I'm the owner of a 2025 Dacia Jogger. It has a physical button to disable all warnings and alarms, which I really appreciate, but I still need to press that button twice (with ~1s of delay between pushes), and I need to do it every time I turn the car on.
I bought the model with no internet connection, so the speed limit is automatically read by the front camera, and it's usually wrong. Although the alarm can be disabled, it still shows a distracting visual warning on the dashboard. I covered mine with duck tape, but now everyone who goes into the car asks me why I'm covering a warning with duck tape, and I have to explain them every time.
I converted the car into a camper, but some digital features are always on, even when the car is off.
For example, the car continuously detects the wireless key, so I bought some Faraday cage wallets to store them while we sleep. However, they don't work, so at the end I had to make my own Faraday cage wallets with aluminum foil and duck tape (yeah, in this project I found that duck tape is really versatile).
Another issue that really bothers me is that the car detects movement, even when it is completely off. Whenever I'm sleeping and I change position, the center screen lights on, some relays start to click, and some fan runs for a couple of seconds. Then, after ~10 seconds everything turns off again. It drives me crazy.
I got this car just because I wanted something shorter than 4.5m (but that could fit a 120 x 190 cm bed), with a reliable engine (this is a 1.6L from 2005, created by Renault & Nissan, without any known issues), and without internet connection. I reviewed hundreds of cars, and this was basically our only option in our country.
So let's trust all future Governments to never remove the 6-month law?
Once the whole technical system is implemented, it will be trivial to remove that bureaucratic limitation, and somehow it will be sold as better protection for the children.
In your proposed scheme, it is in the best interest of web sites to store the certificates from users indefinitely, since it's the only evidence they have that prove that their users are not minors.
Since authorities have the power of accessing that data and identify the user who created the certificate, this scheme is not anonymous.
Authorities can access that data via court orders today, or via a global automatic mandatory data sharing law in the future.
In the example of USA, even if for some reason people still trust the current Government (although ICE already accessed private medical records to track and arrest people), I don't see why they should trust all future Governments which will have retroactive access to all that data.
It is a red flag that in the "SimpleX Roadmap to Free Internet" section they refer to 2024 as "Now" and they explain their expansion plans for 2025 as something in the future. It is weird that this is in the home page of their official web site.
Mandatory package screenings to detect explosives? I don't know if that's technically feasible at scale, or if that's already implemented (and I'd prefer not to ask that kind of question to Google/ChatGPT)
Out of work I wouldn't mind, but I spend 8h/day there and I am forced to work with these people, so I'd prefer to keep the drama out so that I can focus on solving problems.
The other person already demonstrated a lack of professionalism by sharing unverified AI slop so, in case of conflict, I wouldn't be surprised if they continued acting unprofessionally by spreading false rumors, unnecessarily escalating the situation to higher ups, secretly sabotaging the project, etc.
If I tell someone literally "What value do you have if you're just acting as a pipe to the AI?", I'm pretty sure my manager will schedule a quick 1:1 to ask me why I'm telling peers that they have no value.
This article's proposal for stopping sloppypasta is to convince the people who does it to stop doing it, but I am more interested on what someone who receives sloppypasta can do.
How do I tell my colleagues to stop contributing unverified AI output without creating tension between us?
I've never did that so far because I feel like I am either exposing their serious lack of professionalism or, if I wrongly assumed it was AI, I am plainly telling them that their work looks like bad AI slop.
Sorry, I clearly misunderstood you, I thought you were defending those laws.
I am aware that uneducated children will become everyone's problem sooner or later, but my argument is that, at the end of the day, in practice, like it or not, this is mostly in control of the parents. The root cause is that parents fail to provide education, modals, and preparation for being a balanced and responsible person that can control its own impulses, and now these same parents want to externalize their responsibilities to malicious Governments, at the expense of everyone's rights.
Giving away privacy for just patching one of the symptoms is a ridiculous ask, especially in this political environment, and especially when it could be tackled in different ways that don't imply losing privacy.
In my opinion, people will be unfit and uneducated in the future no matter what we do, and they will choose malicious leaders, and having privacy in that future will be better than not having it.
