SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 14 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
What's your plan to deal with the erasure of digital privacy?
| 9% | 23 votes |
| 65% | 161 votes |
| 6% | 16 votes |
| 6% | 16 votes |
| 6% | 15 votes |
| 5% | 14 votes |
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
- Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
- Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
- This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
What's your plan to deal with the erasure of digital privacy?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 100 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
Someone is speaking well of you.
How unusual!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04, @05:33PM (5 children)
The kids will get mad enough. The billionaires will let loose their government drones. Millions will die. We are sleepwalking into the stupidest timeline.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05, @01:09AM (3 children)
You are already in the stupidest timeline. "Muh BazzilionGazzionalaires, Muh die, Muh duh..."!
Go sleepwalk to a psych ward, you moron!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05, @03:51AM (2 children)
ok clanker
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05, @04:35AM (1 child)
I AI myself to the morning light
Genuflect to the midday shite
Unbelievingly I approve
Of the crap beneath the shoes
You tread lightly as can be
Considering psychopathy
So then there's that noise
Clanking at your faintest pose!
/me bows out -- you fuck off!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05, @03:46PM
You could try reading history, but given the quality of your poetry I feel like that is a hard pass for you.
I would be happy to be wrong. If I am it is most likely because people will be too terrified to push back and the de-regulation of society's safety measures along with climate change will kill enough people. That would be a delicate balancing act that would rely on disasters not getting too bad to cause mass migration.
Troll fed now go back to sleep little buddy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 02, @11:56PM
I MUST BE WIPED WITH A MOIST CLOTH IT IS THE ONLY WAY FOR MY SANITY TO PREVAIL!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Friday September 04, @09:32PM (5 children)
So, Standard Operating Procedure: block as much as possible, poison the data when I can, do without if it's intolerable. Grumble loudly when none of those are feasible.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05, @02:18AM (2 children)
So you were Arseicholius after all this time?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday September 11, @08:01PM
Of the choices presented, an "all of the above" would apply for me.
My point(s) of capitulation are the smartphones.
I do run pihole fairly tight on the home network, tight enough that I have to do things like qualitrix surveys on my phone on 5G instead of WiFi (and that's a clue about who has your phone browsing info... everyone in that chain.)
I did pitch out all my WeMo and similar cloud based WiFi controlled relays a few years back and stand up a local ZigBee based Home Assistant system instead.
But, I think if I go too dark, that is more likely to flag me as a "person of interest" - defeating the whole purpose...
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Saturday September 05, @12:52AM (4 children)
I don't have a cell phone/smart phone; don't want one. Use linux, avoid Windblows as much as possible. Don't use X/Twitt,You say Tik-Tok I say Fuck-me, Insta-soup.... some Bluesky and of course my daily meal of SoylentNews is people.
Have backed away as much as possible, sort-of...
Not invisible, but as translucent as I can be.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05, @01:11AM (1 child)
> Not invisible, but as translucent as I can be.
Gaaark matter confirmed!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06, @02:24AM (1 child)
I'm all over the map with this. I have a feature phone. I use a version of Windows that's way out of date--I'm just careful to avoid IE and other junk. It works fine. I use Xitter, but not Bluesky. That place is like MAGA with a different color hat. Everything on the Internet was always a post card, and we knew it. Look. I can see your IP address.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday September 06, @01:51PM
Sorry... forgot to zip up.
Ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiip
There.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05, @01:05AM
Refusing to register for an anon discussion forum because of one asshole who can shove the whole moon right up his own miscalculation!
Also my cat.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by day of the dalek on Saturday September 05, @09:01AM (7 children)
I posted this to a story on the front page, but it's just as relevant here. The right answer isn't one of the poll options. Speak out against the status quo and advocate for much stronger regulations. I have zero confidence in Congress, which is utterly inept and only seems interested in performative actions and kissing Donald Trump's ass. But there are good opportunities to get something done at the state level. California has pretty tough privacy laws, and it's time for other states to follow their lead.
I am trying to get better privacy protections in my state advocating for this in the legislature. One of the benefits of volunteering to help with campaigns is getting to share my concerns with people who may well be elected in November. While I don't much like Flock cameras, I've been telling elected officials and people running for office that there are even much bigger risks from other businesses like data brokers.
