debanqued

joined 2 years ago
[–] debanqued@beehaw.org 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The irony, hypocrisy, and injustice here is that the UN’s own website itself discriminates against some demographics of people and denies access to the UDHR of 1948:

And this same UN will be creating the Digital Global Compact.

1
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by debanqued@beehaw.org to c/bugs@sopuli.xyz
 

I installed the Aria2 app from f-droid. I just want to take a list of URLs of files to download and feed it to something that does the work. That’s what Aria2c does on the PC. The phone app is a strange beast and it’s poorly described & documented. When I launch it, it requires creating a profile. This profile wants an address. It’s alienating as fuck. I have a long list of URLs to fetch, not just one. In digging around, I see sparse vague mention of an “Aria server”. I don’t have an aria server and don’t want one. Is the address it demands under the “connection” tab supposed to lead to a server?

The readme.md is useless:

https://github.com/devgianlu/Aria2App

The app points to this link which has no navigation chain:

https://github.com/devgianlu/Aria2App/wiki/Create-a-profile

Following the link at the bottom of the page superfically seems like it could have useful info:

“To understand how DirectDownload work and how to set it up go here.”

but clicking /here/ leads to a dead page. I believe the correct link is this one. But on that page, this so-called “direct download” is not direct in the slightest. It talks about setting up a server and running python scripts. WTF.. why do I need a server? I don’t want a server. I want a direct download in the true sense of the word direct.

[–] debanqued@beehaw.org 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The cognitive dissonance in this

It seems you don’t know what that phrase means. It doesn’t follow from anything else you wrote why you think that.

You don’t think providing an email from a throw away service would strike the software as a malicious user/spam bot???

You don’t think that legitimate streetwise users secure themselves by supplying disposable email addresses???

You keep talking like you know everything

The post intends to solicit intelligent and civil discourse with logical reasoning, not the sort of ego-charged emotional hot-headed pissing contest you’re trying to bring here.

[–] debanqued@beehaw.org 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

I’m not seeing how this is a good justification for login refusals to lack information and transparency. When you are denied a login, a well designed system tells you why you are denied and the rationale the server gives you should either include enough info to imply a remedial course of action (e.g. “re-apply and tell us more detail about why you like our node”), or at least make it clear that the refusal is final for reasons that are non-remedial. Users should not have to guess about why they are denied a login when countless things can go wrong with email at any moment. The denial rationale should be emailed and also copied into the server records to present upon login attempts.

The only exception to this would be if they really believe they are blocking a malicious user. Then there is some merit to being non-transparent to threat agents. But the status quo is to treat apps rejected for any arbitrary reason as they would an attacker.

 

These are Lemmy instances with a “Sign Up” link which present you with a form to fill out to register. Then after you fill out the form and supply information like email address to the server, they respond with “registration closed”:

  • lemmy.escapebigtech.info (dead node now, but got instant reg. closed msg when they were alive)
  • expats.zone
  • hackertalks.com
  • lemmie.be
  • lemmy.killtime.online
  • lemmy.kmoneyserver.com
  • lemmy.sarcasticdeveloper.com
  • level-up.zone
  • zoo.splitlinux.org

I suppose it’s unlikely to be malice considering how many there are. It’s likely a case of shitty software design. There should be a toggle for open/closed registration and when it’s closed there should be no “Sign Up” button in the first place. And if someone visits the registration URL despite a lack of Sign Up link, it should show a reg. closed announcement.

Guess it’s worth mentioning there are some instances that accept your application for review (often with interview field) but then either let your application rot (“pending application” forever) or they silently reject it (you only discover non-acceptance when you make a login attempt and either get “login failed” or even more rudely it just re-renders the login form with no msg). These nodes fall into the selective non-acceptance category:

  • lemmy.cringecollective.io
  • lemmy.techtriage.guru
  • lemmy.hacktheplanet.be (pretends to send confirmation email then silently neglects to)
  • links.esq.social
  • dubvee.org

To be fair, I use a disposable email address which could be a reason the 5 above to reject my application. And if they did give a reason via email, I would not see it. Not sure if that’s happening but that’s also a case of bad software. That is, when a login attempt is made, the server could present the rationale for refusal. Another software defect would be failing to instantly reject an unacceptible email address.

 

Utility companies, telecoms, and banks all want consumers to register on their website so they do not have to send paper invoices via snail mail. When I started the registration process, the first demand was for an e-mail address.

Is that really necessary? They would probably argue that they need to send notifications that a new invoice has been prepared. I would argue that e-mail should be optional because:

  • They could send SMS notifications instead, if a data subject would prefer that.
  • They need not send any notification at all, in fact. Reminders is why calendars and alarm clocks exist. A consumer can login and fetch their invoice on a schedule. If a consumer neglects to login during a certain window of time, the data controller could send a paper invoice (which is what they must do for offline customers anyway).

They might argue that they need an email for password resets. But we could argue that SMS or paper mail can serve that purpose as well.

