The worst part isn't even whether or not Eats / Doordash suck (and make no mistake, they do) at their core purpose - It's that virtually every restaurant traditionally known for delivering has realized they can cut that nonsense right out of the budget and just push everyone to use a third-party delivery service at the customer's expense.

I know I'm going to sound like a cranky old man here, but once upon a time, food delivery was a sweet job for a late teen / early 20-something - Drive around town rather than being stuck in a kitchen, busting their butts to get the food to you while it was still warm, and were thrilled to get tipped a five. Now, if you only tip these professional "food ransom services" a twenty, you can expect to scrape your food off the garage roof and be named-and-shamed on IG for being such an insufferable asshole as to not pay more for the delivery than the food. And even if you tip "enough" to avoid the wrath of your driver, it's guaranteed to be late, cold, and in way too many cases to be coincidental, missing a few fries / nuggets / whatever. Go ahead and complain, and they'll just ban both the driver and the customer, and good luck getting a refund.

But hey, I have nothing to complain about since I live more than 10 minutes outside a city core, nobody will accept the delivery anyway.

Oh, goody, the website selling our licenses is down. Whelp, toothpaste back in the tube, we can all rest easy knowing that the day is saved!

Of course, the next obvious step if they can't sell them is to simply release the entire batch into the wild. And how dare any of you think this might somehow be the fault of sweet innocent idscan.net for inadequately protecting the highly sensitive data they were grudgingly entrusted with in the first place.

We need a hell of a lot more CEOs in prison, and we need any politicians that requires / supports / allows this bullshit to join them. Of course, absolutely none of that is going to happen because Joe Sixpack has zero clue any of this is going on; and even if he somehow catches wind of it from a Facebook meme, oh well, it's just one more breach, who cares, he gets notices of those on a monthly basis and has been intentionally trained to treat them as junk mail.

Fine, we'll do this the tedious way, since you Meta/etc shills are happy to prove they're incapable of inductive reasoning.

Foreign scammers do not care about the law. Social media CEOs play fast-and-loose with the law and consider fines just a cost of doing business. Governments consider themselves above the law. The "good guys" didn't need this law in the first place.

"You may not use this service unless you're 13 or over" - Poof, every 12YO is suddenly 35. See the problem with your hypothesis?

I know this will come as a shock to many, but porn sites aren't the problem here, merely the lowest hanging "for duh kidz!!1!" excuse available to push these adult-privacy atrocities through - If anything, they tend to be some of the best actors in this situation, if only because they're the most closely watched by puritanical assholes. I trust PornHub far more than I trust Twitter, and I trust Twitter far more than anything ending in .ru, .il, or .in.

Sounds an awfully lot like you're agreeing with me here. Are you referring to a specific situation you'd like to cite?

To the best of my knowledge, gambling requires having some way to pay. Kids aren't laundering birthday cash from grandma so they can place a trifecta on the ponies, dude. Meanwhile, this will have zero effect on gambler-in-training gatchas that let kids bet on loot boxes via Play / iTunes gift cards.

Pbpbpbttttt! I know you are but what am I?
Christ you trolls are tiresome.

Every time people hear what it actually involves is outrage and opposition, at least all the way back to when Intel first announced that they wanted to hardcode identity numbers inside CPUs in 1999. But the corporations involved have been relentless, and have sunk countless billions of dollars steadily forcing it forwards, and building front organizations to obfuscate and whitewash it.

With Windows 11, Microsoft was finally able to FORCE Trusted computing hardware into every new computer. Not just every new Windows computer, but every computer.

Every new Intel PC CPU has built in Trusted Computing enforcement hardware. Every new AMD PC CPU has built in Trusted Computing enforcement hardware. Every new ARM PC CPU has built in Trusted Computing enforcement hardware. The only processor lines that DON'T have it are the microcontrollers.

There are some unlocked smartphones available, but as far as I can determine it's literally impossible to buy a smartphone that doesn't have hardware trusted computing built in.

I specified that enforcing Trusted Computing at the internet access level is still a long term goal, they couldn't get away with it today. However they are well on the way to success. Virtually all new hardware supporting trusted computing, all the front groups rolling out standards and systems, and as it gets incorporated into things everyone is going to increasingly running into situations where they get locked out of stuff if they're not Trusted Computing compliant. Streaming already restricts you to the worst quality if you're not compliant, and it's only going to get worse as pre-Win11 computers fade out and as more things require it.

You're funny. Tell me, how many under-13s do you think are on FB, despite not being allowed? Hint: All of them.

And I'll be sure to let the offshore scammers know it's illegal, I'm sure they'll be quaking in their boots.

I'd hardly call exact date of birth "low information content".

And yes this does reveal exact date of birth, regardless of the bullshit obfuscation that it supposedly only reports age range. The server simply tracks the reported result every time the user connects, and on some specific day the result CHANGES to announce their date of birth.