Last year, my identity got stolen, a fraudulent financial account was opened in my name, and I didn't find out until many months later when debt collectors started calling. Despite federal laws to know your customer, the financial institution never requested an ID, and there wasn't any sort of live selfie or other verification. The phone number and email address used weren't mine. There appears to have been no employment verification. They never checked any of the major credit bureaus. Despite the many red flags, they made virtually zero effort to verify the person's identity before letting someone enter in my name, address, DOB, and SSN online, and open a fraudulent account in my name.
When I found out and contested it, the financial institution decided I wasn't liable for the charges, and that manual approval would be needed if the account was used to apply for any other products from the institution. Their response implies that they never even bothered to disable and close the fraudulent account. Since this financial institution is known to sell customer information to data brokers, they may well have shared my name and address along with the attacker's phone number and email address. And that means a criminal's contact information gets mixed in with my real data, and that gets sold to other data brokers. That potentially puts me at risk if I need to have something like a background check done later.
If the account is still open, which I believe it is, and a second attacker managed to access it, they could presumably get personal information like my SSN and steal my identity again. This financial institution already had a massive data breach a few years ago. I never gave them my personal information, so they have no right to it, But because a criminal provided it to them, I believe my personal data is sitting on their servers where it can be misused or stolen again. Let's just say I'm already taking action to hold the financial institution accountable, and I expect to find out if they're going to be cooperative within the next few weeks.
You'd better believe I'm pissed off about the lack of regulations to protect my data. I have zero confidence in the Congress to do a damn thing. So the next time the state legislature is in session, you can count on me sharing my story to anyone who will listen, and I'll be pushing for bills to be introduced that include some very strict privacy regulations. The financial institution is an out-of-state business, so you'd better believe I'll be pushing for any new laws to apply to anyone handing the personal data of any resident of my state.
Stay thirsty, my friends.
Leviticus 19:33-34
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05, @03:24PM (1 child)
Despite all our fancy technology, the only way to truly verify your identity is with your physical presence, gotta drag the carcass to the office. Sorry
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05, @04:52PM
not sorry
(Score: 5, Informative) by VLM on Thursday September 10, @02:50PM (2 children)
I think I can explain the confusing behavior of
If you watch a black and white classic movie about fractional reserve banking, like "its a wonderful life" you'll get the mistaken assumption that the company that creates/originates the loan is the company that holds the loan until it ends, one way or another, even it if takes decades to close the loan, and that one company eats the loss if there's fraud, so they would logically be highly motivated to discourage fraud.
However in reality there's at least three financial institutions for mortgages and other loans are about the same and by design none of the three will care about fraud.
The originator, the office you visited or website you signed up on, is usually solely an originator unless it was one of a handful of the megabanks or some obscure circumstance. Most originators don't hold the loan longer than 90 days or so before selling it off to a holding company. Essentially, they collected a sales commission on every loan sold, then flip that commission into funding next month's loans to sell. Its a short term business and as long as the bundle of loans yours is put into doesn't default too much such that they don't get return business from the mega banks, they don't care about individual fraud cases. There's a broad commodity market in buying/selling loans, by the time its bundled up into a pack of other loans, its just kind of assumed there will be a default percentage and as long as the overall fail rate is low enough, nobody cares. So thats why the originating bank or S+L or CU or whatever doesn't care about fraud. They got their commission possibly months or years ago and they're usually just a pass thru and reporting fraud is just sort of getting in the way of originating the next batch of loans. Once someone else is holding the bag, they don't care about what's in the bag.
Depending on loan type, like for mortgages its 2/3 to 3/4, historically sometimes higher for certain groups, the loan will get sold to a "too big to fail" depository bank. They accumulate millions of loans, accept a loss on a certain percentage, as long as the "system" is not stressed too much they just don't care about fraud. Doesn't matter if they lose 1% due to fraud, early payoff, regular old defaulting, as long as total losses are under whatever they banked into the financial model, they'll make a small profit and keep rollin. They don't care about your specific fraud case unless the tranche of loans you were bundled into is right on the border of losing some exec his bonus, then they might care a little but the more cooperative and fast working they are, the sooner the loss posts to their financial model and the sooner some exec loses bonus money, so they're strongly motivated to extend and pretend. In theory the megabanks are regulated, in practice they're regulated by the same people who work there in a revolving door, so not really. At a high level they're sort of controlled by interest rates if they get too greedy the fed will take actions to F them up, but its not a very good control lever; I mean we only have collapses every decade or so, it could be worse, but it could be better. "Don't make me whack you with a rolled up newspaper" and as long as they don't do that, they are pretty much left to do what they want, its a crude semi effective control loop.
