Yeah GDPR only applies to web services that collect Personally Identifiable Information- name, phone number, address, stuff like that. A pseudo-anonymous web forum doesn't really apply.
Yeah GDPR only affects sites that do data collection of particular kinds. A forum probably doesn't collect data as defined by that law.
Imagine my surprise when I got emails about Mechwarrior Online (just the game account) and Klei Entertainment's forum. The hell?
But my Steam Id!
Yeah, I figure PA was probably already compliant, as opposed to forums that might sell ads and marketing relevant data.
Meant to crosspost this earlier and make a photobucket account lockdown joke (given the Summer 2017 timing), but I'll just post it now as a suggestion to reboot your routers to celebrate GDPR day:
At this point I cannot find evidence that it was Mueller's team that did so, but the FBI has seized one of the main servers of Russia's botnet which was used in 2016.
The malware payload will delete when you reboot, and can no longer reinfect as of Wednesday.
Technically they do collect email address and a bunch of other technically identifying data in the profile, but since the purpose is typically just to display things publicly and it's all optional... maybe not?
I have no idea how to resize it, so you'll have to click through.
Yeah, that's a load of gooseshit. I get that they're trying to send the message of "we're hip, cool rebels", but the actual message they're sending is "we're a bunch of geese who don't take your privacy seriously."
I have no idea how to resize it, so you'll have to click through.
Yeah, that's a load of gooseshit. I get that they're trying to send the message of "we're hip, cool rebels", but the actual message they're sending is "we're a bunch of geese who don't take your privacy seriously."
Not how I took it at all. I think it's entirely possible that they are, as represented, neither collecting that sort of data or have any interest in doing so.
Which would make them a rare exception on today's Internet, but those do exist.
(I also get the impression this is not exactly a large outfit, which gives me the image of going over to your stereotypical corner lemonade stand and asking to see their nutritional information and materials safety sheets. And the kids/tweens just stare at you and ask if you're gonna buy some lemonade or what?)
I have no idea how to resize it, so you'll have to click through.
Yeah, that's a load of gooseshit. I get that they're trying to send the message of "we're hip, cool rebels", but the actual message they're sending is "we're a bunch of geese who don't take your privacy seriously."
Not how I took it at all. I think it's entirely possible that they are, as represented, neither collecting that sort of data or have any interest in doing so.
Which would make them a rare exception on today's Internet, but those do exist.
(I also get the impression this is not exactly a large outfit, which gives me the image of going over to your stereotypical corner lemonade stand and asking to see their nutritional information and materials safety sheets. And the kids/tweens just stare at you and ask if you're gonna buy some lemonade or what?)
Nobody can tell over the internet, though. Average internet startup that is a handful of people can easily run data scrapes constantly and ask for permissions to everything when you install their app.
It might be that they feel given what their business does and the size of it that this email they are required to send out seems really silly, but it's a point of view that is ignorant to the fundamental issue that customers literally don't know what any given company does with their data.
I have no idea how to resize it, so you'll have to click through.
Yeah, that's a load of gooseshit. I get that they're trying to send the message of "we're hip, cool rebels", but the actual message they're sending is "we're a bunch of geese who don't take your privacy seriously."
Not how I took it at all. I think it's entirely possible that they are, as represented, neither collecting that sort of data or have any interest in doing so.
Which would make them a rare exception on today's Internet, but those do exist.
(I also get the impression this is not exactly a large outfit, which gives me the image of going over to your stereotypical corner lemonade stand and asking to see their nutritional information and materials safety sheets. And the kids/tweens just stare at you and ask if you're gonna buy some lemonade or what?)
Sorry, but no, these are not kids running a corner lemonade stand. They are running a business, however small, and they can actually treat their legal obligations (and yes, GDPR is a legal obligation) seriously, instead of putting on an affect of "such a drag, man". There are ways to write such a letter so that it comes across as both not boilerplate and acknowledging the seriousness of the matter. What they did - ain't it.
