Such is the fate of hypercentralized spaces. The fediverse fixes this.
Such is the fate of hypercentralized spaces. The fediverse fixes this.
I don’t see how this is so difficult. Given the choice between a narcissistic billionaire or an independent, accountable government commission that’s bound by the rule of law, I’ll choose the latter every time.
With this approach you would lose the subvolume structure and deduplication if I’m not mistaken.
Obviously acquiring publicly available data is legal
Under the EU GDPR it is often not legal. Controllers need a legal basis, which only exists if there is an appropriate relationship between the controller and the data subject.
The most common physical attacks will be you misplacing your device or some friend/burglar/cop taking it. FDE works great in those scenarios.
Do you have experience with Spanish employment law?
What is “southern Ireland”? Do you mean Ireland?
“Gen Z simply uses technology more than any other generation and is therefore more likely to be scammed via that technology.”
If you turn the fan up high enough it will blow the heat from outside into the house. Trust me, I’m a scientists.
Good. Hopefully this will discourage people from using Clownflare’s DNS.
In case you don’t know, Cloudflare already controls a massive amount of websites, have access to their unencrypted traffic and are making the web inaccessible for people who use tor or noscript. They are a threat to the open web.
Because people are blowing this way out of proportion. Users uploading illegal content is always part of hosting a platform and lawmakers realized this decades ago. Platform hosters legally cannot be held liable for the content of their users unless they have actual knowledge of specific instances of illegal content. This is both in the US (section 230 of the Communications Decency Act) and the EU (chapter II of the Digital Services Act, previously the eCommerce directive)
Communication network providers in the EU generally aren’t liable for illegal activity of their users.
For the last time: these language models are just regurgitating what people have said. They don’t analyze or reason.
It’s what the ePrivacy directive says, yes. But some get around this by claiming that it’s necessary for the operation of the device/service (doubtful) or that it has limited effect on privacy (depends on exceptions created by member states)
National courts to take EU law into account. If you don’t agree with their interpretation of EU law, your option is to appeal or ask to refer questions to the EUCJ.
That’s not accurate. Copyright and trademark are two different things. The name “twitter” is also just a combination of preexisting characters and the word was probably in use before the company was founded. You can still trademark existing things because trademarks are about preventing consumer confusion, not protecting original creations.
Musk does have a problem with copyright if it turns out this specific design was made by someone else.
This doesn’t advocate for any substantial improvement of data protections. It’s merely a convenience argument to legitimize banning Chinese cars for economic reasons. American car manufacturers will continue to harvest and sell all your data, just with less competition.
Of course, this isn’t a surprise coming from the CFR, the lobbying organization for US imperialism.