Indirect corporate sympathizing is what this is.

Blame consumers for the abuse and malpractice of corporations who SHOULD be publicly regulated.

This viewpoint encourages their practices by peddling the same logic these corporations use to continue justifying their practices.

… What?

Are you drinking your grandma’s bath water again?

It’s a lot more than just video. It’s all your audio while you’re in the car. Your driving habits, your location, your devices, who is in the car with you so on and so forth.

There’s a ton of data that can be gathered and associated without having to have a camera.

If you ever talk in your car and it’s a modern car. Congratulations! That’s being recorded cataloged and sold off to the highest bidder.

Paving the way towards giving overreaching governments and corporations power over what you’re allowed to print

It was a typo. Fixed.

“Child safety” has simply become the marketing department for a rent-seeking surveillance industry.

Damn ain’t that the truth.

They want to identify the bots from the humans. Partially for advertising.

That’ll eventually die the same way Firefox does because forks only survive by way of subsidized capabilities off of the work of the Firefox engineering team.

There is no winning here.

Yes the technical term has evolved but did the term evolve in the legislation definition of it?

If not, then the technically correct usage doesn’t matter which is a point I’ve made in another comment as well.

And in my previous comment, I am pointing out the logical inconsistencies. Not that I agree or disagree with the technical terminology. You seem to be conflating a logical explanation/call-out of logic holes for my opinion, which it is not

Your explanation assumes that scope and scale are part of the definition which it is not.

If you keep zooming in or zooming out the definition of E2E keeps changing under your statement.

If the only knowledge a system has is between a sender and a receiver (Which satisfies even your definition of “intended recipient”) then TLS is E2E encrypted.

Do they strictly define end to end encryption in this bill?

If not, then yes, TLS is “end to end” as the sender encrypts the message, and the receiver decrypts it. Each “end” to each “end” is encrypted, satisfying the semantics of the term.

So literally everyone in the UK using any website that uses TLS is now a hostile actor?

Essentially everyone’s a criminal which is a huge boon for the government. They can now get rid of anyone they want at any time, legally.

Windows literally has a VM build in for this purpose.

Called Windows Sandbox.

Kagi.

Been using it for a couple years, everything else just feels gross now when I end up on them on a device without it.

I do a lot of technical research, so it’s a good fit, if you largely just look for pop news and stuff probably not.

^Inb4 the user that always responds to Kagi mentions puts me on blast because kAGi UsEs YaNDeX^

It is exactly what people want. You are overestimating the lowest common denominator.

If I can’t get the basic premise of something in a few seconds, I move on

Honestly, great summarization of how knowledge, society, and understanding is crumbling.

All the important, hard, things take concerted effort to understand.

Edit: This has nothing to do with the clickbait title

deleted by creator

FR. The (actually user ran) NSFW subreddits are so much better than any other aggregator

Encryption isn’t magically broken because a legislature says it is.

They have to apply teeth to a market they control. Not everything is within their control. Though, signal is.

I just set the desktop app up a week ago on a new computer. I am most definitely not mistaken.