The impression I got was they're a ridiculously tiny group or whatever, and all they run is a literal mailing list, but that just barely counts for this law. So... uh, here's your warning we won't sell your info, not that we have any conceivable idea how to even do that.
Certainly not worth getting any knickers twisted over.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
I have no idea how to resize it, so you'll have to click through.
Yeah, that's a load of gooseshit. I get that they're trying to send the message of "we're hip, cool rebels", but the actual message they're sending is "we're a bunch of geese who don't take your privacy seriously."
I guess to me it depends how big they are.
If its like a list of a thousand people run by some guy who just really likes talking to people about music, who has the potential to make money off his users, but really just makes a few bucks a month on patreon and selling T-shirts then I view this as an example of the weakness in the structure of the GDPR which is a law with great intentions but horrible implementation. You are right in latter posts, that you can't really tell if they are just one guy in a basement who loves Jazz, or a wholly owned subsidiary of BIGmusic CORP, but in reality those two entities have different existences and different legal responsibilities.
If its one guy in a basement, then the fact he uses his email list to sell hats and announce new content no more makes him a big data company than I am a big data company when I ask my friends to chip in $20 for a BBQ and pick the time to have it using a form. If you send him personal information, then thats on you. Now, he has different responsibilities when it comes to processing credit card information, but, thats primarily to do with his relationship with the credit card companies and there are large companies you can go to to do that (don't need to screen print your own shirts for sale, just have a storefront on customink or whatever).
I view there as being a fundamental breakdown in the relationship between small content creators and their fans in the GDPR, which effectively forces them all to go through a major content website to protect themselves adaqautely. Our Jazz Video Podcast can't be hosted on our local website any more, because we don't have the resources to confirm compliance with GDPR, we have to go through youtube and use their standardized protections.
I don't know whether this is a good or bad thing yet, compared to the obvious good thing that is say, "You should have the right to ask companies what they know or have inferred about you" or "If companies have used data that isn't publically posted to compile stuff about you, you should be able to ask them to delete it"
Yeah GDPR only affects sites that do data collection of particular kinds. A forum probably doesn't collect data as defined by that law.
Imagine my surprise when I got emails about Mechwarrior Online (just the game account) and Klei Entertainment's forum. The hell?
Steam Integration probably counts as personals, given Steam takes credit card info. They probably could have gotten away with not doing it but decided to be decent.
Edith Upwards on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
@Elki@ElJeffe can we get permission to make this thread FCC focused and not just internet related?
The FCC is giving funds to help restore telecomm infrastructure in Puerto Rico, but it has dark aspects to it that they did not want to mention publicly in their announcement. The money is going directly to telecomms, as I'm reading it (which is why I didn't word this as giving funds to Puerto Rico). In exchange for this near-billion dollars, they're going to dry up a well of funding used to help those below the poverty line in the USA, and also kill off that well's funding. A lot of Puerto Ricans rely on this assistance program to pay for their phone & internet services.
In order to offer up nearly $1 billion, the FCC is drawing from the Universal Service Fund, a pot used to help subsidize phone service with a $9.25-a-month discount for Americans who are 135 percent below the poverty line. The Universal Service Fund is also used to connect phone service to schools and libraries, as well as rural areas where service is especially costly. Telecommunications companies that operate in the U.S. are required to pay into this fund, although they often pass on that cost to their subscribers.
At the same time the FCC is trying to use a large chunk of the Universal Service Fund to help telecom providers pay for rebuilding their networks, the agency is simultaneously making significant cuts to the fund, particularly the portion intended to help poor people pay for basic phone and internet service. That part of the Universal Service Fund is called the Lifeline program, and nearly 20 percent of Puerto Rico’s population relies on it to help pay for phone and broadband service, according to FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn (one of the five-person body’s two Democratic commissioners), who issued a statement following announcement of the $900 million funding effort.
It's not like telecom companies have a well-documented history of taking government money in exchange for doing infrastructure projects and then not delivering on the promised infrastructure projects or anything...
