Sounds mostly reasonable.. but I don’t see the alternate citizenship helping, unless you mean to go as far as renouncing because all FATCA regions (~130+ countries) look at the birthplace, not nationality, and you can never get a new birthplace. It’s probably hard to find a non-FATCA region where you can trust the banks. But indeed.. getting your 4th amendment rights has come to extremes.
That makes some sense.
In my case I think I have credit that I’ve never actually used; and I think I’ve also put on their file that I am unemployed. So in principle consumers who either don’t care for the credit, or are happy to be in the highest risk category, they should not be harassed with this. I will just ignore it and see what happens.
In the past I have only seen PayPal spontaneously demand at arbitrary/unexpected moments that I jump their their hoops – to login and give them more info about me. I reluctantly did what they wanted, and they kept my account frozen and kept my money anyway. So I’ve been boycotting PayPal ever since....
(cross-posting is broken on links.hackliberty.org, so the following is manually copied from the original post)
---
When your bank/CU/brokerage demands that you login to their portal to update KYC info soloActivist to Privacy@fedia.io ·
In the past I have only seen PayPal spontaneously demand at arbitrary/unexpected moments that I jump their their hoops -- to login and give them more info about me. I reluctantly did what they wanted, and they kept my account frozen and kept my money anyway.
So I’ve been boycotting PayPal ever since. Not worth it for to work hard to find out why they kept my account frozen and to work hard to twist their arm to so that I can give them my business.
Now an actual financial institution is trying something similar. They are not as hostile as PayPal was (they did not pre-emptively freeze my account until I dance for them), but they sent an email demanding that I login and update my employment information (even though it has not changed). Presumably they will eventually freeze my account if I do not dance for them to satisfy their spontaneous demand.
I just wonder how many FIs are pulling this shit. And what are people doing about it? Normally I would walk.. pull my money out and go elsewhere. But the FI that is pushing KYC harassment has a lot of power because they offer some features I need that I cannot get elsewhere, and I have some stocks through them, which makes it costly/non-trivial to bounce.
I feel like we should be keeping a public database on FIs who pull this shit, so new customers can be made aware of who to avoid.
I doubt it. It will probably show the clearnet address. I just now logged in via the onion, so this reply will be a test.
Replacement link to a privacy-respecting host:
This article seems to suggest the KYC rules only apply to foreign customers:
https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/commerce-proposes-rule-to-fight-foreign-cloud-cyber-threats-a-24219
but then you have to wonder how they will know you’re domestic without a bit of KYC on Americans as well.
BTW, a good way to find privacy-respecting links is to search using this service:
https://ombrelo.im5wixghmfmt7gf7wb4xrgdm6byx2gj26zn47da6nwo7xvybgxnqryid.onion/
That search tool will not return Cloudflare MitMd links.
I’m not on a good enough connection to watch videos but when I read “How the Religion called Atheism…” I know it cannot be coming from any sort of credible source. Atheism is absence of religion, not a religion in itself. It includes both agnostics and gnostics (both those who are convinced there is no god and those who are unconvinced either way). So I don’t suppose it’s worth it to note the URL and try to fetch the video when I have a good connection.
Lawmakers have figured out they can circumvent 4A by forcing the private sector and external governments to do their surveillance. It worked for banking KYC and it worked for FATCA. The industry is apparently not worried at all about losing customers. And they won’t. To circumvent 4A, just outsource governance to a non-government entity.
Love the irony of being blocked from reading that article because I am anonymous and the #reclaimthenet hypocrits insist on using Cloudflare.
So I can only comment on the title and what the OP (apparently) copied. Judging by how the masses happily continue using banks who voluntarily abuse KYC by collecting more info than required, internet users will also be pushovers who give in to whatever KYC comes their way.
This policy will actually create victims. Just like GSM registration creates victims. In regions that require GSM registration phone theft goes up because criminals will steal a phone just for a live SIM chip. So KYC creates incentive for criminals to run their services from someone else’s PC.
This is a double-edged sword. In the US, banking is really optional. You can live an unbanked life in the US and get paid in cash, if you want. And you can force creditors to accept your cash payment on debts. That’s an important freedom.
In Europe, where banking is treated as a public service that all people are entitled to, they have created a system where you must use a bank. They have banned cash payment for wages. So you have a right to a bank acct but then you are forced to use it.
