Ansil849

If an attacker is targeting your first name, there are any number of ways they can extract it from you in ways that are far, far easier than having to more or less literally sit on your shoulders so that they're in the same spatial coordinates as you to be able to see the custom display. They could catch your name on your boarding pass, unless you never display it inadvertently. They could read it from a luggage tag. They could catch your name off an order at an airport restaurant or cafe, unless you never give out your real name. They could also just ask you at the gate, unless you always give a fake name when introducing yourself to people as well.

The point being that 'guarding my first name at an airport' seems like an extremely niche concern, that far surpasses this particularly technology.

I'm genuinely not understanding the embarrassment. If you're saying you're embarrassed about going to a particular destination, do you not sit in the designated gate area? Do you sit elsewhere? What do you do when it's actually time to board? This seems like a personal neurosis that would far surpass any potential issues with this technology.

Anyone will know the same points of information about you that are on the board: your gate number, your departure time, and your destination city - without having to occupy the same spatial coordinates as you, as they would to see your custom display. At that point, all they'll be missing is your first name, which they can ask you for.

If the board displayed information like your confirmation or ticket number, then I agree there would be cause for concern regarding exposure of personal information. But I don't see how destination city/departure time/gate number/first name constitute a privacy concern.

> I wouldn't want random people in the airport to see my personal information.

Why not? I'm as much a privacy advocate as anyone, but I don't see the big deal here.

The board seems to display your first name, your gate number, your destination city, and your departure time. Why is it a concern that strangers potentially standing next to you might see this? You already see tons of boarding passes while waiting in various airport lines.

My point is that people don't typically care about these four data points, so why is it a concern that they're displayed on this board (which ostensibly only you or someone directly in your space can see), especially when someone can go to a random gate, and ask your name, and now they all the same data points.

> So we now live in a weird world of, everyone is breaking the law, who do we call on it?

Welcome to today's world.

This is the case, not just for corporations, but for individuals. Chances are near 100% that everyone breaks some law, every single day. This gives the State the power to prosecute you for thousands of offenses, if they so choose. There are thousands of laws, and normal lay people cannot possibly know about all of them. Moxie once wrote a fantastic blog piece on this I recommend reading: https://moxie.org/2013/06/12/we-should-all-have-something-to...

> For instance, did you know that it is a federal crime to be in possession of a lobster under a certain size? It doesn’t matter if you bought it at a grocery store, if someone else gave it to you, if it’s dead or alive, if you found it after it died of natural causes, or even if you killed it while acting in self defense. You can go to jail because of a lobster.

This is just one absurd example out of thousands. And this is precisely how the State maintains coercive power over people. Everyone breaks some law, so the State can pick and choose whom to go after based on whatever random reason triggers some bureaucrat's or cop's ire.

Because of data disclosure concerns, in that students' data may be disclosed to US interests.

> I really miss Windows 95/98 era UIs. They were so much more practical and less noisy than current generation UIs.

This. I miss the practicality of these designs. It feels like designers today make changes to justify having work to do to maintain their jobs, and don't actually care about user experience, and in fact many are actively user hostile (see 'dark patterns').

You can't "gamble or porn a website" either. But alcohol and nicotine companies have an online footprint, and you can buy alcohol and nicotine online.

Or in other words, there is web content that directly facilitates other 'habits' that are way more prevalent than gambling or adult content, so it stands to reason that if the intention is to break habits, the initial focus should be on the most prevalent habits.

What irks me about this is the disingenuous concern trolling in the title:

> Aiding to break habits

If mullvad's intention with these blocklists is to help break habits, then why is the focus solely on gambling and adult content? Alcohol and nicotine 'habits' far surpass porn and gambling habits, so why is there no option to break habits by blocking, for example, smoking and drinking related content?

Why is this bullshit tolerated? What I see is a band of thugs terrorizing a person.

And I say this as someone who skateboarded all through junior high and high school. We did so while doing our best not to be living stereotypes of being braindead assholes.

> If I'm watching your average YouTube video, I don't doubt for a second that the content on display was made intentionally by the video host.

Why not? Parents pressuring children to gain celebrity status isn't exactly an undocumented phenomenon.

> How do you know an actor or actress is not performing in a shoot because they were forced to?

