@Mr Penguin
CEO of ThinkPenguin, Inc and co-host of syndicated radio show Free Talk Live.
Relays (1)
- wss://relay.ditto.pub – read & write
Recent Notes
"Amazon says it is ending sideloading on new Fire Sticks because 'apps that facilitate piracy, and other apps, can carry malware,'"
Ohh you mean like proprietary OS Amazon ships with the device????
Story from arstechnica.com:
https://archive.ph/wip/WluTf
Ohh you mean like proprietary OS Amazon ships with the device????
Story from arstechnica.com:
https://archive.ph/wip/WluTf
I may be no fan of the United States, but one benefit to living in a country this large is it has multiple organizations fighting for civil liberties even if some have not been as effective or focused...
And here is the answer regarding the legality of geofence searches, and it appears to be as I thought, that is geofence searches without a warrant are unconstitutional:
“'The Court’s decision confirms that law enforcement does not have a blank check to use new technology to conduct warrantless surveillance of people’s movements,' said Eden Heilman, legal director of the ACLU of Virginia"
“'The Court’s decision confirms that law enforcement does not have a blank check to use new technology to conduct warrantless surveillance of people’s movements,' said Eden Heilman, legal director of the ACLU of Virginia"
I may be no fan of the United States, but one benefit to living in a country this large is it has multiple organizations fighting for civil liberties even if some have not been as effective or focused on the sorts of things I'd be most concerned about.
The EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) just achieved a Victory with a ruling at the US supreme court. The ruling says the constitution protects location data. Basically it sounds like geo geofencing warrants are now illegal, although I have not taken a deeper look into the ruling beyond the EFF's summary:
"It confirms that even shorter-term surveillance of location data can constitute a search, because it can still reveal 'a wealth of detail about a person's familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.'"
The EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) just achieved a Victory with a ruling at the US supreme court. The ruling says the constitution protects location data. Basically it sounds like geo geofencing warrants are now illegal, although I have not taken a deeper look into the ruling beyond the EFF's summary:
"It confirms that even shorter-term surveillance of location data can constitute a search, because it can still reveal 'a wealth of detail about a person's familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.'"
1
"DNS4EU is a public DNS resolver, co-funded by the European Commission and currently operated by a consortium led by Czech cybersecurity company Whalebone. The service launched last year as a sovereign European alternative to non-EU resolvers such as Google Public DNS and Cloudflare."
The humorous part of this is that it at least appears they envisioned some kind of patriotism for the reason people would want to utilize their European's DNS server when in reality it's more along the lines that Europeans utilize these third party DNS servers to get around the censorship. Sure- you have a few users wanting them to censor their kids, but for the majority it's about privacy and countering the rise of totalitarianism.
The humorous part of this is that it at least appears they envisioned some kind of patriotism for the reason people would want to utilize their European's DNS server when in reality it's more along the lines that Europeans utilize these third party DNS servers to get around the censorship. Sure- you have a few users wanting them to censor their kids, but for the majority it's about privacy and countering the rise of totalitarianism.
Ya best be careful who you trust that claims to be concerned about your privacy, but also conscious of the fact there are those out there who want you to be afraid so you don't take steps to protect yourself (the FBI in particular has a history of creating distrust among organizations they infiltrate, political, that is):
"DNS4EU is a relatively young DNS provider that launched last year with European Commission funding. The company is pitched as a privacy-first alternative to Google and Cloudflare, but it also comes with site blocking in mind. DNS4EU has shown an interest in pirate site blocklists, including the one that's maintained by Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN. After looking into it, however, DNS4EU decided not to use them, because BREIN isn't a government authority"
"DNS4EU is a relatively young DNS provider that launched last year with European Commission funding. The company is pitched as a privacy-first alternative to Google and Cloudflare, but it also comes with site blocking in mind. DNS4EU has shown an interest in pirate site blocklists, including the one that's maintained by Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN. After looking into it, however, DNS4EU decided not to use them, because BREIN isn't a government authority"
"US Bill Would Mandate AI Chip Location Tracking to Thwart China and Other Adversaries "
These sorts of laws are fucking retarded. There is no way you can control what a third party does with a product after you've sent the product with them. You can have them sign whatever agreement you so desire, but enforcement is another matter.