#warOnCash #forcedBanking
You’ve misunderstood the problem if you fail to see that ruling in favor of one party necessarily violates the rights of the other party. The decision was a compromise on which party’s rights carry more weight to prevail over the rights of the other party. Both parties had rights worthy of defending.
Of course I have biases, but the bias does not reflect in my thesis (which is the opposite of what you realize). In particular, just because I find the bakers to be bigots does not mean I expect them to lose in court. I still actually believe the bigoted bakers rightfully won the case (thus, this does not prove your point, which is that you think there should have been no court case). The court case was not about whether they are bigots. It’s about whether an artist should be forced to produce art that favorably expresses people/ideas they hate against their 1st amendment rights also amid their right to choose who to do business with.
So the court was right to rule in favor of the bakers. But your claim that there should not have been a court case at all remains unsupported. The case had merit. The rights of people in a protected group (sexual orientation) were discriminated against and so they were rightfully given a forum to have their legitimate complaint heard.
IMO, it’s a fucked up extreme bias that brings you to consider the case frivolous, as if one side of the debate did not have enough merit to even warrant a court case.
They were still fined a lot of money
No they weren’t. Read the first line of your own referenced article. The fine was dropped. And the original payment came from other people’s crowd-funded donations toward the case anyway, which was returned.
Also, precedence matters and court ranking matters. Lower courts in certain regions can have all kinds of bizarre judgments but higher courts take precedence. The Oregon Court of Appeals is not representative of the US. The US Supreme Court is. The Bank of America case would be in a federal court as many states are involved.
And spent a considerable amount of time and energy defending themselves for no damn reason
So you not only misunderstood the outcome, but you object to rights of one party being tried against rights of another party in court? Bizarre to have sympathy for bigots being dragged through the court system, despite getting off the hook.
The Oregon Court of Appeals is a lower court than the US Supreme Court. The Bank of America case is federal.
Love the irony and hypocrisy. What self-respecting conservative promotes regulation, particularly that would take control away from a business on who they do business with?
There’s also quite a bit of hypocrisy from a privacy standpoint. It’s the conservatives to don’t value privacy and take the “if you have nothing to hide…” line of reasoning. When a giant corporation voluntarily shares sensitive information about customers, it’s always the right-leaning corporations who do that; ALEC members.
Funnily enough, I boycott Bank of America for supporting conservative values (private prisons, xenophobia, fossil fuel investment, privacy-disrespect):
https://git.disroot.org/cyberMonk/liberethos_paradigm/src/branch/master/usa_banks.md
while the conservatives want to cancel Bank of America for essentially for being conservative. Apparently it’s not conservative enough for BofA to apply conservative values uniformly, as opposed to giving conservative individuals preferential treatment.
How bizarre. I boycott #JPMorgan/Chase in part because they heavily invest in fossil fuels (among countless other evils):
https://git.disroot.org/cyberMonk/liberethos_paradigm/src/branch/master/usa_banks.md
And according to your linked article, the state of Texas is boycotting JPMorgan/Chase for not investing in fossil fuel. How confusing. Maybe the state of Texas should read the Banking on Climate Chaos paper.
The supreme court makes no exceptions for gay wedding cakes:
Surely some of those captured faces are people in Europe, Brazil, and California, who would then be protected by GDPR, L…(something.. forgot), and CCPA respectively.
Under the guise of reducing crime,
Woolworths has justified these measures as necessary for the purposes of security.
There is video surveillance, and then there is that extra intrusive step of facial recognition. They can have video without FR. They can submit video evidence to the police who can then use FR, if needed. They probably want to argue that they can block known shoplifters as they enter. But of course what they really want is to track who enters the shop, which products they look at, how long they gaze at promo ads, etc. Being able to preemptively strike without a crime, just a bad reputation, does not justify the intrusion to everyone else.
Food is essential. It’s not like some shitty smartphone shop or Amazon b&m store that people can boycott.
I’ve been out of the loop on games for a while but ReactOS may be worth a look.
The 1st ½ of your comment sounds accurate. But...
And also in Foss there are highly opinionated software where the devs completely ignore users, ban them from GitHub when they post issues,
Right, but to be clear non-free s/w is worse - you can’t even reach the devs, generally, and there is no public bug tracker. FOSS is an improvement in this regard because at least there is a reasonable nuclear option (forking). The nuclear option for non-free software is writing it yourself from scratch.
