fitblipper

They should have never been deployed to begin with.

How expensive are drones? Way less expensive than a police officer. They can be deployed at scale. You can imagine a world where every move everyone makes is tracked. If you don't think public spaces hold any 4th amendment protections, they can also see much better into private property that police officers can't see from the street. Back yard, second story windows, all angles into windows, and that is only considering if they use regular cameras, imagine when they have thermal cameras or other sensors.

I have fairly simplistic view of the economics involved here. Could you explain why the ability to sell more chips wouldn't be sufficient enough incentive to increase supply?

Might be nitpicking, but USC 1983 does not prevent anything, it is an attempt at restitution after the fact, and even then, when qualified immunity in play the efficacy of even that is questionable.

What does it cost a police force to abuse this technology? Maybe down the road they'll have to spend an afternoon in court explaining how they were just following orders or they were doing as directed by the department's policies at the time. What does it cost a citizen? Beyond the legal costs, it could cost their job when they don't show up because they were unjustly arrested, it could be a chilling effect on their speech when they see their politically active neighbor targeted.

I stand by my statement that nothing prevents the creep from happening. There is no realized cost to those who make it happen.

Just this morning I listened to an EFF podcast episode (Effector) about how license plate readers tend to suffer from mission creep. They might be deployed for one of the "reasonable" purposes you list but when the tool is available to lawenforcement it almost always becomes used for more and more purposes, like the example given in the article about tracking a woman who had an abortion.

The problem with these types of tools are that they provide a foothold into absolute enforcement, not just for current laws you find reasonable, but for all future laws from all future administrations which may not be reasonable.

Why should these cameras used for speeding enforcement today be used to track down protesters the admin decides to label as terrorists or legal immigrants who attended a pro Palestine rally tomorrow? They shouldn't.

What would stop that from happening? Nothing.

I don't think "could" is doing a lot of work here at all. It seems logical that if cases where the misuse of flock systems were discovered only when the same officers misbehaved in other, more visible situations then there are officers that avoid the more visible situations and continue to use the system that does not expose their bad behavior (flock).

That is far down the list of reasons someone might want to know who is performing actions against them with the backing of the federal government. Much higher on the list would be accountability if they do something wrong or to reference them in any follow up legal or administrative interactions they might have in the giant immigration system.

How many judges hide their identity?

Pardons only enable presidents to direct their goons to operate outside of the rule of law without repercussions.Having one individual with strong incentives to enable their team stay in power as much as possible retain the power is shocking.

Judges and juries are at least superficially removed from that sort of corrupt incentive system.

This could fit in well with the Pixel's upcoming desktop mode or Samsung DeX. Hopefully Google keeps developing desktop mode to make it more usable.

This is the tired excuses: If you've got nothing to hide then you shouldn't want privacy And If you already lack privacy in some places you should just give up on having any.

The first is stupid. If there exists capacity to keep things private, why would I NOT want to have privacy? What is in it for me to let arbitrary others see everything I do and am?

The second so strange to hear. It is an argument for turning the slippery slope of privacy erosion that you try to resist into a waterslide that you should enthusiasticly throw yourself down.

It seems like a centralized authority for DNS that must answer to some government is prone to censorship.

Would moving domain registration into a public Blockchain allow for a more resilient and democratized internet?

Organic Maps is great and I'm hoping the transition to Forgejo goes smoothly for the project.

I've recently started hiking and just generally going outside in my community more. When I relied on Google Maps I would get some random business highlighted when navigating around. Since I switched to Organic Maps I see trails, artwork, parks, scenic views, etc, etc that I never knew existed even in my own neighborhood. I also love the idea that if I find something not right on it I can just open up Open Street Map, make a simple edit, and improve the life of everyone else using the app that comes after me.

Have you ever experienced prison yourself or through someone close? Prisons don't put people on a level playing field at all. It is significantly more comfortable to be rich in prison than poor in prison.

Why do you feel that info is relevant? If my driver's license expired yesterday and then I get pulled over while I'm driving to the DMV today to get it renewed, should I not get a citation?

Just because they had permission before and after their actions took place doesn't make it ok if they didn't have permission at the time of the action. To say otherwise seems to be begging for abuse of a loophole. I guess that's why they had to claim the action wasn't one a warrant was required for...

With kids involved many of the rights you normally have are removed. Police and DCS can use your silence (or a pile of dirty laundry, or you asking for a lawyer to be present, or anything they want) as a reason they need to take your child and put them in foster care, claiming that they see your actions as attempting to hide abuse or withhold access to the kid for investigation.

Even more than phones, this is the reason our children are being raised stuck indoors, contributing to the ever increasing mental health crisis with our kids. Instead they should be able to discovering the pride and joy that comes from self sufficient, independent exploration of the world around them. The government and society should form a support for parents, not treat them like their kids are already wards of the state and the parents only exist to support the government.

They are claiming that it is privacy preserving, since it uses AI and not humans, and only for catching csam

Assuming those claims are true(I know, that is a big ask, but they claim it) what function do exceptions provide unless they are purposely giving those exceptions for the production and distribution of csam by those groups?

More likely their claims of the privacy and/or purpose are false.

