otter

Also while it seems ideal to have both (don't know who lives there or what they're up to), it's much harder to implement in a way that there aren't ethical/legal headaches.

It can also be easier from the usability side, like if you want to get in touch with your friend and you know where they are living today.

I'd like to have the option to not use a number, and it would help those that live under authoritarian regimes, but I don't think I'll go through the trouble of removing mine once they implement it

TLDR: Person posted about a tip, Signal investigated, turns out claim was unfounded and person took down post and apologized.

Issue was thought to be with the link previews

The rumors about an unknown vulnerability impacting Signal started when certain users on X, including @gaughen, posted about it, claiming that he had received a tip on its existence. Other sources pointed to U.S. Cyber Command as being the original source of the zero-day without providing any evidence.

Gaughen’s post on X claimed that the vulnerability related to the ‘Generate link previews’ feature, accessible through Settings → Chat, suggesting that everyone disables it to prevent becoming a victim. However, no further details about the alleged flaw, or other information about its exploitation were provided in that post.

Signal says claims unfounded

In a public service announcement published on X earlier today, Signal informed its userbase that after investigating the unfounded claims, it has found no actual information or evidence proving the existence of a zero-day relating to ‘Generate link previews.’

The platform also contacted people from USCYBERCOM, which was rumored to have more info on the subject, and received assurances that the agency holds no such info. Signal’s president, Meredith Whittaker, even went as far as characterizing the report as a typical example of a disinformation campaign, being purposefully vague while carrying enough clues to go viral.

Today, Gaughen deleted his original tweet about the zero-day vulnerability and posted an apology to his followers, saying that “the information he had been given earlier was false,” and there’s no zero-day on Signal relating to link previews.

Generally I agree, on Messenger it's an annoying waste of space that barely anyone uses.

It is nice to have if you can hide it, lets those that use it use it

I actually liked having it, even though I don't use it much. Makes it easier to get other people to switch if this is a feature they were using already. It now pretty much does everything Snapchat does, only better

Snapchat was a privacy/security/performance nightmare

Does he do other actions when he wants food/water/outside?

I'm picturing a dog annoyed that it has to use the buttons instead of being able to point at the water bowl 😄

With google, it depends on what webpage you end up on. Some require more checking than others, which are more trustworthy

Generative AI can hallucinate about anything

Firefox: Found a way to translate webpages locally on the device, so you don't need to send any data

Edge: Made it so you can't CTRL-F without sending data to Microsoft

How does this work for sensitive information like banking sites? I know some healthcare software runs in the browser, surely this is a violation of those rules too.

If a site gets too annoying, I just leave and find something else

This doesn't really answer the question, but sometimes it's not so much who the role model is but what action they want to model.

Maybe it was wanting to get better at controlling emotions, being great at communicating during a breakup, or a general attitude towards problems that come up.

When I see someone admire / want to emulate the good actions of others, that's a green flag.

it will be illegal if the government doesn’t have an easy way to break it

Aren't there a lot of existing standards already can't be broken easily (by anyone)? That's why we have all these recent attempts to force backdoors into encrypted apps

Or is it just extra scrutiny if you're trying to make a new one

Relevant bit for those that don't click through:

Daniel Bernstein at the University of Illinois Chicago says that the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is deliberately obscuring the level of involvement the US National Security Agency (NSA) has in developing new encryption standards for “post-quantum cryptography” (PQC). He also believes that NIST has made errors – either accidental or deliberate – in calculations describing the security of the new standards. NIST denies the claims.

“NIST isn’t following procedures designed to stop NSA from weakening PQC,” says Bernstein. “People choosing cryptographic standards should be transparently and verifiably following clear public rules so that we don’t need to worry about their motivations. NIST promised transparency and then claimed it had shown all its work, but that claim simply isn’t true.”

Also, is this the same Daniel Bernstein from the 95' ruling?

The export of cryptography from the United States was controlled as a munition starting from the Cold War until recategorization in 1996, with further relaxation in the late 1990s.[6] In 1995, Bernstein brought the court case Bernstein v. United States. The ruling in the case declared that software was protected speech under the First Amendment, which contributed to regulatory changes reducing controls on encryption.[7] Bernstein was originally represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.[8] He later represented himself.[9]

source; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Bernstein