Met de dalende trend in postvolume zou dat best kunnen; zeker als overheids- (belasting, toeslagen, en boetes), zorg, en verzekeringspost voornamelijk digitaal zou gebeuren, en spam (energie collectieven, loterijen, en reclamecatalogi) zou worden geweigerd. Dan blijven voornamelijk tijdschriften en brievenbuspakketten nog over (waar de meeste klanten daadwerkelijk iets om geven). Misschien dat alleen stembiljetten bezorgen nog een opgave wordt (gezien praktisch ieder adres een poststuk ontvangt; de kieslijst zou eenvoudig digitaal kunnen), tenzij wellicht ook daar een veilig digitaal alternatief voor kan worden geboden.

Daarmee verdwijnt er wel een hoop werkgelegenheid, en een systeem waar de samenleving op kan terugvallen (indien digitale infrastructuur het af laat weten).

Did you really get raped, or did the roofie I put in your drink do its job?

It appears Google tries to degrade alternative application stores to just another app offered through the Play Store, and therefore subject to Google's policies (including an annual $5,000 fee for policy and security reviews). So I wouldn't be surprised this is very much intentional: as to force application stores through a channel controlled by Google, to technically allow competition (at Google's discretion) while ultimately killing "side-loading" through other sources.

I really can't stand the "Not now", where "services" (including Google's backup service) prey on the user accidentally agreeing one day.

Honestly, the tech seems quite impressive. But I wouldn't touch Amazon-backed smart glasses, which "could also provide health insights, such as detecting dry eyes or monitoring posture", with a ten-foot pole; especially when there's also entirely passive bifocals and progressives.

I despise Alex Karp and Palantir, but this feels like a pathetic attempt to discredit him, for reasonably throwing shade on grossly over-valued AI products, unsuitable within the context of critical infrastructure and enterprise. His Berkeley faculty member argument simply seems to be an analogy, for other models being capable of performing the task, but it simply not going to happen in his belief. This article appears to serve stakeholders of the AI bubble.

E2EE isn't really relevant, when the "ends" have the functionality, to share data with Meta directly: as "reports", "customer support", "assistance" (Meta AI); where a UI element is the separation.

Edit: it turns out cloud backups aren't E2E encrypted by default... meaning: any backup data, which passes through Meta's servers, to the cloud providers (like iCloud or Google Account), is unobscured to Meta; unless E2EE is explicitly enabled. And even then, WhatsApp's privacy policy states: "if you use a data backup service integrated with our Services (like iCloud or Google Account), they will receive information you share with them, such as your WhatsApp messages." So the encryption happens on the server side, meaning: Apple and Google still have full access to the content. It doesn't matter if you, personally, refuse to use the "feature": if the other end does, your interactions will be included in their backups.

Here's the link you may have forgotten to add: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/employers-are-using-your-personal-data-to-figure-out-the-lowest-salary-youll-accept-c2b968fb

It turns out reCAPCHA has been a privacy nightmare from the beginning: from silently monitoring user activity in the background, to sending payment information to Google; in order for an AI to assess the data, and return a risk-score to the website. But that apparently wasn't bold enough, and now an effective 2FA is required, which provides additional telemetry to Google (but not to the website or app: which is obviously the privacy concern). So get ready to 2FA with Google upon registration, login, updating your cart, and payment; or to skip the hassle, you should just let an approved "shopping assistant" make purchases for you ("that drive a projected 25% increase in average order value"). I don't even own a modern Android or iOS device, so how am I supposed to solve these?

Once again... Because Chinese models keep forcing US AI companies to prematurely release their backstock of "future" iterations, meant to sustain the hype train: leading to plateauing, decreases in investor confidence, and ultimately the demise of the AI bubble. And are we referring to Sam Altman as "OpenAI boss" now? Because people might otherwise stop reading after: "Sam Altman says..."

