Yeah, that’s not very typical, I’d like to make that point.
looking for replacements
r/anarchydnd
r/apolloapp
r/Condution
r/robotech
r/OSUOnlineCS
r/vintageobscura
r/ZeroCovidCommunitv
Yeah, that’s not very typical, I’d like to make that point.
Way to spoil my dream :(
Then you can plant it and grow more cocaine.
Woohoo, now’s my chance to get a cocaine-filled avocado!
Who am I kidding? Nothings better than actual avocados.
With its legislative proposal known as “Chat Control,” the EU Commission is trying to establish an unprecedented mass-surveillance apparatus of Orwellian proportions in the European Union. If EU citizens don’t stand up for privacy now, it may be too late.
This Wednesday, June 19, 2024, the EU Council could be voting on the controversial Chat Control bill. Should it pass, the consequences would be devastating: Under the pretext of child protection, EU citizens would no longer be able to communicate in a safe and private manner on the Internet. The European market’s location advantage would suffer a massive hit due to a substantial decrease in data security. And EU professionals like lawyers, journalists, and physicians could no longer uphold their duty to confidentiality online. All while children wouldn’t be better protected in the least bit. On the contrary, Chat Control could have a negative impact on minors in particular.
It doesn’t matter how the EU Commission is trying to sell it – as “client-side scanning,” “upload moderation,” or “AI detection” –, Chat Control is still mass surveillance. And regardless of its technical implementation, mass surveillance is always an incredibly bad idea, for a whole plethora of reasons. Here are just three:
1. Mass Surveillance is a Totalitarian Tool Incompatible with Democracy
2. Mass Surveillance Is Ineffective
3. Mass Surveillance Undermines Data Security
Of course, sharing CSAM is an absolutely intolerable, horrific crime that must be punished. Before CSAM can be shared online, however, a child must have suffered abuse in real life, which is what effective child protection should be trying to prevent (and what Chat Control does not focus on). For this and many other reasons, child protection organizations such as Germany’s Federal Child Protection Association are against Chat Control, arguing that it’s “neither proportionate nor effective.”
Besides, there’s no way of really knowing whether Chat Control would actually be (or remain) limited to CSAM. Once the mass-surveillance apparatus is installed, it could easily be extended to detect content other than CSAM without anyone noticing it. From a service provider’s point of view, the detection mechanism, which is created and maintained by third parties, essentially behaves like a black box.
Since the matter may be decided this Wednesday, June 19, 2024, time is a critical factor. If you’re a EU citizen, please consider contacting your government’s representative today, asking them to vote against Chat Control.
It may also help to take to the digital streets, spread the word online, and raise awareness for the EU’s dubious plan to establish an unprecedented mass-surveillance apparatus that would essentially nullify the right to data privacy and set a highly dangerous precedent in doing so.
While Threema would be subject to Chat Control, the business solution Threema Work would be out of scope according to our current knowledge. However it’s still not entirely clear how Chat Control would have to be implemented by service providers, and it’s questionable whether such a blatant violation of the right to privacy would hold up in European courts.
What is crystal clear, however, is that there will never be a Threema version that’s spying on its users in any way, shape, or form. The reason Threema was created is to provide a highly secure, completely private, and anonymous means of communication. Once it’s no longer possible to offer such a service in the European Union, we will be forced to take consequences.
We will carefully consider all options (including legal actions, technical workarounds, etc.) first, and if we come to the conclusion that there’s no other way, we’ll call on fellow communication services to join us in leaving the EU.
Not just UK. It’s a stupid term that organizations use in cybersecurity trainings but no one else uses.
If it doesn’t work, make sure to type his first:
⬆️⬆️⬇️⬇️⬅️➡️⬅️➡️ B A Select Start
Very short answer with little nuance:
Cops can arrest you for anything and are not required to know the laws. A court will sort that out. If there isn’t a specific law, the court can convict based on similar laws.
A collection of 2,500 leaked internal documents from Google filled with details about data the company collects is authentic, the company confirmed today. Until now, Google had refused to comment on the materials.
The documents in question detail data that Google is keeping track of, some of which may be used in its closely guarded search ranking algorithm. The documents offer an unprecedented — though still murky — look under the hood of one of the most consequential systems shaping the web
The discovery of volcanic lava flow in two different regions of Venus is published in Nature Astronomy. It supports previous evidence that Venus is still geologically active, and also suggests that volcanic activity may be greater and more widespread than previously thought.
The difficulty in confirming volcanism on Venus is the planet’s dense atmosphere which obscures much of what is happening on the surface.
But scientists were able to get a picture of activity by comparing images from when the Magellan spacecraft conducted global radar mapping in 1990 and 1992, with new images from 2023.
startpage.com or DuckDuckGo
Earth 2: Special Low Frequency Version
almost anything by Negativland
Kontakte by Karlheinz Stockhausen
almost anything by Einstürzende Neubauten
correct
not modified; selected
They deftly maneuver and muscle for rank,
Fuel burning fast on an empty tank.
Reckless and wild, they pour through the turns.
Their prowess is potent and secretly stern.
Well “technically correct” is the best kind of correct, so I’ll agree.
There are plenty of ways we shorten a specific phrase that renders it general but still understand it as the specific version.
The word “chemicals” is rarely misunderstood when used this way. Colloquially, many/most people mean “harmful chemicals” when they say it.
Is there room for misunderstanding? Yes. Is that a problem? Not any bigger than most problems with using spoken/written language to communicate.
You don’t come off as wise when you point this inaccuracy out, and It doesn’t invalidate the whole article.
swimming