The EMMC on my PC-TV finally broke down and I'd like to replace it with something that doesn't run an OS or will predictably fail with a countdown. But dumb TVs are hard to come by and monitors come at a premium at that size. I want to run a PC (DP/HDMI) and an SBC (HDMI) with it. I also have an S2 satellite cable, but that's secondary. I'd like to have ~43", 16:9, 4K but without an embedded smart-hub, ideally running of eeprom-firmware, or just anything independent of write-cycles. But I can't find any good options online. Are there companies for this. Comments and recommendations welcome.

I'm impressed at how obvious of a lie this is and how hard they're trying to do mental gymnastics to justify their argument.

@Zagorath@aussie.zone wanted to know, should you expect privacy in public places?

Before I answer that, I would like to give my genuine thanks to everyone who responded in my previous post where I asked you for some controversial privacy topics. You did not disappoint, and I'm glad I will be able to cover them!

This question is a bit complex, depending on how you ask it. The answer also largely depends on what you believe. If you believe that privacy is a fundamental right, then privacy should be expected no matter where you go. If the question is "Can you expect privacy..." versus "Should there be privacy...", the answer changes dramatically.

Is there currently privacy in public spaces?

In many places, there is little to no privacy when you walk out the door. With Ring doorbells latching on to every home like a parasite, or security cameras clinging to the ceiling of every store you walk inside, surveillance is everywhere. This section won't cover whether or not surveillance is moral/ethical/justified, but either way surveillance infringes on privacy. Even with no surveillance cameras, Sarah-from-down-the-street is always on a video call with her bestie.

Saying "privacy in public" is a bit of an oxymoron, since no matter what you will always give up a little privacy the moment you walk out the door. Things you do privately in the bathroom are simply not allowed in public places.

Should there be more privacy in public spaces?

Now may be a good time to clear up a common misconception. What is privacy? Privacy does not mean obscuring every detail of your life. Privacy is the ability or choice to share or hide information about yourself. That is why surveillance cameras infringe on privacy: You have no control over what they record, who has access to those recordings, and what those recordings will be used for.

That sort of answers the question, too. If you believe privacy is a fundamental right, then there should be an expectation of privacy in public spaces, and so a reform needs to happen.

What are the real effects of privacy in public spaces?

People act differently when they know they are being surveilled. See the Panopticon for an experiment about that. It has negative effects, whether people realize or not.

@Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de told a story that I particularly love:

"Just last week, my partner and I were on a long hike. No one was around us so to loosen our muscles we started dancing like goofballs on the trail only to look up and find a drone hovering in the shadows recording us. I was embarrassed, but my partner is a very private person and was really upset. [...]"

When they expected to be in a secluded, private space, they freely expressed themselves. The moment they realized that someone had been watching, they became embarrassed or upset, like a switch had flipped. That is the real affect surveillance has on us. We express ourselves less freely, we conform to rules without question out of fear. Surveillance becomes a form of oppression on a wide scale.

I even have my own anecdote. I once took a trip to a small town. When I got there, I subconsciously looked around for security cameras. I do that to gauge how much privacy I currently have. I then noticed that I couldn't see any obvious security cameras. I stopped and looked around harder. The town had not a single security camera in sight. I have almost no way to describe the sense of calm and relaxation that washed over me. It felt like someone giving you a massage after being stressed all week, or finally being honest with everyone about a secret you've been keeping. It was such a nice feeling to walk around a town privately.

Why do we have surveillance?

The main justification for these surveillance measures is to prevent crime. It makes sense intuitively, if you have an eye on every corner you can catch any criminal easily. However, it ignores one massive flaw: criminals will always find a way to do things privately. If you make privacy illegal, it doesn't change anything, because criminals won't follow the law anyways.