Do as I say, not as I do: the European Commission, responsible for the GDPR is neither subject to nor compliant with it, and they just leaked personal data. Way to go guys
Re: swatting, bomb threats, and the like using VPN / VOIP
I feel like law enforcement really let the internet get away from them with regard to being able to trace phone calls; and I'm honestly a little surprised I haven't heard of any draconian legislation attempting to solve that problem.
Two questions: Have they? If it's even technically feasible to trace someone using widely available methods, what would it entail?
Re: swatting, bomb threats, and the like using VPN / VOIP
I feel like law enforcement really let the internet get away from them with regard to being able to trace phone calls; and I'm honestly a little surprised I haven't heard of any draconian legislation attempting to solve that problem.
Two questions: Have they? If it's even technically feasible to trace someone using widely available methods, what would it entail?
I think the whole tracing phone calls thing has more to do with somewhere along the line it was determined that it wasn’t worth it to expend the money/effort. Similar to how they don’t do a lot to prevent/catch credit card skimmers.
The Sunday morning news and stuff show I was just watching says net neutrality ends tomorrow? I thought we were in the clear on that.
Given the title of the thread, I'm assuming the House is dragging their feet on it, and Paul Ryan, manifest avatar of spinelessness, won't bring it to the floor until someone can put a poison pill into it that spikes it dead, or corral the cats in his party to make sure it fails. Cause that's how "democracy" works now.
Like I said, I figured if it'd been voted on, the thread title would have changed.
No doubt one of Ryan's excuses is that they are currently trying to head off a floor petition (I think that's the term) that is going to force the house to have a vote on immigration. My bet is that even when that goes, he'll find some other excuse to not hold a vote on net neutrality because he is a fucking idiot and doesn't get that the Senate vote has created a record. The house not holding a vote effectively states that the GOP is opposed to net neutrality and it's something the democrats can and should beat the shit out of them for during the campaign season. Actually, Ryan not voting on this could be used to pen an attack on the Senate GOP, since they largely didn't back it and have be quiet about it (aka the few that did, didn't really care about net neutrality because they figured the House GOP would let them have their cake and eat it).
The people who care about net neutrality enough to have it matter for their vote are already plugged-in to politics enough, and understand how these things work enough, to predominantly vote Democratic anyway.
There are some moderates that lean conservative where this could be one of many things that gets them to not vote republican. My experience, anecdotal as it may be, is that a decent number of people end up being rather hostile to the idea of getting rid of net neutrality.
There are some moderates that lean conservative where this could be one of many things that gets them to not vote republican. My experience, anecdotal as it may be, is that a decent number of people end up being rather hostile to the idea of getting rid of net neutrality.
In my experience almost everyone I've talked to has been hostile to getting rid of it once I can actually explain what it is.
Doing that can take a surprising about of bullshit removal though.
There are some moderates that lean conservative where this could be one of many things that gets them to not vote republican. My experience, anecdotal as it may be, is that a decent number of people end up being rather hostile to the idea of getting rid of net neutrality.
In my experience almost everyone I've talked to has been hostile to getting rid of it once I can actually explain what it is.
Doing that can take a surprising about of bullshit removal though.
Sometimes its as easy as Comcast owns NBC, which owns MSNBC, so by removing Net Neutrality you're allowing Comcast to throttle/limit your access to Fox News/Breitbart/Infowars while making it easier for you to get your news from MSNBC.
I've been hearing some rumors of a new EU law, and today Ars Technica published an article on the topic.
The most contentious element is Article 13 of the proposed directive (EU-speak for law). It seeks to make Internet services that host large amounts of user-uploaded material responsible for policing their holdings to prevent copyright infringement. Until now, companies have been able to draw on the safe harbor protection in the EU's e-commerce law, which online services enjoy when they are "mere conduits." The new copyright directive would withdraw that protection for any service that "optimizes" content, which includes things like promoting, tagging, curating, or sequencing a site's contents—most major online services, in other words.
