Where was the FTC action when it was revealed that period apps were selling user data?
It was here -> https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/192-3133-flo-health-inc
I know you’re being rhetorical, but your post could easily leave people with the impression that the FTC did NOT go after those apps too, when ofc they did. There were financial settlements, there were requirements to obtain affirmative consent, there were prohibitions on prior behaviors.
Seconded. Yay for librewolf! That’s my go-to browser now too.
Tho I also agree with blackbeans@lemmy.zip, we still need moz to maintain the engine. There are only 2 (?) cross platform browsers engines left.
This is the prob with the web becoming a highly complex app engine. The technical reqs to make a browser engine are so high, only a few huge companies can do it. Even MS gave up. G now has a lock on desktop browsers, esp if you count all the rest like Edge that use G’s engine. That gives G monopoly power to dictate web standards. And pull hostile acts like HW attestation that could lock out open OSs like Linux unless you “authenticate” with Android or IOS.
Yah, I agree, the three letter agencies have run roughshod.
Cheers. Hopefully we both live to see things get better, somehow.
George tried to warn us…
Sure. I totally get your sense of frustration, and you’re not wrong about that per se.
But in general the law still is enforced. All these things can be true at the same time, (1) We are back-sliding in our enforcement, especially for the politically powerful, (2) There are systemic attacks on the rule of law, (3) In general, the law is still enforced, and (4) There is movement in the court system towards better privacy protections. Even at the very top, arguably corrupt levels of the courts, we see things like Carpenter v. US. And others like that. Those trickle down into a million cases at lower levels of the judicial system. It takes a long time, and the system is not a monolith. It moves slowly. But it moves.
There are like a million court cases every day where there is no political angle, and the right thing happens. The courts slap down 4A violations all the itme, like lack of warrant. And we’re seeing a big upswing in cases with a political angle, where the courts stand up against malicious prosecutions too.
So you are right, problems exist! Absolutely. But be careful, b/c frequency of reporting is not frequency of occurence! The right thing happening is not news. It happens all the time, with no outrage-pumping headlines.
My main point is, it isn’t a black and white situation. We can’t simply say, “The law isn’t being enforced, so it is meaningless”. That’s too black and white. It is being enforced, imperfectly. And it is NOT meaningless to have legal protections for privacy invasions.
We have probs, yes. A shitton of 'em. But we also have to be careful of not falling into doomerism. That leads to bad outcomes.
It is singularly evil that they trot out the “CSAM” excuse with zero evidence.
That’s meant to smear this guy in the press. People will see an arrest in the news, some mention about CSAM. The details will not sink in for most people b/c this is like the 20th thing they read that day, and in an information overload environment, there is too much to retain. His name gets tarred with something aborrent, without cause.
It can even come up in the future. Job searches his name, scary words come up, terrorism, CSAM. Well, better safe than sorry, maybe we shouldn’t hire that guy!
It’s cartoonish levels of evil. But courts are starting to cotton on, and are talking about the gov no longer enjoying the presumption of regularity. In the past, it was assumed cases were brought in good faith.
It might change a situation like this, but for a real criminal case, that does nothing. They will make an initial forensic image of the device. For this reason and others.
In this situation, there was no criminal case, no probable cause, and no warrant. They do have the border 4A exception. NAL, but I think they pushed that exception WAY tf past its breaking point here.
This is a logical fallacy. I’m not picking on you specifically, because that way of thinking is all over social media. But it is not a useful or productive way to think about the world.
“there’s no expectation of privacy in public places”
In the US, the judicial system is shifting about that. Slowly! But it is. There is a name for this legal theory which I forgot now. The idea is, once you string together enough individual data points, they enjoy 4A protection. Even if any one by itself wouldn’t rise to 4A level. That means while you don’t have an expectation of privacy, you DO have an expectation the gov won’t use all that data to surveil you without a warrant.
Ofc, that only binds the government. It does NOT bind private co’s! Google. Meta. A million data brokers. Flock! So it only addresses part of the prob. Is it good? Yes! But we also need protection against private collectors. In meatspace, we cannot block Flocks and randos with smart glasses. Or the total data fusion that results.
being able to pay my gas bill
Have you considered running two browsers? That’s what I do.
