While this seems like a great plan; I wouldn’t put it past manufacturers to throw an error message and disable the vehicle for ‘safety’ when it detects a missing network connection for an extended period and/or disabled hardware during self-test.
When I was last working in the automotive industry about two decades ago, a lot of effort was being put into protecting BIOS on diagnostic laptops, so that only “authentic” manufacturer diagnostic tools could be used to service the vehicles.
The car would likely inform the owner to visit a service center and disable features that rely on network connection, but would not disable the car. The warning would be crying wolf, so a warning of actual concern may be ignored as part of the known connectivity error; which may lead to bigger problems.
If the outlook account is only tied to the minecraft account and Microsoft doesn’t know who made the outlook account, isn’t that pretty safely private? Ofc microsoft can read the emails, but they won’t contain any personal info of OP.
There’s an extension for Firefox and maybe Chrome that should help. I think it’s called ClearURL, or something similar. It removes the trackers from the ends of URLs
EDIT: That’s assuming that it’s a legitimate tracking URL, and not something that’s been added by malware.
I don’t have an extention on FF but whenever I copy a link there’s an option to also copy clean link. I’m not home, but I believe this is associated with my search engine being SearXNG.
The only reason I didn’t mention it is because it’s for copying links, whereas the extension should do it while opening, without needing to copy it first.
These are not tracking links in the conventional sense where they append tracking data to the legitimate link. They just hijack the link that someone else posts and replace it with an entirely new tracking link with a l.facebook.com domain.
No link cleaning software I have found works because of this.
The site itself; Facebook, Reddit, or Twitter sends you to a subdomain that then redirects you to the link you clicked. Sometimes used to check the url and warn you if it's malicious or if it's linking to another website, but it's usually used for tracking as well.
They just hijack the link that someone else posts and replace it with an entirely new tracking link with a l.facebook.com domain
This bit confused me. I thought OP meant that it was the same link every time. The downside of text based forums like this - it removes a lot of nuance and leaves room for misunderstanding.
try SkipRedirect, can break some things though, but rare.
Only works for hijacked links where the extension can grab the original link somehow of course.
For general Ad Links, there is FastForward, though i feel it hasnt been on the same level of maintenance since UniversalBypass closed down and they forked it.
Not really going to justify my usage but suffice it to say my business is largely dependent on networking with the people who are active on social media.
Twitter and Reddit I am “read only” via Stealth and Squawker.
Its a private company and whatever their users post is their property so they can do anything they want with it. As someone else suggested to stop using Facebook, if you can’t then please stop complaining.
@CrypticCoffee Counter to that is obvious: DO NOT USE legal access modes, use Tor instead and access only sites that "block" the UK instead of complying.
Hopefully most porn sites will do exactly that, like Pornhub already did to US states that demand driver's license uploads (including Utah and Arkansa). When they attempted to comply with such a demand from Louisiana, open traffic from there dropped 80% and presumably VPN and Tor access jumped.
This told all porn sites that it's not worth the programmer time to even attempt to service legal traffic from such jurisdictions. Block non-Tor/non-VPN connections and enjoy immunity.
Best of all, it only takes ONE jurisdiction on the whole planet that won't censor porn to make these measures globally ineffective. Crack anywhere, play everywhere. This gives new meaning to saying "fuck you" to the government.
Any attempt by the UK to block Tor will fail: China can't reliably block it, and the Great Firewall of China has far more resources than "Hadrian's Firewall." Trying to jail people for using Tor would be nearly as difficult and would also face the legal obstacle of jury nullification. This will go the way of the failed 21 drinking age and 55 mph speed limits in the US.
As governments try to crack down on porn, on dissent, and on criticism of their Great Leaders, the clearnet will be of declining importance (possibly used only for shopping) and the darknet will become more important. Embrace the power of the darknet...
Tor can be compromised though, you just need someone watching a good portion of the end nodes and hosting the fastest intermediate nodes, then run a viterbi trace back to a source. Tor is also very slow.