There's also an Article 11, a "snippet tax" requiring payment for posting snippets of new articles. (Such as the ones in this post. Dunno who'd have to pay, though.) Germany and Spain already have that.
Germany's law proved so bad for publishers that they gave Google a free license to index their publications. In Spain, the situation was even worse. Since payment was mandatory, Google closed down the Spanish version of Google News completely (Google search remained). Traffic to Spanish newspapers declined as a result, with studies suggesting falls of between 6 percent and 30 percent.
The vote is next week.
The proposed law, to me, appears to suffer form politician's logic: Something must be done. This is something. Therefore it must be done.
I've been hearing some rumors of a new EU law, and today Ars Technica published an article on the topic.
The most contentious element is Article 13 of the proposed directive (EU-speak for law). It seeks to make Internet services that host large amounts of user-uploaded material responsible for policing their holdings to prevent copyright infringement. Until now, companies have been able to draw on the safe harbor protection in the EU's e-commerce law, which online services enjoy when they are "mere conduits." The new copyright directive would withdraw that protection for any service that "optimizes" content, which includes things like promoting, tagging, curating, or sequencing a site's contents—most major online services, in other words.
There's also an Article 11, a "snippet tax" requiring payment for posting snippets of new articles. (Such as the ones in this post. Dunno who'd have to pay, though.) Germany and Spain already have that.
Germany's law proved so bad for publishers that they gave Google a free license to index their publications. In Spain, the situation was even worse. Since payment was mandatory, Google closed down the Spanish version of Google News completely (Google search remained). Traffic to Spanish newspapers declined as a result, with studies suggesting falls of between 6 percent and 30 percent.
The vote is next week.
The proposed law, to me, appears to suffer form politician's logic: Something must be done. This is something. Therefore it must be done.
This is the issue with almost all internet associated law lately. The folks designing it have no idea the implications of the changes they are making.
The newest front in the Internet of Shit: domestic abuse:
One woman had turned on her air-conditioner, but said it then switched off without her touching it. Another said the code numbers of the digital lock at her front door changed every day and she could not figure out why. Still another told an abuse help line that she kept hearing the doorbell ring, but no one was there.
Their stories are part of a new pattern of behavior in domestic abuse cases tied to the rise of smart home technology. Internet-connected locks, speakers, thermostats, lights and cameras that have been marketed as the newest conveniences are now also being used as a means for harassment, monitoring, revenge and control.
In more than 30 interviews with The New York Times, domestic abuse victims, their lawyers, shelter workers and emergency responders described how the technology was becoming an alarming new tool. Abusers — using apps on their smartphones, which are connected to the internet-enabled devices — would remotely control everyday objects in the home, sometimes to watch and listen, other times to scare or show power. Even after a partner had left the home, the devices often stayed and continued to be used to intimidate and confuse.
This is just horrifying. And no, "just don't use the devices" is not an answer - we need to have a resolution to this that doesn't just put blame on the victim, who often doesn't have the technical skills needed to counteract the abuse.
The newest front in the Internet of Shit: domestic abuse:
One woman had turned on her air-conditioner, but said it then switched off without her touching it. Another said the code numbers of the digital lock at her front door changed every day and she could not figure out why. Still another told an abuse help line that she kept hearing the doorbell ring, but no one was there.
Their stories are part of a new pattern of behavior in domestic abuse cases tied to the rise of smart home technology. Internet-connected locks, speakers, thermostats, lights and cameras that have been marketed as the newest conveniences are now also being used as a means for harassment, monitoring, revenge and control.
In more than 30 interviews with The New York Times, domestic abuse victims, their lawyers, shelter workers and emergency responders described how the technology was becoming an alarming new tool. Abusers — using apps on their smartphones, which are connected to the internet-enabled devices — would remotely control everyday objects in the home, sometimes to watch and listen, other times to scare or show power. Even after a partner had left the home, the devices often stayed and continued to be used to intimidate and confuse.