This technology is likely something that can be gotten around through one means or another, but really what it is likely aimed at is tracking you and I. It's not going to prevent China from importing a mass produced product that is shipped around the world to random people.
The solution to the security problem is pretty obvious. Develop better military tech. It's not to restrict a mass produced consumer product.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/chips-security-act-gains-industry-support-letter-rcna350500
These sorts of laws are fucking retarded. There is no way you can control what a third party does with a product after you've sent the product with them. You can have them sign whatever agreement you so desire, but enforcement is another matter.
This technology is likely something that can be gotten around through one means or another, but really what it is likely aimed at is tracking you and I. It's not going to prevent China from importing a mass produced product that is shipped around the world to random people.
The solution to the security problem is pretty obvious. Develop better military tech. It's not to restrict a mass produced consumer product.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/chips-security-act-gains-industry-support-letter-rcna350500
nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kyqpqq45hz09g0dvshschpjss656arfefcrgn99p7x9q07dwakn34wense8chn9 There is literally no right to privacy or safety and the libertarian motto is no viole...
@nprofile1q... Best thing to do is call out these a-holes for not being libertarian and making up bullshit up and trying to twist freedom into some opposite thing.
nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kyqpqq45hz09g0dvshschpjss656arfefcrgn99p7x9q07dwakn34wense8chn9
This is 100% conservative, not libertarian:
"They stated: 'The right to privacy and...
@nprofile1q... There is literally no right to privacy or safety and the libertarian motto is no violence no crime or something of that nature.
The police have a motto of 'to protect and serve' and libertarians are constantly pointing out that the supreme court has repeated stated that the cops have no obligation to protect you. The point being we shouldn't have a theft-payer solution to security. Like schooling, security should be up to the individual. If you want it pay for it. If your not concerned or think those dollars would be better spent on keeping oneself alive (medical care) ... well... that's all on oneself once you eliminate government funding.
The police have a motto of 'to protect and serve' and libertarians are constantly pointing out that the supreme court has repeated stated that the cops have no obligation to protect you. The point being we shouldn't have a theft-payer solution to security. Like schooling, security should be up to the individual. If you want it pay for it. If your not concerned or think those dollars would be better spent on keeping oneself alive (medical care) ... well... that's all on oneself once you eliminate government funding.
1
So what is up with NH Liberty Alliance? Actually captured by conservatives or what?
The "Libertarian" Sponsors of State Force
|
The specific bills mentioned (like the DMV restrictions and bathroom b...
@nprofile1q...
This is 100% conservative, not libertarian:
"They stated: 'The right to privacy and safety for those who present as their biological sex outweighs the interest of others... As a result, it is a reasonable protection of liberty to allow for the use of shared public spaces to be separated on the basis of biological sex.'"
This is 100% conservative, not libertarian:
"They stated: 'The right to privacy and safety for those who present as their biological sex outweighs the interest of others... As a result, it is a reasonable protection of liberty to allow for the use of shared public spaces to be separated on the basis of biological sex.'"
1
So what is up with NH Liberty Alliance? Actually captured by conservatives or what?
The "Libertarian" Sponsors of State Force
|
The specific bills mentioned (like the DMV restrictions and bathroom b...
@nprofile1q... So technically sponsoring a bill to strip "gender identity" from state law entirely, allowing businesses and the state to discriminate based on "biological sex." is libertarian. It's not the states business regulating any of this. The solution to this problem from the libertarian perspective is to not do business with those entities that would force a biological sex policy on bathroom usage and end funding of things like government schools to ensure no one has violence (laws) used against them (either to pay for the school or to use a particular bathroom because they're forced to go to a government school because said dollars were stolen from their parents through taxation or theft).
The part that may be a problem in the short term and why this is probably a bad bill is it sounds like it allows the state to discriminate.
We have a lot of problems. Kids can't vote. Kids are taxed, but still can't vote. Kids are forced to go to government schools. This makes it worse for some... but it's actually par the norm.
What we don't have still is a libertarian controlled house. We have a libertarian leaning state relative to other states, but it's also definitely got a bunch of conservatives.
We had 13 reps initially vote for NH independence and then it near doubled to ?24? ... out of 100 so-called libertarians in the house.
Why did people not vote for independence? Many said they feared being voted out of office or some nonsense like that.
The point is libertarians don't control the state and conservatives have influence within the state even on libertarians. The left wants you to believe the libertarians have taken over- but it's a half-truth.
