izacus

Now you're just bizarrely moving the goalposts instead of admitting you spread misinformation.

I login to 1Password on another device and all passkeys are there, and usable.

The OSes I use where that works fine:

- Android - Windows - Linux - macOS - iOS

That's just wrong. I use android, my partner uses ios. If he creates the passkey in safari, it's not going to get synced over to my phone. And that's just the first of the family sharing passwords issues. Same person issue is also present if somebody uses an iphone and a windows laptop, or chromebook.

The passkeys sync just fine between iOS and Android on our devices using 1Password.

What kind of reason would you possibly have to write the sentence you did?

Why did you?

Blaming Russia (and China) in most cases is a cheap cop out to try to deflect, hide and minimize the actual grievances of people living in USA.

Yes, there's propaganda and most of it doesn't reach the Americans. It's downright insulting to claim their hurts are something that countries on the other side of the world invented.

You do the same as you do when you lose your SSH key. Restore from backup and move on with your life.

Why is there so much misinformation nonsense around passkeys?

They're literally the same thing, what are you on about?

Caches take die space. GPU takes die space.

People buying gaming CPUs tend to not really want iGPU taking away thermals, so it makes kinda sense?

We're talking about ESTA, which is a visa waiver equivalent of B1/B2 combo.

I agree, so let's make sure that signed warrant is always required for any kind of access to communications, even _if unencrypted_ like snail mail, SMS or plain text chat client. As well as encrypted.

So - political solution, not a tech solution.

Google Photos does ask you for consent when you run it.

(It is, granted, a bit pushy about it and will ask multiple times when you run it with an intrusive dialog.)

Police can absolutely open snail mail with an appropriate warrant when investigating traffickers.

Stop making stuff up man, the image was uploaded to Google Photos servers.

The father uploaded photos of his son’s genitals, which were also backed up on his Google cloud, to the health care provider’s messaging system as requested.

No, because Google will report it to the law enforcement.

Google Maps, YouTube, Google Search, Google Docs, GMail and even Google phones.

The amount of data you need to provide for ESTA and a B1/B2 US Visa is not remotely comparable - the visa process has way more steps and requirements.

For US visa you absolutely have to.

No.

Also, EU can't levy taxes, so it's a moot question.

Phone wiretaps, conversation wire taps and access to letters have been normal since those communication technologies existed.

So what the heck are you on about? Content of conversations, letters and phone calls was critical to many investigations - including famous ones like WaterGate and bringing down Al Capone.

Again, if you decide to attack the government's ability to do their work, expect a pushback. This isn't hard.

In other words - noone in real life is deploying 5G only infrastructure right now and won't for awhile.

MSR base stations are the norm in the industry, not a rarity.

This is why I'm asking, because noone is shutting down 4G anywhere. And 5G actually has LESS range than 4G.

Did you mix up 4G with 3G/2G?

Expecting that governments won't respond to software which is tailored to prevent them from investigating crimes (e.g. Signal's primary marketing is all about preventing government access to chats) was so utterly naive that only privileged techbros could make it up.

Other people understand that picking a fight with someone will result in a fight.

Sounds like a lot of extra work which will make this kind of behaviour less financially viable vs. just selling or overproducing it.

Like iRobot recording people on the toilet and uploading the videos?

Yeah, I agree - at least Chinese Roborock gives very granular controls for privacy.

If you're too lazy to engage with the topic at hand, don't.

That's a bit dishonest since you're forgetting about all those features that now work, aren't you?

Famously, a pharma company.

Not in my part of the world, which is both safer and more democratic than the US approach you're defending.

There were also other groups hiding away and doing interesting things - killing, maiming murdering. It took access to private communication and files to take those down - you may have have heard of some [0].

[0] https://www.npr.org/transcripts/138889467

In the era before the advent of mass digital surveillance, it was well understood that there are many different ways to fight crime. Now every time I see this conversation being had, it's treated as if keeping any amount of privacy beyond what you personally find acceptable is tantamount to endorsing the existence of human traffickers. Warrantless spread-shot digital surveillance is now often treated as essential.

That's not what anyone writes, especially not me.

I have a question for you. Why don't you advocate for more surveillance? The more active and widespread the surveillance, the more criminals can be caught. If you think it's not entirely practical, just embark on a thought experiment with me -- assume it would be practical. Would you do it? Would you have everyone be under perfect surveillance 24/7 in order to catch every criminal? Let's call this stance surveillance maximalism.

Because it's a bad tradeoff between free society and safe society. There's a reason why we put checks and balances on enforcement agencies and why it's so important to keep them up to date.

If you agree with surveillance maximalism, then we're just very different people and I don't think we can find common ground. I hope we can live peacefully in different countries with different laws that suit our preferences.

I do not agree with surveillance maximalism.

By adopting this moral high ground, the discourse is kept at a shallow level. We talk less about which surveillance measures are actually effective or not, what has happened to crime rates over time, what is the context in which crime occurs, what are the negative consequences of undermining privacy, what are the negative consequences of mass surveillance etc. Instead we waste our time and energy on cheap moral opprobrium.

I agree, so perhaps losing your mind and going into mindless screaming every time anyone opens a debate about tradeoff between access, surveillance and privacy isn't the best way forward. Which is what's happening here way too many times.

Just because I acknowledge an issue which gave us things like surveillance warrants and existence of police forces doesn't mean you can just strawman me into whatever position you hate. Perhaps think on the reason why every single stable prosperous society has concepts of police and police warrants which grant access to private spheres when deemed necessary.