LibreMonk

joined 1 year ago
[–] LibreMonk@linkage.ds8.zone 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

It is exactly that.

There are ~95 pages of rights and obligations covered in EU Directive 2015/2366, as well as EC Regulation 593/2008. Have you read them, or anything else to substantiate your claim?

You’re trying to solve the wrong problem.

There is no such thing as a “wrong problem”.

You do you. This thread is not about your problems. Start your own thread if you want a different problem worked. In this thread, you can either help solve the problem at hand, or fuck off.

[–] LibreMonk@linkage.ds8.zone 2 points 6 months ago

There was a story about a German guy insisting on paying his radio licensing fees in cash. He setup an escrow account and paid his invoices into that, so that the state could not claim he was just using cash refusal as an excuse not to pay. I don’t think I ever heard what came of the legal case.

[–] LibreMonk@linkage.ds8.zone 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I heard postbank was eliminated in Germany but post office banking is still an option in other countries. I doubt any post office banks stand on their own. The one I’m aware of is just a proxy for another crappy bank.

Many elderly people can’t use a smartphone so smartphone only options definitely sound like a no go.

It’s somewhat convenient that tech illiterates are in the same boat with the streetwise (who are tech saavy enough to distrust commercial tech that’s being pushed down our throats). But there are efforts to divide us. Elderly folks are getting social helpers with tech, which will shrink those resisting enshitification of everything to a population that’s easier to marginalise. I also don’t suppose it will be long before the tech illiterate elderly are no longer with us anyway.

[–] LibreMonk@linkage.ds8.zone 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

at least in Germany companies and state are not anymore required to accept cash for invoices

Yikes. That’s a shame. There is the EC Recommendation of 22 March 2010 (2010/191/EU) which wisely states:

A debtor can discharge himself from a payment obligation by tendering euro banknotes and coins to the creditor.

I am surprised Germany has gone against that. I thought cash was loved by Germans.

[–] LibreMonk@linkage.ds8.zone 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Glad to hear you’re standing up for yourself, and others. And glad to hear an analog option is still possible. That’s by far the most important option. If you can do everything offline, then you can escape whatever garbage tech they try to push. Essential services like banking and utilities should always have an offline analog option.

[–] LibreMonk@linkage.ds8.zone 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

The thesis is: what are our rights? Knowing your rights is a good idea /before/ you go off and try to solve a problem.

It may very well be that we have no useful rights and the choices are: be bullied, or find a different bully. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Other banks are garbage too, so it may be better to improve the bank you have (if possible through legal actions and exercising your rights) then to make it someone else’s problem.

[–] LibreMonk@linkage.ds8.zone 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

you should probably just keep the money in cash

Of course. Cash would solve the problem. But creditors are refusing that now and also refusing cards at the same time. Otherwise the bank card could get cash out of the ATM and pay the creditors.

[–] LibreMonk@linkage.ds8.zone 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children)

No, not anymore. They became app exclusive. Customers must become an Apple or Google patron, or just use the bank card. They also closed their shop doors and terminated their phone number. If you call them on their unpublished phone number, they insist: “email us” and they refuse to give any service over the phone. And their email goes through gmail (and no PGP key given). Paper letters are ignored. They also refuse manual transfers. The app is the sole means for transfers.

[–] LibreMonk@linkage.ds8.zone 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

The EU has that covered as REGULATION (EU) No 260/2012 imposes 2FA.

But for me personally, I do not trust closed-source apps from surveillance advertisers running on a Google or Apple proprietary platform, no matter how well they do the 2FA. Even if the endpoint were impenetrable, I do not trust the bank itself not to snoop -- in part because I do not trust the GDPR, which is scantly enforced and regularly disregarded to a laughable extent. And from the ecocide PoV, I refuse to throw away good hardware and support designed obsolescence. They can pry my old phone from my cold dead hands.

[–] LibreMonk@linkage.ds8.zone 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Thanks for the feedback. A couple other people also say they have no problem.

I am trapped on a 3-year old version. I could upgrade from 4.0.7 to 4.0.9, but that’s as far as I can go because 4.1.9 abandons anyone running AOS older than 6.0. So I wonder if they recently changed the map server in a way that breaks old versions.

I am also on Tor. But also tried a VPN. I doubt they would block Tor and VPNs and then also introduce blocks on both at the same time. Thought I should mention it in the remote off chance that it matters.

[–] LibreMonk@linkage.ds8.zone 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

you can’t just scream legal tender and throw physical money at your creditor¹.

IIRC in the US it’s written simply that if you leave legal tender in the creditor’s possession, your debt is reduced by that amount regardless of what they do with it. But of course gathering evidence in that case can be dicey.

If I remember rightly you need to lodge it with the courts and then it basically prevents you from being sued as the money is there to pick up.

There was a guy in Germany who fought the forced use of electronic payment for radio licensing fees that way. He escrowed it in a blocked account so that the gov could not claim he was just looking to evade the fees. It seems like a good approach.

