Definitely agreed.
Definitely agreed.
Tyranny, or something I believe is the argument.
Android can be degoogled, e.g. GrapheneOS. If you’re focused on privacy then that’s the way to go.
Although Google is worse than Apple when it comes to privacy, Apple is still pretty bad.
697? Geez that’s… Not great.
Both WhatsApp and Signal show the same amount of chats to me (9 for both). WhatsApp does show a small sliver of a tenth chat, but it’s not really properly visible. There is a compact mode for the navigation bar in Signal, which helps a bit here.
From what I can see there’s slightly more whitespace between chats, and Signal uses the full height for the chat (eg same size as the picture), whereas WhatsApp uses whitespace above and below, pushing the name and message preview together.
In chats the sizes seem about the same to me, but Signal colouring messages might make it appear a bit more bloated perhaps? Not sure.
Shareholders can demand external audits under threat of selling the stock. There’s plenty shareholders can do (and have done in the past). They don’t just sit idle and not do anything you know.
Shareholders seek to maximize profits. If that includes a lawsuit to squeeze out even more investments, then why not?
They never bothered to check if Boeing did what they had to do security wise. Only once it threatened their profits they sprang into action.
I doubt it’s looking anything up. It’s probably just grabbing the previous messages, reading the word “wrong” and increasing the number. Before these messages I got ChatGPT to count all the way up to ten r’s.
Plenty of fun to be had with LLMs.
If I understand correctly they already can. It’s not user-facing, but votes are federated if I understand correctly.
Interesting theory, but can you back it up with any credible evidence? Because amongst priests, approx 4% appears to commit child abuse. This compares to 5-7% for public school teachers for example (source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/do-the-right-thing/201808/separating-facts-about-clergy-abuse-fiction). It seems the priesthood doesn’t really attract more pedophiles than other jobs do (surveys suggest approx. 5% of the population is a pedophile).
Perhaps their offense rate is higher given the opportunities they have, but I can’t quickly find good statistics on that.
You’re mixing the definitions of sideloading media and sideloading apps. Sideloading media follows your definition, e.g. transfer via another local device. Sideloading apps refers to the installing of apps outside of the (pre-)installed app store, e.g. by installing an APK directly.
If Microsoft is unable to verify ownership of the account, they shouldn’t take ownership of your files.
The PR had some issues regarding files that were pushed that shouldn’t have been, adding refactors that should have been in separate PRs, etc…
Though the main reason is that Signal doesn’t consider this issue a part of their threat model.
I do not think many democrats have insisted that. Biden did considerably better on content, he actually got his facts right whereas Trump lied constantly. But presentation is everything, and Biden failed horribly at that.
Of course, the day after Biden seems fine again at the rally he did. Really unfortunate for him.
Aaand here’s your misunderstanding.
All messages detected by whatever algorithm/AI the provider implemented are sent to the authorities. The proposal specifically says that even if there is some doubt, the messages should be sent. Family photo or CSAM? Send it. Is it a raunchy text to a partner or might one of them be underage? Not 100% sure? Send it. The proposal is very explicit in this.
Providers are additionally required to review a subset of the messages sent over, for tweaking w.r.t. false positives. They do not do a manual review as an additional check before the messages are sent to the authorities.
If I send a letter to someone, the law forbids anyone from opening the letter if they’re not the intended recipient. E2E encryption ensures the same for digital communication. It’s why I know that Zuckerberg can’t read my messages, and neither can the people from Signal (metadata analysis is a different thing of course). But with this chat control proposal, suddenly they, as well as the authorities, would be able to read a part of the messages. This is why it’s an unacceptable breach of privacy.
Thankfully this nonsensical proposal didn’t get a majority.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=COM:2022:209:FIN
Here’s the text. There are no limits on which messages should be scanned anywhere in this text. Even worse: to address false positives, point 28 specifies that each provider should have human oversight to check if what the system finds is indeed CSAM/grooming. So it’s not only the authorities reading your messages, but Meta/Google/etc… as well.
You might be referring to when the EU can issue a detection order. This is not what is meant with the continued scanning of messages, which providers are always required to do, as outlined by the text. So either you are confused, or you’re a liar.
Cite directly from the text where it imposes limits on the automated scanning of messages. I’ll wait.
The point is is that it should never, under no circumstances monitor and eavesdrop private chats. It’s an unacceptable breach of privacy.
Also, please explain what “specific circumstances” you are referring to. The current proposal doesn’t limit the scanning of messages in any way whatsoever.
It does require invasive oversight. If I send a picture of my kid to my wife, I don’t want some AI algorithm to have a brainfart and instead upload the picture to Europol for strangers to see and to put me on some list I don’t belong.
People sharing CSAM are unlikely to use apps that force these scans anyway.
It’ll definitely continue until the inauguration at least.