-

This is based on SLSA (Supply-chain Levels for Software Artifacts), brought to you by the same fuckers making Trusted Computing and the TMP (Trusted Platform Module). It's part of the same shitstack to prohibit you from altering your software and to lock you out of your own files, and to send spy reports out over the internet so you can be cut off if you "fail" the Trusted Computing check.

The software can use a TPM's (Trusted Platform Module) Sealing function to encrypt your data such that it's impossible to access your own data if the software is modified. It can then pass control over that data only to software updates that carry a signed security certificate from Broadcom (or any other company using this system).

It is no longer open source, your system no longer works as you can no longer access your Sealed data if you change so much as a single letter of the code. Even recompile unaltered code won't work, unless you magically manage to get your build environment absolutely identical to the company's build environment and get byte-for-byte output. Even that may be impossible with the newer levels of non-deterministic compiler optimizations.

Also, with TMP's Remote Attestation feature can be used to transmit your machine's software configuration over the internet, so that you can be cut off if your system doesn't match Broadcom (or other company's) cryptographically signed certificate.

And then of course there's Network Access Control (NAC) / Trusted Network Connect (TNC). In the long term, the goal is for ISPs to use NAC/TNC to interrogate your computer for Trusted Computing compliance, and deny you any internet access whatsoever if your machine isn't compliant. Software with this sort of "security" certificate would pass inspection, while any attempt to alter the code would be detected as "tampering". You then get "quarantined". What "quarantine" means is that you are denied internet access - with the exception that you do get very restricted access which can only be used to download the approved software to "fix" your computer into Trusted Computing compliance.

Okay, I'll feed the troll: I choose to comment on Slashdot. I also choose not to use less privacy-respecting platforms like Facebook. And make no mistake, I'm under no delusion Slashdot-the-company has been anything more than yet another data harvesting endeavor since CmdrTaco sold it.

I do not have a choice in whether or not Flock misreads my license plate and I'm arrested at gunpoint as a direct result - Or worse, which will eventually happen; and Flock somehow magically bears zero liability because hey, their contract admits they're unreliable and requires users to do their own due diligence. Which absolutely none of them do.

Sorry - To be clear, I wasn't disagreeing with you. Quite the opposite, I was basically expanding on "There is something dodgy going on".

Peace, friend!

And your problem is apparently an inability to figure out that two plus two equals four.

First, those age brackets are necessarily dynamic or the OS would be out of compliance the day after installing - Because y'know, people tend to age one day per day, at least until we have space stations orbiting Sgr-A*.

And second, if you visit Facebook the day before you turn 18 and the day after, whaddya know, they magically now know your actual birthdate without ever needing to be explicitly told. This ain't rocket science, dude (space stations orbiting the nearest supermassive black hole aside).

That's really the biggest question in all of this - What means of enforcement on the end-user will end up attached to this?

I suspect the vast majority of us are just as fine with lying to Microsoft as we are with lying to Facebook. And as a privacy freak myself, the law itself honestly sounds about as tame as we could have hoped for (short of no law at all); but almost guaranteed Microsoft / Apple / OEMs are already rubbing their hands together and cackling with evil glee over having not just an excuse, but a near-mandate, to demand a license or passport merely to activate a new install.

And what about preexisting installs? At what point is MS itself effectively going to ransomware the very PCs we own for a pic of our license, and what recourse do we have when they invariably brick some fraction of those? Because it will happen.

Nobody's paying a few grand just to steal a similar few grand in hardware; and the booth bunnies / bois couldn't care less about having a few work laptops stolen, insurance would cover it and it's not a personal loss anyway.

Rather, this is 100% about stealing what was on those devices, and the potential value could be hundreds / thousands of times higher than the cost of the lost hardware itself. Imagine a pre-release build of GTA VI, almost certainly without the DRM baked in yet so it doesn't embarass the vendor at exactly the wrong moment, and you have the right idea.

PII comes in two types: direct identifiers and indirect identifiers. Direct identifiers are unique to a person and include things like a passport number or driver's license number. A single direct identifier is typically enough to determine someone's identity. Indirect identifiers are not unique. They include more general personal details like race and place of birth. While a single indirect identifier can't identify a person, a combination can. For example, 87% of US citizens could be identified based on nothing more than their gender, ZIP code and date of birth. (emphasis mine).

"Do you know how empowering it is to realize that after 25 years away from coding, you can"...
...Force a subordinate to do coding tasks for you and take credit for it?

Sweet $Deity the lack of introspection in this waste of flesh is strong!

All I'll say is, they're not calibrated anywhere near as accurately as you seem to believe; and that I'm not talking about after-market add-ons, I'm talking about the OEM markup on sub-$100 hardware.