I am thinking of starting a competing product that uses wifi APs for geo location instead of GPS satellites. I want to be a more customer friendly business than google or apple though, it'll only be opt-in. All you have to do to indicate that you have opted-in is to append "_nomap" to your AP name. /s

If I understand correctly, the research was only possible because they were able to leverage the Google and apple APIs against each other. The lesson I get from this is these companies shouldn't behave like they exist in a vacuum and when exposing data or forcing global configuration (like the AP name) they need to be more careful.

Seems like the perfect use case for timelock encryption: https://drand.love/docs/timelock-encryption/

My interpretation leans more towards NIST making an internal mistake in evaluating the algorithms, rather than NSA pushing its agenda.

Why do you say this? The NSA has done this exact thing in the past[1], so why give them the benefit of the doubt this time?

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG

When Tucson experienced a hazardous chemical spill during evening rush hour[0] officials required everyone to shelter in their homes to avoid the poisonous fumes outside. At the same time they closed tons of roads for miles around the area, even the inbound road access to many residential areas. What could people do who needed to get home to their kids? They had to park their car and trek a few miles to their homes. So much for staying inside.

I don't know my point really except to bring up another instance where local emergency response did not make sense and it is incredibly frustrating when it causes additional harm.

[0]https://www.npr.org/2023/02/15/1157174863/tucson-hazardous-c...

True, but I think that misses the point. I think the comment was an attempt at facilitating empathy for the incarcerated who are in this situation since for most people they don't see themselves as criminals (even those who are in fact criminals) and it is harder to empathize with those who you see as being part of a different tribe/group/class.

The fact is that these are fellow humans who are suffering, not because we decided as a society that this was what justice means, nor because this was the result of some study that figured out this would decrease recidivism, but just because some for profit institution decided they wanted to do something that would directly result in them suffering. That is enough for me to support this lawsuit.

Ring doorbells providing this information to law enforcement quickly and easily is working as intended and is part of the reason it exists at all. Amazon has even used police to sell the doorbells arguing it provides better security [1].

It is great that the people who had their video data provided to law enforcement were notified after the fact in this situation. I wonder how many people never find out due to national security letters not allowing it.

[1]https://www.vice.com/en/article/mb88za/amazon-requires-polic...

I am a paid subscriber but I am not happy with this at all. The mobile phone app is a pretty buggy, when I start typing in 1 place the cursor jumps to another. Copy/paste has also given me problems.

I do like that it encrypts locally on disk like it does in the cloud. Several other apps I've looked at has said at rest encryption isn't worth it, I guess arguing that users could use veracrypt or some other solution.

If I had to write a one sentence summary of Standard Notes it would be "An E2E encryption app first, a note taking app third".

This is horribly frustrating and I'm sorry you are facing this.

The thing I have taken away from these continual Tell HN posts about Google acounts getting locked up because of 2FA is that the "something you have" factor needs redundancy. I now have my phone, and 4 yubikeys on my household's carkeys and a trusted friends and a family member's firesafe. These have also given me enough stress that when I visited home for the holidays I added to my aging parents' Google accounts with a handful of additional security keys to go with their SMS 2FA.

Personally I would rather have accounts which are secure and can be lost if I am not careful with my 2nd factors than one that has vulnerabilities that the whole internet can attempt to exploit, but I realize others do not have that same priority.

The question the article proposes we ask ourself: "Am I fine with a bunch of people I don’t know, all of whom have my phone number and some of whom know where I live, reading all of this?"

Lots of people have in their mind something akin to a medical professional who can see their most intimate details and expect them to treat them with respect. They assume anyone with access to this will act professionally because they assume that is their job, and so the answer to that question is often "Yes".

It is clear to me personally that is not reality, but I'm not sure how to influence peoples perspective here.

There are groups out there measuring the cost related to identity theft. The $56 billion number wasn't pulled out of thin air: https://javelinstrategy.com/content/2021-identity-fraud-repo...

How do propose liability could be demonstrated with something like this? Do you expect hackers and fraudsters to cite their sources when they are defrauding someone?

Has any leak ever resulted in someone saying they could clearly id damages from a specific leak and then get compensation from the company who leaked it?

We aren't even told when a government entity looks at and uses our private information. How in the world would we know when a criminal does, and how would we be able to say they looked at that specific leak instead of one of the other 10 possible sources of my leaked private information?

Maybe it is time to pool the damages of all identity thefts together, (about 56 billion in 2021) and split the bill (+ maintenance and administrative costs for managing the money) across all businesses that have leaked private data. That money could be used as a resource to all identity thefts victims to be made whole.

Tiny tiny rss on docker desktop with tailscale so I can access it anywhere.

"Some metadata and usage information stored in iCloud remains under standard data protection, even when Advanced Data Protection is enabled. For example, dates and times when a file or object was modified are used to sort your information, and checksums of file and photo data are used to help Apple de-duplicate and optimize your iCloud and device storage..."

Photo checksums can't be e2e encrypted huh? They reported today they abandoned their plans to do CSAM scanning on people's devices[1] and connecting the dots it seems like they wont need to since they can just do it in the cloud.

[1] https://www.wired.com/story/apple-photo-scanning-csam-commun...

I was surprised at how much I enjoyed the Queen's Thief series by Megan Turner. I went into it not expecting much but came away from it surprised in a number of ways.