[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Was about to mention this

[-] [email protected] 12 points 3 weeks ago

Does this mean hackernews & cloudflare are colluding together?

[-] [email protected] 31 points 3 weeks ago

I really love cloudflare especially for my hobby projects but in this case they asked for outright Ransome. From this I learnt to keep Nameservers & domain sellers different. I am going to transfer domain away from nameserver.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I already know OP is talking about carrier unlock and I have also mentioned in my comments above. PIN unlock was just an example.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

If nobody would do it. Why would company offer it? If it was indeed an anti-theft company should have informed the original owner(in their record) and should have denied any unlocking. If it was real anti-theft why would they provide app to unlock carrier.

Let me give you an example of actual anti-theft feature. Apple will not unlock iPhone, no matter how much money u try to pay. That's an anti-theft feature. T-MOBILE has history of excess charging customers. This is plain & simple business tactics to earn more money. As OP @[email protected] told T-Mobile's official app is dysfunctional. That app is dysfunctional, so people can't unlock themselves.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago

This is not an anti-theft process. This is just way for companies to make more 💰. T-Mobile is allowing him to unlock 🔓 after he pays them some cash. It like company is happy to let anyone steal , as long as they are paid.

[-] [email protected] 15 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Oh! You have misunderstood the whole concept of privacy. I have a thought experiment for you:-

Let's assume Microsoft is not lying 🤥. The data (screenshot) remains on device, which is passed to some AI model like Image-to-text etc. This model generates text on-device. But no where Microsoft guarantee's that the text generated or output from those AI models won't be sent to the Microsoft. They only say the screenshots and AI models remain on-device, but the output/metadata can be sent to Microsoft.

That is the issue. Earlier there were many apps where Microsoft couldn't pry because they were encrypted etc. Now they don't need to break any encryption they just need metadata. That's easy to transfer and use.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago

You know actually this is great way for Microsoft for surveillance. Not all apps and there data was accessible to Microsoft, like some data were encrypted etc. No that they are taking screenshot they can directly run those screenshots through ML Models. ML Models Maybe on device but the output/metadata they produce might be sent to Microsoft. For example Microsoft might run Image-to-Text on device but all the text from output could be sent to Microsoft. Your data will remain on device but Microsoft will still know

[-] [email protected] 21 points 3 weeks ago

When it's jury case they have to disclose everything publicly which also a plus point.

15
submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
55
submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
105
submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
149
submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
239
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
[-] [email protected] 132 points 3 weeks ago

The use of aftermarket parts in repair is relatively common. This provision requires independent repair shops to destroy the devices of their own customers, and then to snitch on them to Samsung. 

That's just pure evil and bully. If you have aftermarket parts they will destroy the device and force you to pay for it. This is the reason we need right to repair. Every consumer should support it.

16
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
2
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
33
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
56
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
79
submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/12094120

There’s an enormous and largely invisible campaign to use fraudulent notices under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act to remove critical articles from the internet. We don’t know who is running the campaign, but we do know it’s facilitated by Google’s amazingly trustworthy approach to DMCA complaints made by companies that don’t exist.

2
submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/12094120

There’s an enormous and largely invisible campaign to use fraudulent notices under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act to remove critical articles from the internet. We don’t know who is running the campaign, but we do know it’s facilitated by Google’s amazingly trustworthy approach to DMCA complaints made by companies that don’t exist.

114
submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

There’s an enormous and largely invisible campaign to use fraudulent notices under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act to remove critical articles from the internet. We don’t know who is running the campaign, but we do know it’s facilitated by Google’s amazingly trustworthy approach to DMCA complaints made by companies that don’t exist.

view more: next ›

catalog3115

joined 10 months ago