The third org is the system would lock up for subprime borrowers (at least in mortgages) if it were not for GNMA aka Ginnie Mae which is a govt insurer of last resort who essentially sell insurance options on MBS mortgage backed securities to keep the system movin. They've been doing this since 1970 and corruption levels increased linearily in the system until 2008 when they crashed out. See also "Fannie Mae" and "Freddie Mac" sister programs. They are totally utterly unmotivated to care about individual loans because they guarantee sliced-and-diced MBS products at the product level. Its like making sausage, people do care about food safety of the entire sausage, but no one cares about an individual ground up morsel making up the sausage. Also being a govt insurance program they see themselves as "successful" or a part of an ever expanding empire when they pay off a non-performing loan, its not a problem its what the program sees as productive. The corporate drone who prints and mails life insurance checks sees writing a check as a great thing because that keeps him employed, even if the check represents human tragedy. So GNMA and friends see fraud as almost "good" it's a side effect of keeping poor people in intentionally overpriced houses, every fraud claim they write off with taxpayer money is reducing financial stress in a sense in the country at large, etc. Its a handout program so they feel good about handing out. Of which some portion is literal fraud. Rather like daycares in Minneapolis.
The entire system is very complicated and interesting to study. I'm more an energy investor guy but I followed this during the '08 crisis. We're headed for another as the system is designed to encourage corruption, top to bottom, and the right people profit off it so its not getting fixed, and a symptom of it is real estate price bubbles with periodic very sharp "08" style corrections and collapses. GNMA will be insolvent again, just like 08, its just hard to predict exactly when the inflection curve will happen. What can't go up forever (corrupt loans in a corrupt system, more or less) will eventually go down. There's no "thermostat" equilibrium process the control loop is pure growth and collapse in the loan biz.
Anyway the point of my explanation of the system is to point out you seemed confused that no one in the system cares about fraud, and I explained that's by intentional design. Now I didn't invent it, nor support it, I'm just explaining it, so ... I think some engineering type brains get stuck on how the financial industry makes no sense if they're trying to be honest bankers; but we live in an alternate reality where they're the opposite of honest bankers, so "the system" does stuff that doesn't make sense, but does make certain players a lot of money...
(Score: 1) by day of the dalek on Saturday September 12, @04:04AM (1 child)
You are absolutely correct, and I've modded you informative.
I've omitted the names of the companies involved, but the originator of the loan was one of the sketchy short-term/payday lenders. They know there's a very high risk that they won't be paid back, so they charge extremely high interest rates to offset their losses. In this case, the APR was just under 250%. That's usury, plain and simple.
Roughly six months after the online installment loan was originated, and long after it defaulted, the payday lender sold the loan to a passive debt buyer. Again, I'm omitting the name of the passive debt buyer. But they're the company who sent the defaulted loan to collections.
You're right that the industry doesn't care about fraud except to the extent that it affects their profits. The short-term lending industry targets people who depserately need cash right away, knowing that many of those people won't pay them back, and then charging ridiculous interest rates from everyone else. As long as there are enough desperate people willing to take out these short-term loans, and if they can write off defaults by selling the debt to other buyers, the industry just doesn't care. It's an inherently irresponsible industry that needs to be regulated much more strongly than they are.
I know the payday loan company did have to buy the loan back from the passive debt buyer, meaning that they have to absorb the cost of the fraudulent loan. If the payday loan company had permanently closed the fraudulent account and purged my PII from their systems, and if they corrected any false information they provided to data brokers, I'd consider the matter closed. But if the account is still open, then it seems like there's risk of more fraud.
For now, I've sent a complaint to my state's attorney general's office. I explained the same things I discussed in my comment and provided all the documentation I have. I requested a copy of all documents related to the fraudulent loan application, because the Fair Credit Reporting Act allows this. I requested that the fraudulent account be permanently closed and that my PII permanently be expunged from their systems. I also said I believe they should be investigated and barred from doing business in the state, even though I know my complaint absolutely will not trigger these actions.
I expect I'll get all the documents related to the fraudulent loan application, and I'm expecting a partial win on getting the account closed. I know the AG won't investigate the company or revoke their license to do business in the state just because of my complaint. But I fully expect the AG's office has sent the complaint out for mediation, meaning the payday lender's legal department will probably be expected to write a response and explain their actions. If enough people complain to the AG about this company, my complaint might be useful in helping to establish a pattern of bad behavior from this company. I know the AG's office does get a lot of complaints about this industry, and this specific payday lender has been investigated and sued by other attorneys general in the past. And I'd like to think the lender's decision to apparently keep the fraudulent account open is a huge red flag, especially if the AG later does investigate this company.
