So, let's be clear about this--if Chrome detects your DNS server is on one those lists, it will automatically switch to using DoH with the same provider?
Staples can't be microwaved. Yes I know, you can microwave the cup and then put the bags in, but some people make that mistake and (rightly) freak out when they see the fireworks.
Not to mention the water it is submerged in absorbs the actual radiation, so it generally doesn't even make it to the staple to begin with (at least, if you push the bad down to flood it before heating).
I find using kids for political reasons to be problematic.
I find using emotions instead of facts to sway the political discourse to be problematic.
There are legitimate reasons to be concerned or even angry at this. Maybe not good enough reasons to create an account on Twitter and scream into the void, though.
Somewhat, yeah. You're overwhelmingly a product of your parents opinions and you're largely doing what they tell you to do or allow you to do. Because of this, it just comes across as shallow. Greta complained about how she should be at school and was blaming the politicians. In reality it's her parents' fault she's not in school.
Sorry mate but that point about complaints is completely wrong.
A demonstration, whatever the type, is exactly that by definition. People interrupting their jobs because officials are not doing theirs well enough.
Ugh, you're right, compassion gets the better of me yet again. To be honest, her brave stance has really made me feel so lucky for the way I was able to live my 16th year. Hard manual labor for low pay during the summers, social anxiety about my social status and the mind-numbing tedium of school were the absolute best. I can't imagine where she finds the strength to give all of that up.
You don't need to. The reason fingerprints are problematic are because you can't get rid of them. They link all of your activity together into a single profile that you can't turn off.
Take a step back for a second -- why is it problematic to be able to link information to someone's real-world identity? Because who I am -- my address, my name, my face, and so on, is very difficult to change. It's a problem because once you've linked an activity to me in the real world, it's now permanently pinned to my identity.
So with that in mind, what is the difference between tracking where I live and stalking me in the real world, and tracking what devices I live in and where I go online? In both cases, you're taking away my Right to Hide, and forcing me to use a single profile that I can't walk away from or operate outside of.
Certainly, the difference isn't that the real world is harmful and the digital world isn't. You can abuse, stalk, price-gouge, censor, and deny service online just as easily as you can do it offline.
If you have a persistent identifier for me, that links only to me, that allows you to recognize me on every website I visit, and if I can't escape that identifier, then you have already traced that information back to me as a person. Knowing my name or my address doesn't matter, those are just facts about me. 'I' as a person am the persistent identifiers that point at me.
By asking some site which has PII of yours to look up the fingerprint and associate it with the PII. Like, anyone you've ever given an email address, phone number, or credit card number to.
Sure, let's give a hypothetical but quite plausible example. Let's say that I run website ABC and the ad intermediary scripts make a note that fingerprint XYZ visited my site.
They then give that data to Facebook who some days later records a visit from user srbby with the fingerprint XYZ, so they know that "srbby" with phone number 123455 (which fb has) visited site ABC.
Also, your aunt has your phone number in her contact list and she (as a few other people, to make it certain) lists a name "Bob Smith" for it, so FB can link that user "srbby" Bob Smith phone# 123455 visited site ABC.
Afterwards they sell that data to some ad agency that combines it with location data from either your cell phone provider (the major US cell providers sell such data) or some driving or taxi app to note your travel patterns and extract where you live and work.
So they know that fingerprint XYZ has the following (long) list of user accounts, visits sites like ABC, has that particular phone number, most likely is called Bob Smith, and most likely lives in such and such address and works at ACME Inc (or drives there every morning for another weird reason). For some fingerprints some of that data will be wrong, but it's mostly accurate, and definitely accurate enough for their prposes.
They don't really give all that data around to every advertiser just because (well, not for free), however, whenever an ad "auction" asks "heeeey, who's going to bid the most for which ad for fingerprint XYZ?" then this is the profile that's going to be used to make the winning, most targeted bid.
You can go to my ISP with a warrant and ask for their records. Which means that interestingly an IP address is only PII if the entity that holds it can lawfully request that information.
Using that logic, a browser fingerprint would also be PII if the ad network can use it to determine who you are, or presumably if they can link it to other PII.
My phone is a Nexus 5X. All I know is that the old Snapchat app would occasionally soft-brick my camera such that no other application (including the camera app) could use it until I rebooted my phone. I confirmed with multiple experiments that Snapchat was the culprit. After the redesign, the problem went away.
I recall that in Android if an app doesn't release control of the camera then no other app can access it until the phone is rebooted. I suspect this is what was happening here. AFAIK, it isn't a bug with the phone hardware etc. just poor os design. Hopefully they'll fix it one day.
Ref: 'Release the Camera - After using the camera, your application must properly release it for use by other applications.'
I remember the same problem in a Nexus 4. And Google said they couldn't fix it because it was a bug in a Qualcomm driver and they had no access to the source code.
I think the redesign fixed that because Snapchat no longer takes pictures with the camera. Instead, they take screenshots of the camera preview.
If such a problem arose on iOS, Apple would patch it. Android manufacturers don't usually have that option, as they sometimes don't even have the code to the drivers.
It's probably too vague a claim to prove or disprove. They could amend this sentence. Different companies have different impacts on software freedom that I'd be hard-pressed to compare.
However, consider Microsoft Office, which is widely used, and has some network effects. If a friend uses an iPhone, that does not really impact me (where I live). In contrast, Microsoft even has impact on people who would consider not to use their products. I'd also bet that there are far more Microsoft Office users than iPhone users. Windows also has huge network effects.
I agree with you though. The iPhone is a big offender in that it does not really allows you to run any code you could otherwise run on it, the only supported way of installing apps is incompatible with the GPL and Apple controls what you run on your Apple device (which some people find it's a feature).
Ah ah, the first link is yet another interesting "it makes sense" post from Raymond Chen.
The second link is saddening and I know iMessage is a problem in some areas of the world. Here, people expect that most people don't have an iPhone… and the problematic messengers are of course Facebook and WhatsApp. At least, here, it seems that most people understand that you don't want to use them. But you are still locked out of group discussions. You rely on people who like you to keep you posted because they want you to be at whatever event is being discussed there, and you are that one person who is not in the group chat.
Do you really think DailyMotion is a strategic asset for... anything? They most likely stopped the acquisition because they didn't want the founders to profit from something they built using state money (and maybe rightly so)
The founders built it using state money as an investment. They definitely fucked up reading the fine print though, and these issues were raised at the time they got the funding:
DailyMotion can be a strategic asset for a country like France. E.g. if they project a steep decline of broadcast TV and a YouTube monopoly, having a French-controlled video streaming alternative laying around may become important in the case of a USA-EU "cold war".
The chances for this scenario may be very slim, but countries at the level of France would want a contingency plan anyway.
I think that's reaching. That's not just 'slim', that's vanishingly small, so small that such a factor would never make it to consideration in a case such as this. The real truth is that it was the first time that France had a name on a website that had international recognition and they didn't want to lose that.
Sure, but that does not change the facts: France blocked the previous deal just because it could and there is no way of knowing what kind of a lottery you play if you accept funds like this in the future.
They blocked it because of a misplaced sense of isolationist protectionism. That's arguably very wrong in a global economy but it's not 'just because they could'.