That all sounds accurate enough to me.. but thought I should comment on this:
However - in larger enterprises there’s so much more, you get the whole SDL maturity thing going - money is invested into raising the quality of the whole development lifecycle and you get things like code reviews, architects, product planning, external security testing etc. Things that cost time, money and resources.
It should be mentioned that many see testing as a cost, but in fact testing is a cost savings. In most situations, you only spend some money on testing in order to dodge a bigger cost: customers getting burnt in a costly way that backfires on the supplier. Apart from safety-critical products, this is the only business justification to test. Yet when budgets get tightened, one of the first cuts many companies make is testing -- which is foolish assuming they are doing testing right (in a way that saves money by catching bugs early).
Since the common/general case with FOSS projects is there is no income that’s attached to a quality expectation (thus testing generates no cost savings) - the users are part of the QA process as free labor, in effect :)
There is a common theme pushed by fanatics of capitalism that never dies: that a profit-driven commercial project ensures higher quality products than products under non-profit projects. Some hard-right people I know never miss the chance to use the phrase “good enough for government work” to convey this idea.
I’m not looking to preach to the choir here, but rather to establish a thread of scenarios that correspond to quality for the purpose of countering inaccurate narratives. This is the thread to share your stories.
In my day job I’m paid to write code. Then I go home write code I was not paid for. My best work is done without pay.
Commercial software development
When I have to satisfy an employer, they don’t want quality code. They want fast code. They want band-aid fixes. The corporate structure is too myopic to optimize for quality.
Anti-gold-plating:
I was once back-roomed by a manager and lectured for “gold plating”. That means I was producing code that was higher quality than what management perceives as economically optimal.
Bug fixes hindered:
I was caught fixing some bugs conveniently as I spotted them when I happened to have a piece of code checked out in Clearcase. I was told I was “cheating the company out of profits” because they prefer if the bugs each go through a documentation procedure so the customer can ultimately be made to pay separately for the bug fix. Nevermind the fact that my time was already charged anyway (but they can get more money if there’s a bigger paper trail involving more staff). This contrasts with the “you get what you pay for” narrative since money is diverted to busy work (IOW: working hard, not smart).
Bugs added for “consistent quality”:
One employer was so insistent on “consistent quality” that when one module was higher quality than another, they insisted on lowering the quality of the better module because improving the style or design pattern of the lower quality piece would be “gold plating”. This meant injecting bugs to achieve consistency. The bugs were non-serious varieties; more along the lines of needless complexity, reduced performance, coding standard non-compliances, etc, but nonetheless something that could potentially be charged to the customer to fix.
Syntactic dumbing-down:
When making full use of the language constructs (as intended by the language designers), I am often forced by an employer to use a more basic subset of constructs. Employers are concerned that junior engineers or early senior engineers who might have to maintain my code will encounter language constructs that are less common and it will slow them down to have to look up the syntax they encounter. Managers assume that future devs will not fully know the language they are working in. IMO employers under-estimate the value of developers learning on the job. So I am often forced avoid using the more advanced constructs to accommodate some subset of perceived lowest common denominator. E.g. if I were to use an array in bash, an employer might object because some bash maintainers may not be familiar with an array.
Non-commercial software development
Free software developers have zero schedule pressure. They are not forced to haphazardly rush some sloppy work into an integration in order to meet a deadline that was promised to a customer by a manager who was pressured to give an overly optimistic timeline due to a competitive bidding process. #FOSS devs are free to gold-plate all they want. And because it’s a labor of love and not labor for a paycheck, FOSS devs naturally take more pride in their work.
I’m often not proud of the commercial software I was forced to write by a corporation fixated on the bottom line. When I’m consistently pressured to write poor quality code for a profit-driven project, I hit a breaking point and leave the company. I’ve left 3 employers for this reason.
Commercial software from a user PoV
Whenever I encounter a bug in commercial software there is almost never a publicly accessible bug tracker and it’s rare that the vendor has the slightest interest in passing along my bug report to the devs. The devs are unreachable by design (cost!). I’m just one user so my UX is unimportant. Obviously when I cannot even communicate a bug to a commercial vendor, I am wholly at the mercy of their testers eventually rediscovering the same bug I found, which is unlikely in complex circumstances.
