It tracks anonymous statistics, without my express consent, for the benefit of a third party. I do not care if it exists to replace cookies, because I’m not even convinced that cookies need to exist at all anymore. What utility do they provide to the actual person using the browser that can’t be accomplished through some other more modern API? If the only functionality left to replace is tracking people then maybe just deprecate them and move on.

Telegram had credibility. It was being used by journalists to protect sources.

You can extend trust to individuals but do not apply that to companies or organizations if you care at all about what they’re doing with what you give them. Not everyone has some mythical tech privacy wizard on call to give them perfect advice every time they open an account on an app or website.

Even client side encryption is not infallible. The algorithm you use will eventually be crackable and probably sooner than you think. Nothing lasts forever.

The most foolproof way to ensure something remains private is to not put it on the internet at all.

If you can read and understand the code, sure. Otherwise you’re still just extending trust to someone perhaps less reputable than even the corporations who are dying to sell you out. For example, the back door some mysterious contributor slipped into xz recently.

My recommendation is to live life as if privacy on the internet did not exist, because it doesn’t.

Never trust a third party to keep your shit private. Especially if privacy is their main selling point.

Yeah it is possible he’s accurately, but misleadingly, calling it a bug because it was not meant to be deployed to production (yet). I do not think that’s how he wants or expects people to take it when he calls it a “bug”, though.

you don’t get entire functional UI elements accurately populated with appropriate data out of a “bug”. at best its a feature that was being tested internally and never would have made it past that, at worst its something that went live early.

Human Shield is a fun little linguistic trick that turns innocent human beings with lives and internality similar to your own into prop objects wielded by an inhuman enemy. This makes it way easier to justify mowing them down in service of your geopolitical goals. Every time that phrase is used it is a sign that someone is probably trying to justify something inhumane; usually something that would be considered a war crime if done against the ones using it.

did u know republicans also drink water and breath air? makes u think doesnt it

In order to be doing the “same thing” I would have to be suggesting violence as a means to establish a white ethnostate, dipshit.

Drawing a parallel between violent revolution of oppressed people and virulently racist bigots because they also use percentages to decribe a thing is asinine. Fuck.off.

The problem with violent action is that, to have a chance to succeed, you need a critical mass of support. Not like 50% or anything, but enough that you can’t be easily quelled. The only way you build that support is by suggesting violent resistance to people who scoff at you and accuse you of being unserious until the last straw finally breaks their back and you don’t sound so ridiculous anymore.

“I smelled weed” is the classic cop trick to skirt around probable cause.

deleted by creator

“()()” is an ambigram, which wikipedia describes as “visual palindromes”, for whatever that’s worth.

The only thing that has successfully managed to thwart the FBI in their attempts to break into a phone was Apple’s hardware based encryption. To such an extent that they took legal and legislative actions to try and circumvent it. The specifics of how the encryption works is irrelevant to this argument, and you are more than welcome to consider that point conceded.

I’m not claiming iPhones are superior. I don’t care about dumb OS wars, just don’t put things on your phone expecting that they can’t be retrieved. That’s the only point I’m trying to make here.

And the keys absolutely would give them access since those keys are used to sign Apple software which runs with enough privileges to access the encryption keys stored in the “Secure Enclave”. Anything you entrust to a company’s software is only as secure as the company wants to make it, and the only company to publicly resist granting that acces is Apple (so far)

The Secure Enclave is a component on Apple system on chip (SoC) that is included on all recent iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, Apple TV and HomePod devices, and on a Mac with Apple silicon as well as those with the Apple T2 Security Chip. The Secure Enclave itself follows the same principle of design as the SoC does, containing its own discrete boot ROM and AES engine. The Secure Enclave also provides the foundation for the secure generation and storage of the keys necessary for encrypting data at rest, and it protects and evaluates the biometric data for Face ID and Touch ID.

https://support.apple.com/guide/security/hardware-security-overview-secf020d1074/web

The FBI wanted access to Apple’s encryption keys which they use to sign their software. They don’t have ‘your’ encryption keys, they have their own that the FBI wanted to use to bypass these features. They eventually dropped it because they found a zero day exploit which apple fixed in later versions. That is why the newer phones aren’t vulnerable (yet).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple–FBI_encryption_dispute

They’re exploiting vulnerabilities and back doors not brute forcing your passcode. The only way you’re keeping them out is with hardware encryption which the iPhone has and probably why it’s the only one not vulnerable. Hardware encryption also won’t matter if your vendor shares their keys with law enforcement. As far as I’m aware, Apple is the only one that’s gone to court and successfully defended their right to refuse access to encryption keys.

Don’t put anything incriminating on your phones.

All you’ve really demonstrated is that China and Japan are well represented in one very specific pollution phenomenon but not why that is. There are a number of reasons that those two could be overemphasized that aren’t “these guys are doing all the plastic pollution”. For example, ocean currents probably play a big role, in combination with the location of the patch itself.

You cannot extrapolate this out into a representative sample of the sources of all plastic pollution, it’s statistical gymnastics. Hell, the article you linked even offers an alternative explanation for why Japan is so high:

One of the reasons that Japan is thought to contribute so highly was that the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami washed large amounts of debris offshore.

It’s at the end of the article though so I can see how you might have overlooked it in your rush to place all the blame on foreigners.

In this real world people don’t vote for popular candidates, I am a political genius.