>"regularly access my accounts on five different UK banks from my Raspberry Pi and I don't use an App to verify on any of them."

Topic shift, but.... I believe this is why so many companies have fought against TOTP. They want to FORCE you to use their proprietary "app" so they have full control over you. Walmart JUST DID THIS. I can no longer order online with Walmart because they stopped supporting 2FA with Email. I will not use their spy app, and I will not give them access to my phone number because I don't want to be spammed or have it sold to others who will spam me. And they refuse to support TOTP, which would work on ANY device, on ANY platform, with near zero cost, with 100% no tracking, zero potential for additional spam channels, and work even without a network connection or 4/5G connection. Consumers should be fighting back hard on this.

>"The European approach has always been, in any problem, to make the burden lie on the business side."

Or the government.

But, agreed. And the USA approach has always been (or at least used to be) to look towards the parents, family, and community, not the government or businesses. Which is why there will (hopefully) be more pushback here.

>"I was expecting these types of comments. It is a typical programmer mindset. I have it myself. Sure it is a leaky solution, but when trying to push humanity in a direction, you need to look at it statistically. If it changes the behavior of more than 25% of the people, it is nice. 50% is great. 75% is astonishing,"

Oh, I know. I actually have to defend my position on empowering parents and making THEM responsible for THEIR children on the same basis. I get comments that kids could go to their neighbor's, or friends, or just buy their own unrestricted devices, etc. And I respond the same way- I don't expect the solution to be 100% or even 90% or 80%.... it doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to:

1) Impress to the minors they ARE doing something wrong by circumventing. And to society at large that enabling minors to circumvent is not socially acceptable.

2) Make it much more difficult to access inappropriate materials and communication.

3) Reduce opportunity and frequency of exposure. We know a lot of this is very much related to frequency of use.

And the focus only on "social media" is a mistake. Yes, I think that is doing the most and worst damage. But minors, especially younger ones, shouldn't have access to most non-social-media sites, regardless of type. And they certainly shouldn't be installing their own apps, revealing their locations, communicating with strangers, sending body part photos, etc. Any type of unrestricted "connected" device comes with a huge amount of danger. Danger to children and adults, alike. But we shouldn't be treating adults like children, nor children like adults.

>"The platform receives only a yes-or-no response. Issuance and verification are handled by separate entities. The proof provider is not told which service the proof was used for."

And yet you still have to trust that this system doesn't get back-doored by three-letter agencies. Because if they do, then, suddenly, they have WAY more power than before.... now able to track where EVERYONE goes. And that is down to the individual level with confidence, not just an IP address or guess.

This gives the "yes/no" entity the power to completely shut down any person's ability to do anything meaningful online if they are able to match a device to a certificate with other means, and directed to do so by the government or some other powerful organization.

And it gives this cabal the ability to shut all sites/services out of the market they don't "like." Requiring they all use this yes/no entity and then refusing participation. (Granted, they kinda already have the option of mucking with DNS and ISP's).

And how are open source projects going to be forced to use the system? And why should they? Perhaps you can get coverage by the major sites and devices, but it won't cover the freedom-loving projects nor the shady sites/projects who simply won't use the system. Minors will have full access there. And all it takes is recompiling an open-source browser, IM, VOIP client, whatever, to issue a bunch of vetted "adult" certificates from a nefarious collection of them online, and now you have full access. And you also set off a war between legit users and the "system" trying to blacklist compromised certificates/identities... which, meanwhile, RUINS the lives of those who had their certificates/identities "stolen."

I am certain there are other issues smarter people than me could find with this arrangement. It could be worse, for sure, but...

Why not stop this madness and focus on PARENTS? Firstly, not giving unrestricted devices to minors. Secondly, having PARENTS be in the driver's seat to control what sites/people/services are allowed for their children. Thirdly, supporting a voluntary age appropriate tag for sites/systems that can be used by local device whilelists by the parents. And fourthly, changing the social norms that it is not OK for minors to have unrestricted devices anywhere. Then adults are not impacted at all. And most of the burden falls on the actual responsible party, who should have intimate knowledge about what is or isn't appropriate at their children's developmental stage.

