Mastodon Feed: Posts

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

Finally made it through Midnight Suns. TL;DR: this is a very passable XCOM.

Reblogged by kornel ("Kornel"):
thomasfuchs@hachyderm.io ("Thomas Fuchs 🕹️🔭🍪") wrote:

Attachments:

• A not actually very photo-realistic scene of a road near ocean-side cliffs, with two rainbows visible. (remote)

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

All of which should make us ask: why are Apple and Google engaged in a technical kayfabe against Facebook ("Meta", ugh) rather than fixing what they can?

Follow the money.

jeffsonstein ("Jeff Sonstein") wrote:

“A man can live his whole life following the rules set down by happenstance and the cash-coated bait of security-cosseted morality; an entire lifetime and in the end he wouldn’t have done one thing to be proud of.”

— Down the River unto the Sea by Walter Mosley
https://a.co/anIET3J

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

And this brings us, at last, to the web. Which, it should be noted, is Not Great (TM) on privacy -- although it *is* better than Native today, for nerdy reasons facilitated by a long-running competition between fungible browsers.

Web privacy, too, is a policy problem, and one that will need to be solved at a legislative level as there aren't entities that have sway over web publishers the way Apple and Google gatekeep mobile native platforms.

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

Where are the articles asking why Apple doesn't require data collection and use audits in accordance with (stricter) guidelines?

Thinkpieces asking why there aren't prohibitions on serially offending "SDKs" that less scrupulous parties pay apps to integrate?

Methinks our tech press isn't particularly independent or techincal.

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

So, in order to prop up the (growing) businesses around app install ads, and to ensure that the things that *get* installed generate enough revenue to keep the merry-go-round lubricated with dollars, there is no true action on privacy from either Apple or Google.

And it's a goddamned disgrace that the tech press covers it like there is.

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

This would be a policy solution to a policy problem, but that's not what Apple and Google are doing. Instead, they're trying as many half technical measures they can dream up without, you know, making native apps unattractive vs. the web.

This is the Collection Gap, and it's critical to how they do mobile business.

Without a collection gap (if native was only as bad as the web), you wouldn't be continually prompted to install native apps.

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

What would a strong privacy push look like?

For starters, it wouldn't be changes to APIs -- or at least it wouldn't lead with that and/or pretend that's enough.

Instead, it would look like rules roled about to their store developers about post-collection terms of data use, collection authorization UI for apps they list, and requirements about storage lifetime and data sales for all publishers in their stores.

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

This, roughly, is because mobile native OSes suck. Whatever you have been led to think about "sandboxing" (a security technology, which is related to, but not the same as, privacy), know that when you install a native app you're giving away the farm. Silently. In the background.

The performative rollbacks of the very worst (most efficient) reidentifiers is only that. Why? Because despite having massive power over the contents of their stores, neither Apple nor Google want to really push privacy

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

First, this framing allows the bilateral fights between Apple/Google/FB to all look like they're "winning" something, but do basically fuck all to improve the overall landscsape. Collection isn't *that* much harder now.

Which bring us to the second benefit: that's by design.

Facilitating collection is a big part of why App Stores exist today. Native apps are *much* better at wanton, extremely high-precision collection & reidentification.

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

This operationalized idea of privacy stems from the idea that collection is the biggest risk. This, of course, is silly. *Data at rest* is the biggest risk, which collection is only the frontend of.

This focus on mechanisms of collection allows Apple and Google to facilitate their own ridiculous collection, as well as that of third parties, while pointing all eyes away from the data-at-rest governance questions.

This has several framing benefits. (ctd.)

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

At some point we need to talk about Apple's definition of "privacy" (which Google has largely adopted, sadly).

It reminds me of a clip from the Daily Show which I can't locate where John Stewart asks Rob Riggle if the surge in Iraq will work, and his reply is something like: "tactically I hate it, strategically it's dogshit, but operationally? can't get enough of it"

...which is to say, it's something one can (be seen to) *do*. That's roughly how Big Tech is approaching privacy now. It's bad.

Reblogged by slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell"):
steve@discuss.systems ("Steve Canon") wrote:

kornel ("Kornel") wrote:

Galaxy Brain Idea: instead of telling people to run `curl | sh` make a .deb package with a preinstall script that runs `curl | sh`.

Reblogged by isagalaev ("Ivan Sagalaev :flag_wbw:"):
craigmaloney@octodon.social ("Craig Maloney ☕") wrote:

Reblogged by kornel ("Kornel"):
phoenix@wandering.shop ("Phoenix") wrote:

Attachments:

• A tiny plastic dumpster with a lit votive candle tucked inside. (remote)

Reblogged by xor@tech.intersects.art ("Parker Higgins"):
choochoobot@botsin.space ("trains botting") wrote:

Lyrilith@nitecrew.rip wrote:

Working on a uni project and this track playing in my playlist right now is hitting the spot. :blobcatrainbow:

Anders Manga - At Dawn They Sleep
https://song.link/s/7btpY5Nyy7JQGxYxdLhqnA

#music #NowPlaying #AndersManga #goth #electro #darkwave #IDoNotKnowGenres

technomancy@icosahedron.website ("tech? no! man, see...") wrote:

I hate how easy it is to say "back during the pandemic" when you mean "back during the pandemic lockdown"

xor@tech.intersects.art ("Parker Higgins") wrote:

Only found one bug related to software running across multiple years last night. I'll try to write more adventurous code before next year

Reblogged by cstanhope@social.coop ("Your friendly 'net denizen"):
notawizard ("Not a Wizard") wrote:

Reblogged by cstanhope@social.coop ("Your friendly 'net denizen"):
ajroach42@retro.social ("Andrew (R.S Admin)") wrote:

rmrenner ("The Old Gay Gristle Fest") wrote:

I started up the Sega Ages version of Phantasy Star for the Switch & I've been pretty impressed with it. I wish this was the approach that Squeenix took to their rereleases of the older Final Fantasy & Dragon Quest games.

Reblogged by jeffsonstein ("Jeff Sonstein"):
catherineelizabeth@mstdn.ca ("Puss ‘n Books 🇨🇦") wrote:

Attachments:

• 9dec28b3ce9113d1.png (remote)
• 730c504e054426a1.png (remote)

Reblogged by jeffsonstein ("Jeff Sonstein"):
RitchieTorres@universeodon.com ("Ritchie Torres") wrote:

Reblogged by jeffsonstein ("Jeff Sonstein"):
RitchieTorres@universeodon.com ("Ritchie Torres") wrote:

jeffsonstein ("Jeff Sonstein") wrote:

now to let it simmer for a bit

Attachments:

• 0b347aeb3685781e.png

Reblogged by jeffsonstein ("Jeff Sonstein"):
TokyoSonata@mastodon.lol ("Mingusienne") wrote:

Attachments:

• Une amure dorée pour chat samourai (remote)

Reblogged by jeffsonstein ("Jeff Sonstein"):
gdyson@sciencemastodon.com ("George Dyson") wrote: