2,635 karma · joined December 8, 2014
The slide out menus would be a shame, but I'd give that up to prevent it's rampant abuse everywhere else.
It might be that I'm dumb and can't figure out how to add a ublock/umatrix rule to block it, but I'd love a single purpose addon that just deletes "overflow:hidden" in all cases.
Opening a bank account using those details is identity theft, because they are not /your/ details. No one cares if you owned the paper you wrote them down on.
Much like how if I leave my phone in a taxi, either deliberately or accidentally, I don't own the taxi, but I do still own the phone.
Comparison: The bank's hard drives hold my money, but it's still mine and not theirs.
However, I've found GDPR deletion requests to be a pretty strong cudgel. For the last 10 years or so I've been sending deletion requests for accounts when I no longer need them. Prior to GDPR, about 50% of responses would be along the lines of "in the nicest possible way, we don't care about you enough to do that so please fuck off". Reading between the lines, I assumed that about 50% of websites were implemented poorly and didn't properly support deletion.
Post GDPR, all but one request have been given a polite "we have done as you have requested, we hope to see you as a customer again". GDPR has both legitimized the process of requesting that your data has been deleted after you're finished using a service, and has legitimized the concerns of all those developers who were never able to get engineering time to properly support account deletion.
So it's been a success, it could be succeeding more but I'm not unhappy. I would still like to see at least one company get ICBM'd in order to remind larger entities that they've got responsibilities to society too, not just their shareholders.
[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/03/data_is_a_tox...
If there are two boxes on the shelf, one with "Wifi 6" written on it and the other "Wifi 6E", it will be someones personal hell to explain the difference between the two to a customer who is not technically minded enough to understand "6E is faster, but only if your other devices are also 6E", but is completely obsessed with making the absolute optimal decision about whether the extra $20 is worth it.
How does workstream, or indeed any remote computing provider, handle the possibility of people using their service to attack other computers, or to store/transfer extremely illegal data? They're not exactly running KYC identification.
>As I've written and as Iceland is showing, testing every American every day and giving those who test negative a badge for the day to work, shop, frequent restaurants, etc. will let us separate those who are healthy from those that are sick
Not sure what Forbes is talking about here, Iceland sure isn't doing that.
There's two parallel tracks for testing here in Iceland.
If you think you might be sick, you can call 1700. That'll pipe you through to the national health system who are running short on testing kits just like the rest of the planet and are saving them for people who are actually showing up at hospitals, so they know what to treat them for. If your symptoms are mild, you'll be told to self-quarantine for 14 days, and you won't get tested. There are currently ~10,000 people in this state: https://www.covid.is/data
Alternatively, decode genetics is doing public testing, but you have to call them and book. They're booked out for weeks, and they're not directly sharing the test results with the public health sector in any kind of public register, they're just giving the test subjects the results directly. They're constrained in their ability to publicly share personally identifiable medical data, as they should be even in a crisis such as this.
But as for this "badges for people who test negative", I have no idea what forbes is talking about. No one here is getting badged, nor have I heard of anyone getting a test a second time. In so far as Iceland is experiencing good success managing covid, it's because Icelanders are just being a very civilized and well educated people and have been respecting the quarantine with relatively little coercion required and with very little in the way of crazy hoarding. Plus, every shop I've been to has used tape to mark out 2 metre increments from their till to help people line up safely, and almost all of them have hand sanitizer available for customers to use after they've used the credit card PIN pad. Little things like that help.
However, Iceland is by no means out of the weeds yet. The governments estimate as researched by the university of Iceland ( https://covid.hi.is ) thinks we might cap out at 2500 infections total, which is around 0.7% of the population. That's revision 2, the first estimate thought it might cap out at 1200, and they had to double it pretty quickly.
On the other hand, a local software developer I met a few years ago who is a pretty switched on guy smashed out this estimator ( https://covid-cases.now.sh ) which does some simple viral modelling to make relatively non-controversial predictions, and it's suggesting that we could cap out at more like 30,000 based on the last 14 days of growth, which is a solid 10% of the population. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle, hopefully more towards HI's estimate.
So in synopsis, Forbes seems to be making things up, and as usual Iceland is not actually a glorious northern paradise run by prescient sages. We're just as worried and in the dark as the rest of you, and our government is fumbling the situation a bit as well. Fortunately, our population is much smaller, so it's easier to adjust for the fumbling as we go along.
A) Direct bank to bank transfer
B) Cash
So now there is a ~1000kr/month fee for using the bank here, with a ~8000kr startup cost, because you need a phone and a sim card.
I'll bet you a dollar that neither crmrc114 nor 23&me asked /all/ the stakeholders in this particular transaction for consent.
Laws take a long time to be revised. By and large, our public photography laws are still based in a time when most photos would become a negative which sat in a box for 30 years and then got thrown out.
I hope that we will see better progress in the area of rights of insignificance and the quiet enjoyment of ones life before we reach that point.
If we don't, it'll be a bumpy ride until the law catches up.
That actually doesn't really solve the problem. People sometimes use cameras in the most inappropriate of places. If a friend of mine has a motorbike accident and breaks an arm and someone from the side of the street goes "coooool" and pulls out his phone and starts streaming, I can storm over there and slap the phone out of his hand.
You may or may not like the idea that I might do that, but I think it's appropriate and if that person disagrees then fuck 'em, they can argue it in front of a judge in small claims court.