Non-commercial software from a user PoV
Almost every FOSS app has a bug tracker, forum, or IRC channel where bugs can be reported and treated. I once wrote a feature request whereby the unpaid FOSS developer implemented my feature request and sent me a patch the same day I reported it. It was the best service I ever encountered and certainly impossible in the COTS software world for anyone who is not a multi-millionaire.
cross-posted from: https://links.hackliberty.org/post/609883
> This BBC interview has a #Cloudflare rep David Bellson who describes CF’s observations on internet traffic. CF tracks for example the popularity of Facebook vs. Tiktok. Neither of those services are Cloudflared, so how is CF tracking this? Apparently they are snooping on traffic that traverses their servers to record what people are talking about. Or is there a more legit way Cloudflare could be monitoring this activity?
There’s a widespread nuisance of shared e-scooters (which do not need to be locked) taking up bicycle stalls that cyclists need to lock their bikes. Are e-scooter platforms instructing users to use bicycle racks? Or are people doing that against policy?
Some banks will annually mail a paper “welcome” letter to all customers purely for the purpose of collecting bounced mail ultimately to verify if anyone has moved without telling them. The letters never state that’s the purpose.. they take that opportunity to talk about their service in arbitrary ways. Some banks even charge customers a fee for their cost in doing that. If you ask the banker about it they readily admit that it’s an address verification technique.
That’s it.. just a PSA so folks are aware, as it is a bit sneaky.
Some national postal services (e.g. USPS) sell your mail forwarding information which is how you get tracked to your new location by various entities even when you did not inform them of your new address. So obviously a good defensive measure is to never use the mail forwarding service. Select the entities you want to know your new address and inform them directly. But then to get some immunity to the sneaky trick in the 1st paragraph, perhaps give the next resident a stack of addressed envelopes and stamps and ask the next resident to forward (remail) for you.. or just ask them to trash your mail instead of returning it.
cross-posted from: https://links.hackliberty.org/post/454425
> When I visit this post: > > https://jlai.lu/post/2250911 > > the embedded short abstract intro to the article is “403 Blocked www.lecho.be” When I try visiting the link directly I get “403 bot detection”. This suggests that everyone who opens that thread independently visits that webpage by way of some javascript that’s not under the user’s control. If 1000 people open that thread, then 1000 separate fetches are made. That’s a poor design. The server could do that job just once and the results would be more reliable. As opposed to everyone getting different results. > > This is also a #privacy #security bug. Someone who opens a thread does not necessarily intend to fetch the linked article. Non-tor users are under surveillance in some countries (e.g. the US, where Trump enacted law s.t. ISPs can collect data on users without consent). So they should have control over what sites they visit. Merely opening a thread is an abuse because it makes users actions instantly trackable. IOW, users share information with their ISP without their knowledge or control. > > Note that the example thread shows the full text of the article because the author was diligent about copying it. But that’s not the general case. > > #bug #lemmyBug
When I visit this post:
https://jlai.lu/post/2250911
the embedded short abstract intro to the article is “403 Blocked www.lecho.be” When I try visiting the link directly I get “403 bot detection”. This suggests that everyone who opens that thread independently visits that webpage by way of some javascript that’s not under the user’s control. If 1000 people open that thread, then 1000 separate fetches are made. That’s a poor design. The server could do that job just once and the results would be more reliable. As opposed to everyone getting different results.
This is also a #privacy #security bug. Someone who opens a thread does not necessarily intend to fetch the linked article. Non-tor users are under surveillance in some countries (e.g. the US, where Trump enacted law s.t. ISPs can collect data on users without consent). So they should have control over what sites they visit. Merely opening a thread is an abuse because it makes users actions instantly trackable. IOW, users share information with their ISP without their knowledge or control.
Note that the example thread shows the full text of the article because the author was diligent about copying it. But that’s not the general case.
