The delay makes intuitive sense especially since it will give the target a chance to complain about it to their friends and family who will hopefully stop it from there.

However, I’m not sure if it’s worth it. I imagine this would stop exfiltration apps which scan the users device to useful data and maybe passive screenshots but this pales in comparison to apps with subscription dark patterns, gambling and apps that harvest and sell your data legally already. If this was a case of apps prompting the user to enter sensitive information into a form then they could just use a browser.

I don’t know. I think this is a good measure to prevent scams. I’m just uncomfortable about Google’s motivation.

You would need a way of verifying that the SHA256 is a true copy of the site at the time though and not a faked page. You could do something like have a distributed network of archives that coordinate archival at the same time and then using the SHA256 then be able to see which archives fetched exactly the same page at the same time through some search functionality. I mean if addons are already being used for doing the crawling then we may be mostly there already since said addons would just need to certify their archive and after that they can discard the actual copy of the page. You need need a way to validate those workers though since a bad actor could just run a whole bunch at the same time to legitimise a fake archival.

Until the other penny drops and makes federation impossible: making it so users on other instances are treated as your users if they interact with your instance. If such a law was introduced I’d imagine they’d carve out an exemption for e-mail since that would cause utter chaos.

Loving the transparency on this post! It would be lovely if you could specifically fund the work which would allow Matrix to have those more gamer-foused features.

Main issue with Rufus is secure boot unfortunately, otherwise Rufus is easy enough that I gave a couple “click here, then here, then here and here are some screenshots” to a friend they were able to navigate it just fine. At this point I swear Rufus is easier than using the official installer provided Secure Boot is off.

Surely at some point this would run foul of defamation laws (Australia’s ones can be brutal under the right circumstances). I kinda get wanting to let AIs have a bit of leniency by you then hit the obvious problem of people just hiding behind AIs when they want to make a defamatory claim or just don’t care about being accurate and then blame the AI. Especially with claims like this which if spread, can cause serious reputational harm or even death.

Both ends of this are frustrating. Buying a domain either as a purely speculative asset (as the judge correctly labeled this purchase as) so you can 1) get under someones skin enough to make them want to buy the domain from you, or 2) just buying up every popular or potentially popular domain just to sell if off is scummy behaviour that ideally this guy should never have been able to do in the first place.

The other end of this I don’t like though is the possibility of somebody being able to convince a judge that they should own your domain and then just being able to take it. In this case I think the judge ruled correctly but the idea that somebody (especially in the US government) would be able to just take away my domain on a whim is terrifying when you can’t just go to people and say “hey, the person you are going to this domain for has now moved and is now here”. Things like e-mail address, monitoring, firewall exceptions and many self-hosted sites assume that the owner of the domain does not change hands without permission, and trust the domain blindly. Taking away a domain isn’t just like taking away somebodies nickname. It’s taking away their online identity and forced impersonation.

I really wish there was a way to address each other in a decentralised way that doesn’t just push the problem down to something like a public key, where the same problem exists except now you worry about the key being compromised.

The fact that we have ways to coordinate globally unique addresses that we collectively agree on who owns what is a feat. It just sucks that it’s also something which somebody can take away from you.

“We should privatise service X so it’s more efficient” X collapses “We can’t afford to let X fail despite the fact that it ran at massive profits all the way to it’s collapse so we’ll bail it out” THEN WHAT WAS THE POINT OF PRIVATISING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE?!

You can take on the burden of running the thing and therefore the cost of making it public, or you can allow it to be private with the caveat that they must pay a substantial (enough for the government to not be at a net loss) tax as a kind of insurance in the event a bailout is needed, but don’t take on the worst of both worlds where the profits are private and the losses are public.

It surprises me that companies like Uber depend on them. You’d think that by the time you’re as big as Uber that you’d be able to just endure a DDoS but I guess the threat of multi-terabit DDoSs and the cost of the associated downtime would be enough to scare anybody smaller than AWS.

What about 2nd 54th route?

I understand (to agree degree) going after AI companies for reproducing the lyrics in a way that would not normally be protected by copyright but outright scraping is going too far from a moral standpoint.

