At least for WhatsApp and Signal, it appears the user is required to open the messenger app, navigate to the linking setting, authenticate themselves, and scan the QR code on the device that is to be linked (or one that corresponds to it, but hiding in a malicious e-mail). I can’t find any flow that allows for a QR code to link directly to the authentication mechanism, and provide the authentication code to it, while bypassing user authentication.
So again by linking accounts to a device operated by police or customs in this case. Which for SMS confirmations, I understand can be intercepted and confirmed by authorities, but the QR exploit seems farther fetched (because who in their right mind would open a messenger and scan a random QR?); and of course if you have access to a target’s unlocked device, it becomes trivial.
Once again… Because Chinese models keep forcing US AI companies to prematurely release their backstock of “future” iterations, meant to sustain the hype train: leading to plateauing, decreases in investor confidence, and ultimately the demise of the AI bubble. And are we referring to Sam Altman as “OpenAI boss” now? Because people might otherwise stop reading after: “Sam Altman says…”
I really can’t stand the “Not now”, where “services” (including Google’s backup service) prey on the user accidentally agreeing one day.
Maybe because now it’s Google Gemini under the hood?
It’s Apple buying goodwill, for both itself and the Trump administration, while only marginally benefiting the average US citizen, if at all.
I’m not saying it isn’t pathetic, but Apple has a track record of gobbling Trump’s marbles for business, so it should be expected they aren’t risking anything over the name of a lake in their mapping service.
What did you expect from a Trillion dollar corporation, that gifted Trump a 24k gold and glass statue, made a $100B commitment to US manufacturing, and being among the “donors” of the White House ballroom? But changing the name of a lake? Too far…
The parallels with the EU’s Digital Services Act are just remarkable, both in terms of timing and substance (down to the phrasing). But on the bright side, when Facebook prompted my mom to choose between a subscription, and her being the product, it first-handedly confronted her with the platform’s policies. And knowing that she believed a selfie video to be disproportionate, even in context of changing a banking app setting, she will be even more reluctant to submit it to a social media platform; especially since her joy in using the platform has also decreased over time. So perhaps this might be yet another friction point, that could lead users to stop using the platform altogether. But the sad reality is that this won’t be restricted to Facebook, but also extend to platforms that are a net-positive to society.
There’s too frequently a mismatch between the speed communicated by road design, versus that dictated by a sign. Mechanisms like this overwrite the driver’s intuition, which can only lead to more frustration. Sure, there are incompetent drivers on the road, but that doesn’t mean you have to micromanage the fleet in its entirety. There’s plenty that have a functional brain and are more than competent enough to assess a given situation, irrespective of what a fixed speed limit might indicate. And if drivers used to speed to catch green, that indicates to me the waiting cycles must not have been optimized; and doing so possibly yielding the same result.
Citizens must not be forced to identify themselves to access lawful online content or services unless strictly necessary, proportionate and provided by law.
Are you not aware of the Digital Services Act? This piece of legislation alone, provides all the incentives for service providers to do exactly that; unless they change their business-model, which is rather unlikely. By default, users should be treated as adults and therefore unrestricted in their access; rather than children unless proven otherwise.
If the EU would simply mandate operating systems sold within the jurisdiction, to allow specification of an optional ‘date of birth’ field, which is local and purely on a trust-basis (no external verification required); this should be more than sufficient for signaling an age-bracket to a service, which may then serve an “age-appropriate experience”.
A digital identity wallet should be strictly reserved for matters that already required personal identification. Using such heavy-handed measures for controlling access to adult content, or even social media, is complete and utter overkill. I’m not interested in more empty, technical, server-side “trust me, bro” promises, for something that is fundamentally disproportional.
It’s sad enough to resort to consumption for happiness, but to play shopping simulators because you can’t afford to, is outright depressing. And spreading awareness is fine, but it feels somewhat condescending, when (over)consumption is the coping mechanism here. These people are likely struggling to find long-term happiness, and can only afford short-term dopamine hits instead.
Humanizing and accustomizing
The study found 58.3 percent of buyers say they couldn’t live without Bluetooth connectivity
Strange, when smartphones no longer come with 3.5 mm sockets… The consumer never asked for the majority of these “features”: they already had access to most of them (through their smartphone or other standalone device), or was easily and cost-effectively installed as an aftermarket gadget. All of these “safety” features, that coincidentally also happen to constitute a (future) privacy-nightmare, were pushed for by: legislators, insurance companies, and the automotive industry itself. Consumers effectively got conned into buying a duplicate of products they already owned, but which are instead subject to terms and conditions dictated by aforementioned stakeholders.
Imagine going after those seeking to protect their works from being stolen by AI, instead of the AI scrapers that caused this entire shit show to begin with. Put the blame where it makes sense, and don’t try to guilt trip those that are victim of intellectual property theft, into believing they are the ones responsible for the web becoming an accessibility-nightmare; not for just the disabled, but everyone (locking content behind: a login, PoW challenges, and CAPTCHAs). Awful defeatist take.
Audio fingerprinting works because small differences in browser versions, operating systems, audio libraries, and hardware can produce slightly different results from the same generated signal. It is not necessarily enough to uniquely identify a device by itself, but it becomes much more useful when combined with canvas, WebGL, hardware, timing, and interaction data.
The gaining happens after retrieval of the results it seems: so it’s just silent for the end user. And perhaps they do both fingerprinting, and ensure audio devices remain awake.
How about requiring Apple to provide an option for the device “owner” to disable Apple’s “protections”? If I want to choose freedom over “security”, I should have the option to do so. But the EU seems more interested in app signatures and app distribution through centralized channels controlled by the very same monopolists (as a similar approach can be observed on Android). But everything to protect the children, right?
Excellent video, and very applicable indeed! :)
But it naturally skews the results, especially when baby boomers and gen X alone constitute 57% of all respondents: which are typically less digitally literate, and therefore even less considerate of downstream consequences. Am I missing something? Because I cannot find any reference to another study, if that is what you mean. I’ve seen my share of pseudo studies that governments desperately cling onto, and by all means, this appears to be another one of them.
And how exactly do you plan on curbing addressing through cryptographic hashes, instead of IP addresses directly, where client and server are separated through intermediary nodes? If the site exists on an anonymizing network (like I2P or TOR), it becomes a lot harder to identify the IP address of centralized services, and impossible where decentralized. Well, unless you go fully authoritarian, and only allow weakened encryption standards: exploited by authorities, and others aware of ways to exploit the weaknesses.
But I suppose this further disincentivizes ordinary, less tech-savvy, would-be “pirates”, that need the clear-web for torrent links… Which we should make our responsibility, to enrich the knowledge of said persons, so that they can bypass regulations of governments, that fundamentally act against their best interests. It’s time for people to rediscover torrenting, like many households did in the 2000’s, instead of giving away their freedoms to subscriptions, purely for the sake of short-term convenience.