How do you know $worker isn't performing $job because they were forced to? If you're going to make the pearl-clutching argument that /anyone/ can potentially be in a coercive situation, then apply to to genuinely anyone, not just sex workers.

> This strikes me as unnecessarily defeatist

How so? I think it's just a realist view. What alternative would you suggest?

> banned from __________ without reason or recourse

That's the risk we all run when using services owned by others. The unfortunate takeaway is that you cannot trust other people.

Does this paper come with its own Data Availability Statement?

All this. I feel like people are not understanding that this is not meant to be a secure safe or even a deterrent. It is a home safe designed to keep valuables minimally safe from an average fire, with a side benefit of also preventing a toddler from swallowing your pearls. That's it.

> Why does half the entire read just focus on destroying this guys character?

Yeah, this was my question reading this piece as well. This article overwhelmingly reads like uncritical character assassination. I think whether the guy was a giant dick to coworkers should be tangential at best, if not outright irrelevant, but definitely not the centerpiece of the story, and yet it is.

> Leaked operational secrets = people killed.

Correct. Leaked operational secrets, like say via spyware installed on devices, = people killed. Which brings me back to my original question:

> What about the people who could be hurt as a result of the intelligence the CIA collects via the spyware?

So why is the fact that this leak could also save lives not pointed out?

> How exactly was someone "hurt" because of said spyware?

What do you think the information gleaned from the targets is used for, if not to harm the targets or others? This is beyond the fact that you don't think the mere act of having spyware installed on your devices is hurtful?

What's with the uncritical pro-CIA tone throughout this whole article?

Quotes like this go completely unchallenged:

> Karen, the O.S.B. supervisor, later recalled. “That information getting out into a forum like that can hurt people and impact our mission. It’s a huge loss to the organization.”

What about the people who could be hurt as a result of the intelligence the CIA collects via the spyware?

An advantage of Telegram over Signal or related apps is that if I am in a situation where I need to delete a message and leave no trace of it having been there then I can do this on Telegram. On Signal, if I delete a message it leaves a 'this message has been deleted' (or something to that effect) notification in the logs of the other party, which can be extremely undesirable behavior.

> but Google Docs handle it fine

As opposed to files that consist of a '1' in them [1], or .ds_store files [2]. Not to mention the risk of Google just decided to lock your account for no clear reason and you losing access to all of your files, like the hundreds of horror stories out there.

[1] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/google-drive-...

[2] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/google-drive-...

> Are there open-source implementation of Docs

Yes: https://cryptpad.fr/

Yes, there are some very popular white and ambient noise casts on Spotify. Just like with every other genre, however, for every one creator that's extremely profitable and successful, there are thousands who are not. So if your takeaway is 'huh, I should go throw up some generated noise on Anchor/Spotify', don't expect to make any kind of money from it.

This is as true for white noise as it it for any other genre, so I genuinely don't see the newsworthiness here, other than it's treated as a revelation that people like white noise (for an array of reasons).

> it's to accept the terms of the agreement for access to the unreal source code.

Alright. So if Epic Games are abusing Github Teams, why should the poster not be able to also?

> Sending email notifications to 400,000 users for unimportant things is antisocial.

What about requiring people to join a specific team to access the source for no apparent reason? In other words, how are the conditions which led to the creation of this inflated team not antisocial as well?

Huh. And yet why is that sort of annoying forced registration not considered 'antisocial', but this accidental tagging is resulting in calls for the poster to be banned?

I'm confused. Can someone explain why the Epic Games developers team has close to 400k members?

> I try to not mix work and personal content on the same laptop

It's kind of jaw dropping to me at how this is still not the norm and how people gratuitously mix personal and work content on the same devices, both mobile and desktop.

> It beggars belief that Yelp has gotten away with it. I have heard from 4-5 restaurant owners the same story: it costs $300 to hide bad reviews.

Is there documented evidence of this available? Emails with DKIM signatures, recorded conversations with representatives who can be confirmed to work for Yelp, official Yelp correspondence, etc? Basically anything that can actually make a solid case instead of just anecdotal evidence.

To clarify: I treat the BBB as a review site, to peruse before engaging in business with another business, to see what people have said about them.