lattrommi

You still can't do it. this is pointless. have a nice day.

You seem to have misunderstood what i said. You fail to address the actual concept i refer to and the attitude with which you do this is not productive. it's insulting, assumptive and hostile.

are you sure you read my comment correctly? you spouted off about tangential issues in what appears to me, a sort of wild rage. you make an accusation and assumptions about me and how i act. you trash mozillas reaction to the outcry of their addition. you speculate a conspiracy theory about mozilla only trying to get away with stuff and hypothesize about them being ignorant and clueless.

i get it, you have strong feelings about privacy. you now hate mozilla for thier treachery. this was the final straw that made you jump ship. i'm glad you quickly found a browser that works for you. thanks for the unsolicited endorsement of your personal solution. good to hear that it has absolutely no issues with extensions made for firefox. which librewolf was forked from... so why wouldn't they? is getting in a one way shouting match meant to convince people to convert to another browser?

my statement was intended as invitation for someone to provide an argument as to how the actual addition to firefox is not privacy respecting, like the actual inner workings of it. not assumptions about its creators or their motives or the method of its introduction or how the nefarious villians behind such great injustice must be burned at the stake. not the far reaching ramifications it might lead to. what is it doing that makes one persons personal privacy specifically affected?

I use Mull on my phone. Haven't gotten around to playing with Librewolf but it is on my list of things to do.

I don't consider the addition to be an anti-privacy feature however. I'd like to see someone change my mind about that.

They didn't, just like every other mainstream browser does. It was pretty lame. It was in the change notes but I don't know too many people that read those anymore. Their explanation of the system and the ease to turn it off placated me. I have the feature on and have had it on since the day it was released.

That's probably the better way of putting it. As far as mainstream browsers go.

Yeah, as I said it was pretty lame how they added it in. I will repeat that I think it's still not as bad as how other mainstream browsers add unwanted features but I'm out of the loop there and could be wrong.

Strange, only once do I recall seeing a pop up from Firefox, which was letting me know another browser was trying to become my default browser which I did not do or want. So in that case it was useful, as it was Edge and I did not want Edge to be my default browser. That was years ago, back when I still used Windows. Not saying it doesn't happen of course, you have links I could check which I assume show it does, but I have not personally witnessed it happen in a long time.

Yes, how amusing indeed. Unless you meant to type 'assuming'? Either way, I'm more of a fanboy, not a shill. Shill's get paid. Fanboys just like their product.

All the naysayers in these comments read like shills and if they aren't, they really should read how the tracking in question works. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attribution?as=u&utm_source=inproduct

While it was kinda lame for Mozilla to add it with it already opted-in the way they did, they were still completely open about how it works from the start with a link right next to the feature in settings (the same link pasted above) and it's far less invasive than the other mainstream browsers.

It can be turned off too, easily. It requires unchecking a checkbox. No jumping through 10 different menus trying to figure out how to turn it off, like a certain other browser does with its monstrous tracking and data collection machine.

With ublock origin it's also moot, since ublock origin blocks all the ads anyways.

Call me a fanboy if you want, I wont care. Firefox is still the superior browser in my opinion.

To add more possibilities/perspectives to the above:

The security question I've seen most in my life has probably been "What is your mothers maiden name?" which becomes fairly easy to guess with family history.

Ancestry information can reveal who is inbred.

It also can reveal politicians commiting nepotism.

Geographic location can show if someone lives in a redlined neighborhood or the part of town with all the mansions.

Simply the fact that an account exists on 23andme's website, implies someone took the test, which indicates they (or someone they know) has disposable income. Enough to pay for such a test (initially I believe it was $400 but I could be wrong) and that also implies they have some form of internet access and that they probably own a smartphone/computer/laptop/some kind of technology they can use to access their account. Thus they could be targeted simply for having potential income/assets above that of poverty level.

If actual DNA data was comprimised, which I doubt happened but suppose it did, an advanced enough attacker could use that to plant evidence at a crime scene. Who would believe a whistleblower after their DNA was found on a rape victim? Who would vote for a politician whose DNA was found on a murder weapon used to kill dozens of missing persons? They can scream "fake news!" all they want to, once that seed of doubt has been planted, once enough people are made to believe someone is guilty of some atrocity, it is hard to shake that belief. The DNA evidence is there. It was tested by scientists.

