No, that's just fraud, and it'll get you in way more trouble
That's not correct. At least not in this context.
This will invariably lead to a terminated account and a bunch of declined emails , but thats as far as it goes.
Readit Newsthrowaway058527 commented on Adobe tricks users into a 12 month contract twitter.com/darkpatterns/... · Posted by u/zdw
Dead Comment
throwaway058527 commented on The EARN IT act is back, and it’s more dangerous than ever cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blo... · Posted by u/grappler
While this bill is strongly opposed by the Internet Society, ACLU, CDT, and EFF, the critiques I've read don't get much into the real "why" behind this legislation continuing to be pushed so forcefully. The pretext is, of course, "protect the children" and more generally law-and-order with a bonus side-helping of "stop those awful social media giants." While these justifications are (hopefully) obvious misdirection to most, I'd like to see more mainstream discussion about who this bill benefits and why. The legislation 'coincidentally' achieves exactly the agenda proposed by the "surveillance state" (ie CIA, NSA, FBI, DHS, law enforcement lobby, state prosecutors, etc). While it doesn't specifically prohibit public access to encryption, it seeks to create nearly the same effect by making it legally risky for large social media and platform companies to offer end-to-end encryption as a default to law-abiding citizens. It's no accident that almost every version of the bill creates this exposure to essentially bottomless legal liability for platforms offering secure communications.
Frankly, this scares the crap out of me. These people seem incapable of understanding the existential threat to free society and democracy posed by limiting everyone's ability to communicate private thoughts. While not explicitly outlawing untappable communications, it's much easier to identify who is choosing to use end-to-end encryption when it's not the typical default. This will ultimately put all of us who care about secure communications under default suspicion, whether our interest in private comms is a moral ideal, political principle or simply proper technical architecture and data hygiene. In today's multi-national environment of nation-state, criminal and privateer (NSO etc) threat actors, insecure communications over Internet infrastructure should only be seen as an ill-advised risky behavior or a technical bug.
Isnt it true that the "society" has dug its own grave ?
Where were the freedom of speech defenders (aclu et al) when the progressives and policians in that spectrum celebrated shutting down opinion by effectively monopolies of information (twitter, FB, google, cc infra)
Why is there no common ground? When speech is shut down, no matter the side its on, the net winner is the state.
Frankly there is no room for bipartisan support of anti security state.... Until and unless there is recognition of section 230 enabled abuses that are still ongoing.
Obviouly 230 should not apply uniformly to every single website, but thats the kind of nuance that is missing from the current debate.
Dead Comment
throwaway058527 commented on Privacy concerns are breaking the Census slowboring.com/p/census-d... · Posted by u/bpodgursky
Our family of 5 lives in a certain state where politics are very one-sided.
The Census tried to move heaven and earth to contact us. We avoided them like the plague.
Imagine my surprise when i heard that our state had lost a house seat, due to being 80 people short of the required population count to keep its prior state house seat apportionment.
By avoiding the Census, we were able to change the machine of bureacuracy far better than by regular voting.
Sometimes the winning move, is really not to play.
I have at least TRIED to come to peace with it, as much as I have been able (I am not young), but it resurfaces in ways that catch me off guard. Triggers that I have a hard time identifying (and that seem minor or inconsequential from a logical point of view) can instantly send me into a spiral of depression that can be very difficult to get out of. I have a hard time hiding it at work (in tech, higher up) when it gets bad but I feel that I must.
This is something that really upsets me as a father to multiple children.
Is it even possible for a biological father to do this? I've been meaning to google but I'm afraid of seeing the results.
I always assumed this would be limited to step parents, but Im afraid the truth is darker than i thought possible