Skip to content

Trump extends the TikTok ban deadline for a third time; there is no legal basis for the extensions and it is unclear how many times the deadline can be extended

Technology
36 30 0
  • 58 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    F
    They're opposing the bills because the things they suggest won't do anything their existing safety procedures don't do, and reading the companies security/safety protocols and the proposed new ones it's pretty clear that they are not needed. In her lawsuit filed against Lyft in January, Willford alleges she was “subjected to unwelcome, nonconsensual sexual contact, touching” and lewd comments during the ride. Willford was picked up by a different driver than the person identified in the Lyft app, according to the suit. How would these new bills have prevented this? How would they prevent a Lyft driver from letting someone else drive their car to pick up passengers? How would they prevent lewd comments during the ride? Riders can already record their entire trip on their phone if they want. These companies already do background checks. They already suspend drivers if complaints are made and deemed serious/real. They already ban drivers who assault people or who let other people drive for them. What exactly do they think these new bills would solve and how?
  • 'We're done with Teams': German state hits uninstall on Microsoft

    Technology technology
    94
    842 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    F
    You’re a master of stringing a very large number of words together without actually saying anything of any meaning. You still haven’t given a single specific example of what you’re talking about and how Microsoft’s products don’t allow it.
  • Mergulhe em Aventuras Digitais com a MerwomanPG

    Technology technology
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 153 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    J
    Agreed - the end of the article does state compiling untrusted repos is effectively the same as running an untrusted executable, and you should treat it with the same caution (especially if its malware or gaming cheat adjacent)
  • The largest cryptocurrency money-laundering ring

    Technology technology
    26
    327 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    ulrich@feddit.orgU
    It has their name and where it came from so. Yes? That's not what I asked. Are you expecting people to direct link everything even when it is already atributed? I mean is that really too much to expect of people? To simply copy the link where they found the information and post it along with where they shared it?
  • 5 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 230 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    Z
    I'm having a hard time believing the EU cant afford a $5 wrench for decryption
  • 93 Stimmen
    42 Beiträge
    6 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 ?