@rozlav don’t need a smartphone, but do need access to a telephone number. it’s an important anti spam measure. you never have to use or display it: can operate entirely with signal usernames instead
@galoisghost@Zerush an incredibly small number of systems fall into the prohibited cases, and those categories themselves have wide exceptions. so no, i don't think so...
@uriel238@pivotroot Not all TOS violations are relevant at all the CFAA, and very few are after the significant narrowing of the CFAA by the Supreme Court in 2021 in Van Buren v United States.
@Weslee consent-o-matic, made by @midasnouwenshttps://consentomatic.au.dk. the one recommended below auto accepts them or blocks the notice, while consent-o-matic sends the legally binding reject signal.
@furzegulo consent-o-matic, made by @midasnouwenshttps://consentomatic.au.dk. the idontcareaboutcookies one doesn’t do what you want as it auto accepts them or blocks the notice, while consent-o-matic sends a legally binding reject signal.
@skilledtothegills would be forbidden for them to train on actual content from calls under EU law, as it would be in breach of the ePrivacy Directive (read alongside something called the European Electronic Communications Code, which gives similar obligations to 'over-the-top' providers as to classic telecoms). Not that US tech firms have a great history of adhering to EU law.
@rozlav don’t need a smartphone, but do need access to a telephone number. it’s an important anti spam measure. you never have to use or display it: can operate entirely with signal usernames instead