OK it should be fixed now - there was a rate limit which doesn't normally land but due to multiple Tor users coming through the same exit node, it was triggering the limit.
Nothing to do with the certs just told me a cert error because it never finished the handshake.
I tested through Tor on multiple machines now and multiple circuits and is working clean - thanks for the heads up.
I cannot see what is causing the issue, the certificate's full chain is sent, the clock is synced, the cert is showing zero errors in OpenSSL - so this is very confusing.
The irony is, you don't actually need Tor on my site because there is no logging, no third parties, no adtech etc. it is just static HTML files - so whereas I would normally recommend Tor I designed the site specifically to be privacy first.
I will try to figure out what is going on though because obviously I am fully supportive of people protecting their privacy with Tor.
Not sure why, it is working fine everywhere else - I see in Tor it gives an invalid certificate error, but the Lets Encrypt certificate is working fine in other browsers, so seems to be a Tor thing specifically.
I have put up a list of all the MEPs who voted for the urgency procedure yesterday (in breach of EU rules) as well as their voting history on fundamental rights issues and who has been lobbying them:
After yesterday disastrous result for democracy, where the President of the European Parliament used her power to force a vote on ChatControl I which the Parliament already voted against and allowed to expire earlier this year.
The move by the President is unprecedented and marks a dangerous time for EU democracy where if the President of the Parliament can overturn a democratic vote they disagree with - what is the point of the Parliament at all?
So I have collected all the details on the MEPs who failed to vite against the procedure yesterday along with their voting history on issues relating to fundamental rights and their history of meetings with lobbyists.
The results paint a very clear picture that these MEPs represent business, not the people who elected them.
Whereas the main story here is the Commission's complete failure to do anything about Pegasus - I focused on the fact that the MEP in question and MEPs in general - should not be using their phones as information archives.
I saw this - so they are spending money 2x faster than they are making it and offering to give the public 5% of their debt whilst Sam takes home billions... sounds like a fantastic deal...
With Trump vs Slaughter gutting independence of the FTC - the Data Privacy Framework agreement used to transfer personal data from the EU to the US is unlikely to survive.
I wanted to see if US Frontier Models are exhibiting censorship so I asked Gemini a question about the current state of the world - the response was quite concerning as Gemini informed me it is "structurally protective of Donald Trump".
Given the recent German ruling on Gemini output being Google's speech and the DSA requirements on misinformation/disinformation it looks like more trouble ahead for Google Gemini.
I have also filed a report with the Commission's DSA enforcement team expressing concerns that Google is interfering with political speech.
You are assuming that the author (me) hasn't tried to help the UN do it right in the past and that assumption would be wrong.
They don't get to shout at big tech when they are doing exactly the same thing and using the same vendors they are berating, to do it for them. It is rank hypocrisy.
Also, I was very clear in the introduction that I support the UN and their mission, which is precisely why they need to be held to account because their own Charter requires it.
As much as I support the UN (I have worked in privacy for 20 years, my life's work is in the field of human rights) - I do not support hypocrisy and it is long past due that the UN lead by example.
No, it argues that the use of javascript for purposes which require consent, requires consent...
EU law only allows strictly necessary use for the provision of the requested service so adtech and analytics require consent as they are not considered as strictly necessary.
Today I have successfully managed to get the police to investigate the deployment of adtech software (scripts) without consent as a criminal offence under unauthorised computer access and misuse.
I am basically arguing that deployment of these adtech payloads by websites and apps without consent, is a criminal offense.
Yes this is the difference, they did not allow you to opt out previously, they explicitly said that if you want to be in the club you have to accept their spam. Now they allow you not to accept their spam.
Now they rely on Soft Opt-In (which again might not be valid in your case, if you signed up to their site but didn't actually buy anything the soft opt-in exemption does not apply) so you may still have an actionable complaint here.
Processing my personal data in such a way (to ban me from your services pre-emptively) would be a breach of the GDPR and in some member states could involve criminal sanctions.
For example, in the UK we have a very famous case (The Consulting Association (TCA)) where building contractors joined together to build a list of construction workers they didn't want to hire - this was determined as a criminal breach of UK data protection law.
They are not written by an LLM lol, I have severe ADHD, this is how I write and there is plenty of my material out there spanning the last 20+ years (long before LLMs existed) to illustrate that.
Nothing to do with the certs just told me a cert error because it never finished the handshake.
I tested through Tor on multiple machines now and multiple circuits and is working clean - thanks for the heads up.