I’m looking at IPFS and FreeNet as viable alternatives
@tetris11 Slow yes, but if you download videos rather than stream them, slow is much less of an issue.
Even the US is not capable of watching all Tor exit and guard nodes. The UK sure as hell is not. The Torproject by the way is always looking for and decommissioning malicious Tor nodes, so the risk to any one user is low.
The usual way to attack a Tor user is to get them to connect to Tor to destination site you have compromised with javascript ON, then send a malware installer to the real target's computer. The installer then downloads a rather standard payload that tells the computer to phone home on a non-Tor connection. The widely reported 2013 incident used a Windows-only payload, today they probably add iOS and Android. Stock android that is. If it was reasonably practical for cops to see through Tor they would not put so much effort in seeing around it instead.
Things like the Silk Road takedown were very time consuming and labor-intensive, and required a lot of old fashioned exploits and unskilled admins at the targets. In other words, Tor, Signal, anything else running on an untrusted device also become untrusted. Silk Road was still brutally difficult for the cops, and that was a major, motivated investigation that unlike UK or Utah porn cops wasn't going to run into a stone wall of non-extraditability or lack of jurisidiction on someone with zero local "business presence."
BTW, do not use Google Fiber to connect to Tor to use Google privately, because if you do, Google can see your device directly(being your ISP), and see the one exit node they are talking to, allowing a confirmation attack.
I also returned totally accurate results using the exact same query. I would really like to know what is going on here. This is a common complaint with some people using DDG, that the results are poor, but I consistently have as good if not better results than using Google.
Delete all data from the previous account and make a new one. Report the troll to moderators. Consider never visiting that place again if the mods won’t help you with the harassment.
If the troll doesn’t have access to the forum’s server, then all you have to do is learn some opsec and be aware of what you share with strangers on the Internet.
If the troll does have access to the server and you absolutely need to visit the forum (which I’d advise not to in such a case), then in addition to what has been said above, use VPN with a hardened browser or Tor to access the forum.
Y’see, back in the day parents were not technically literate because the world was mid-societal shift. “Protect the children” (because parents are unable to) had some justification.
Today, basic computer literacy is a survival skill in the UK. The level of literacy needed to track your own kid is not that high (or expensive to rent).
If you are letting kids use tech you don’t understand, and are not willing to invest the time/money to track yourself, that’s a you problem. It shouldn’t become a me problem.
As for “yeah but what about smart kids”, I’ve got some bad news for you. They will always find a way around ANYTHING you set up.
I really feel very uncomfortable with the notion of tracking the kids anyway. Arming them with knowledge as best as possible, and as usual showing interest in their behaviour to try and look as best as possible for signs of problems but ultimately kids are still people with their own lives even if people in development. Yes you need to protect them, to a certain extent, but ultimately some of this is no business but their own. You can try to educate and forewarn and hope some of it sticks but the tendency from my memory of being a kid is that that tends to be met with an eye-roll, this is probably where the temptation comes from to track children or drastically restrict the choices they’re able to make so they can’t ignore you but this is hardly a great way for that person in development to ultimately… develop.
This is dicey though, not least because as yet another random person on the internet offering their unsolicited opinion, I don’t even have kids, and if you follow my logic to extremis, you basically have, “let the kids just figure it out on their own they’ll be fine” which definitely won’t apply to everything and can have disastrous consequences in some contexts. But nevertheless I think this concept of tracking, either covertly, or overtly with the intention of making a kind of panopticon effect for the kids, is likely ineffective but even if effective, is indicative of something going wrong with the intent of the surveillance.
It’s a tricky one because of the nature of the net. Let’s say we have three kids: Timmy, Jimmy and Harry.
Timmy starts looking up “tits”, because Timmy loves titties. He’s curious, and you probably want to have a talk about acting and how porn isn’t reality.
