this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
177 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
59087 readers
3284 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
a simple 'no' wont really cut it unless we make some noise.
From the article...
Yet, despite an overseas focus, Americans won't be able to avoid the proposal's requirements, which covers CDNs, virtual private servers, proxies, and domain name resolution services, among others.
... and ...
The premise is relatively simple. By having a more rigorous sign-up procedure for platforms such as Amazon’s AWS, for example, the risk of malicious actors using U.S. cloud services to attack U.S. critical infrastructure, or undermine national security in other ways, can be reduced.
I was thinking of using this comment to train my for-profit LLM, but now that I see the licensing agreement, I know I will never be able weather the prolonged court battles.
Damn, I was looking forward to the Jesus API
I was thinking of using this comment to train my for-profit LLM, but now that I see the licensing agreement,
Honestly at this point it's more about just reading the replies from people who get bent out of shape about seeing that link, than actually protecting myself from bots. It's almost like a strange Internet Rorschach test. It's honestly kind of weird how many people respond back negatively to that link.
Having said that, primarily it's an attempt to get AI companies that use bots to not use my comments to train their models, or at least give citation of my name if they do, which I've never seen any company do at this point for anything that they use to train any their models.
I know I will never be able weather the prolonged court battles.
It's a momentary copy and paste, a 'low hanging fruit' thing I can do to try to limit interaction with bots. If it works, it's a bonus.
Also, I'm retired, I have time on my hands. You never know. 🤷
For what it’s worth, I’m entertained by people needing to tell you what they think of your copy paste. It’s fun.
Bring back forum signatures!
—————
Tryin to make a change :-\
Tryin to make a change :-\
Be the change you want.
What is that link
I assume that user is licencing their comments under creative commons
This is on par with the copypastas that floated around FB for a while isn't it?
Now I want to see someone break down if that's even enforceable
Especially given that this particular comment is 90% quotes from some other author.
No need to assume, you can see this on all of their comment history. They are claiming ownership of their words, or in the context, ownership of how they’ve arranged others words
eh, I could just pirate their words if I so chose & there'd be fuckall they could do about it
I want to see the first DMCA takedown for a comment "pirating" another user's comment.
I want to see the first DMCA takedown for a comment “pirating” another user’s comment.
-teft
This is mine now.
Release the hounds. I mean lawyers.
Big sovereign citizen energy.
This is basically nationally enforced "security through obscurity" which is dumb as fuck.
This is more of a privacy failure than a security failure. I don't see how purchasing services via an alias could be considered security
"attack US critical infrastructure" is security
"Security by obscurity" is very much an end user "i don't need to harden my server/accounts because nobody would bother hacking me" attitude and is really is "dumb as fuck"
But KYC is just expanded due diligence before providing services, thats why I thought it as privacy issue as to why someone would be against it as opposed to it security wise.
I still don't see how you've gotten from that to "nationally enforced security by obscurity" though
Instead of implementing systems that are not vulnerable to attack, they are just removing the people who know how to attack.
I think we fundamentally disagree on these ideas, and that’s ok.
“Implementing systems that are not vulnerable to attack” is an impossible task. And passing KYC legislation doesn’t preclude anyone from hardening their system and I didn’t read any signs that the government plans to leave any of its systems unhardened.
It's really funny how big states today have solved the problem of public outrage at wholesale censorship and surveillance, simply by introducing it 10 times slower than all those goosestepping predecessors.
Definitely. Just take one tiny step at a time. No one will notice and it all just seems normal: "It's always been like that." No, it hasn't always been like that. The tiny steps got you to the same place, it just took longer.
The saddest thing is, the bad people are the ones who fight back (in their minds.)
I've talked to some people of the "relative of a bureaucrat\politician" kind. If it makes this emotionally easier for you, they know that they are the bad people.
They just think they are smarter and stronger and thus deserve to screw people.
That's the same method politicians have done to get controversial bills passed. Because they know they can't pass something like "ANNEX AMERICAN PRIVACY ACT" right there out in the open. It'll get shot down. Political suicide just to get it on the docket.
But if they do just enough bills that pass to make people think things are going okay, when we least expect it, they'll lump it in the next big budget bill and it'll become law. Then we'll all go "Huh, wha?" before we know it.
I mean, that's how the Patriot Act has passed.
This only applies to the big datacenter providers. Plenty of ways to make this a non-issue.