It's more like libertarian leaning individuals have more or less taken over the republicans.
The part that may be a problem in the short term and why this is probably a bad bill is it sounds like it allows the state to discriminate.
We have a lot of problems. Kids can't vote. Kids are taxed, but still can't vote. Kids are forced to go to government schools. This makes it worse for some... but it's actually par the norm.
What we don't have still is a libertarian controlled house. We have a libertarian leaning state relative to other states, but it's also definitely got a bunch of conservatives.
We had 13 reps initially vote for NH independence and then it near doubled to ?24? ... out of 100 so-called libertarians in the house.
Why did people not vote for independence? Many said they feared being voted out of office or some nonsense like that.
The point is libertarians don't control the state and conservatives have influence within the state even on libertarians. The left wants you to believe the libertarians have taken over- but it's a half-truth.
It's more like libertarian leaning individuals have more or less taken over the republicans.
1
So what is up with NH Liberty Alliance? Actually captured by conservatives or what?
The "Libertarian" Sponsors of State Force
|
The specific bills mentioned (like the DMV restrictions and bathroom b...
@nprofile1q... Well, so there are different organizations, and while there are free staters partaking in the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance group it's not just free staters and none of this necessarily means all A+ rated reps are perfect either.
Free staters make up less than 1% of the state and non-libertarians have been associating with free staters for quite a long time now. The republican party is no more. It's basically free staters and libertarians... but that doesn't mean the conservatives are gone. They're just cozying up and pretending to be libertarians. Just like libertarians run as republicans the republicans are infiltrating what have been largely libertarian-leaning organizations (again this isn't the free state project or free state project inc even).
Free staters make up less than 1% of the state and non-libertarians have been associating with free staters for quite a long time now. The republican party is no more. It's basically free staters and libertarians... but that doesn't mean the conservatives are gone. They're just cozying up and pretending to be libertarians. Just like libertarians run as republicans the republicans are infiltrating what have been largely libertarian-leaning organizations (again this isn't the free state project or free state project inc even).
"UK Official Promises Statements 'Around VPNs' and Further Teen Restrictions on Chatbots and Social Media "
Basically the UK is going to do what Australia has done in banning young people from social media and push juveniles (particularly as these bans become more effective) and probably even more so non-juveniles torward the darknet and completely unregulated markets in their quest to 'protect' kids. This is as sites are pressured to ensure kids can't get on (through severe liability) sites like Facebook will be forced to block VPN users too. When neither kids nor adults can get on Facebook they'll end up on sites that are not operating in the UK/Australia and do not have to comply with UK laws (4chan??? or was it reddit that blatantly told one or the other f' off?) and should the UK continue down this extremist totalitarianism direction they will be forced to block reddit and sites like it that don't follow UK law and VPNs. That will funnel kids into using Tor and accessing the darknet equivalents of facebook (and more decentralized solutions like Mastodon).
"'I have commissioned further research about their usage. There are really important issues to balance here,' she says. 'Many people want to use VPNs for privacy — that is important — but we know that some children use them to get around restrictions. I will come back to that in July in our response to the consultation.' So, we'll have to wait until next month for anything definite, but it's hard not to feel like a full ban on VPNs is already on the table."
Basically the UK is going to do what Australia has done in banning young people from social media and push juveniles (particularly as these bans become more effective) and probably even more so non-juveniles torward the darknet and completely unregulated markets in their quest to 'protect' kids. This is as sites are pressured to ensure kids can't get on (through severe liability) sites like Facebook will be forced to block VPN users too. When neither kids nor adults can get on Facebook they'll end up on sites that are not operating in the UK/Australia and do not have to comply with UK laws (4chan??? or was it reddit that blatantly told one or the other f' off?) and should the UK continue down this extremist totalitarianism direction they will be forced to block reddit and sites like it that don't follow UK law and VPNs. That will funnel kids into using Tor and accessing the darknet equivalents of facebook (and more decentralized solutions like Mastodon).
"'I have commissioned further research about their usage. There are really important issues to balance here,' she says. 'Many people want to use VPNs for privacy — that is important — but we know that some children use them to get around restrictions. I will come back to that in July in our response to the consultation.' So, we'll have to wait until next month for anything definite, but it's hard not to feel like a full ban on VPNs is already on the table."