I could come up with more far fetched scenarios too. I made a list of them once because a family member purchased one of the 23andme tests for me to take. They did not understand why I refused to take the test. The reason was because a decade and a half prior, I was charged with a crime. The crime doesn't exist anymore where I live (illegal botany) but at the time it could have been a felony. I did not want to have a felony. Felons had their DNA added to a federal database to assist investigators in finding repeat offenders. I fought hard to ensure I was not convicted with a felony and succeeded by pleading to lesser charges.

The idea of having my DNA on file with a government agency like the FBI, CIA or NSA terrifies me. A malicious agent could do a lot of damage with it. They could invent threats with it to ensure I comply with their demands. The amount of possible damage they could inflict grows every day with new technology. DNA, gait and facial recognition, geofence data and an AI trained to make deepfakes, in the hands of a shadowy alphabet agency with little oversight, that's fairly unstoppable by a single person. Imagine if anyone could get their hands on that. A disgruntled coworker. An obsessive ex. A hormonal teen child having a temper tantrum.

I know this is long and extreme in parts. I hope this helps people understand that DNA data is powerful and could be abused in unimaginable ways.

Because I am terrible at writing, most of this was painstakingly generated using LLaMA 3.1 70B & 405B. Believe it or not, this was actually a lot of work.

The LLM ruins your presentation in my opinion. I do not mean that you disclosed the use of a LLM, I personally appreciate that honesty quite a lot. The short version is that there is too much elaboration.

That's the first thing the LLM provided for you: It elaborates too much and gives a massive wall of text. One that you spent a long time painstakingly editing. If you had started from scratch and formulated it yourself, you most likely could have come up with a far more readable essay for the average stranger on the internet (I'm assuming that was your intended audience. I'm frequently wrong about things.) Look for the redundancies. LLM's seem to love saying the same thing in different ways. Just an observation I've made which I have no backing for. Many of these points could easily be combined in my opinion.

The second thing using AI did to your detriment, is that the sections are not human-like. They are formulaic, each one having several clauses or thoughts strung together with commas. Sure, each sentence might be grammatically correct but I bet I could read this to my nephews as a way to quickly get them to fall asleep. Not only does every sentence have multiple thoughts and concepts, there are few intermediary sentences to break up the monotony.

The third and final thing I will point out is that page breaks and spacing things out are absolutely critical to keeping people engaged. Twitter became popular because of the character limit. If your point takes longer than 7 seconds for someone to read in their head, you've lost half your audience. Tell the AI to be more succint if you continue using one.

I think you might do better if you took out all of the text that isn't bolded/strong or a header. Link to the full manuscript somewhere else at the end for those who are interested. Those 2-4 words starting the numbered points are all most people will need. If they do need further clarification or specifics, visit that's when they can visit a link at the end.

Just my two cents.

That's a lot of information, for me at least. Short of searching for what those mean individually, is there a recommended way to learn more about these? Like how they ultimately effect people or could be used maliciously or effect security or privacy?

I have no usable programming skills and my knowledge in this subject is limited to roughly what I've learned from https://amiunique.org but those two links seem to be on a whole different level.

Maybe better questions to ask would be: How could a layman understand these things better? Is it feasible to learn more without extensive college level classes on programming and/or computer science? Should the average person need to worry, assuming they have nothing more to hide than a less-than-average bank account balance or habitual browsing of adult media which to the best of their knowledge is legal and consensual where they live and who have no social media or social life or ties to political movements, major corporations, news organizations, critical infrastructure or charities?

But pretty much everyone who heard about their ebook scheme agreed it was an awful idea.

That's a false consensus in my opinion. Assuming 'everyone' agrees, will rarely ever be correct.

You are correct in saying that IA is not a library. In my opinion it should be treated as one, if not better. it provides free knowledge, much like a library, but unlike a library you do not have to give back because of the ability to produce a nearly infinite amount digitally.

the point of lending has become useless for anything that can be digitized. i think copyrighting needs to end. creating and not sharing "intellectual property" is an attack on humanity. the arguments in support of copywriting are all rooted in the same concept that copywriting itself is mostly based on: greed. before it was a resources issue as well. it still is but with diminishing requirements that should and could be trivial in this digital world we have now.