Modern_medicine_isnt @ Modern_medicine_isnt @lemmy.world

Posts

22

Comments

1,348

Joined

2 yr. ago

I can understand how frustrating language barriers can be. But handling frustration appropriately is a job requirement.

So... why does the person have to sign the citation? Who cares. Seems like that is what drove extending the disagreement. Even credit card companies don't care if you sign anymore.

So in response to cops stereotyping minorities, let's sterotype all cops? Then let's take that to the extreme and disrepect a dead person you know nothing about, for laughs.
Even If you knew for a fact that the person in that cofin was a bad cop, does thier family deserve this image being passed around like this. No. One could understand if your motive was to help effect change, and crossing this line would help. But you are doing it for laughs and internet points. There is nothing good about that.

I looked deeper are read up. Everything I can find says the age verification function is not anonymous. There is an anonymous login function, but that doesn't seem to include age verification.

Yeah, something like that. But while your device can validate the cryptographic sig for the app, the site requesting proof of age can't, since it isn't running on the same device as the app. The best I can guess, the app could request verification from the state run site, and specify what information it wants (based on what the requestor site asked for). The state site could use a private key to encrypt the response and give it back. The app could use a piblic key the state makes available to decode and confirm that only the intended information is present. Then the app can pass that to the requestor, who can get the public key from the state site and decrypt the information. But, the gap there is how does the requestor know the app it is talking to hasn't been modified. I don’t think there is a way that it can. Only the device the app is on can verify that. And the requestor can't trust the device either.
Some Authentication that I remember has a component where the requestor would then talk to the state to confirm the info it got from the app was requested from the state by the same app the site is talking to. This prevents using someone elses response as your own. But in this case, that would tie the site to the request which means the state would have both peices of info, who and what site. So I don’t know what there solution here could be that wouldn't result in the same problem.

My bad, I had the german government mixed up with probably the brits who are constantly saying they need to be able to read everyone's messages. That said. It's hard to know what the intelligence arm of a government is really doing. So if they give themselves a backdoor, it's hard to ensure only they come in. And the government is always only one election away from dramatic policy changes.

Well more like you think signing the bill is a victory, and I am saying it is capitulation.

Now you are starting to sound like you know what your talking about. But I'm not convinced yet. So when the app sends just the requested data to the site, how does the site verify that the data is legit. A person could fork the app and hack it. I am sure they thought of this, I just don't know what thier solution is. And I can't read german.

You can trust them to create the ID because it benefits them. But to guard you anonymity... that actually hurts them. So you can be sure they won't.

Now you're getting it.

Anything else is just the illusion of choice. They control the options. So they can always come up with something worse to set next to the option it wants. The only influence you have as a chooser is to call thier bluff. If you don't you might as well just let have whatever they want.

In this case, I hate to ask more of our service members. But I know I can count on them to fight back. Choosing zero is calling them to service once more to protect the freedom of our nation. Specifically thier freedom to use the benefit they were promised when they enlisted. And I have faith that they will rise to the occasion.

Sounds like it is only anonymous if you fully trust the app. That app has all your information, and the site you are trying to access. And I bet it is completely closed source. It also likely has logs about what sires it is giving information to. Not who's info in that log. But elsewhere it probably has logs on who's id it verified. Get access to both, and software can start to crunch the numbers and figure out who went where. That if course is assuming they don't decide in the future that it is worth just keeping that data together in one spot. There is just no entity that could manage that app which wouldn't have a motive to use the data and power it has.

I expect the party that ran on protecting trans kids to take a stand. But I am done supporting the democrats now.

In this arena, more regulation is needed. Anonymous age verification is a good idea, but I question the actual anonymity. It usually depends on trust of some entity. And I just can't fathom an entity that can really be trusted.

I thought AI meant we didn't need all these tech workers? /s

Voting systems are extremely hard to change in most states. But progressive candidates usually support voting changes too. So two birds with one stone. It will be a painful few cycles with the Republicans winning. But they have shown they will turn on each other rather fast. And once we show we just aren't going to vote democrat or republican, momentum will build. Things can't get much worse.

I do know the feel. I was young once (seems a long long time ago). Reinventing the wheel was fun and challenging. I loved creating libraries. I didn't actually know at the time that there were already existing libraries I could just use, this was the 90s. But it is hard to keep track of what library code exists in a project if you didn't write it. Maybe assign them to review the library code and document it or something. Then they will know what it is at least.

Human nature. Itcwas necessary to beat out the other species, but it didn't evolve with society. Many of the things other people have mentioned are really just unevolved human nature. Greed, selfishness, racism, crime.

I guess if there was any doubt before, it's gone now. Neither party is suitable. Time to really vote progressive. We need a new party that isn't deeply entrenched with whatever made hime sign that.

I'm lost. He spoke against it, but signed it anyway. Did they give any rationalization for signing it?