Stay thirsty, my friends.
Leviticus 19:33-34
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday September 14, @08:14PM
> Their response implies that they never even bothered to disable and close the fraudulent account.
It's just good business... what they lose in fraud cases like this is less than what it would cost them (overall) to prevent the cases they could. A big part of this is that they're not liable for your hassle-expenses, they should not only forgive the charges in your name, but also reimburse you, treble damages, for your hours of effort spent in handling their mishandling of the situation - correction of your credit ratings, tracking down the problem in the first place, whatever hassle they put you through before acknowedging their mistake.
Unfortunately, we're unlikely to get that kind of legislation that actually compensates little people for their true damages.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Taxi Dudinous on Saturday September 05, @06:10PM
I want to maintain my privacy. There are companies that promise to do that for me. But I have to give them my private information in order for that to happen. There are many instances where we are required to roll over and expose our sensitive information. That is how we prove who we are. I never feel good about proving my identity. I never want to reveal it. Anonymous is safest. But, if I want a loan, a vehicle, a home, a business, etc. If I wish to go pretty much anywhere, my physical presence is tracked to some degree.
Sigh
I will just keep it simple and complain as I go. :^)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06, @12:28AM
Not let it happen.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by turgid on Sunday September 06, @12:02PM (27 children)
Oh I dunno, maybe things need doing IRL? I have been tending to my baby trees this weekend and I'm going to tend some more after my little boiler blowdown regarding the AI stuff. I was going to post something about the impromptu Nazi vigilante rally in Dover too [substack.com], but that will be bad for my blood pressure.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 5, Funny) by Thexalon on Sunday September 06, @04:13PM (26 children)
I understand you're talking about the UK, but in the USA, there's a reason you don't see Nazi vigilantes and police at the same time over on our side of the pond, and it's approximately the same reason you don't see Clark Kent and Superman at the same time.
Or sometimes the mob of masked thugs is called "ICE" and funded by tax dollars, and its leaders have already taken over the country's government.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 4, Insightful) by day of the dalek on Monday September 07, @02:47AM (22 children)
Have a spam mod for your repetitive off-topic nonsense. You are a fine example of how not to solve any of society's problems.
For example, there are lots of ways to respond to the privacy issues this poll is about. You could choose to do everything you can to protect your personal information. You could try to poison the data sets of the data brokers who buy and sell private data. You could try to raise awareness of problems by speaking out and explaining to people why this is harmful. You could directly try to influence elected officials, which is my approach.
But you can't seem to move past personally attacking a few people whom you've decided you have some grievance against. You don't bother discussing any issues, whether it's data privacy or fascism, because you can't look past your imaginary complaints against people you think have wronged you. You're back to complaining about me because I won't let you post in my journals, and you've decided to be an entitled baby about this. You are a prime example of how not to respond to problems like the lack of data privacy.
By the way, science fiction is a completely valid way to raise awareness of societal problems. Star Trek has done plenty of stories about repressive regimes like the Romulan Star Empire and the Cardassian Union that give their citizens no privacy at all. They serve as allegories to get people to think about issues like data privacy, and they might influence people to be concerned about the issues. Or there are the classic works from authors like Ray Bradbury and George Orwell, both of whom wrote outstanding science fiction about these topics. You don't like me posting about science fiction, but that only shows your extreme ignorance since science fiction authors are some of the most prolific critics about issues you claim to care about. Encouraging people to check out copies of 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 from their local libraries and read them is a valid response to this poll, but it's something you'd dump on because you're too short-sighted and can't move beyond your obsession with a handful of people.
For someone who complains about fascism, you seem to have devoted a lot of time to pissing and moaning about people who complain about fascism both directly and through allegory. And we know the real reason, which is that people have grown weary of your inability to discuss issues and that you instead flood their journals with the same repetitive attacks. By doing so, you drive people away who might otherwise agree with your ideas. And it seems you won't stop with whining about me and now choose to target turgid as well. You've been spamming for almost a decade now if we include your activities before you got banned, and you've only managed to destroy any respect that people once had for you. You're an outstanding example of the Greek literary form of tragedy. Sad.
I pity you. You are a sad, pathetic little man, and I hope you get the professional help you desperately need. Your behavior here serves as an excellent example of how not to respond to societal problems like fascism, economic inequality, and data privacy.
Stay thirsty, my friends.
