If you need to buy Sudafed in a pharmacy you need a drivers license, and I believe they record the information somehow. Presumably online alcohol or marijuana sales would also require some retained evidence that a dl was presented. Maybe car insurance too.
Sudafed in the US is an odd exception in that it's regulated but doesn't require a prescription. In comparison you can pick up an opiate prescription without ID (or at least I was able to several years ago).
> Presumably online alcohol or marijuana sales would also require some retained evidence that a dl was presented.
Why? Is that required for in person purchases where you are? I thought violations were typically caught with sting operations. I don't see why online should be any different.
> Maybe car insurance too.
Why? I guess the provider could choose to for due diligence if they felt there might be fraud. But I'm struggling to come up with any realistic scenarios. For what it's worth I've never once been asked for any official documentation in order to purchase car insurance. Simply provided information over the phone and received documents in the mail a few days later.
We do? People can go into any neighborhood they want. They can’t break laws, but the law allows them to walk around and look for open windows, knock on front doors, take photos, scan WiFi bssid, note cars and license plate info, etc…
The crime here is the tech. The companies aren’t to blame. Programmers and tech companies are. If there was no internet or “tech industry” we’d all be so much better off it’s painful to even contemplate.
Microsoft just compromised the National Nuclear Security Administration last week.
Facebook was breached what last month?
Google is an ad company. They can’t sell data that’s breached. They basically do email, and with phishing at epidemic levels, they’ve failed the consumer even at that simple task.
All are too big to fail so there is only congress to blame. While people like Rho Khana focus their congressional resources on the Epstein intrigue citizens are having their savings stolen by Indian scammers and there is clearly no interest and nothing on the horizon to change that.
source? A quick search suggests the "breach" is a bunch of credentials that got harvested/phished got leaked, not that facebook themselves got breached.
>Google is an ad company. They can’t sell data that’s breached. They basically do email, and with phishing at epidemic levels, they’ve failed the consumer even at that simple task.
In other words, they haven't been breached, but you still think they're bad people.
To me, Facebooks’ entire business model seems like spyware and selling personal info to third parties. Whether people at such companies are good or bad is not at issue. I assume most people everywhere are good people. But are the companies themselves “good”? Microsoft and Google maybe, certainly in the past (Google wave was very innovative). But Facebook?
The context was privacy and people being victimized by Indian scammers. We know those scammers use Facebook to gather info and target victims, all without any actual breach taking place. To me, not having a breach does not make Facebook “good”.
>To me, Facebooks’ entire business model seems like spyware and selling personal info to third parties.
"seems like" is doing a lot of the heavy lifting here. I'm not aware of instances where facebook was "selling personal info to third parties". It does use personal info to sell ads to third parties, but characterizing that as "selling personal info" is a stretch.
>We know those scammers use Facebook to gather info and target victims, all without any actual breach taking place.
This just sounds like "scammers are viewing public facebook profiles and using facebook messenger to communicate with victims", in that case I'm not sure how facebook deserves flak here.
Agree. Google is buying the data for ads and ad brokerages. Don’t kid yourself. They may use a 3rd party to distance themselves but they definitely buy the data.
It’s not a given that “web page” has any particular meaning to people who don’t own a computer or laptop. Even people with only a cell phone, many don’t browse the web on mobile. Is the google sign in screen that pops up on a google tv a webpage, is not a question a lot of people can answer with confidence.
I wouldn’t think that’s a very common opinion. They like most other news outlets are circling the drain and using clickbait and nbc/fox style engagement news-tainment as life support.
Got to fight fire with fire. Only way to beat a sociopath is by being a bigger sociopath. Yet, I try to go a different way myself. I choose vulnerability over taking on sociopathic behavior. I’ll probably never become wealthy this way, but virtue is its own reward.
Well what do you fight bad laws with? That's right you guessed it...other laws. Fighting fire with fire is everywhere. Crackers vs DRM, Reverse engineering vs vendor lockin, whistleblower protection, South Park vs MAGA, you name it.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good by letting those with no moral code run rampant all over the place.
Tents are safer and better in a bunch of different ways. Imagine if the tents had electrical systems like motorhomes do. Fire, environmental damage, crime, public costs, all favor cheap, safe disposable tents over motorhomes.
The answer isn’t motorhomes or tents, it’s better political leadership and a healthier less likely to fall into homelessness middle class.
There have been reports from Israeli soldiers about surplus killing of citizens which you can find on YouTube. It’s unlikely these people are lying, but their reports may not be entirely representative of the war effort either. I think we need to avoid turning ethic cleansing into some sort of binary where you have it or don’t. It exists on a continuum and is a side effect of war that we should assume exists in some tacit degree wherever there are wars involving ethnic groups.
I felt moral outrage after October 7th, but my moral outrage only served to give Israel a bit more justification for actions which are increasingly and ultimately turning out in a way that provokes similar outrage. Outrage begets outrage, blood will have blood.