[–] LibreMonk@linkage.ds8.zone 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

You’re probably right. But certainly I have seen laws that push back in situations where the party with the greatest amount of power and privilige subjects the other party to various factors outside of their control, where the law counters that to mitigate unfairness.

The GDPR exhibits this with a “fairness” clause, which the EDPB reflects on as follows:

EDPB interpretation of fairness clause

  • Non-exploitation – The controller should not exploit the needs or vulnerabilities of data subjects.
  • Power balance – Power balance should be a key objective of the controller-data subject relationship. Power imbalances should be avoided. When this is not possible, they should be recognised and accounted for with suitable countermeasures.
  • No risk transfer – Controllers should not transfer the risks of the enterprise to the data subjects.
  • Respect rights – The controller must respect the fundamental rights of data subjects and implement appropriate measures and safeguards and not impinge on those rights unless expressly justified by law.
  • Ethical – The controller should see the processing’s wider impact on individuals’ rights and dignity.

None of that applies to my non-GDPR situation, but just an example of law that tries the shift burden of risks back onto the party with the most power. Labor law often has rules to protect workers from becoming subject to risks and factors outside of their control. In my case I need to look more at credit and debt laws, where the creditors tend to have disproportionate power. The UK’s legal tender law is one such tool to relieve debtors from the disempowerment of forced banking (which is weak where I am but there may be another mechanism).

took an action, namely leaving the country, of your own free will

It’s perhaps worth noting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights art.13:

  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
  2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

That does not necessarily contradict anything you said, but I think it is a bit harsh for a creditor to make debtors choose between their human rights and satisfying their contractual obligations.

 

TL;DR → The main problem is coming up with a way to reorder an array non-randomly but without introducing bulky code. Like the effect of shuffling a deck of cards in a deterministic cheating way.


Full background:

I would like to generate reference numbers for letters sent via postal mail. An sqlite db is used to track the sequence numbers (but not the reference numbers). This is the bash code I have so far:

typeset -a symbolset=(a b c d e f g h   j k   m n   p q r s t u v w x y z     2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9)
ln_symbolset=${#symbolset[@]}; # 41 is the answer, not 42
itemseq=$(sqlite3 ltr_tracking.db "select max(counter) from $tbl;")
printf '%s\n' "next letter reference number is: $(date +%Y)-${symbolset[$((itemseq / ln_symbolset))]}${symbolset[$((itemseq % ln_symbolset))]}"

An array is defined with alphanumeric symbols, taking care to eliminate symbols that humans struggle to distinguish (e.g. 1l0o). Then integer div and mod operations produce a two character number which is then prefixed with the year. So e.g. 2024-aa. Just two chars gives more numbers than would ever be generated in one calandar year.

This code mostly satisfies the need. But there’s a problem: a recipient who receives two letters can easily realise how many letters were sent in the time span of the two letters they receive. Most numbers will start with “a” “b” or “c”.

I do not need or want a cryptographic level of security which then leads to ungodly 16 byte numbers. Simplicity¹ is far more important than confidentiality. Just a small tweak to stifle the most trivial analysis would be useful.

One temptation is to simply manually mix up the order of chars in the symbolset array, hard-coded. But then that makes the code less readible. So I probably need to create a 2nd array “symbolseq” which arbitrarily unorders the symbolset array. I say arbitrary and not random because the sequence must be deterministic and static from one execution to the next.

An associative array is one idea:

typeset -A symbolset_lookup_table=(
[a]=k
[b]=3
[c]=s
…

I’m just slightly put off by the fact that it’s not readily evident that the RHS values are all used from the same set as the LHS keys exactly once.

I should probably encode the year as well. This would give a two char year:

printf '%s ' "$(((2024/41) % 41))" "$((2024 % 41))" "→ ${symbolset[$(((2024 / 41) % 41))]}" "${symbolset[$((2024 % 41))]}"

output:
8 15 → j s

(edit)
All the calculations must be easily reversible so a ref number can be converted back into a sequence number for DB queries.

¹ simplicity in both the code and in the numbers generated.

 

I was thinking about the problem with JavaScript and the misery it brings to people. I think I’ve pinned it down to a conflict of interest.

Software is supposed to serve the user who runs it. That’s the expectation, and rightfully so. It’s not supposed to serve anyone else. Free software is true to this principle, loosely under the FSF “freedom 0” principle.

Non-free software is problematic because the user cannot see the code. The code only has to pretend to serve the user while in reality it serves the real master (the corporation who profits from it).

JavaScript has a similar conflict of interest. It’s distributed by the same entity who operates API services -- a stakeholder. Regardless of whether the JS is free software or not, there is an inherent conflict of interest whereby the JS is produced by a non-user party to the digital transactions. This means the software is not working for the user. It’s only pretending to.

 

I just started using the LaTeX community (!tex@lemmy.sdfeu.org). Sad to see it go.

update


Just noticed it’s back up, but there are no communities. That’s bizarre. So if someone not on lemmy.sdfeu.org were to post to !tex@lemmy.sdfeu.org, I guess it’d still be like a ghost node because the post would have nowhere to go on the hosting node.

view more: ‹ prev next ›