Leviticus 19:33-34
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 07, @11:31PM (3 children)
I thought they were moving on. Might give the banned user a run for their money on claimed exits.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Thursday September 10, @02:09PM (5 children)
And the Federation. I don't immediately recall a single instance of "cannon fiction", however authoritative that is, where the authorities showed the slightest interest in privacy or obtaining a warrant or any of that. There might be a single anecdote attempting to push against the background noise of the rest of the series, but ...
A VERY optimistic view might be when asked "computer, override locked door" or access some dudes private files or whatever, the Federation is made up of such perfect people that the LLM in the computer coincidentally always agrees with them.
I vaguely recall constable Odo wasn't really a fan of civil rights, due process, none of that. He just happened to be a nice guy on the good guy's side so he always got a pass.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 11, @06:34AM
Comparing military hierarchy with civilian rights is your #1 problem. Odo was a founder, known for rigid fascist behavior and he slowly grows more aware through the show.
The world is not binary and we accept some violations of rights in specific contexts, like breaking down a door or going through belongings when someone is in danger.
The Star Trek universe does a very good job for a B scifi series, but I think I understand why some people take umbrage with the idea of a better society. The shows even make many points about the Federation not truly being a utopia.
(Score: 1) by day of the dalek on Saturday September 12, @04:22AM (2 children)
The best episodes about civil liberties and privacy are probably the DS9 two-parter Homefront/Paradise Lost and the TNG episode The Drumhead.
Homefront and Paradise Lost is about panic due to Changelings infiltrating Earth and detonating a bomb at a conference. As a result, Starfleet declares martial law and institutes mandatory blood screenings. Homefront is written to make you feel like the actions are justified, and then Paradise Lost is written to show the folly of this.
The Drumhead begins with a Klingon committing treason and trying to steal secrets from the Federation. Admiral Satie is brought in to investigate, and she treats it like part of a larger conspiracy on the Enterprise, interrogating other crew members and even targeting Picard. In particular, she pries into the past of a crewman, Simon Tarses, and ruins his career in Starfleet because he failed to disclose that one of his ancestors was a Romulan.
As for Odo, he's not in Starfleet, and he's not acting on behalf of the Federation. He's a Bajoran officer, so he's accountable to the government of Bajor. And because Bajor isn't part of the Federation, Odo isn't directly subject to Federation authority. Deep Space Nine is controlled jointly by the Federation and the Bajoran government, and it's the Bajoran government that oversees Odo's role as head of station security. Odo's actions don't necessarily reflect the Federation's principles about civil liberties.
More importantly, Starfleet explicitly disagrees with Odo's tactics. In fact, that's a major reason why they sent Michael Eddington to serve as a Starfleet security chief on the station. Yes, one reason Eddington was sent was because Starfleet didn't trust a Changeling being in charge of station security after learning of the Founders' intentions. So Odo gets judged because of the actions of his race, which isn't fair. But Eddington was also sent because Starfleet never really liked how Odo ran security on the station, so they wanted a Starfleet person there to try to ensure that Starfleet security practices were used. This actually is a significant point of friction during the third season of DS9, and Odo resents Eddington's presence there. Ultimately, Eddington was written out by revealing that he was a traitor working for the Maquis, but that doesn't happen until a bit later in the series.
And by the way, Odo does strongly support the strict security measures on Earth during Homefront/Paradise Lost. When those measures are shown to be unjustified, that can also be viewed as a rebuke of Odo's views on civil liberties and privacy.
My impression was always that Starfleet and Section 31 were more than capable of spying on any Federation citizen and gathering vast amounts of data on them. On a starship and even on Deep Space Nine, internal sensors are capable of tracking anyone and getting extremely precise details on where they are and what they're doing. Communications are certainly monitored. However, I always understood that while Starfleet's computers are capable of tracking this, nearly all of that data is immediately discarded unless there's an active investigation. An analogy might be to license plate readers. Sure, they're capable of tracking everyone and logging their data just like Flock does. But one can also set up a targeted license plate reader to only alert authorities if they see a license plate that's on a hot list, and any other license plate they scan is immediately discarded. I suspect the Federation is more than capable of a very Flock-like approach to security, but they choose not to, and instead act like the targeted license plate reader that discards most of the data it collects.
As for Section 31, they simply don't give a damn about civil liberties at all, and they represent the worst tendencies of our three letter agencies.
Stay thirsty, my friends.