Today's electorate is unfit. Is it also because they had TikTok when they were children? Or are they unfit because they consumed fake-news and QAnon-like content as adults?
If it's the latter, how is age verification supposed to help here exactly?
Since you are asking me to give away my privacy under this promise, I'm interested in the details.
In this case I think the opponents made a huge mistake by calling themselves Department of War, and it's something that can be exploited.
Department of Defense was the actual lie, the newspeak term. They were not really defending anything, they were using military power globally for pursuing economic interests. However, it was easy to convince people that the whole endeavor was a good thing, because defending your country against the baddies is good, and you should support anyone doing that (otherwise you'd be a traitor!). Thank you for your service (defending us).
On the other hand, the term Department of War is hard to sell, because most people don't want to participate in a war or support someone who wants to start one. Thank you for your service... invading other countries? killing and raping innocents? ransacking resources?
This is an irrelevant detail, but if I'd read the title "Department of Defense vs. Meta", I'd first think Meta is leaking confidential info to other countries. However, if I'd read "Department of War vs. Meta", I'd think Meta doesn't want to promote an unnecessary war.
You know the non-governmental organization "Save the Children"? Maybe it's time to create a new one called "Fuck the Children" to defend people from these laws designed to mine privacy under the pretense of protecting minors.
> But even ignoring that, they'd be storing only very limited disclosures.
Just to be clear, here I am not concerned about the verifiers, I am concerned about the authority (Government).
> The base registry stores identifiers of issuers and verifiers, not credential holders.
If the verifiers provide the verification tokens to the Government, can't the Government identify the original issuer even if they don't store them? Don't these tokens contain the DID of the issuer? Please correct me if I'm wrong, maybe I didn't get this part right.
> That's not how that works - they can prove they check by showing logs, rather than VPs
Logs can be manipulated, VPs can't. If I had a company and I was forced to verify users, I'd try to store those VPs for as long as possible, for my own protection.
> There's even legal limits on what identifiers they can store and for how long
I was not aware of this. Is that documented anywhere?
> Decentralized Identifiers (DID) developed by the W3C represent an identifier standard that provides a subject-controlled method for identifying individuals, organizations, or objects online. In the swiyu Trust Infrastructure, DIDs are utilized as a standard identifier for issuers and verifiers. They are centrally hosted on the swiyu Base Registry.
> In this protocol, the trusted authority issues certifications (“trust statements”) concerning the identity (i.e., who is the real-world identity controlling a DID) and legitimacy (i.e., who is allowed to issue or verify credentials of a specific VC schema) about an entity as SD-JWT VC and publishes these trust statements in the trust registry.
> Token Status Lists are signed, maintained and published by the credential issuers but hosted on the Base Registry.
In your system, can companies verify age offline, or do they need to send a token to the Government's authority to verify it (letting the Government identify and track users)?
Switzerland is working on a system that does the former, but if Government really wants to identify users, they can still ask the company to provide the age verification tokens they collected, since the Government hosts a centralized database that associates people with their issued tokens.
I bought the model with no internet connection, so the speed limit is automatically read by the front camera, and it's usually wrong. Although the alarm can be disabled, it still shows a distracting visual warning on the dashboard. I covered mine with duck tape, but now everyone who goes into the car asks me why I'm covering a warning with duck tape, and I have to explain them every time.
I converted the car into a camper, but some digital features are always on, even when the car is off.
For example, the car continuously detects the wireless key, so I bought some Faraday cage wallets to store them while we sleep. However, they don't work, so at the end I had to make my own Faraday cage wallets with aluminum foil and duck tape (yeah, in this project I found that duck tape is really versatile).
Another issue that really bothers me is that the car detects movement, even when it is completely off. Whenever I'm sleeping and I change position, the center screen lights on, some relays start to click, and some fan runs for a couple of seconds. Then, after ~10 seconds everything turns off again. It drives me crazy.
I got this car just because I wanted something shorter than 4.5m (but that could fit a 120 x 190 cm bed), with a reliable engine (this is a 1.6L from 2005, created by Renault & Nissan, without any known issues), and without internet connection. I reviewed hundreds of cars, and this was basically our only option in our country.