Olives @olives@qoto.org

One thing which might contribute to a telecommunications company storing a lot of data (which might get breached) are demands from the government.

As a rule of thumb, companies like this always store too much data.

While people are pointing fingers at AT&T for failing to protect customer data, remember it would probably help, if companies didn't store so much data (if any) on what their customers are up to. #privacy

I don't think anyone should be putting an awful clickbait blog (which is all about grifting off "rawr bad tech thing") on a pedestal.

https://www.apa.org/topics/healthy-workplaces/employee-electronic-monitoring Being monitored is bad for someone's mental health. #privacy

https://reason.com/2024/07/23/michigan-supreme-court-rules-against-detroits-asset-forfeiture-racket/
"Detroit police can no longer seize cars through civil asset forfeiture unless they can show that the car was used for trafficking drugs, the #Michigan Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The court held that Detroit resident Stephanie Wilson's 2006 Saturn Ion was not subject to the state's forfeiture laws because there was no evidence when police seized it in 2019—most notably no drugs—indicating she was using it to move and sell narcotics. It is not enough to merely claim that a car was near a suspected drug crime or that a passenger possessed drugs for personal use."
#HumanRights

You'll notice I barely mention sex offenders in my post. Frankly, for me, it's a distraction.

It's actually fairly cool that someone can get entertainment / therapeutic value out of some sort of sextech. It's good to see it provide value for people.

But, then, someone kind of just ignores anything else, and tries to make it about whether it rehabilitates criminals. It's not as if it might not be interesting, if something can rehabilitate criminals, but it doesn't make sense to make the *entire discourse* about that. There are a few people though who do.

Hmm... On second thought, I don't think a short post is sufficient there.

https://nichegamer.com/hell-teacher-jigoku-sensei-nube-new-anime-announced/ A hell teacher, huh. That's an interesting idea.

Disturbing decision by Google.

It might also be simpler to use "their" than "his or her".

Considering that art styles across MMORPGs can be very different, I'm not sure how someone would be able to accomplish this.

"So far there is no regulation in place that properly defines the ownership of virtually bought products. Portability of one own’s creations like avatars and purchased goods like a skin or feature from one platform to another must be guaranteed, not only for consumer protection reasons, but also to ensure the right of the child to not being “illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity”, as demands Art. 8, para. 2 of the UN-CRC."

"think of the children" literature can get pretty bizarre. So, if I upload an avatar to Twitter, then Facebook or Mastodon are obligated to uphold that too, otherwise they are "depriving me of elements of my identity"? Or if I play one MMORPG, any skin I buy has to be usable on another one? I can see an argument for portability, particularly when it comes to social networks, but this is a strange one.

Someone could argue that it's somehow "different" for minors than for adults but I really don't see how it is.

If you're wondering, they didn't change their minds on holding IGF 2024 in Saudi Arabia. A stupid decision from the U.N.

"safety by design" might sound fancy, but if you dig down, it is basically political rhetoric created by a foreign politician to argue for censorship.

https://intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-2024-ws-14-children-in-the-metaverse This session has a lot of red flags. Niche area (metaverse). "think of the children". "safety by design". "primary consideration". Also, note the complete absence of digital rights groups.

"Why aren't there more harassment cases being prosecuted?"

I suspect some of this comes down to how resources are allocated.

The ACLU points out that someone could prosecute someone for that under anti-harassment laws.

https://www.eff.org/press/releases/journalists-sue-massachusetts-tv-corporation-over-bogus-youtube-takedown-demands
"A citizen journalists’ group represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a federal lawsuit today against a Massachusetts community-access television company for falsely convincing #YouTube to take down video clips of city government meetings."
#copyright #FreeSpeech