I mean, yes, but does that take priority over women who are worried about their safety? There's been women doing this over local Facebook groups for a long time. Defamation of this sort is not a new issue.

Encrypting the transmission doesn't do much if every app installation contains access credentials that can be extracted or sniffed.

Encrypt the credentials then? Or OAUTH pipeline, perhaps? Automated temporary private key generation for each upload (that sounds unrealistic, to be fair)? Can credentialing be used for intermediary storage that encrypts the data on that server and then decrypted on the database host?

Clearly my utter "noobishness" is showing, but at least it's triggering a slight urge to casually peruse modern WebSec production workflows. I am a DNN researcher. Thus, I am far removed from customer-facing production environments, and it shows.

Any recommendations on literature or articles on how engineers solve these problems in a "best practices" way that you can recommend? I suppose I could just look it up, but I thought I'd ask.

Edit: I don't know why I'm down-voted. My questions were sincere.

It's an antisocial surveillance system for antisocial people, and creates a(n even more) antagonistic relationship between men and women.

Dating apps have been a disaster for dating, and this is perhaps the worst among them.

Wouldn't some sort of proxy in between the bucket and the client app solve this problem? I feel like you could even set up an endpoint on your backend that manages the upload. In other words, why is it necessary for the client app to connect directly with the bucket?

Maybe I'm not understanding the gist of the problem

Citation of course needed with that one.

The only people who will be listed on the app are people who are either deserving they've been on there or people who don't deserve to be on there but some woman in their lives has decided to inact some vengeance justified or otherwise.

What are you basing the majority of men are shit on? Confirmation bias?

It was defamation the entire time just because somebody made it an app rather than a Facebook group doesn't make any difference. It was always a crap thing to do.

Of course Tea took it to an entirely new level of stupid.

Weird, this app I have says its true that you like to have sex with dogs. It's encrypted and safe on my end, so it's totally fine!

i wonder if there's the potential for a different app with more encryption and a way to prevent doxxing and abuse.

You would have to have everyone take a polygraph or something (not that they actually work but a lot of people don't know that so maybe it would prevent them from lying in the first place). There's no way to prevent people from lying for whatever reason they have and there's no way to detect whether or not the thing they have posted is truthful.

The truth is as much benefit as the app may have when used properly the risk of abuse is far too high for it to ever be workable.

If you have a smoke alarm in your house that occasionally explodes and sets your house on fire, but the rest of the time actually works as a fire alarm, then it's not a useful product, as even if the chance of it exploding was less than 1% it would still eventually blow up your house, whereas if you never installed the alarm there was every possibility your house will never catch fire. So game theory suggests that you are better off without it.

Same with this app, sure it might prevent you experiencing a bad date but there's every possibility that it will also cause you not to date somebody who's actually a nice person. You are far better off just making that judgement yourself as you always did. And to be clear given human nature, the likelihood of the "fire alarm exploding" is probably a lot higher than 1%

It was potentially defamation when it was just women...talking to one another, too. This seems like a pretty solid case of men looking at something women do to protect each other, and saying "...but what about the men who could be negatively affected in some cases?" I also think the tone in which this is being discussed is pretty revealing about Lemmy's demographics.

mazel tov!

But have you considered man bad?

It's not defamation if it's true

Oh come on, you know how Those People are

A lot of people have speculated that.

According to their statement their code was written in Feb/2024 and predates "vibe coding"

And its legally actionable libel/slander if false.

Yeah, because only men are talking about this.

Well im a man. And most men i interact with are casually misandrist, ableist and homophobic. I can't imagine they behave any better when they're trying to fuck you

Lots of misandrists in this thread framing security failures as sexism against men

Lots of misandrists in this thread framing security failures as sexism against men