This is just horrifying. And no, "just don't use the devices" is not an answer - we need to have a resolution to this that doesn't just put blame on the victim, who often doesn't have the technical skills needed to counteract the abuse.
While I agree there needs to be a non-victim blame solution here, these devices are inherently unsafe by their nature and not using them is actually a pretty good call until security gets waaaay better. Nobody should use them.
I can't even wrap my head around the doorbell connected to the net. The doorbell is a device to let people inside the house that there is somebody outside the house. It's connected to a button just outside the house, because that's obviously where said person would be.
Why does it need to be connected to the internet? Why do you need somebody to have remote access to it? What possible benefit is there to have somebody ring it when they are otherwise not in front of the door or house?
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
I can't even wrap my head around the doorbell connected to the net. The doorbell is a device to let people inside the house that there is somebody outside the house. It's connected to a button just outside the house, because that's obviously where said person would be.
Why does it need to be connected to the internet? Why do you need somebody to have remote access to it? What possible benefit is there to have somebody ring it when they are otherwise not in front of the door or house?
Generally the wireless end allows you to view who just rang your bell... even if you aren't actually at the House
+5
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Household items, appliances, and structure being connected to the internet is one of those cases of "just because you can doesn't mean you should."
+22
Options
BouwsTWanna come to a super soft birthday party?Registered Userregular
I can't even wrap my head around the doorbell connected to the net. The doorbell is a device to let people inside the house that there is somebody outside the house. It's connected to a button just outside the house, because that's obviously where said person would be.
Why does it need to be connected to the internet? Why do you need somebody to have remote access to it? What possible benefit is there to have somebody ring it when they are otherwise not in front of the door or house?
Generally the wireless end allows you to view who just rang your bell... even if you aren't actually at the House
Angel's post includes a woman who's doorbell would ring without anyone being at the front door. It's useful to see who's there, but The Wolfman's point is what the hell is the point of being able to RING it without being there. Why have that functionality at all.
Between you and me, Peggy, I smoked this Juul and it did UNTHINKABLE things to my mind and body...
The newest front in the Internet of Shit: domestic abuse:
One woman had turned on her air-conditioner, but said it then switched off without her touching it. Another said the code numbers of the digital lock at her front door changed every day and she could not figure out why. Still another told an abuse help line that she kept hearing the doorbell ring, but no one was there.
Their stories are part of a new pattern of behavior in domestic abuse cases tied to the rise of smart home technology. Internet-connected locks, speakers, thermostats, lights and cameras that have been marketed as the newest conveniences are now also being used as a means for harassment, monitoring, revenge and control.
In more than 30 interviews with The New York Times, domestic abuse victims, their lawyers, shelter workers and emergency responders described how the technology was becoming an alarming new tool. Abusers — using apps on their smartphones, which are connected to the internet-enabled devices — would remotely control everyday objects in the home, sometimes to watch and listen, other times to scare or show power. Even after a partner had left the home, the devices often stayed and continued to be used to intimidate and confuse.
This is just horrifying. And no, "just don't use the devices" is not an answer - we need to have a resolution to this that doesn't just put blame on the victim, who often doesn't have the technical skills needed to counteract the abuse.
While I agree there needs to be a non-victim blame solution here, these devices are inherently unsafe by their nature and not using them is actually a pretty good call until security gets waaaay better. Nobody should use them.
Indeed, never buy any device which can be controlled by anything outside your house. IR and direct line of sight 'networking' is fine, but never use a device which requires the internet to fulfill a basic need.
The newest front in the Internet of Shit: domestic abuse:
One woman had turned on her air-conditioner, but said it then switched off without her touching it. Another said the code numbers of the digital lock at her front door changed every day and she could not figure out why. Still another told an abuse help line that she kept hearing the doorbell ring, but no one was there.
Their stories are part of a new pattern of behavior in domestic abuse cases tied to the rise of smart home technology. Internet-connected locks, speakers, thermostats, lights and cameras that have been marketed as the newest conveniences are now also being used as a means for harassment, monitoring, revenge and control.