I have my own quote about this, that I love very much: “Unjust laws only burden the just, as the lawless will not heed them.” Removing privacy only hurts the people who will follow and abide by the rules. You're removing the privacy of the good people, while the criminals will program "illegal" software to achieve privacy. Giving privacy to everyone means that, yes, it makes criminals' jobs easier, but it means we can shift to actually solving the problems that cause the crimes in the first place. "The best way to conquer bad ideas is with better ideas, not by suppressing ideas." - Naomi Brockwell

"The optimal crime rate is not zero. We can't burn down the entire world just to stop somebody from stealing a pack of gum. The cost is too high. There is a percentage of crime that is going to exist. It's not ideal, but it is optimal." - Nick We need privacy for a free society. Surveillance is not the answer for fighting crime. There are ways to combat crime without infringing on privacy.

Is blurring your house on the map unreasonable?

This question is another one brought up by @Zagorath@aussie.zone. Blurring your house is a way to achieve some privacy, and in that scope, it is good to do. However, as @RiderExMachina@lemmy.ml points out, it could cause someone to do the opposite and start looking closer into why your house is blurred. That's called the Streisand effect.

Site note: I find it hilarious why the Streisand effect is named how it is. The story goes that Barbra Streisand tried to hide her place of residence by suppressing a photograph that had made it to the public. That, of course, had the opposite effect, drawing more attention to the photograph and her residence. Then, even more attention was drawn, because the Streisand effect got named after her and the very same image is now plastered on Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, blurring your house on the map doesn't provide much privacy, since the organization who photographed it still has a clear picture of it. It doesn't stop the surveillance. It's not unreasonable to blur it, though. You should still want privacy against the Streisand effect. The best solution would be a quiet legal take down of the images altogether.

I have another story to go along with this. I got a job, and it was later revealed in conversation to me and my coworkers that our boss likes to look up everybody's address on Google Street View. Everyone was uncomfortable with that, but our boss saw no issue with it. This is a legitimate case where blurring your house is a good idea. Sure, people may try to ask you why it's blurred, or try to look up pictures on other sites like housing retail, but it still prevents (frankly, creepy) bosses from snooping at your home.

Conclusion

Privacy is a fundamental part of our lives, and surveillance infringes on that. We should all do our part to gain what privacy we can, because every bit of privacy you gain now is freedom you will have in the future. This was a lot of fun to write, and I thank @Zagorath@aussie.zone and all of you for your suggestions. I will continue to tackle each of the topics asked in the previous post one by one.

Thank you for reading!

- The 8232 Project

cross-posted from: https://monero.town/post/5041387

Take a break from Twitter

• If you use the Tor Browser or the Mullvad Browser you will see the popup of NoScript - because your identity at X can be open to other websites in your web browser. Keep your privacy in mind.

• You may leave traces without realizing it. The way you write, what you read about and how much, when you are active, etc. Remember, if you are a Monero XMR user, you may not want this at all!

• Mental hygiene; it feels good not to be at the mercy of the posts there for a while. Try it out!

• It usually takes up a lot of your time without you doing anything productive.

• Elon Musk himself is a major disinformation disseminator on his own platform. But many of the posts there are also questionable.

• X Using Your Tweets to Train Its AI. And even if you have deactivated the artificial intelligence option, the users you interact with probably haven't deactivated it. Because it was introduced without notifying the users.

If you don't know me, I make frequent write ups about privacy and security. I've covered some controversial topics in the past, such as whether or not Chromium is more secure than Firefox. Well, I will try my hand again at taking a look at some controversial topics.

I need ideas, though. So far, I would like to cover the controversy about Brave, controversy around Monero and other cryptocurrencies, and controversy around AI. These will be far easier to research and manage than Chromium vs. Firefox, for example. I'd like to know which ideas you have!

Which controversial privacy topics do you know of that you would like to see covered?

PLEASE DO NOT ARGUE ABOUT THEM IN THE COMMENTS!

Please save any debate for if/when I make a write up about the topic. Keep the comments clean, and simply upvote ideas you would like to see covered. I won't be able to cover everything, so it helps bring attention!

Above all else, be kind, even if you don't agree with an idea or topic :)

So I was checking my Proton Mail inbox, as I usually do, when I came across a hilarious email in my spam folder.