#bug #lemmyBug
cross-posted from: https://links.hackliberty.org/post/285435
> When a private sector company blocks Tor, I simply boycott. No private entity is so important that I cannot live well enough without them. But when a public service blocks Tor, that’s a problem because we are increasingly forced to use the online services of the public sector who have gone down the path of assuming offline people do not exist. > > They simply block Tor without discussion. It’s not even clear who at what level makes these decisions.. could even be an IT admin at the bottom of the org chart. They don’t even say they’re blocking Tor. They don’t even give Tor users a block message that admits that they block Tor. They don’t disclose in their privacy policies that they exclude Tor. > > Just a 403 error. That’s all we get. As if it needs no justification. Why is the Tor community so readily willing to play the pushover? Even the Tor project itself will not stand up for their own supporters. > > The lack of justification is damaging because it essentially sends the message: “you Tor-using privacy seekers are such scum we don’t even have to explain why you are outcast. We don’t even have to ask permission to exclude you from participating in society” This reinforces the myth that Tor users are criminals and encourages non-criminal Tor users to abandon Tor, thus shrinking the Tor userbase. The civilized world has evolved to a point of realizing the injustice of #collectivePunishment. At best this is a case of punishing many because of a few. I say “at best” because I’m skeptical that a bad actor provokes the arbitrary denial of service. > > When the question is publicly asked “why did service X start blocking Tor” answers always come as speculation from people who don’t really know, who say they were probably attacked.
cross-posted from: https://links.hackliberty.org/post/303031
> These are the steps I take against companies who block Tor (e.g. a grocery store, bank, DNS provider.. whoever you do business with who have started using Cloudflare): > > 1. GDPR art.17 request to delete my email address & any other electronic means to reach me, but nothing else. > 2. Wait 30 days for them to comply. > 3. GDPR art.13 & 14 request to disclose all entities personal data was shared with + art.15 request for all my data (if I am interested) + art.17 request to erase all records. These requests are sent together along with criticisms for their lack of respect for privacy and human rights and shaming for treating humans like robots (if that’s the case). > > The reason for step 1 & 2 is to neuter the data controller’s option to respond electronically so they are forced to pay postage. It’s a good idea as well because they would otherwise likely use Microsoft for email and you obviously don’t want to feed MS. It may be feasible to skip steps 1 & 2 by withdrawing consent to use the email address (untested). > > A few people doing this won’t make a dent but there is a threshold by which a critical mass of requests would offset their (likely uncalculated) cost savings by arbitrarily marginalizing the Tor community. It’s a way to send a message that cannot be ignored.
cross-posted from: https://links.hackliberty.org/post/307315
> Considering Sam Bankman-Fried claimed to practice #effectiveAltruism, and the fact that he makes substantial political donations, I thought we can validate to some extent whether his effective altruism is bogus or genuine. I thought this would be easily settled. If he favors democrats, he’s putting humanity above wealth & tyranny. If republicans, the altruistic claim can be easily dismissed. > > It turns out #SamBankmanFried donated to democrats and republicans both. It’s unclear if the donations were equally effective for both parties, but interesting that he donated to dems in-the-clear while hiding donations to republicans. One of the notable donations went to a congressman who was most critical of cryptocurrency. So naturally he had to bribe that politician. > > Dems were surprised to find that he also donated to republicans (and by his own admission!). Had he donated to both parties in transparency, recipients could see their opponent is also being fed and disregard the donation (i.e. give no preferential treatment). Seeing all the recipients would reveal if there were at least a consistent ideology or philosophy in play. > > I have to conclude the political donations were likely all just to promote his own success. It does not completely nix the claim of effective altruism because he would argue it was purely a wealth accumulation endeavor as a precursor to effective altruism. But I have to say someone who is fully engaged in the idea of effective altruism would be irresistibly selective in who receives political contributions even at the cost of reduced wealth. A humanitarian would not be able to stomach the idea of financing a republican war chest. > > You also have to figure that since he chose to make dem financing transparent and repub financing in the dark, he inherently gave republican recipients full view of it. That’s only viable if he donates much more to republicans who would see that he donates mere peanuts to the opponent for optics.
Considering Sam Bankman-Fried claimed to practice #effectiveAltruism, and the fact that he makes substantial political donations, I thought we can validate to some extent whether his effective altruism is bogus or genuine. I thought this would be easily settled. If he favors democrats, he’s putting humanity above wealth & tyranny. If republicans, the altruistic claim can be easily dismissed.
It turns out #SamBankmanFried donated to democrats and republicans both. It’s unclear if the donations were equally effective for both parties, but interesting that he donated to dems in-the-clear while hiding donations to republicans. One of the notable donations went to a congressman who was most critical of cryptocurrency. So naturally he had to bribe that politician.