In more than 30 interviews with The New York Times, domestic abuse victims, their lawyers, shelter workers and emergency responders described how the technology was becoming an alarming new tool. Abusers — using apps on their smartphones, which are connected to the internet-enabled devices — would remotely control everyday objects in the home, sometimes to watch and listen, other times to scare or show power. Even after a partner had left the home, the devices often stayed and continued to be used to intimidate and confuse.
This is just horrifying. And no, "just don't use the devices" is not an answer - we need to have a resolution to this that doesn't just put blame on the victim, who often doesn't have the technical skills needed to counteract the abuse.
While I agree there needs to be a non-victim blame solution here, these devices are inherently unsafe by their nature and not using them is actually a pretty good call until security gets waaaay better. Nobody should use them.
Indeed, never buy any device which can be controlled by anything outside your house. IR and direct line of sight 'networking' is fine, but never use a device which requires the internet to fulfill a basic need.
Posts
But my Steam Id!
Yeah, I figure PA was probably already compliant, as opposed to forums that might sell ads and marketing relevant data.
Meant to crosspost this earlier and make a photobucket account lockdown joke (given the Summer 2017 timing), but I'll just post it now as a suggestion to reboot your routers to celebrate GDPR day:
The malware payload will delete when you reboot, and can no longer reinfect as of Wednesday.
I have no idea how to resize it, so you'll have to click through.
Yeah, that's a load of gooseshit. I get that they're trying to send the message of "we're hip, cool rebels", but the actual message they're sending is "we're a bunch of geese who don't take your privacy seriously."
Not how I took it at all. I think it's entirely possible that they are, as represented, neither collecting that sort of data or have any interest in doing so.
Which would make them a rare exception on today's Internet, but those do exist.
(I also get the impression this is not exactly a large outfit, which gives me the image of going over to your stereotypical corner lemonade stand and asking to see their nutritional information and materials safety sheets. And the kids/tweens just stare at you and ask if you're gonna buy some lemonade or what?)
Nobody can tell over the internet, though. Average internet startup that is a handful of people can easily run data scrapes constantly and ask for permissions to everything when you install their app.
It might be that they feel given what their business does and the size of it that this email they are required to send out seems really silly, but it's a point of view that is ignorant to the fundamental issue that customers literally don't know what any given company does with their data.
Sorry, but no, these are not kids running a corner lemonade stand. They are running a business, however small, and they can actually treat their legal obligations (and yes, GDPR is a legal obligation) seriously, instead of putting on an affect of "such a drag, man". There are ways to write such a letter so that it comes across as both not boilerplate and acknowledging the seriousness of the matter. What they did - ain't it.
Certainly not worth getting any knickers twisted over.
I guess to me it depends how big they are.
If its like a list of a thousand people run by some guy who just really likes talking to people about music, who has the potential to make money off his users, but really just makes a few bucks a month on patreon and selling T-shirts then I view this as an example of the weakness in the structure of the GDPR which is a law with great intentions but horrible implementation. You are right in latter posts, that you can't really tell if they are just one guy in a basement who loves Jazz, or a wholly owned subsidiary of BIGmusic CORP, but in reality those two entities have different existences and different legal responsibilities.
If its one guy in a basement, then the fact he uses his email list to sell hats and announce new content no more makes him a big data company than I am a big data company when I ask my friends to chip in $20 for a BBQ and pick the time to have it using a form. If you send him personal information, then thats on you. Now, he has different responsibilities when it comes to processing credit card information, but, thats primarily to do with his relationship with the credit card companies and there are large companies you can go to to do that (don't need to screen print your own shirts for sale, just have a storefront on customink or whatever).
I view there as being a fundamental breakdown in the relationship between small content creators and their fans in the GDPR, which effectively forces them all to go through a major content website to protect themselves adaqautely. Our Jazz Video Podcast can't be hosted on our local website any more, because we don't have the resources to confirm compliance with GDPR, we have to go through youtube and use their standardized protections.
