I'm not a Muslim, but aren't there scholars around to answer those questions? As far as I know you'd need a mufti to provide you with that kind of answer to the question. Not a random person from the internet. As it's a bit complicated and we won't find direct references to Free Software in 1400 year old scripture. But we have text on trade, and knowledge. Which are related to what computer software is.
Already a thing. We can choose between Ubuntu, who restrict your freedom and privacy in the Snap store, and have experimented with weird things like forward your desktop search to the internet or integrate Amazon into your desktop. Or you can pick a different distro. Some have telemetry, some ask you for your permission and even patch user software so it doesn't send telemetry per default. Some were kinda illegal and distributed libcss2.
Judging by the github repo, it's the very basic cousin, written (vibe-coded) in Python. It doesn't do planning or anything, just preface your command with a system prompt telling your model it's a coding assistant. And gives it tool access to read and write files. And execute commands.
And seems no human uses it, there's no interactions like bug reports, PRs or people who star and like the repo.
Did you forget the body text? Or is this some bug? Looks like a question here, and like an AI fabricated tutorial in the original version of this cross-post.
Agreed. If we had some law like this (but consistent, and how computers work, and universal, but still mandating this is the pursuant source of this information) it'd be the one thing with potential to free us from these other nefarious child safety laws.
The amiunique.org is nice, by the way. I haven't fooled around with these tools in a while. Thanks for the link. I wish it'd provide me with some form of actual fingerprint, though. I mean it kinda seems it has 100% precision on my regular browsers. And already me preferring German and then en-GB over other English rats me out 100%?! And then I do niche things like use Linux 🤣 But with all the green text, there is no information on it's recall... So it's a bit meaningless for tracking purposes?! Could be the case some of all of these many datapoints change with a new tab or new browser session and they lose me all the time, because they're too specific/sensitive. Maybe I'll look up browser fingerprinting again and how good it actually is. I mean achieving a 100% green score isn't difficult. I could just hand out some increasing id number with every page load and that'd satisfy the requirements and be 100% unique as well. However, the interesting part would be whether they can track me somehow, and recall the same number on following page loads by me. That's the way round it needs to be for tracking (in practice). But that's not really a part of what's displayed on amiunique.org
I struggle a bit to agree with this. I mean you're kinda right? But at the same time, we shouldn't care for privacy because we don't have privacy is kind of a circular argument. Which kinda makes it an invalid one.
I definitely agree the privacy thing is a red herring here. It is one of the many things to consider. But it's far down the list compared to other more important matters. (Due to the specific approach taken.)
That is for this specfic law. It's a very different situation with other approaches. Like Discord wanting to scan your ID and use it, and leak it to hackers and third parties. That one is concerned with privacy a lot. I mean a browser fingerprint can be used to manipulate me. A copy of my ID can be used for identity theft and all kinds of nefarious things. So it's definitely part of the overall conversation.
actually closer to 1 bit of information
Yeah, I'm just a bit pedantic about the maths so we know what privacy means. 1 bit is still a large number, I guess. We're still adding 280.000 people we can distinguish, or a small city worth of people.
I would note that the law forbids third party transmission of this data.
Yeah, I'm not so sure about that. First of all the groups OS provider and application developer aren't mutually exclusive. For example if your OS has an app store, you could be required to do both at the same time. Share info with third-party app developers and not share info. That's probably why there is an exception in there. But that exception looks like an easy exploit. If my app displays ads, of course the ad network can't do non-kids-safe things to kids either. So I can forward that info to Google Ads. I can probably also forward the info to other services which do networking and user authentication or have some sort of internal state stored about my users. I bet if I had a legal department, I could come up with a good case to share that info with a lot of third parties.
In the end I kinda agree with your premise. I do think this is the single best approach I've ever read at regulating age-related stuff. I mean it's not really an honest attempt. This wasn't written to help kids and teenagers. It was written and lobbied for so Mark Zuckerberg's company can shift responsibility on other people... But... I think the rough idea behind it is sound. The operating system and app store is the correct place for parental controls. We should be provided with parental controls. And they should look like what likely was the attempt here. Just an input field, attestation - no verification. And everything to stay local and not forward data to third parties or services.
3 bits of information is not meaningful surveillance.
By the way, as I said in my other comment, I don't think your maths is correct. 3 bit is huge!
If you extend an browser fingerprint from an extimated 18.1 bits of information by 3 bit, to 21.1 bits: You'd catch 2^21.1 − 2^18.1 = roughly 2 million people. That means out of all the citizens in a state like Nebraska or Idaho, they can tell it's you. That's the scale of 3 (additional) bits, if my maths is correct.
Well... There's just a lot of misinformation out there regarding this. First of all, it doesn't do age-verification. What it tries to do is age attestation. It's supposed to mandate parental controls in operating systems. It specifically does not verify anyone's age.
But it's poorly written. Contains contradictions. Some phrasings don't ever work, like how this is supposed to be done by software, but then the developer shouldn't make their software request the signal, but they themselves need to request the signal?! How is that even supposed to work? Ultimately we need law to be consistent and this law reads to me like it was written by someone who doesn't know how computers work. And that would be my issue with it.
But I think some of your points are moot as well. If you want universal legislation (2). Why do a bazillion different state bills? That's the opposite of it. And (3) doesn't make sense either, we can't just give up privacy/freedom since other random things set precedent. We can use it to strike some balance, yes. But the 3 bits don't work like that. They don't apply to the total. They come on top! Every additional bit holds a lot of meaning and will be the thing that homes it in from a potential group of thousands of people, to exactly you. In privacy, every single bit of information is very, very important and valuable. In the realm of browser fingerprinting, an additional 3 bits of linearily independent information would rat you out in a group of roughly 2 million people! That's more than some states/countries have citizens. (This isn't 3 bits of independent information, though.)
Like today, just better? It's likely still going to power most of the servers, 70% of smartphones, a lot of the embedded devices... And maybe desktop marketshare is going to rise a bit above the current 4%.
Sure. I guess what I meant is, you (or someone) need to ask... In my layman's understanding of religion (in general), it should be there for the people. And there should be someone around for random individuals to ask "Hey, I'm having this situation in my life and I'm not sure which is correct. Can you tell me? Or can you refer me to someone with enough background to do so?"
IMO, if religion claims absolute authority, and to know what's the correct morals on earth... It better have answers for these questions.
But sometimes you need to ask?! At least that's what I think. I mean Free Software is around for a mere 45 years, and doesn't have that much of an organized lobby. And the other side better avoid a definite answer to the question, as it could be negative.
I don't know the correct answer. Maybe it's more nuanced than a binary opposition, or depends on other factors? Or - how we construct our technology is not involving God's judgement, and it's more about what we do with it? Or it is haram? I bet there's a lot of computer programmers out there working for some companies, who'd need to be told if it were. To me, all that selling of personal information, and manipulating the people and the world by algorithms for some corporate interest feels 0% ethical. All I can say is whatever intuition God gave me(?) regarding what's right and wrong, tell me that one is wrong. And we should do better with technology that shapes our modern world. But my opinion isn't funded in scripture at all. I'd tend to just handle it like other exploitative gains for business, which aren't right. But that still doesn't really answer if the 4 essential freedoms of free software are mandated. I mean even back then, property and contracts were recognized. So it could be completely fine to license software as a product without source code?!