I use one for things that have to know me anyway. Bills, utilities. Banking. W/e. It’s FF based. It’s locked down against analytics and trackers. But not to extreme levels. Required sites still work.
The other, for looking up games on vintage board game sites. Movie/TV shows. News sites. Stuff that has no gd business knowing my ID. That browser is normally Tor. If a site blocks it, fine. It isn’t essential b/c all my bills and essentials use the other one.
AluminumOS
Thanks, I did not even know about that.
Do. Not. Want.
and not break websites?
That’s the hard part! IME the more private you try to make FF, the more sites will break. Well not just FF prob any browser, but I noticed it with FF when changing about:config stuff to ressist fingerprinters and improve other privacy. BTW, Edge works since Edge is Chromium with some MS shit slathered on.
There’s a bunch you can tweak in about:config. Like blocking battery charge queries. turning off various telemetry from Moz. Resist fingerprinting. Cross site referrers. WebRTC. Disable Google Safebrowsing! More private search engine. But the more you change, the more sites will break. In the end, FF with all privacy tweaks, is essentially equal to Librewolf. So if you have probs with LW, prob same with FF.
I have complained to a local utility co that their site breaks in FF. Called them up. They basically told me they get so few FF users they don’t care and they told me to install Chrome. Everyone is on one of 2 phone browers, or a few on desktop Chrome.
Which is the prob with losing too much market share. It’s a downward spiral of irrelevancy. But we need ppl using non-Chrome browsers, or G will fuck the web even more than it already is.
There is a whole ass other topic about Identity Resolution on the web and how more and more sites will block you if the identity resolver they use can’t peg your meatspace ID.
OP has a righteous rant.
It’s why we must never give up control of Linux to BigTech. It’s OSS, yah… But there are lotsa ways they can weasel. Ex, see Google’s h/w attestation. Or co’s trying to monopolize the ecosystem. Or legal attacks. Or subtle ways to wrestle control, that most ppl won’t recognize until its too late.
There are LOTS of important contributions to Linux by big tech co’s. That’s fine and good. We need that! But that’s as far as we can let it go. Contributions, good. Taking control, bad.
Linux is a tempting target, since it isn’t yet vassalized. Vigilance is critical.
after which you can run OOBE\BYPASSNRO to reboot into a mode that allows you to skip ms account setup.
“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
I really wanna give that time to be stress tested against Celebrite tho. Celebrite was able to get into locked devices. For all but the latest gens of iPhones and Andoids, which have better h/w security features. Older models they can access.
If we see that Celebrite isn’t able to break the new GOS Motorolas, that’ll be good to learn.
you can be compelled to unlock with biometrics, but not a password
Yah, I’ve been trying to get my friends to use a pw rather than biometric unlock, for that exact reason.
I’m batting like 0 for 5, lol. Biometrics are just too convenient I guess. Plus they don’t think it will impact them personally. Which is prob true. I still think it’s best to use the way that preserves more civil rights. I just can’t convince them.
I don’t have those chops either. Also NAL. The wiki page says Tampering charges require there to be an ongoing investigation, which wasn’t the case here, so I’m thinking it wouldn’t apply. But! I wonder about spoliation. Spoliation before a case is brought, while not illegal per se, can result in negative inference,
spoliation inference is a negative evidentiary inference that a trier of fact can draw from a party’s destruction of evidence that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding
Negative inference, to my NAL understanding, means the tampered evidence may be taken in the worst light for the defense. Here, it’s all resting on flimsy and politically motivated pretext with no evidence. Still.
Needs an immigration lawyer to give an answer to this, but I’m thinking it may be legally safer to have strong encryption and refuse to unlock, rather than to wipe. Not unlocking isn’t tampering, so no spoliation, but wiping might be. Well, safest of all is to use a burner. But next best, strong encryption + don’t unlock. CBP can confescate the device, but they cannot compel you to produce a pw or unlock code.
Oh, thank you! Bookmarked it.
There has too been talk about Google using it to block desktop OSs like Linux. By requiring validation against a QR you have to scan from an Android or iOS phone.
I swear I saw that URL 5 times before realizing it probably doesn’t belong to Redhat.
No worries. Happens.
I agree with the general sentiment of your post BTW.