The problem with glass, even with a flip down camera, is that /I have to hit you in the face/ to do the same thing. There's no way to make a glasshole stop filming except to stick my mittens near their eyes, and I'd totally agree with any judge that said my going for someones face to make them stop filming is a far more aggressive action than slapping a phone out of their hand.
But therein lies the problem. If you don't have the social awareness to know that you shouldn't be filming someone, if you're using glass I can't force you to stop filming without severely escalating the situation.
It's a socially inappropriate design.
Restaurants lose a lot of money throwing out food that's probably good enough by the standards that most of us use in our kitchens at home but because there was an excursion in the fridge temperature of 2c or whatever the law says they have to throw it out.
They could make a lot more money if they didn't have to do that, especially if chefs were allowed some discretion in when things are "out of date" like they used to have prior to food safety laws.
However, as a society we actually don't want chefs to have that discretion because although we might trust an individual chef we sure don't trust every chef. So we set rules for restaurants because we would rather have some restaurants go bankrupt and there be fewer restaurants around than have everyone risk eating food that might be below standard every time they go out. Instead, we set an objective baseline criteria for food standards.
Same thing with privacy. Your personal standard of privacy may or may not be higher than my personal standard of privacy, but society-wide we don't want privacy to be a roulette wheel or a tragedy of the commons, so we set an objective standard for it.
That may or may not bankrupt some ad-tech companies who are reliant on the dodgy-chef techniques, but that's not a loss to society as a whole any more than losing dodgy restaurants would be.
- It looks bad to the public if companies directly pay the ransomware creator. Decryption companies can act as a PR "buffer" in that respect.
- By funneling the western worlds contact with ransomware creators through a small number of companies, we create an incentive for ransomware creators to follow through with providing the decryption keys and not play games with the price. If they fail to hold up their end of the bargain, their reputation will immediately be ruined within the small number of companies that do this.
I also don't really think it's that big a deal to ask the government to once a year go "we all still think rape's pretty uncool? yep? great, all in favor of amending the Consolidated Sexual Offenses Act 2019's expiry to be 2038, up from 2037? Done! Moving on."
I imagine any politician that objected would get eviscerated in the public eye. Should be a one-hour-a-year process to knock out all the key stuff, particularly if everyone knows first sitting session of the year is the refresh-the-core-values session.
Seems like the kind of thing that should have no trouble getting rubber-stamped every few years.
Lets invert that though.
In 1615 Iceland passed a law stating that any Basque that set foot in the Westfjords /must/ be killed. They got around to abolishing it in 2015.
Seems like the sort of thing that probably should have been revoked earlier, no?
More generally, most countries legal codes are a god damn shitshow of strata so dense it takes years to decades of study to understand them even a little.
As a result, rulings are arbitrary and hard to predict, citizens are uninformed on the law and can be blindsided by vindictive police, new laws are disproportionately hard to create due to conflict resolution with old laws being required and parliaments enshrine old laws in tradition and are lothe to amend them.
In general, it's the legal equivalent of that codebase that no one is willing to change because no one remembers why things were implemented in the first place.
Lets not pretend that adding expiry clauses to existing or new laws would lead to a world where murder is legal. That'll get tracked pretty closely and refreshed on the regular. I would expect two outcomes:
1. A government department is created specifically for the purpose of tracking and ranking upcoming law expiries by importance. We should probably have something like this already.
2. For the things society holds really dear, murder/rape/assault, taxes, driving laws etc, I would expect to see a regular "refresh the core issues" session at the start of every year. Essentially a formality where the government can go "yep, torture is still bad, moving on".
However, I'd expect most of the random statutes against oral sex that are still all across the US to expire pretty quickly with lawmakers by and large not giving enough of a shit to refresh them, and that's /good/. Those laws serve no meaningful purpose, their only use is as a weapon for corrupt police to threaten average citizens with.
I can see you're all aboard the "why isn't everyone using python3 already" train and that's fine, but not every python codebase can just be thrown through six, and even the ones that can aren't always actively maintained. This is yet another example of how bad the python devs screwed the pooch on the 2->3 migration. We're on this wild ride for the long haul I guess.
That's a highly specific scenario that I personally would solve with a motion sensor light if I felt it was likely to happen often.
My own personal experience was that they noted my report, duly filed some paperwork in their write-only document storage system, and then went back to issuing traffic fines.
Do your police do that?
This has been effectively solved by three different tools. Take your pick from:
* Appimages
* Snaps
* Flatpaks
Naturally they all have their own upsides and downsides, but if the only thing holding you back from shipping to linux is concerns about fiddling with shared libraries, just pick one at random and move on. I suggest appimages as feeling closest to a fat binary without triggering various licence clauses, deliver it like it's an exe.
There's nothing wrong with one side or the other asking for a negotiation or renegotiation in good faith. Contracts are not immutable, they get amended all the time for all sorts of reasons.
Choosing to withhold your labor until a renegotiation happens is an extreme tactic that is likely to generate bad faith from the other party long term, but it's always legal and always moral because our society considers slavery unacceptable.
Contracts are an important part of working conditions, as are workers perceptions of self-worth. If your contractual working conditions are demeaning such that you're prepared to not get paid and potentially risk being terminated in order to protest the demeaning conditions, no reasonable person would attempt to force you to work.
It is to the companies benefit in these cases that knowledgeable employees attempt to solve the problem rather than simply leaving. It is much cheaper to amend contracts than train new workers. This is a classic case where amending relevant contracts benefits everyone.
Is that does that help you straighten this out?