selective enforcement could give them way to give you effectively a life sentence for breaking this and that law

plaintext is the unencrypted form of data. encryption produces ciphertext. encrypting the same data with the same key twice results in the same ciphertext, unless additional steps were taken to insert additional data that does not match (like a nonce) to the plaintext

the way it works is that the veracrypt container basically contains 2 encrypted partitions. if it can’t decrypt the first one with the password, it will try the second one, but always pretend to try both so that the time it takes to unlock it does not give it away. by writing to either, you risk overwriting data in the other one (except that you can input both the hidden and main partition passwords and it will make sure to keep the hidden partition unaffected), but otherwise both partitions are fully functional

deleted by creator

They aren’t encrypted, hence why I never said they were.

you did, just with different words. without encryption and with centralized servers how would this claim of yours be the case?

If it’s a private group they don’t know what’s happening.

you know, trust and safety teams aren’t looking at the content with the apps when they look for harmful content. they have access to better moderation tools with access to the database, where the messages are readable to them because of the lack of end to end encryption.

the thread is visible here, just a single comment was deleted

what you speak of is certified android. but a vendor can sell android phones (not certified) without google services, and that is android.

which would be ridiculous because it is android just the same

“As the largest digital rights network in Europe, our position is firm: the use of spyware is inherently incompatible with fundamental rights, and therefore should be banned, as well as the market of private companies that are profiting from human rights violations.”

I hope these positions will also apply against chat control and any similar proposals

“privacy enthusiasts” not everybody can do that. also remember that privacy is a spectrum.

without a proxy google can still connect your watching habits to you by IP, and see how often you pause or rewind, but at least they can’t feed you with garbage you don’t need and can’t fingerprint your client and how you move your mouse.

and when I ask my favorite creators, what do I bring up as the upside? that it doesn’t have ads?

that’s not an upside for a lot of them.

I was thinking about it but google does not agree, they continue doing it, so we must do what we can to protect our community privacy

I’m pretty sure the law already said that the reject button cannot be more convoluted to access than the accept button, corporate websites just couldn’t care less

yeah. I wouldn’t expect that opt out to be honored. maybe by your provider, but not by zoom.

that’s plausible. in my opinion a therapist should take the effort to take their own interpretation of what has been said, instead of relying on a machine that digests the system in a uniform way. words of a patient can mean a lot of things, even depending on things like their body language. but I have to admit I’m even more concerned about the privacy consequences which you pointed out. that’s like, it simply can’t go unabused in my opinion. too tempting. I wouldn’t even want to run a business that just stores it without abuse, it’s too risky too.

app manager can already work as an app installer, but it needs wireless debugging enabled which can be a security risk. and you have to install app manager too somehow.

in your opinion what advantage would AI give to experienced therapists?

one can only hope it has any meaning. what platform do they use for online applications appointments? zoom? ms teams? google meet?

You need to verify age for all these services already, if you offer those.

half of the given examples the cashier can just look at you if you are noticeably older than the age limit, but even when they want your ID they will just look at it with their eyes, not scanning it with a computer that cannot be verified right then and there what its doing