envy2

Criminal charges are for those people that meaningfully threaten power or corporate profits. If you are a corporation that adversely impacts privacy or public services in the service of power, you get a fine at best.

Welcome to late-stage capitalism.

This. There should be no intermediary liability protections for any paid or monetised content: as soon as a platform is either charging for placement or paying the creator, they should be treated as a publisher and held responsible.

This is exactly what Trump and Musk would want, privatization of what should be (and were) government services.

No one — and I mean no one — should profit from the provision of what should be core government services, like tax filing or health care.

No. But they could ban American companies from providing services directly to that French publisher (e.g., a US company couldn't print books for or sell paper to that French publisher). However, a US law could not stop me from legally reading a copy I owned, or from selling or giving that copy to someone else within the US...

The First Amendment case would be much clearer if this was actually about banning access to TikTok (it's not: TikTok self-blocked US users, Amazon/Oracle shut off servers, and app stores stopped distributing to US users). TikTok could choose to operate their service (like many other Chinese companies) using only non-US infra and without relying on American companies to distribute their app; indeed, the Chinese version of TikTok, Douyin, hosted entirely from Chinese servers, continued to work just fine.

This case is also a reminder of why the iOS App Store is so bad for rights: at least on Android, you could sideload a 'banned' app; Google can comply with the law and US users can still download TikTok. On iOS, you don't have that option.

You are significantly overestimating the level of recordkeeping by random sellers of used and/or ultra-cheap phones. Manufacturers, major retailers, and carriers may keep this information, but bodegas and street vendors certainly do not.

Let's be realistic. Porn, the subject of this discussion, is not illegal in the US; this is about age verification laws that apply to the website operators, who then self-block users from particular states. No one is going after Cloudflare for this information as there is no crime committed by the user.

Given Cloudflare's logging policy (https://developers.cloudflare.com/1.1.1.1/privacy/public-dns...) and data disclosure practices, the only way US authorities would get anything worthwhile is if they had a specific individual target and a valid legal process. Cloudflare, like most of the big tech companies, is actually very good on this front; they have robust processes and are transparent (https://cf-assets.www.cloudflare.com/slt3lc6tev37/Q1INAiyBub...) about the limited cases in which they do hand over any user data.

(I don't work at Cloudflare, but do work on these issues for another big US tech company.)

No. This is driven by a huge reliance on foreign migrant labor, which is overwhelmingly male.

And how many 60+ year olds know how to do that?

Don't forget using private browsing / incognito mode; cookies will link your accounts immediately irrespective of VPN/SMS use.

Oh, and credit card + billing address, if the goal is to sign up for a paid YouTube TV subscription again.

Sorry to hear. As someone who works for a non-Google Big Tech company, you will get nowhere on this trying to work with Google (or any other Big Tech) support.

If you believe your mom (and anyone using her account) definitely did not violate the T&Cs, the only thing that might realistically get a response is either [1] a personal contact who trusts you at Google escalating internally for re-review; or [2] reaching out to your state AG / consumer protection office.

That said, there's usually a very high bar for fully disabling accounts like this — either repeated violations or very severe violations (like child sexual abuse or terrorism). Might be good to figure out what the granddaughter has been up to...

Yes, ad-supported social apps collect a ton of data. But the Apple privacy widget list is just a catch-all since people can post anything and Meta uses post content for ad targeting.

Have you gone through Apple's onboarding flow recently? The process of creating an Apple ID and setting up an iPhone is pretty similar, and has similar click-wrap terms to allow endless data use, including [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5].

Apple has done a very good job of marketing privacy. But they engage in pretty much all of the same practices they call others out for.

Also, Threads didn't launch in Europe because of DMA data separation requirements between products. It has nothing to do with the invasiveness of the data collected per se as is implied here [6].

[1] https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/pdfs/apple-privacy-polic... [2] https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/apple-id/ [3] https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iOS16_iPadOS16.pdf [4] https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/ [5] https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/icloud/

[6] https://www.theverge.com/23789754/threads-meta-twitter-eu-dm...

Yes.

Would be nice if either CitizenLab or Apple had published some IOCs...

I think this is just a standard API access prompt. The GitHub Next page clearly indicates it is (C) GitHub Inc and the blog post makes GitHub's control clear.

> You don't know if the place you are storing it is doing so in plain text, storing a decryption key right next to it, etc.

Any service that is storing passwords in plain text is probably not implementing 2FA in an safe way, either.

Deleting a FB account is already trivial.

Instructions here (essentially, press "Permanently Delete Account" in settings and put in your password to confirm): https://www.facebook.com/help/224562897555674

Companies shouldn't put themselves in this position: they should simply refuse to have a local presence or local employees in authoritarian-leaning countries.

I know aloe vera is often said to be useful in clearing benzene and formaldehyde from the air as a houseplant: perhaps this is being picked up from the environment, rather than any production issue per se?

You don't rub gasoline into your skin. This is not hard to understand.

I find it rather odd that you can describe yourself as "aggressively liberal" and then go on to defend discrimination against an entire ethnic group because of one government's admittedly problematic actions.

The CCP does not inherently represent Chinese people (either from the PRC or certainly ethnic Chinese broadly), any more than the Republican Party represented all Americans simply by virtue of being in control of Congress and the Presidency.

It seems likely that low wages are contributing to this shortage. There's lots of evidence that once employers bump wages to $15+ an hour, the have little difficulty filling roles.

This report from Pittsburgh is a good example: https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2021/05/04/how-l...

No, he's talking about the politically-charged issue of people discussing services to help voluntary migrants get into another country.

But, at least in the case of Facebook, advertising/offering those services isn't allowed[1], but discussing them is; this is a bit of a fine line, but one that is likely trying to strike a balance between letting people share safety and route information while not allowing potentially exploitative traffickers to solicit victims.

[1] https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/human_exploitati...

This "download random script from internet and execute" thing is a terrible idea, even moreso to put in bash_profile...

Excellent.

Looks like they've removed the tests for RIAA member videos as the only change, which I assume helped get this restored: https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl/commit/1fb034d029c8b7...

This is straight up FUD.

Yes, you can change a printable ballot form that you then have to PRINT OUT AND RETURN before it is counted. This is no more an "exploit" than a printing a blank ballot, filling it in, and sending it in under someone else's name, or showing up at a polling place and voting as someone else.

It's also fraud and a felony for anyone who does it...

It's always been fairly easy to just get a multiple entry "Non-B" visa instead of relying on visa waiver, and then no questions asked.

Sure, but then [employee]'s payment methods should be removed along with them. If they were using the company / boss's card or PayPal, then surely the company / boss should be able to add it back again without too much undue trouble.