I don't know whether this is a good or bad thing yet, compared to the obvious good thing that is say, "You should have the right to ask companies what they know or have inferred about you" or "If companies have used data that isn't publically posted to compile stuff about you, you should be able to ask them to delete it"
He's a bit more up on computer/privacy issues than most but the disclosures don't seem real onerous there.
Steam Integration probably counts as personals, given Steam takes credit card info. They probably could have gotten away with not doing it but decided to be decent.
The FCC is giving funds to help restore telecomm infrastructure in Puerto Rico, but it has dark aspects to it that they did not want to mention publicly in their announcement. The money is going directly to telecomms, as I'm reading it (which is why I didn't word this as giving funds to Puerto Rico). In exchange for this near-billion dollars, they're going to dry up a well of funding used to help those below the poverty line in the USA, and also kill off that well's funding. A lot of Puerto Ricans rely on this assistance program to pay for their phone & internet services.
So the short of it is the FCC is helping corporations re-establish themselves in Puerto Rico, but is screwing over the people of Puerto Rico to do it.
https://slate.com/technology/2018/06/the-fcc-plan-to-restore-puerto-rico-internet-and-phone-service-has-a-trade-off.html
I feel like law enforcement really let the internet get away from them with regard to being able to trace phone calls; and I'm honestly a little surprised I haven't heard of any draconian legislation attempting to solve that problem.
Two questions: Have they? If it's even technically feasible to trace someone using widely available methods, what would it entail?
I think the whole tracing phone calls thing has more to do with somewhere along the line it was determined that it wasn’t worth it to expend the money/effort. Similar to how they don’t do a lot to prevent/catch credit card skimmers.
Like I said, I figured if it'd been voted on, the thread title would have changed.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
This isn't going to be a game-changer.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
In my experience almost everyone I've talked to has been hostile to getting rid of it once I can actually explain what it is.
Doing that can take a surprising about of bullshit removal though.
Sometimes its as easy as Comcast owns NBC, which owns MSNBC, so by removing Net Neutrality you're allowing Comcast to throttle/limit your access to Fox News/Breitbart/Infowars while making it easier for you to get your news from MSNBC.
https://slate.com/technology/2018/06/net-neutrality-is-officially-dead-heres-how-youll-notice-its-gone.html
This pretty much covers it, doesn't it?
Changing tack slightly: does anyone know how I can tell Boomerang that I want them to delete whatever info of mine they have?
move to the UK
There's also an Article 11, a "snippet tax" requiring payment for posting snippets of new articles. (Such as the ones in this post. Dunno who'd have to pay, though.) Germany and Spain already have that.
The vote is next week.
The proposed law, to me, appears to suffer form politician's logic: Something must be done. This is something. Therefore it must be done.
This is the issue with almost all internet associated law lately. The folks designing it have no idea the implications of the changes they are making.
This is just horrifying. And no, "just don't use the devices" is not an answer - we need to have a resolution to this that doesn't just put blame on the victim, who often doesn't have the technical skills needed to counteract the abuse.
While I agree there needs to be a non-victim blame solution here, these devices are inherently unsafe by their nature and not using them is actually a pretty good call until security gets waaaay better. Nobody should use them.
Why does it need to be connected to the internet? Why do you need somebody to have remote access to it? What possible benefit is there to have somebody ring it when they are otherwise not in front of the door or house?
Generally the wireless end allows you to view who just rang your bell... even if you aren't actually at the House
Angel's post includes a woman who's doorbell would ring without anyone being at the front door. It's useful to see who's there, but The Wolfman's point is what the hell is the point of being able to RING it without being there. Why have that functionality at all.
Indeed, never buy any device which can be controlled by anything outside your house. IR and direct line of sight 'networking' is fine, but never use a device which requires the internet to fulfill a basic need.
other than a PC or smart phone ofc