, I simply don't consider to check if a law is applied as a Trojan horse in itself. I would agree if the EU had said to these sites "give us all the the access log, a list of your subscriber, every data you gather and a list of every IP it ever connected to your site", and even this way does not imply that with only the IP you could know who the user is without even asking the telecom company for help. So, is it a Trojan horse ? Maybe, it heavily depend on how the EU want to do it. If they just ask "show me how you try to avoid that a minor access your material", which normally is the fist step, I don't see how it could be a Trojan horse. It could become, I agree on that. As you pointed out, it’s already illegal for them to access it, and parents are legally required to prevent their children from accessing it. No, parents are not legally required to prevent it. The seller (or provider) is legally required. It is a subtle but important difference. But you don’t lock down the entire population, or institute pre-crime surveillance policies, just because some parents are not going to follow the law. True. You simply impose laws that make mandatories for the provider to check if he can sell/serve something to someone. I mean asking that the cashier of mall check if I am an adult when I buy a bottle of wine is no different than asking to Pornhub to check if the viewer is an adult. I agree that in one case is really simple and in the other is really hard (and it is becoming harder by the day). You then charge the guilty parents after the offense. Ok, it would work, but then how do you caught the offendind parents if not checking what everyone do ? Is it not simpler to try to prevent it instead ?