Surprised to see anyone mentioning this here, NeuralCIM has been talked about for years behind the iron curtain. They also developed their own COVID vaccine and send hundreds of thousands of doctors to countries in the global south but even rich nations when they need help dealing with natural disasters. The US is viciously targeting them doing incredible harm nobody ever talks about.
> if we don't support truly independent, objective, investigative journalism, who will?
Like Eric Schmidt, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros and countless other billionaires through their "charities"? https://theguardian.org/
Just because they are liberal and non-profit doesn't mean they are independent, that only appears this way if you only think in the narrow confines of the Overton Window between "conservative" and "liberal" of mainstream discourse.
> “Kidnapping” is an uncomfortable word. It suggests force, illegality and wrongdoing. “Captured” sounds more respectable. It belongs to the language of war. “Seized” sounds calmer still — almost administrative, like someone found it on a supermarket shelf.
It means they are suspect. I think its right to be wary of motives if they are involved in the very thing they aim to bring awareness too. Questions arise in my mind as to why they would do something like this in the first place.
Its been my experience that the general public doesn't seem to follow patterns and instead focus on which switch is toggled at any given moment for a company's ethical practices. This is the main reason why we are constantly gamed by orgs that have a big picture view of crowd psychology.
I don't trust them more because of this and maybe they've disclosed it for the wrong reasons, like not allowing a competitor to use it when they don't, but at the end of the day they did disclose a serious issue, and that's good for users.
I understand where you're coming from, by the way, but sometimes the worst person you know does the right thing and it's not fair to criticize them for doing it (you could say nothing, don't have to change your opinion about them, etc). We also don't want someone to go "if I'm bad no matter what I do, then might as well make some money with this" and sell the exploit.
> I understand where you're coming from, by the way, but sometimes the worst person you know does the right thing and it's not fair to criticize them for doing it (you could say nothing, don't have to change your opinion about them, etc). We also don't want someone to go "if I'm bad no matter what I do, then might as well make some money with this" and sell the exploit.
I hear you. I guess I just want to promote more vigilance. Looking at patterns and motives helps us stay balanced about these things IMHO.
What are you even saying? It's like getting upset at somebody who criticizes a criminal because they once helped some grandma across the street. I'm not upset at the criminal because they helped a grandma across the street obviously that's not the fucking point.
I'm not upset, I just don't think we should criticize someone for doing something good. Maybe they're a terrible org, maybe they deserve criticism most of the time, but not in this instance.
It's not like you can't point out that they did a good deed, but that they're still in the shitty business of fingerprinting users.
Also, if people only get the stick no matter what they do, then eventually some will embrace the dark side and at least make money out of it. And that's not good for you.
The inverse is also true, letting them whitewash their image by pretending they care about your privacy and seek to protect you will be good for their public relations, but only if we let them. I refuse to be this gullible and run to their defense for no apparent reason.
They can pretend all they want. I know what their business is, my opinion on the practices haven't changed.
And yet, they did a good thing. I will criticize everything else, but not what they did right. It doesn't mean I'll go out of my way to praise them either... if it wasn't your comment, I wouldn't have said anything at all.
And like a broken clock that is right twice a day, sometimes a corporation also does the right thing, even if for the wrong reasons.
Nothing wrong with pointing out hypocrisy and bullshit, but criticizing something they did right? That's not how I operate. You are, of course, free to do things differently.
It's more like criticising a criminal when they are helping some grandma across the street, thereby treating them more harshly than the criminals that don't do that.
If you take their claim that they don’t use vulnerabilities in their products as true, then I don’t see a contradiction. If it isn’t true, then obviously there is a contradiction.
But your considering of all methods that enable fingerprinting as vulnerabilities is your own opinion. There are definitely measurable signals that are based on a user’s behavior, rather than data exposed by the browser itself.
They assassinate truckloads of people all the time too though, Mossad operations in the west are usually not even investigated or reported by western media, they just quietly release agents back to Israel if they ever accidentally caught them. Some info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_espionage_in_the_Unite...
Given the '72 events at the Olympics, that's reasonable. Altough their colonialism, para-Nazism (Zionism) with tons of school brainwashing and the IDF war crimes are on par on the Islamic fundamentalism sickos with madrassas and the like. Different shades from the same turd.
Edit:, in '72, Munich attacks.
While everyone in the Mediterranean was trading, sharing and mating each other (especially under the Roman empire) boosting commerce, sales and culture -relatively speaking to what you could find in a tribe-, these backwards shepherds (both sides) want to bring the world back to the Bronze Age.
The alternative would be to just not do anything and to remove liability from Meta et al. In the world we live in, where competing interests already spent tens of billions to bribe/lobby the EU, we have to be realistic about it.
This open source and transparent ZKP-based approach is extremely surprising to see, publishing a draft in advance and inviting the public to break it so it can be improved? Are you kidding me? What about the billions of private investment in all the companies that offer centralized ID checks like Persona, Socure, ID.me and more? Thats a growing billion dollar industry. They all counted on this as a future market opportunity that the EU just seem to have destroyed at least in the EU?
People fighting against this age id app might be paradoxically useful idiots for billion dollar investments and lobbying efforts. The demos is once again dragged into the trenches to fight a war they don't understand.
The main issue appears to be that as per the blueprint user MUST use one of the mandated handsets (iPhone or Android with pre-installed and privileged Google Services) and:
- MUST use either Google or Apple account
- must not be banned by the provider or sanctioned in the USA
These issues have been flagged to the devs working on the blueprint since the inception, only to be handwaved away.
Getting banned can happen randomly even if you're not doing anything illegal or wrong (it's enough for a robot to decide you're within the blast radius), getting sanctioned can happen if you're an UN lawyer investigating human rights abuses USA actually likes.
The technical specifications published online foresee publication of the app also on alternative android stores, but Linux phone users are missing out. Though I guess things could always be extended...
Their security model requires remote attestation. So, open, user-controlled platforms cannot be used. Of course some other future locked-down linux-based OS might be usable.
Remote attestation in theory includes all aosp-compliant attestation implementations (in practice that's GrapheneOS already), but the current project plans and implementation openly reject it.
Americans deep political confusion is really something to behold. How do you both hold the contradictions in your head? Every presidency no matter it's so called political ideology, liberal or conservative, have the same exact policies on mass surveillance? The Patriot act and fisa amendment was bipartisan, Obama voted for the Fisa amendment, Biden voted for the Patriot act.
The young people conservatives fantasize/complain about tend to be left-wing, their ideology has practically zero representation in politics, how do you make those the scapegoats of some confusing grand Jordan Peterson style social psychology argument it makes no sense. And how does republicans tossing civil liberties to "own the libs" mesh with libs slashing the same civil liberties? It's like the spiderman pointing at each other meme.
People don't understand that the way the media makes money is by stoking the "two sides" war.
People are so insanely ideologically charged up, the deepest conviction possible coming right from their lizard brain, all because they are lost in the sauce of an industry that is dependent on showing them random ads as frequently as possible.
It's actually kind of hilarious, and if you're one of these people, take a step back and see what's going on.
Exactly, representatives from both parties need to be forced to add FISA amendments that add privacy protections, most of everybody agrees with that enthusiastically if you explain it to them. Yet people are divided into their respective bullshit partisan trench lines by the two party theater.
No PRISM was the legal sharing of data, that's what op described just downloading all your data from the cloud companies. The thing you are thinking of is codenamed MUSCULAR that is evesdropping on unencrypted communication between yahoo and google data centers outside of the US jurisdiction where PRISM didn't apply (at the time).
https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/us-hardens-sanctions-targe...
reply