⚠️ De EFF waarschuwt dat Googles ontwikkelaarsverificatie "een weg naar censuur" creëert. Ontwikkelaars in restrictieve landen, anonieme open-source bijdragers en onderhouders van privacytools behoren tot de zwaarst getroffenen.
Wat zijn 'restrictieve landen'?
Kort gezegd: landen met zware internetcensuur, waar de overheid streng controleert wat je online mag zien, zeggen en maken.
Juist in die landen — en in opkomende economieën — lopen app-makers nu gevaar. Europa wilde met nieuwe regels de macht van Big Tech breken, maar Google reageert met verstikkende identificatie-eisen voor ontwikkelaars.
De ironie is pijnlijk: regels tégen Big Tech raken nu juist de kleine, onafhankelijke softwaremakers. Knappe koppen die met minimale middelen prachtige vrije software schrijven, worden buitengesloten door westerse bureaucratie. Dit is een directe aanval op de FOSS-gemeenschap en vrije alternatieven zoals F-Droid.
Google is groot geworden dankzij deze wereldwijde community. Het techbedrijf moet verder kijken dan de grenzen van de VS en de EU. Digitale vrijheid is een wereldwijd recht. Bescherm de opensource-wereld in plaats van deze kapot te reguleren.
🔗 Lees er alles over en kom in actie via: keepandroidopen.org/nl/
#KeepAndroidOpen #FOSS #FDroid #OpenSource #Privacy #DigitalRights #Fediverse #EFF
gargle likes this.
reshared this
gargle and iguana09863 reshared this.
drbrain
in reply to David Gerard • • •d@nny disc@
in reply to David Gerard • • •a friend of mine caused an incident at fb when he removed an incredible amount of duplicated vendored code ostensibly because they have an ML-based packaging tool that suddenly failed in response to a much smaller input. one issue with vendored code is that changes to it are not really detectable; the second issue is that you can't update it for security fixes.
i mention this because facebook has very frequently spoken of how security needs to be the default and tooling built to make it easier to write secure code; sure, it's facebook, perhaps best to ignore that. but there should be no way a single change makes this possible in the first place. twitter was under a 10-year FTC consent decree for failing to sufficiently protect user data (they lied about this to their engineers). accessing user data is not something a single code change can achieve unless user data is already visible to insufficiently permissioned services.
the point is this sounds like a great thing to leak to the press if you believe your sneaky code path is about to get burned by a whistleblower. it
... Show more...a friend of mine caused an incident at fb when he removed an incredible amount of duplicated vendored code ostensibly because they have an ML-based packaging tool that suddenly failed in response to a much smaller input. one issue with vendored code is that changes to it are not really detectable; the second issue is that you can't update it for security fixes.
i mention this because facebook has very frequently spoken of how security needs to be the default and tooling built to make it easier to write secure code; sure, it's facebook, perhaps best to ignore that. but there should be no way a single change makes this possible in the first place. twitter was under a 10-year FTC consent decree for failing to sufficiently protect user data (they lied about this to their engineers). accessing user data is not something a single code change can achieve unless user data is already visible to insufficiently permissioned services.
the point is this sounds like a great thing to leak to the press if you believe your sneaky code path is about to get burned by a whistleblower. it also serves as an explanation to their own employees. stochastic parrot can't generate a cryptographic key and any security engineer would know this. what this does say is that the regulatory environment is sufficiently dead in the water that they feel safe to leak criminal neglect to the press.
reshared this
David Gerard, 2xfo, sleet01 and Joakim Fors reshared this.
europlus
in reply to David Gerard • • •and let me ask you, who wears the risk, liability, and consequences here given the corporate push to use AI?
I hope the employee doesn’t suffer any consequences (above the background radiation of consequences any Meta employee should suffer).
Justin Macleod
in reply to David Gerard • • •AlisonW ♿🏳️🌈♾️ 🔜 #EMFCamp [dect 7077]
in reply to David Gerard • • •Peter (ˈpiːtər)
in reply to David Gerard • • •> “The vulnerability would have been very, very obvious to Meta in retrospect, if not in the moment. And what I can say and will say is this is Meta experimenting at scale. It’s Meta being bold.”
No, it's Meta being very, very stupid. A company that deploys agentic AI, *knowing* its limitations, without safeguards is not "clever" or "bold". It's reckless and stupid.
#AI #AgenticAI #Meta
Z̈oé
in reply to David Gerard • • •Preston MacDougall
in reply to David Gerard • • •#AI is #clankers 🤖 all the way down.
#Resist #AIslop.
AlisonW ♿🏳️🌈♾️ 🔜 #EMFCamp [dect 7077]
Unknown parent • • •