Leviticus 19:33-34
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 16, @11:08PM (1 child)
Looks like you lost anyone left of Nixon
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17, @06:17PM
inversey reversey
(Score: 0, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 12, @01:55AM (2 children)
feel free to stop being SUCH an ass and make some on topic non-personal attacks
you are not the only one with complaints but you are certainly routinely an ass, I don't think I've seen a decent on topic comment from you in a very long time
then again I half think the banned person left and you enjoy making a mess because you are a rightwing douche
they usually had a smidgen of class to their insults, you are just a howling monkey. maybe you are the real person, but a hollowed out husk from too much hatred
(Score: 5, Interesting) by turgid on Monday September 07, @07:37PM (1 child)
I understand you're talking about the UK, but in the USA, there's a reason you don't see Nazi vigilantes and police at the same time over on our side of the pond...
Funny you should mention that [substack.com].
More background [hopenothate.org.uk]. Plus it's spreading [hopenothate.org.uk]. Mainstream news is covering it too [bbc.co.uk].
Oh, and spam mods don't frighten me.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by Undefined on Monday September 07, @11:39AM
If you didn't take care of this years ago, it's far too late now.
I use a dedicated preprocessor to elaborate abbreviations.
Hover to reveal elaborations.
(Score: 3, Touché) by VLM on Thursday September 10, @02:03PM (5 children)
How about this strategy?
I'm told they'll make piles of money. However, they never seem to make any significant money doing this.
Remember "google reader"? Turns out knowing every page you read online is worth approximately ... $0.
They erased "digital privacy" a long time ago and a whole lot of nothing happened.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 11, @01:12PM (2 children)
Those statements are all false
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 26, @05:51PM
Good thing the culture wars let the corruptiin flourish freely because some people just gotta hate others.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 14, @07:48PM (4 children)
The church sits on private land. The tribe still wants it gone
Lucas believes God called her to Wind River. But she deliberately built her church on private property within the reservation’s boundaries rather than tribal land where, she said, the tribes would effectively be her landlords.
Foundations for Nations is located amid a patchwork of federal, tribal and private property — the legacy of 19th century federal policies designed to eliminate tribes by breaking up collective land bases.
“That era has cascading effects that are devastating for tribal sovereignty,” said Jessica Shoemaker, a professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law.
Shoemaker said tribes have broad civil authority over non-Natives on tribal land, including to banish them. But jurisdiction over private property within reservations is litigated case-by-case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 15, @12:38AM (2 children)
Some people love to be taken half seriously
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 18, @11:29PM (3 children)
Huffin farts again? The shadows on the wall speaking to you?
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 24, @12:19AM
Why are you still here? Asking for a fiend.
(Score: 2) by The Vocal Minority on Wednesday September 23, @02:58AM
I think most of us would do some combination of the first 3?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 24, @08:53PM
Keep suggesting privacy laws and praying to the FSM that people will care, the same people who rolled their eyes about the 'nutty conspiracy wackos' warning about the surveillance.
If it was so outlandish and horrifying before why is it suddenly inevitable and no big deal? People get very uncomfortable when privacy gets brought up. It disturbs me that the slide down went so quickly and with near total acceptance.
Also Other: vote for people and policies that care about privacy and freedom.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday October 02, @01:32PM (1 child)
>What's your plan to deal with the erasure of digital privacy?
No plan, because there never was digital privacy, at least not online.
Back in 300 baud BBS days there was privacy, secrecy, compartamentalization. Back then I hatched an evil plan in my dorm room to launch a self-updating BBS server, which was basically a complete trojan horse - arbitrary code execution privileges in the guise of "automatic software updates."
Others made that scenario real, not only in the server, but also in the browsers, and soon after in the operating systems.
Privacy becomes a total illusion the day you install software which gets automatic updates. Can you even turn off automatic updates anymore? I don't think it's even been possible on Android or iOS, I worked hard to do it on Ubuntu 14.04 and discovered a month after declaring victory that the system was, in fact, still searching for updates over the network through mechanisms I had failed to identify after many full-time days of searching for them.
Back in the days of floppy disc based systems you'd walk into a computer lab at the University with your personal locking box of floppies - that had some actual privacy if you actually locked the box when your back was turned. Then they installed hard drives on the shared PCs, which was super convenient - the OS boots without you having to bring it - and super fast performance compared to the 5.25" floppies - and it was just a few months later that the Stoned virus made the rounds. You had to be careful not to use floppies in both shared PCs and your personal PC otherwise you ran the risk of infecting your personal PC with whatever the shared PCs might have lurking.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 03, @04:51AM
make privacy violations a minimum 5 year sentence