> How quickly will not having social media accounts become a crime?
Ah, it already is. Just being trialed against people with less rights and no voting power.
Since the last several months, your US visa will be rejected if you do not submit public social media profiles.
If you think the government is spending a hundred billions on this category of tech for vetting a few thousand people, you are a prime candidate to buy a bridge that I can sell you for a discount.
> Since the last several months, your US visa will be rejected if you do not submit public social media profiles.
I don’t think this is true. You can get a visa just fine if you don’t have social media profiles. Source: me. I don’t have facebook, insta, twitter etc and travel to the US just fine. When I filled in the form I left those empty.
What I think you can’t do is get a visa if you have social media profiles and choose not to disclose them or you post things or have friends/links on your social media that cbp considers elevates your risk etc.
Can I just ask gpt to ask me questions to create my profile directly? I can't be bothered with any social media. Whatever it is supposed to addict me with is missing, I just find it all very boring.
I got into the USA in September last year. On my esta I put a private instagram account I begrudgingly made to talk to some friends, and my LinkedIn. I guess that’s enough data?
Seems like it would be relatively simple no? They control the app itself? Wouldn't it be trivial to put a signature to the app and see the typing speed, user actions, etc?
Google is doing that, you know all those "I am not a robot" things? Those are made by google mostly and uses a lot of such signals. Its not just clicking the right things its also how you click etc.
The reason some of those just have a checkbox without a challenge is that they already are sure enough so how you move to click the box is enough then.
Do you have any source for that claim? That would be a pretty serious security issue even unrelated to any security hardening (eg. on a multi-user system, one user could read out the password from another user — even with desktop usage, second user could be SSHed in).
As a datapoint, everything in /dev/input/* is owned by root:input on my Debian Bookworm install, and my main user is not a member of the "input" group either.
Biggest problem with most security hardening for Linux desktop is that it breaks the natural usage pattern: I store my files by their content, not by their format (eg. I might have a folder for my project containing image files, spreadsheets, FreeCAD files, maybe even some code or TeX/ODF files). If programs are restricted to access the entirety of my $HOME though, there is not much benefit to that protection since that's where my most valuable data is. If they are restricted to per-program folder, I need to start organizing my data differently and unnaturally.
Android mostly does not use the "files" metaphor and basically does exactly that (per-app data): coming up with a security model and file management UX that does both is where the challenge is.
It's the same reason I choose to keep my front door unlocked basically all the time - I know my neighborhood, the risk is really low and the convenience is high.
Further... practically everyone agrees that they don't need bank vaults as front doors. It makes zero practical sense: The cost is incredibly high, and the convenience is very low.
There are ALL sorts of wonderfully cool things you can do on a system where applications are allowed to trust each other, and the system is permissive by default.
You can customize behavior more easily, you can extend software more easily, you can add incredibly detailed & functional accessibility support, you can create incredibly powerful macros and commands.
This is so important that fundamental OS design from the early 90s actually prioritized and catered to exactly this style of open, trusted, platform (ex - all of COM in windows...). This is what made personal computing a reality...
All of those fall flat when you try to impose "well funded" security efforts.
Those efforts have a place, in the same way that bank vaults have a place. Whether that place is a personal computer is a different question.
Implying those folks are hostile for no reason is... at best a woeful misunderstanding of the situation, and at worst a malicious mischaracterization.
Ah, it already is. Just being trialed against people with less rights and no voting power.
Since the last several months, your US visa will be rejected if you do not submit public social media profiles.
If you think the government is spending a hundred billions on this category of tech for vetting a few thousand people, you are a prime candidate to buy a bridge that I can sell you for a discount.
reply