Your Mailbox storage is 99% full

You are currently using 4852.3 MB of 5000.00 MB available

Don't risk losing new incoming messages, Follow below to increase your email account storage.

Increase Your Email Storage

I was very careful not to click on any links in the email.

I was not fooled even for a second. It was impossible for me to have run out of storage. You know why? Because I paid for a Proton Unlimited subscription a few months ago, and I have more than enough storage!

The fact that I got this email means someone got access to my email address, which makes it hard to narrow it down because I used to sign up for a LOT of services. I've started using Addy to create new aliases, but I really wish I had done that sooner, so I could see who sold me out.

Here's a lesson: always use an email alias, so that when/if this happens, you'll know who leaked your email address!

Disable JavaScript, to bypass paywall.

New research reveals serious privacy flaws in the data practices of new internet connected cars in Australia. It’s yet another reason why we need urgent reform of privacy laws.

Modern cars are increasingly equipped with internet-enabled features. Your “connected car” might automatically detect an accident and call emergency services, or send a notification if a child is left in the back seat.

But connected cars are also sophisticated surveillance devices. The data they collect can create a highly revealing picture of each driver. If this data is misused, it can result in privacy and security threats.

A report published today analysed the privacy terms from 15 of the most popular new car brands that sell connected cars in Australia.

With over 3 billion users globally, mobile instant messaging apps have become indispensable for both personal and professional communication. Besides plain messaging, many services implement additional features such as delivery and read receipts informing a user when a message has successfully reached its target. This paper highlights that delivery receipts can pose significant privacy risks to users. We use specifically crafted messages that trigger delivery receipts allowing any user to be pinged without their knowledge or consent. By using this technique at high frequency, we demonstrate how an attacker could extract private information such as the online and activity status of a victim, e.g., screen on/off. Moreover, we can infer the number of currently active user devices and their operating system, as well as launch resource exhaustion attacks, such as draining a user's battery or data allowance, all without generating any notification on the target side. Due to the widespread adoption of vulnerable messengers (WhatsApp and Signal) and the fact that any user can be targeted simply by knowing their phone number, we argue for a design change to address this issue.

In a new filing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson writes that defendant Mukhtar Shariff “knew about the bribery attempt” and deleted the encrypted messaging app Signal from his phone when Judge Nancy Brasel ordered the defendants to surrender their devices to the FBI as the trial was concluding.

The deleted app included texts that Shariff’s co-defendant Abdiaziz Farah sent about the bribery plot, as well as a video of the cash delivery. But Thompson writes that even though investigators could not find the complete set of messages between Farah and Shariff, FBI digital forensics experts recovered notifications of incoming messages to Shariff’s phone from Farah.

Browser fingerprinting is a growing technique for identifying and tracking users online without traditional methods like cookies. This paper gives an overview by examining the various fingerprinting techniques and analyzes the entropy and uniqueness of the collected data. The analysis highlights that browser fingerprinting poses a complex challenge from both technical and privacy perspectives, as users often have no control over the collection and use of their data. In addition, it raises significant privacy concerns as users are often tracked without their knowledge or consent.

cross-posted from: https://aussie.zone/post/15432818

Apparently, Bunnings have my face on-file. I don't think I like that.

Post got deleted, posts removed...

I got this reCaptcha on archive.is and it is too ironic not to share.

Crossposting here as I consider X a threat to both privacy and freedom

WASHINGTON, Nov 18 (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Justice will ask a judge to force Alphabet's Google (GOOGL.O), opens new tab to sell off its Chrome internet browser, Bloomberg News reported on Monday, citing people familiar with the plans.

The DOJ will also ask the judge, who ruled in August that Google illegally monopolized the search market, to require measures related to artificial intelligence and its Android smartphone operating system, the report said.

Google controls how people view the internet and what ads they see in part through its Chrome browser, which typically uses Google search, gathers information important to Google's ad business, and is estimated to have about two-thirds of the global browser market.