There’s a good argument to be made about abusing their resources to do the scraping as I’ve heard complaints of site owners getting overwhelmed by AI crawlers but provided you’re not doing that I think scraping should be allowed generally speaking even if the operator disallows it, since without that search engines break and archival (especially to prove malice) go out the window.

I’m inclined to take an approach of “you can ingest whatever you want, but you are liable for reproduction, and if preventing reproduction is too onerous, then you probably should get the licences to permit it or don’t ingest that data”. Even that has some caveats since that reasoning would decimate social media services and personal/community spaces if actually enforced which is kinda what Safe Harbor helps protect.

It would help! It would establish that an archive was made no later than the date it was recorded on a blockchain (assuming the archiver isn’t also the one the made the original content in which case they can upload it after making the “archive”). You would still need to prove the trustworthiness of the archived data and at the moment the only thing we have for that is just trusting the archiver.

You could do something like have multiple archivers archive the same site in s stripped down for like plain text (so that differences caused by time or day, ads, etc don’t change the hash) and that way you can say that X amount of archivers agree that the site looked like that at that time.

It occasionally catches things that archive.org misses too. Also really nice to have an alternative.

It’d be nice to have a way of doing decentralised archiving while still keeping the trust. If you’re trying to prove that a site really said something at a certain date to another person, pointing to your own archive is kinda useless.

Signal does have a censorship circumvention feature in the advanced settings on iOS which may work when this hits provided you already have the app installed. Never had to use it though.

I could see it being an issue for more privacy-oriented sites. I imagine some Lemmy and Mastodon users might be less inclined to have to login to Apple, Google or Microsoft to be able to interact with others even if the vast majority of users are fine with it. Would be nice for somebody to come up with an open-source service that handles some more basic age verification so other services can just self-host it instead of each platform implementing their own logins. By basic age verification I mean things like matching user behaviour to users with a known age and maybe some face scanning. Nowhere near perfect and it’s a constant cat and mouse game, but maybe enough to be compliant with the law.

If age verification wasn’t being made mandatory in Australia for social media sites I think it could be a great idea for some services especially if the verification is done by the government with the same level as photo ID. Think dating apps, finance and marketplace sites where having a higher level of confidence that the person you are talking to is who they say they really matters, especially if law enforcement need to be involved down the line. Even if you the user can’t verify the identity of the other person, law enforcement could, and the site might be able to block alt accounts. The credential theft problem still exists of course so it’s no silver bullet, but it’s a lot better than what we have now.

You can work around it in both cases. SecureBoot will only prevent you from running non-signed boot loaders. If that breaks then you just turn off SecureBoot while you work on the issue (assuming SecureBoot failing isn’t due to a compromised boot loader) and the machine will boot normally minus any data stored in the TPM such as the encryption key. For the encryption key, this is something you are supposed to keep a copy of outside the TPM for scenarios like this. On Windows consumer PCs, this is stored in your Microsoft account or the place you specify when enabling it. For Azure or AD-joined PC’s this can be stored in Azure or AD.

The only ways SecureBoot and encryption will burn you are if there is data stored in the TPM that you don’t have a backup of or way of re-creating, or if the encryption headers on the drive are lost. That said, if you aren’t using a TPM some Windows features will break regardless and if the drive is so messed up that the encryption headers are lost then you’re probably back to backups anyway.

As somebody who often ends up using Reddit like Stackoverflow and in some cases needing the Internet Archive (IA) to find the original post after it’s been deleted or garbled, I think this is a wakeup call for those go to Reddit both to get technical help and to post it. More than ever, Reddit is becoming an unreliable place to find answers for old obscure issues and if they are going to lockout places like the IA then I think it’s time people stopped contributing their solutions to Reddit.

Sounds like this is not the same as S mode but only related to it based on the article. I hope Microsoft kill the cancer that is S mode.

Just hope they (Facebook and friends) give you the choice to delete OR verify those accounts and not require verification to delete it.

Same in Australia. From memory the law has already passed, it’s just got a delay on it to give companies a chance to implement it.