Dems were surprised to find that he also donated to republicans (and by his own admission!). Had he donated to both parties in transparency, recipients could see their opponent is also being fed and disregard the donation (i.e. give no preferential treatment). Seeing all the recipients would reveal if there were at least a consistent ideology or philosophy in play.
I have to conclude the political donations were likely all just to promote his own success. It does not completely nix the claim of effective altruism because he would argue it was purely a wealth accumulation endeavor as a precursor to effective altruism. But I have to say someone who is fully engaged in the idea of effective altruism would be irresistibly selective in who receives political contributions even at the cost of reduced wealth. A humanitarian would not be able to stomach the idea of financing a republican war chest.
You also have to figure that since he chose to make dem financing transparent and repub financing in the dark, he inherently gave republican recipients full view of it. That’s only viable if he donates much more to republicans who would see that he donates mere peanuts to the opponent for optics.
After submitting an HTML sample in this post, #Lemmy gutted the content silently and destructively without telling me. The original text is totally lost and not recoverable. I only noticed because more than half the code was discarded.
This is terrible. It’s perhaps understandable that raw HTML might have security issues if it appears as-is, so of course the angle brackets should be automatically encoded as literals by the submission processing modules. The status quo is obviously a #LemmyBug because authors are not even warned about the destruction and given a chance to preserve their work. It just gets trashed.
After living in regions that were (foolishly¹) designed exclusively for cars, I moved to a proper city: a city with public transport and a cycling infrastructure. Started using public transport and felt liberated. No more insurance burden, no maintenance burden, no vehicle registration, no traffic fines, parking fees & fines, no more financing unethical right-wing oil companies that are burning up the planet, etc. It was a weight off my shoulders to live cheaper and more ethical.
public transport also unethical
Then a colleague convinced me that using public transport needlessly is also unethical.. that the huge amount of energy required to power that infrastructure is still harmful & wasteful. Public transport needs to exist for various reasons like serving disabled people, but when able-bodied people flood onto it more vehicles must be dispatched more frequently. I was adding to that burden.
the answer: cycling
So after years on public transport I switched to a bicycle. It’s even cheaper than public transport. And it came with another upgrade to liberties:
-
privacy— my realtime whereabouts is no longer surveilled & tracked (no license plate readers, no public transport card readers w/DBs, no insurance records which can then intermingle with other insurance & credit records & cause harm in other ways).
-
independence— it’s easy to maintain one’s own bicycle. So I’m free of dependency on mechanics & free of dependency on public transport schedules (which can be unreliable). Dirt cheap and you only need to depend on yourself.
After evolving into a cyclist, I cannot stomach the thought of living again in a non-cyclable region. Those regions are encumbered by stupidity and addicts: people addicted to their perception of convenience (despite sitting in traffic that bicycles are immune to and despite looking for parking)… and people addicted to energy (from oil or power plants) because they think peddling their bike will be a notable effort.
Intelligence of car drivers
It’s been said jokingly (by Douglas Adams IIRC) that dolphins are smarter than humans because they’ve figured out how to get their needs met without investing crazy amounts of cost and labor to create things that work against them to some extent. Cyclists are like dolphins in this regard, as they see people work their asses off to be able to afford the car that takes them to work, where they earn the money to finance their car ownership so they can work more. At the same time they work to finance the oil politicians who work against them.
2023 research suggests cycling makes you smarter and apparently 2014 research suggests cyclists are more intelligent² (I suspect there’s the factor that people with naturally higher IQs favor cycling anecdotally. E.g. many profs cycle to universities).
self imprisonment
We all live in a prison of some kind. My new prison is being self-excluded from a big chunk of the car-dependent world and living in all those regions. But I prefer my new prison better than that of car dependency and being forced to finance companies that finance politicians who work against humanity.
footnotes
¹: it would be unfair to fault pre-climate aware municipal designs as foolish, but foolish that decades thereafter these shitty designs are still being maintained (unlike Utrecht who were wise enough to realize their mistake & fix it) while people continue rewarding the shit designs with their residency and tax.
