EmbarrassedHelp

7 ms·

1.
by EmbarrassedHelp 7d ago
Use parental controls on your child's device if you don't want them seeing things. Don't use your bad parenting as an excuse to violate privacy with age verification for everyone else.
2.
by EmbarrassedHelp 8d ago
How is this not bigger news? The UK is demanding mandatory client side scanning malware that watches everything you see/do, on every smartphone in the country. This includes spying on encrypted messages before they are encrypted.
3.
by EmbarrassedHelp 14d ago
The EU Commission is currently rushing ahead with their anti-privacy age verification plans that require Google/Apple account to function. They aren't going to save anyone from this. I also wouldn't be surprised to learn that
4.
by EmbarrassedHelp 14d ago
Politicians have been pushing companies to be more aggressive about banning individuals who open new accounts after their previous one gets banned. That was even one of the requirements of the deal in the recent social media court case in t
5.
by EmbarrassedHelp 18d ago
Canada is about the learn this lesson the hard way with bill C-22. At the rate things are going, Canadians will wake up to find themselves being blocked by WhatsApp, iMessage, Signal and other popular messaging apps. The legislation current
6.
by EmbarrassedHelp 18d ago
They already have said they will do that, and Apple has already blocked services from the UK rather than comply with their anti-encryption insanity.
7.
by EmbarrassedHelp 23d ago
Why would someone paying for an expensive camera to damage the pixels of their images with "invisible" watermarks?
8.
by EmbarrassedHelp 1mo ago
The only people living in a fantasy world are the ones that want mandatory online age verification for social media, adult content, private messaging, video games, and things of that nature.
9.
by EmbarrassedHelp 1mo ago
Mandatory online age/ID verification is an unacceptable violation of privacy. It doesn't matter how its implemented. There's no such thing as privacy protecting or anonymous age verification. Parental controls and self-declar
10.
by EmbarrassedHelp 1mo ago
Mandatory verification is an unacceptable attack on privacy. A device level whitelist of kid safe areas that is disabled by default and enabled by parents is a better idea.
11.
by EmbarrassedHelp 1mo ago
I'm waiting for them to turn every wifi router in 3D tracking nodes that monitor the exact location and body position of everyone nearby in buildings. Its too juicy of target once they get the tech fully figured out.
12.
by EmbarrassedHelp 1mo ago
Despite the UK's better sex education, the country (or at least its leadership) is still disturbingly socially conservative when it comes to sex.
13.
by EmbarrassedHelp 1mo ago
The New Mexico AG behind this case is Raul Torrez. He's a fascist/authoritarian asshole who has been using this case to try and force mandatory online age verification on everyone while also banning encryption. The last thing we n
14.
by EmbarrassedHelp 1mo ago
The problem is that "what's right for children" should be better parental controls, and better enforcement of treating self-declared ages under 18 separately. Instead, the New Mexico AG and other assholes believe it means we
15.
by EmbarrassedHelp 1mo ago
The other answer is that the people creating these ads have the resources to continuously try and bypass filters/moderation.
16.
by EmbarrassedHelp 2mo ago
That's how members of the UK government refer to anyone that supports privacy and encryption
17.
by EmbarrassedHelp 2mo ago
And that should be highly illegal to demand that a user submits to age verification.
18.
by EmbarrassedHelp 2mo ago
The EU app is still shitty and unfixable, because it requires that you send personal information to a third party. The only acceptable and privacy respecting option is self declaration, which doesn't need any ZKP or any other bullshit.
19.
by EmbarrassedHelp 2mo ago
That's a false equivalence. The only thing we should be doing is tackling addictive algorithms for everyone, and providing purely optional parental controls that are disabled by default.
20.
by EmbarrassedHelp 2mo ago
That's a false equivalence and you know it.
21.
by EmbarrassedHelp 2mo ago
The current version of the API seems to allow for that to be a requirement already, as part of the "ageRangeSource" field: https://developer.android.com/google/play/age-signals/unders...
22.
by EmbarrassedHelp 2mo ago
Signal would rather tell a government to fuck off than implement any sort of client side scanning.
23.
by EmbarrassedHelp 2mo ago
Google's shitty API lets developers force you to verify your age with government ID and selfies, as part of the "ageRangeSource" field: https://developer.android.com/google/play/age-signals/unde
24.
by EmbarrassedHelp 2mo ago
Their shitty API lets developers force you to verify your age with government ID and selfies, as part of the "ageRangeSource" field. https://developer.android.com/google/play/age-signals/unders...
25.
by EmbarrassedHelp 2mo ago
The blog post lists regions where it is not mandatory
26.
by EmbarrassedHelp 2mo ago
The problem is that you may wake up and find this system enabled by default unless you submit to age verification, like the authoritarian bullshit Apple pulled in the UK.
27.
by EmbarrassedHelp 2mo ago
Right before that, they explicitly demand that age verification be 100% optional. But I wish they used stronger anti age verification language rather than trying to pay lip service to the assholes attempting to violate privacy.
28.
by EmbarrassedHelp 2mo ago
Those are false equivalences.
29.
by EmbarrassedHelp 2mo ago
> He is not advocating a ban of open-weight models He is though. He wants open weight models banned that do not pass some set of tests. And what does "safety" mean here? We constantly see these companies treating NSFW content a
30.
by EmbarrassedHelp 2mo ago
If a country wants to ban private open source communication, then they do not deserve to enjoy the benefits of modern technology.

More ›