Jimmy, well, Jimmy saw a videogame character tied up and it made him feel good, so he starts looking for that online. He’s about to explore the BDSM scene. He’s going to need the “safe sane consensual” talk, otherwise his explorations might get him, or someone else, hurt. He’ll need more of a talk than Timmy!
Harry loves hentai; he found some when looking for pictures of his favourite cartoon character. Harry is going to need a long talk about fantasy Vs reality, otherwise he’s going to disappoint a lot of women! Wait a moment, most of the things he’s looking at involve animals and women… Might be time to get some therapy!
In all three of these cases a different style and level of parental intervention was required. You watch your kids because they’re kids, and kids are experts at getting themselves (and others) hurt. Parents need to watch their kids because it’s their job to intervene, and to decide the method of intervention.
However, we’ve not gone over the case of Lizzy, a girl cursed with religious fundamentalist parents. When they find out she’s more interested in girls than boys, she’ll be subjected to inhumane treatment to “fix” her. So there is a grey area here - not all parents should be parents.
Exactly. I was 17 teaching my parents about internet shit. I wasn’t smart, I still aren’t, but I also wasn’t. Anyway, the amount ov viruses I had to fix because of them downloading kenny_chesney.exe is… baffling.
Technically, yes, it is encrypted. However, Facebook still gets metadata on who you talk to, when you talk to them, how long you talk to them, your contact information, etc. As an example, if you talked to your girlfriend, then you talked to her doctor, and then you talked to your mom. There’s a good chance that your girlfriend may be pregnant, even if I did not know what was said. Or, if I know you are at the top of a bridge and that you contacted a suicide hotline… So just because it is encrypted does not mean it is safe.
Also WhatsApp requests access to the phone book and is very hard to use if you deny access. This is very likely done because Facebook wants access to the stored numbers to build a social graph. Even if you personally don’t mind, it is a gross privacy violation to share the phone number of other people with Facebook.
By typing in the numbers, or selectively sharing them from the address book. This works fine on Signal, Telegram and Threema. Only Whatsapp makes it so that you have to share your entire address book with the app.
With some workarounds you can actually use whatsapp also without giving it access to your address book, which shows that it is clearly an intentional dark pattern by Facebook to make people share their entire address book with them to avoid the hassle.
i guess it’s related to the following; exercising your rights under gdpr requires the other party to be able to identify you. that’s why they need this information. if you want to (potentially) fuck with them: first ask for a listing of all the information they have about you, before asking for deleting your data. this listing must contain the request itself. if your request is missing, they are likely breaking compliance rules.
first ask for a listing of all the information they have about you, before asking for deleting your data. this listing must contain the request itself. if your request is missing, they are likely breaking compliance rules.
I'm not quite understanding, do you mind breaking that down for me?
one of your rights under gdpr is that you are entitled (free of charge) to a listing of all the data the other party has about you.
when you ask them about this listing this request itself becomes data the party has about you. it should therefore he included in the listing. (it is self referential, but that’s how it is).
if the information that you requested such a listing is missing from the data they provide in response to you request, they are in breach of gdpr rules. from them on you might want to file a complaint.
( I’ve no idea whether this would result in any meaningful compensation, if at all. but at least it should keep them busy.)
Ask to watch them pee. When they say no, ask what they do when they pee that they don’t want you to know about; that is the only reason they could want privacy, right?
Seems someone doesn’t understand how OAuth works. It does not automatically give full access to your social media accounts, location history, and device cameras as the video says.
Using the Google button for instance will tell you exactly what permissions are being requested every time you login. Generally, it will be name, email, language, and sometimes profile picture. Aside from the profile picture you would give all the same information anyway to create an account. At least with OAuth there is no worry about passwords, especially for people who don’t have good password practices and reuse passwords between different sites.
I’ve always had this question. When I login with Google, I know what data the website will get from my Google account. But what data can Google get from the website and my usage of it, if any? (besides, of course, that I have an account on said website).
What caught me most off guard was him saying that OAuth somehow grants sites access to your camera. That's a permission controlled by the browser and not at all related to OAuth.
privacy
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.