²: I’ve not read the 2014 study myself. Some articles claim the research shows cyclists are perceived as more intelligent while other reports claim cyclists are more intelligent.
update: bonus paragraph. Due to popular demand, I’m giving you folks a bonus paragraph:
car → bicycle upgrade If we go back to the last year I drove a car, and someone were to say: ditch your car and get a bicycle, my answer would probably be hell no, I'm not going to peddle my ass around. I might rather drive over animals like in this pic (j/k). Having the public transport middle-step seems important. It’s easy to go from car to effectively being chauffered around. Then to transition to cycling has the upgrade of not waiting, no tracking, etc.. door-to-door about the same as public transport.
cross-posted from: https://fedia.io/m/disabled/t/346115
> Banks have started capturing customers voice prints without consent. You call the bank and the robot’s greeting contains “your voice will be saved for verification purposes”. IIUC, these voice prints can be used artificially reconstruct your voice. So they could be exfiltrated by criminals who would then impersonate you. > > I could be wrong about impersonation potential.. just fragments of my memory from what I’ve read. In any case, I don’t like my biometrics being collected without my control. > > The countermeasure I have in mind is to call your bank using #Teletext (TTY). This is (was?) typically a special hardware appliance. As a linux user, TTY is what the text terminal is based on. So I have questions: > > 1. can a linux machine with a modem be used to convert a voice conversation to text? > > 2. how widespread are TTY services? Do most banks support that, or is it just a few giant banks? > > 3. if street-wise privacy enthusiasts would theoretically start using TTY in substantial numbers, would it help the deaf community by increasing demand for TTY service, thus increasing the number of businesses that support it?
Directly visiting a Kbin thread on the server hosting it shows some positive number of votes. If the URL of that kbin thread is used is queried in lemmy so a copy local to the lemmy instance is made, the number of votes is zero.
Edit-- this also happens when the source article is another lemmy instance.
cross-posted from: https://links.hackliberty.org/post/213918
> I’m increasingly encountering situations where people are forced to go through various kinds of technical hoops in order to exercise their legal rights. > > Five examples: > > ① You have a right to reserve streetside public parking in front of your house (e.g. for a week-long construction project). Historically you can go to city hall or the like, give your schedule, and pay a fee. But then they decided to put the reservation system exclusively online. Cash payers are excluded. Offline people are excluded. People who are online but do not want to share their email address with an office that uses Microsoft for their email are also excluded. > > ② You have a right to unemployment benefits. But the unemployment office goes online and forces you to solve a Google reCAPTCHA. Google’s reCAPTCHA often refuses to serve the puzzles to Tor users. People who are on clearnet may be unable to solve the CAPTCHA. Some people /can/ solve it but object to feeding a system that helps Google profit because they boycott Google. > > ③ You have a right to vote. But the voter registration process exposes your sensitive information to the tech giant Cloudflare and Amazon. Even if you register on paper, the data entry workers will expose your data to Cloudflare and Amazon anyway. > > ④ You have a right to energy access. But the energy company refuses cash payments so you are forced to open a bank account. All banks force you into a situation that goes against your beliefs. E.g. forcing you to obtain from Google a closed-source app to run on a smartphone (which you may not even have), or the bank’s website is Cloudflared and you will not share your sensitive financial info with CF. And the banks either have no analog/offline means of service, or the offline services are costly. > > ⑤ A public school excludes students who are unwilling to use Facebook, Google, Cloudflare, and Microsoft products & services. Anyone can attend but those who refuse to feed the corporate surveillance capitalists are put at a great disadvantage perhaps to the extent that they cannot pass their classes. > > Not all those examples are real. E.g. in the real life scenario of case ② I think there is an offline option (but not sure during a pandemic). So my question is hypothetical— assume there is no pathway to service except for satisfying the barriers to entry. > > The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 21: > > “2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.” > > Some nuances can be extracted from the examples: > > A) You are incapable of exercising your right yourself. E.g. blind and the CAPTCHA requires vision, or you are not tech literate enough to follow the tech process. But you can hire someone to do the work for you. > > B) You are capable of exercising your rights but unwilling to accept the conditions. Hiring someone may or may not be possible depending on whether your personal conditions can be accommodated. > > So the big question is, for groups A and B: are rights being violated? > > Group B is the more interesting one. A common attitude is: those people have “preferences” and their rights are not violated when their preference is not respected. I find that quite harsh. When a right becomes conditional by the institutions who are supposed to support the right, IMO the conditions (which are not written in law) are inherently excluding people. If a right is going to be made conditional, isn’t there some kind of legal principle that the conditions be codified into law and not some arbitrary condition that a systems administrator decided was a good idea? > > #rightToBeOffline #rightToBeAnalog
I’m increasingly encountering situations where people are forced to go through various kinds of technical hoops in order to exercise their legal rights.