Does anyone see any holes in my legal theory? Any justification for obligatory email address disclosure that I am missing?

 

Yikes. As some Tor users may know, the UN drafted the Unified Declaration of Human Rights, which in principle calls for privacy respect and inclusion. That same UN blocks the Tor community from their website. Indeed, being denied access to the text that embodies our human rights is rich in irony.

Well that same UN plans to create a “Global Digital Compact” to protect digital human rights. It’s a good idea, but wow, they just don’t have their shit together. I have so little confidence that they can grasp the problems they are hoping to solve. Cloudflare probably isn’t the least bit worried. Competence prevailing, Cloudflare should be worried, theoretically, but the UN doesn’t have the competence to even know who Cloudflare is.

 

I created a whitelist access profile. That ensures that the whole WAN is blocked except what is exceptionally whitelisted. I started with an empty whitelist. The LAN is rightfully accessible and the WAN is rightfully inaccessible.

The router does not use DSL. Instead, it uses a USB mobile broadband LTE modem. The modem has its own website which gives SMS capability. The modem is technically upstream to the router, so it is blocked when the WAN blocking profile is enabled. I want to whitelist the modem so that when I am blocking WAN access I can still reach the web UI of the modem and monitor SMS msgs.

Fritzbox is designed so that all attempts to directly access an IP is blocked if whitelisting is in play. IP addresses cannot be whitelisted, only URLs using FQDNs. So I did “nslookup 10.10.50.8” to get the hostname of the modem. Then I whitelisted the hostname. That does not work. The modem is still blocked.

 

cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/12271916

Suppose a law is named something like “The Royal Decree of June 14, 2018 regulating the Distribution of Pharmaceuticals and Vitamins”. If a document needs to refer to that law more than once, it makes a mess and causes some painful reading. How should something like that with a date be abbreviated?

(note that’s a fictitious law similarly named to the law I need to reference; it’s really a question of English and law and lawyers are perhaps best equipped to answer)

 

cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/12170575

The GDPR has some rules that require data controllers to be fair and transparent. EDPB guidelines further clarify in detail what fairness and transparency entails. As far as I can tell, what I am reading strongly implies a need for source code to be released in situations where an application is directly executed by a data subject and the application also processes personal data.

I might expand on this more but I’m looking for information about whether this legal theory has been analyzed or tested. If anyone knows of related court opinions rulings, or even some NGO’s analysis on this topic I would greatly appreciate a reference.

#askFedi

 

cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/12170575

The GDPR has some rules that require data controllers to be fair and transparent. EDPB guidelines further clarify in detail what fairness and transparency entails. As far as I can tell, what I am reading strongly implies a need for source code to be released in situations where an application is directly executed by a data subject and the application also processes personal data.

I might expand on this more but I’m looking for information about whether this legal theory has been analyzed or tested. If anyone knows of related court opinions rulings, or even some NGO’s analysis on this topic I would greatly appreciate a reference.

#askFedi

 

I posted an apparently off-topic post to !foss@beehaw.org. The moderator removed it from the timeline because discussion about software that should be FOSS was considered irrelevant to FOSS. Perhaps fair enough, but it’s an injustice that people in a discussion were cut off. The thread should continue even if it’s not linked in the community timeline. I received a reply that I could not reply to. What’s the point in blocking a discussion that’s no longer visible from the timeline?

It’s more than just an unwanted behavior because the UI is broken enough to render a dysfunctional reply mechanism. That is, I can click the reply button to a comment in an orphaned thread (via notifications) and the UI serves me with a blank form where I can then waste human time writing a msg, only to find that clicking submit causes it to go to lunch in an endless spinner loop. So time is wasted on the composition then time is wasted wondering what’s wrong with the network. When in fact the reply should simply go through.

(edit) this is similar to this issue. Slight difference though: @jarfil@beehaw.org merely expects to be able to reply to lingering notifications after a mod action. That’s good but I would go further and propose that the thread should still be reachable and functional (just not linked in the timeline where it was problematic).

[–] debanqued@beehaw.org 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I can’t watch videos but I will say that my biggest problem with the iME is not the security issue, but the anti-consumer aspect. Intel decided non-corporate consumers (who do not want or benefit from iME) can be disregarded marginalized. So disabling iME is insufficient and misses the problem.

The answer is to boycott iME CPUs. I never bought an intel CPU after 2008. I write this comment from a 16 year old PC just fine. I have pulled some more recent hardware out of dumpsters, ensuring I do not support anti-consumer products.

 

This series of single word spam has 1 vote each:

https://beehaw.org/comment/2351412

Yet there are responses to the same comment with many more upvotes. Why don’t the higher valued comments rise above the comments with a score of 1?

1
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by debanqued@beehaw.org to c/support@beehaw.org
 

When trying to access https://beehaw.org/c/finance it gives a 502 bad gateway -- “Worker Bees are busy updating the website”.

view more: next ›