The DOJ declined to comment. Google, in a statement from Lee-Anne Mulholland, vice president, Google Regulatory Affairs, said the DOJ is pushing a "radical agenda that goes far beyond the legal issues in this case," and would harm consumers.

The move would be one of the most aggressive attempts by the Biden administration to curb what it alleges are Big Tech monopolies.

Ultimately, however, the re-election of Donald Trump to the presidency could have the greatest impact over the case.

Two months before the election, Trump claimed he would prosecute Google for what he perceives as bias against him. But a month later, Trump questioned whether breaking up the company was a good idea.

The company plans to appeal once U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta makes a final ruling, which he is likely to do by August 2025. Mehta has scheduled a trial on the remedy proposals for April.

Prosecutors had floated a range of potential remedies in the case, from ending exclusive agreements where Google pays billions of dollars annually to Apple Inc (AAPL.O) and other companies to remain the default search engine on tablets and smart phones, all the way to divesting parts of its business, such as Chrome and Android operating system.

Because Chrome's market share is so high, it is an important revenue driver for Google. At the same time, when users sign into Chrome with a Google account, Google can offer more targeted search ads.

Google maintains its search engine has won users with its quality, adding that it faces robust competition from Amazon (AMZN.O) and other sites and users can choose other search engines as their default.

The government has the option to decide whether a Chrome sale is necessary at a later date if some of the other aspects of the remedy create a more competitive market, the Bloomberg report said.

I accidentally had my forgejo instance open for registration. When I noticed it, there were tons of fake accounts open, with empty repos opened for each account. All of them had emails associated with them. They might've just been trying to annoy me, or maybe there was some plan to be executed later, since they'd have access to basically free storage, without any tracking.

In any case, I have cleaned all of it, and now have a list of 19311 usernames and emails. Maybe I can submit these somewhere for a spam filter? Idk, just curious if there's any point in keeping this list.

Here's the list.

I have my browser setup to automatically delete cookies after the app is closed. I do this for privacy reasons. I would however like to store some cookie information, but not the rest. Example: Every time I start a new session I am forced to read DuckDuckGo's AI slop as the first result to my search query. I have to manually change site settings every new session and I don't like it. I know that I could allow certain sites to store cookies but I don't want to allow DuckDuckGo to store any other information. Is there any way I could save site settings in a static file that is reloaded every time I open my browser? I use both Chromium and Firefox on linux and android.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/33165280

I got a copy of the text from the email, and added it below, with personal information and link trackers removed.

Hello [receiver's name],

I’ve long dreamed about working for Mozilla. I learned how to send encrypted e-mail using Mozilla Thunderbird, and I’ve been a Firefox user since almost as long as I can remember. In more recent years, I’ve been an avid follower of Mozilla’s advocacy work, and was lucky enough to partner with Mozilla on investigative journalism in my last job.

In many ways, Mozilla was the dream – and now, as the leader of the Foundation, my job is to make my dreams for Mozilla come true. What that means, though, is making your dreams come true – for a trustworthy and open future of technology; for tech that is a tool for liberation, not limitation; and for tech that values people over profit.

So I’m reaching out to technologists, activists, researchers, engineers, policy experts, and, most importantly, to you – the people who make up the Mozilla community – to ask a simple question.

[receiver's name]. What is your dream for Mozilla? I invite you to take a moment to share your thoughts by completing this brief survey.

Let’s start with this question:

Question 1: What is most important to you right now about technology and the internet?

• Protecting my privacy online
• Avoiding scams
• Choosing products, apps, technology, and services that I can trust
• Keeping children safe online
• Responsible use of AI
• Keeping the internet is open and free
• Knowing how to spot misinformation
• Other (please specify)

Take the survey now →

With your help, together we can imagine and create the Internet we want. Thank you for being a part of this.

Always yours,

Nabiha Syed Executive Director Mozilla Foundation

Because of crap like this is why I haven't been on any mainstream social media for 7+ years. And where do companies get off going over employees' personal crap anyway? For the record, I believe EVERYONE hates Mondays.