Five examples:
① You have a right to reserve streetside public parking in front of your house (e.g. for a week-long construction project). Historically you can go to city hall or the like, give your schedule, and pay a fee. But then they decided to put the reservation system exclusively online. Cash payers are excluded. Offline people are excluded. People who are online but do not want to share their email address with an office that uses Microsoft for their email are also excluded.
② You have a right to unemployment benefits. But the unemployment office goes online and forces you to solve a Google reCAPTCHA. Google’s reCAPTCHA often refuses to serve the puzzles to Tor users. People who are on clearnet may be unable to solve the CAPTCHA. Some people /can/ solve it but object to feeding a system that helps Google profit because they boycott Google.
③ You have a right to vote. But the voter registration process exposes your sensitive information to the tech giant Cloudflare and Amazon. Even if you register on paper, the data entry workers will expose your data to Cloudflare and Amazon anyway.
④ You have a right to energy access. But the energy company refuses cash payments so you are forced to open a bank account. All banks force you into a situation that goes against your beliefs. E.g. forcing you to obtain from Google a closed-source app to run on a smartphone (which you may not even have), or the bank’s website is Cloudflared and you will not share your sensitive financial info with CF. And the banks either have no analog/offline means of service, or the offline services are costly.
⑤ A public school excludes students who are unwilling to use Facebook, Google, Cloudflare, and Microsoft products & services. Anyone can attend but those who refuse to feed the corporate surveillance capitalists are put at a great disadvantage perhaps to the extent that they cannot pass their classes.
Not all those examples are real. E.g. in the real life scenario of case ② I think there is an offline option (but not sure during a pandemic). So my question is hypothetical— assume there is no pathway to service except for satisfying the barriers to entry.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 21:
“2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.”
Some nuances can be extracted from the examples:
A) You are incapable of exercising your right yourself. E.g. blind and the CAPTCHA requires vision, or you are not tech literate enough to follow the tech process. But you can hire someone to do the work for you.
B) You are capable of exercising your rights but unwilling to accept the conditions. Hiring someone may or may not be possible depending on whether your personal conditions can be accommodated.
So the big question is, for groups A and B: are rights being violated?
Group B is the more interesting one. A common attitude is: those people have “preferences” and their rights are not violated when their preference is not respected. I find that quite harsh. When a right becomes conditional by the institutions who are supposed to support the right, IMO the conditions (which are not written in law) are inherently excluding people. If a right is going to be made conditional, isn’t there some kind of legal principle that the conditions be codified into law and not some arbitrary condition that a systems administrator decided was a good idea?
#rightToBeOffline #rightToBeAnalog
UPDATE
This question was answered in !philosophy@mander.xyz.
A common objection to boycotts is based on sympathy for the workers. If you call for a boycott on Amazon, for example, a substantial portion of the population will argue “good people work for bad companies”.
This rationale essentially attempts to take the boycott option off the table entirely for all mid-size companies and larger. So I wonder to what extent this widespread way of thinking damages activist movements to correct harmful companies.
Recently in Belgium there was a boycott on the grocery chain Delhaize for their employment practices. So I can’t help but notice this boycott is purely out of sympathy for the employees, effectively a 180° contradiction to the mentality that boycotts harm employees.
I filled out a form to crosspost to !assistive_technology@lemmy.sdf.org, clicked create, and the create button turns into a spinner. Forever.
F12 » console gives:
Source map error: Error: request failed with status 400
Resource URL: https://links.hackliberty.org/css/themes/darkly-red.css
Source Map URL: darkly-red.css.map
#lemmyBug
In this comment my use of the “b” word was overzealously suppressed, silently without telling me. I only discovered it when re-reading my post.
There are THREE #LemmyBug cases here:
-
when the “b” word is used as a verb, it’s not a slur. And when it’s used as a noun, it’s only a slur if not literally referring to a dog.
-
my post was tampered with without even telling me. Authors should be informed when their words are manipulated and yet still presented to others as their own words.
-
The word “removed” cannot simply replace any word. It makes my sentence unreadable. In the very least, the word should be “REDACTED”, and there should be a footnote added that explains /why/ it was redacted.