Pika

and what is that going to give them? The information that they have is yes, they have an account, and that’s also saying that they used an actual number and not a VOIP number for registration. but if they are asking via phone number, they will already have that information at hand. They won’t get any information about what chats that number is part of, or even any info really at all, anything about the account is encrypted and not visible.

If they are able to provide my phone number without knowing the info you said there, there is some other leak already involved, and either way they won’t get anything but a “yes he has an account and he was last connected on X”

Photobucket did the same thing I almost lost all of my photos that I had on it from my early teenage years because I almost missed the email(I was two days from the DDay)

Basically they decided that they no longer wanted their free tier and any photos that were stored on the platform as that tier had a certain amount of time before they would be deleted. The platform heavily tried to convince people who are on the free tier that the only way of getting their photos would be to pay for their premium tier for a month and then cancel but I was able to figure out a way to just download it it was hidden heavily in the settings behind multiple paywall triggers.

In terms of end-to-end encryption I don’t mind if they have my phone number or not, if it’s done right.

Let’s use signal for example, because honestly they do it pretty decently, the most information that you can obtain from signal in a data information request is the date and time that an account is created, and the last time the account went online.

Actual content such as the user’s contact list, the people that user was talking with(including groups), and of course the messages that you sent are fully end to end encrypted meaning that signal does not have access to it meaning that they cannot give that information out in a data information request as they never had it in the first place.

The most that signal is able to confirm in a data information request, is yes this specific account ID has a signal account and this is the last time they went online.

I know you didn’t directly say it but it’s implied so I wanted to clarify.

telegram chat isn’t E2E, the only E2E on the platform is secret chats, which is only available to mobile users of the platform and not enabled by default. It does have client-server encryption but, in the terms of privacy that is worthless if you don’t trust the host (and it opens the host up to legal information requests as it has the capability of decrypting the messages)

Yeah but the two party consent states for recording imply that it’s in a private location, there is nothing stopping anyone from recording someone in a public location.

It doesn’t matter what the Stateside law of indicates whether it’s public or private, it’s already been decided by the Supreme Court that recording in a public area is a protection that’s given under the First Amendment. This right to record has been challenged a few times by state representatives such as the 2007 case in Massachusetts where it went up to the first district appeals court, and back in 2021 in the Fraiser versus Evan’s case which went all the way up to the Supreme Court.

As a general rule of thumb, if you’re in a public area there is no expectation of privacy so therefore anything goes, this protection generally includes someone standing in a private area recording an area that is considered a public area, and in some cases even include someone who is standing in a public area recording it supposed to private area due to lack of obstruction from that public area (such as someone standing on the street outside a house recording an unobstructed window)

But as you said IANAL

edit:

That being said, because I realize I forgot to add this to the post. I am super against the entire idea of AI based goggles that’s able to identify people in real time. That is such a violation of what should be basic privacy that honestly I think it’s too far

I was just about to say a comment on the billboards, like wtf how is this legal. So glad that my state has them banned lol

That’s the downside of having the invisible boatmobile, they just keep coming

This should be correct yes, as long as you don’t include code that was added after the license change you should be in Clearwater.

Technically speaking I don’t think it’s allowed for him to have changed the license to a more restrictive license in the first place because he didn’t rewrite the entire project when he did so which means it’s still containing code that under the license terms are supposed to be open indefinitely, but if you want to avoid all that drama you can just play it safe and Fork the version prior to him editing the license

Personally speaking now this isn’t going to stop the people that he’s trying to avoid that hassle with, because I don’t think he has legal ground because I don’t think the license change was within the allowed terms of his license in the first place

Sending as a second comment cuz I just now read your source, but it’s different than what my original comment was.

I didn’t realize the density that GPL code puts into your project, it does seem upon looking into it that that is correct that he cannot under GPL terms redistribute that software under the license that he’s chosen. He is violating the GPL by doing so, because even with permission of the contributors, GPL code cannot be converted over to a lesser freedom code without a full rewrite, because code that was generated while under the GPL can’t be locked down at a future date via a license that that is stricter than the existing one. The only thing you can do is make it less restrictive than GPL.

That being said, the only people who can report violations of code that is not following the GPL, are going to be copyright holders so if everyone was indeed okay with it there’s no one who would be able to pursue the violation anyway

My main concern is that he states that he has permission from every contributor so he isn’t misusing it, then immediately locks the repository to only people who had contributed before.

I understand it’s probably just a tactic to lower the amount of useless information from people wanting to comment from posts like this, but it doesn’t look good from a point of view of declaring Victory and then retreating immediately.

a retail license doesn’t even prompt that, just sign in with your MS account and bobs your uncle, that’s how I manage all of my VM stuff I just sign into my primary Microsoft account and it automatically activates, I’m sure one of these days it’s going to hit a Hidden activation limit but I’m not really sure how Windows works with that, I don’t change vm’s all that often.

My main bottleneck for swapping fully off of dual booting is the annoyance when it comes to trying to configure GPU pass through with KVM, I would definitely be using that virtual machine for gaming on the few games that no longer work using proton but like it’s such a pain in the butt to set up, that and for the duration of me having to transfer the system I basically need to have twice the amount of disk space because I need to clone that data over to an image before being able to free up the partitions

Man that post is about three or four paragraphs too long to be any Microsoft form advisor post.

Usually it’s a “Welcome to the forum, please run an update and sfc /scannow and try safe mode then clean install” then ghosting when you update saying it doesn’t work

What’s the point of sfc /scannow if it’s going to require an installation media to use, isn’t that the point of a recovery partition? Does Windows just not ship with that Anymore?

Man the audacity of that though, they came into his house, interrupted his evening and then asked him to turn off the stream that he’s doing. All while he didn’t actually do anything wrong.

The entitlement is insane.

I had to read the title a few times myself, it’s long and most of it could go into the body

tails is a great tool for privacy I always found it more clunky to use sadly, but it’s use case as a no log no track style is is amazing. Just don’t try to use it with anything that uses external storage, it has a cow.

fully agree, the maintainer pulled a “It’s my toy and I’m taking it elsewhere” which is never healthy for a project like that. Instead of embracing the fact people were active in the project he only focused on the fact that there was some malicious parties that were violating GPL, so his solution was to kill most external support of the project. It won’t survive that

according to the maintainer he got permission from everyone, and those who didn’t give the permission for he rewrote the code for. Least that’s how it seems to be here

Regardless as the maintainer of that GitHub clarified in a closed pull request, it’s not actually allowed on Github to have a license that blocks the ability to do forks and modify the programs yourself, I never knew this but it says it on the page he linked.

basically it seems if you post a project as public on Github, you implicitly grant a license to fork and use the code regardless of what it’s terms say since you need to follow those terms for the Github platform usage. The section 6 I’m not sure about though, cause the terminology confuses me, I can’t tell if it means that it can be supercedes or that it supercedes a private license

it seems his intent isn’t to dissuade people contributing, he’s just been burned a few times with GPL violations so he’s changing the terms to prevent that

I came across it in an AI argument post, and it’s been stuck in my head since