Bills aren’t being passed by lawmakers because like many of us who care about privacy, they have not heard about the abilities of data brokers and have no visibility into how rampant and disgusting and invasive their behavior is.
Friends and family I talk to don’t care. “Oh well, what are they going to do, find me personally?”
I feel if people were able to look themselves up in these databases, they would fear it as well
Personally, I’m just waiting for a massive data broker leak to happen that involves politicians and other useless wanks like that. That’ll really jump their bones.
Many forts that Poidebard documented don't even show up in the 1960s and 1970s spy satellite imagery; the Dartmouth team only identified 36 of his original 116. "The attrition of the archaeological record has been substantial and these processes are unlikely to have slowed over the intervening decades," they wrote. They believe further research incorporating higher-resolution or even older satellite imagery should reveal many more Roman forts in the region
That’s kinda crazy, as it would look like a speck on the screen. I wish I could see the actual site, and see if there is something else sus about it. When I download important things like password managers, I usually try to be extra careful, double check the URL and do the hash check.
Unlimited* plans are always sold on the idea that a sizeable part of the user base aren’t going to use an actual unlimited amount of the resource.
Unless there is a contract regarding a fee over a period of time, there isn’t that much that users can do to compel a service to offer a service they no longer want to offer.
Unlimited* plans are always sold on the idea that a sizeable part of the user base aren’t going to use an actual unlimited amount of the resource.
Unless there is a contract regarding a fee over a period of time, there isn’t that much that users can do to compel a service to offer a service they no longer want to offer.
Absolutely! But I don’t think that’s the point of contention here. The problem is the “abuse” rhetoric, since it’s not just incorrect but disingenuous to basically claim that the users did anything wrong here. They’re imposing limits because they miscalculated how many heavy users they could handle.
Again, that’s a completely reasonable move, but framing it as anything but a miscalculation on their part is just a dick move.
I worked with a mainframe team at a casino. It processed all the transactions that went along with the machines and how much everyone was gambling.
Those machines were intimidating. Black, blue lights, the fans even sounded distinct. And the terminal emulator to talk to it made it seem even more esoteric and spooky.
arstechnica.com
Top