I am sure there are already other companies ready to jump in, to do the same thing. And in a few years, things will be right where they were before- perhaps worse.

The fight shouldn't be against Flock. It should be against the concept of blanket surveillance, data retention/sharing, and using/searching that data without warrants. And that requires changing government legislation, budgets, and mindsets.

>"Officers aren't supposed to get in front of cars and the person we all know you're alluding to"

I was not referring to any particular event. And pointing to just one would not discount the other 99.9+%.

>"Get fucked, Nazi maggot (but I repeat myself)"

You really are a nasty person. And that doesn't even need being repeated.

>"Will the old trick of outlining your license plate with a bunch of high power IR LEDs obscure your plate from the camera, while still allowing human eyes to read them....?"

1) That won't work in the daytime.
2) Many States have laws against anything that would tamper with the ability of cameras to video/photograph plates (and I am sure more laws will be coming).
3) Flock and others are gathering non-plate fingerprinting so they can get around depending on the plate. Vehicle make/color/accessories, bumper stickers, accident damage, WiFi/bluetooth/TPMS broadcasts, etc.

This is a fight that you cannot win, other than making the surveillance, itself, illegal. And I fear that is going to be a losing prospect as well.

>"Unfortunately that give the police a reason to kill you."

An outcome that is statistically almost zero, if you follow instructions and common sense. But I guess trying to escape, run over officers, fight officers, and/or brandish weapons (or look like it) makes more sense.

Your chance to resist/correct/fight law enforcement is in court, not on the street.

>"Russia's Foreign Ministry issued criticism of America's move, saying "In pursuit of its narrow self-interests, Washington is ready to completely ignore the catastrophic consequences for humanity of any armed conflict in orbit."

Yeah, I don't think we care much about Russia's take on this. They have little to no moral high ground when it comes to "humanity" and "armed conflict". And China has been, no doubt, moving forward steadily with weapons in space.

Anyway, killer space satellites and sentient AI possibly coming... has there ever been a more clear indication of Sykynet?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

That might be on by default in later versions. But it can be disabled and will remain disabled. And that doesn't mean it isn't being "private."

Some people don't want automatic updates, or automated checking. It also depends on which OS and which Firefox you have installed. For example, under Linux, Firefox from the distro will typically have zero notifications or updating because it is handled elegantly by the distro updates.

>"Apparently Mozilla isn't interested in simple. Like so many other companies, the object is to make things as complicated, convoluted, and inconvenient as possible."

Their objective is to make sure web browsing is secure and that you are aware of updates. Look, I agree with you that there should be an easy way to turn it off, even if just in about:config. But they made it clear when they took it away (many years ago) that they aren't going to bring that back, due to security. And I do have some sympathy for that position, considering many users would just never update- giving themselves a sub-optimal experience and possibly giving Mozilla a bad reputation.

But complaining about it to others in Slashdot over and over makes zero difference. All it does is stir up unnecessary and unneeded negativity while also making it sound like there is NO way to disable update checking/warning, which is not true. And that they are incompetent on this, which is also not true, because it was/is intentional.

>"That's true now that pocket is gone, perhaps."

I don't think pocket did anything to collect data unless you had it configured and were actually using it, though. I am not certain. I just disabled pocket in settings or about:config and paid it no mind.

The funny thing is, although it is a bogus "bug" report, they treated it like it was real.

In any case, Mozilla only collects anonymized data by default. And you can happily, quickly, and easily turn that off and it will turn it off and it will remember that across updates.

>"For all they keep doing, the one thing they can't seem to do is make a checkbox to stop being harassed about updates."

You literally post this on every article about Firefox. Aren't you tired yet? I have replied numerous times that they are *NEVER* going to do that. And then I pointed you to using policies, which will disable updates.