wonderingwanderer

They paid extra to customize their billboard shitpost

Why does one company need to own meetup and eventbrite?

Is that not a monopoly? How does it not violate any anti-trust laws?

Edit to add: how long before we see a fediverse events app?

Because tens of thousands of people protesting and thousands of them getting murdered by the government is so culturally relative. It’s hard to say what that’s about, because of you know the language barrier.

Anyway, my point stands that if people from outside Iran can’t determine what the people of Iran want, then they shouldn’t be complaining about Iranians possibly having a democratic referendum so that they can decide collectively what sort of government to replace the current regime with…

In one of my earlier comments, I said:

Yes, and covert recording by definition is done without the knowledge or consent of the one being recorded. It should be illegal everywhere, but some states have single-party consent laws which allow it.

In other words, I already distinguished between knowledge and consent because if I thought they were the same thing then it would have been redundant to mention both.

Anyway, you seem to be contradicting yourself. You’re basically saying you shouldn’t need someone’s consent to film them in public, but you can’t film them without they’re knowledge because it would mean you don’t have their informed consent? So you don’t need their consent, but you do?

Or are you just using this logical inconsistency to justify it when it doesn’t inconvenience anyone you care about, while still reserving enough room to condemn it when it inconveniences someone you do?

Single-party consent laws do not require the persons being recorded to have knowledge they’re being recorded. Hence, my criticism was of normalizing covert recording.

Adding a caveat that you don’t need consent to record someone, but you do need to inform them that they’re being recorded, doesn’t make any sense. Someone could stick a camera in your face and follow you around as long as they say “You’re being recorded.” People can’t just “walk away” under those circumstances, short of avoiding ever going out in public.

Also, saying she could have “altered the way in which she approached the interaction” sounds a lot like victim blaming. Just because someone doesn’t effectively respond to a situation does not imply they consent to it.

My point is that it presents more potential for harm than potential for good.

If single party consent is totally fine, then what’s the issue with the original post in question?

Fuck.

You’ll have to take that up with John Roberts regarding Citizen’s United…

Instacart is the same thing but you can choose your grocery store and you’re not supporting amazon.

I used to like Whole Foods :(

I don’t shop at Sprout’s anymore either since I found out they donate to the GOP…

https://sopuli.xyz/post/40232627

One thing I’ve learned is that if it can be abused, the authorities will abuse it unless laws are passed to stop them. And even then they’ll try to change the laws or abuse it secretly.

If it’s sending 0.0kb of background data, then the client is not communicating clandestinely with the server.

I never claimed that it happens outside of an acute overdose. I said it can happen, which is factually true. I also said there’s no way to guarantee an addict won’t take a large enough dose to deprive their brain of oxygen. It happens. Pretending it doesn’t is harmful. The cause of death for most opioid overdoses is literally cardiac arrest.

In the clinical sense, doses are administered to stay within safe limits, so supplemental oxygen is not needed.

That’s so interesting. Data kind of blows my mind. Like, how could all that information travel over wires or through the air and not get mixed up with other information on its way to its destination?

Is that vulnerable to an attack if a hacker gets their public key and intercepts the data traffic? Or can it only be used to encrypt but not decrypt?

Or are the added layers of complexity designed specifically to prevent that from happening?

This is why I like open-source, because people who know more about it than I do can check everything over and say whether it’s good.

It sounds like you’re contradicting yourself now. You’re right, signal is more secure because its source code is open-source and auditable. So what’s the issue? It seems you’ve been arguing otherwise, and you’re just now coming around to it without admitting that you were wrong in the first place.

The client-side app is also open-source and auditable, and you can monitor outgoing traffic on your devise to see whether the signal app is sending data that it shouldn’t. It sounds like people have verified that it doesn’t do that, but if you don’t want to take their word for it then why don’t you see for yourself?

Now I’m curious: how does the person you’re messaging get the same key to decrypt the message you send?

I’m genuinely curious.

The “exploit being used” is closed-source, proprietary code sending data where it says it doesn’t.

People have already explained to you how signal’s open-source, auditable, and reproducible code prevents the possibility of a similar exploit.

You’re the smug fool who doesn’t understand cybersecurity. How much is zuck paying you to say “signal’s just as bad as whatapp”?

You’re talking about E2E encryption as if it prevents side-channel attacks

That’s literally what E2E encryption does. In order to attack it from outside you would have to break the encryption itself, and modern encryption is so robust that it would require quantum computing to break, and that capability hasn’t been developed yet.

The only reason the other commenter’s words sound like spam to you is because you don’t understand it, which you plainly reveal when you say "(as long as there isn’t a backdoor in the published [audited] code)

You called it fatalistic bullshit to say RFK jr. has permanent brain damage…

Managed prescriptions are taken in safe doses. There’s no way to guarantee someone addicted to illicit opiates will stay below the threshold of dangerous consumption.

Even alcohol in large enough quantities kills brain cells. Stop pretending addiction is harmless, because it’s not helping addicts the way you seem to think it is.