Isn't it ironic how ICE agents wear masks, while scanning everyone else's faces? Also props to Second Thought for not pushing defeatist mind-poison, because that's exactly what they want: for us to feel powerless, and making it seem "resistance is futile".

Most "name brands" have long been acquired by large umbrella corporations, and shortly after doing so, the "brand recognition" is often leveraged to market white label products; which is increasingly the only differentiator between it and off-brand products. That, and the price-difference: simply paying more for a meaningless "name brand", on an equally inexcusably poor quality product; besides a slightly less shitty customer experience, hopefully.

I really think it's poor design to purely filter on appearance of brands, rather than actual brand reputation. Yes, it might serve as an overgeneralized indicator for questionable reputation, but marketable brands shouldn't be treated as reputable either.

I never give apps I distrust permission to my photos, I instead select the photos in my gallery app and share them with the app. And as a side note, many users have cloud backups enabled, whether intentionally or accidentally (having clicked "accept" once, instead of "ask me later"); so big-tech likely stores a copy of the actual pictures, and depending on how lackluster the defaults are regarding privacy, have full access to it.

... drones often alter natural behavior simply because people or animals notice them. The disruption can cause wildlife to scatter and people to behave differently.

Ah yes, humans in their natural habitat: blissfully unaware to the fact that their every move is being monitored, mocking the "tin foil hatter" trying to convince them otherwise.

Why is this any better than a metal detector?

Asking the real questions here. My guess would be: they didn't have metal detectors, the metal detectors they had reached end-of-life, or preexisting metal detectors failed to integrate into a modern, unified surveillance system. And so the use of AI analytics tools, atop (preexisting) camera systems seemed more hassle-free (a subscription-based software integration) and cost-effective in the short term; that is if the unproven compromise bares any trust...

(1) Offer a solution which exacerbates bot-traffic on the internet, (2) legitimize the need for verification of users as a result, (3) offer the most privacy-invasive "solution" to the "problem" imaginable: problem(1)-reaction(2)-solution(3)... every parasite's favorite paradigm :)

For me it's their ransomware-like business model of: attracting new users with free accounts, incentivizing them to migrate their Gmail inbox to Proton (Easy Switch), encrypting the content ("for security"), and then letting them find out that a paid feature (Bridge) is necessary to integrate the mailbox into a third-party client like Thunderbird (as a decryption layer in between); well, unless you want to manually export the mailbox using their Mail Export Tool. I'm not opposed to paying for a service (I also donate to Disroot), but I dropped them like a hot brick when I found out: thankfully not the hard way (I tested integration before migration).

Welp, this was bound to happen, wasn't it? I'm pretty sure they're referring to this application, which I stumbled upon a while back. If I remember correctly, the app "allows" (or implicitly forces) the user to store a government issued identity: able to attest to an age-restricted website, whether or not the user is of age.

It does this, supposedly by "just" sharing an age-bracket with the website; but here's the kicker: the Union, in its generosity, has granted their citizens an in-app option, to withdraw this signal from the websites it has been provided to. What this means in practice, is the app storing one's government-issued identify, also ties back to every account requiring "age-verification"...

So now, every device containing the app, has the owner's government-issued identify on it, together with connections to every age-restricted service. And considering the apps are maintained by the Union, or member states (through their own implementations), creating a backdoor to the application's contents... I mean to "observe app usage", would be absolutely trivial.

Again, I've read it a while back, so some things might've changed, and my memory might be spotty; but I'm quite sure it's along the lines I've described.

It seems the mods have decided otherwise, whereas a dedicated community can set its own rules. Like I said in the body, I'm not interested in constantly being bombarded with political posts; ideally only when I explicitly choose to visit such communities.

It's been like that for quite a while. I remember deleting all big-tech accounts in 2019, and shortly after, Facebook started requiring login for full public page access. Therefore I created a burner account using a 'this person does not exist' picture, which provided me short-lived access after manual review. For account recovery, I was required to supply additional selfies (or even video-selfies?), but at that point I gave up.