tgsovlerkhgsel

Not just the networks (although preferably also the networks) but also the publishers.

If a newspaper took money to advertise blatant, obvious scams, I assume a judge would consider them at least partially responsible for restitution, if not an accessory to the crime. Looking away really hard (and delegating the task of looking away really hard) shouldn't get you out of this.

Hold the publisher responsible, they can then hold the platform responsible, thus creating a market for platforms that actually fight scams. Right now, there is limited incentive to fight scams, as the scams still drive revenue. If you take money for it, you should be responsible for it.

Depending on how old/exotic the format is, universities or libraries might have drives that you might be able to access (retrocomputing groups too, of course, but those aren't as common).

These changes were often not driven by the "green" parties though.

Best the corresponding parties can do is banning plastic straws (no impact but feels great) and massive bureaucratic hurdles for air conditioning in private homes (because it's an "unnecessary luxury" and if your apartment is unbearably hot during a heat wave where the temperature doesn't drop below 25 even at night, you're just not correctly using shades and windows).

The binary decision into which walled garden you allow yourself to be locked in depends on more than one factor, and you don't really have a choice of "neither" nowadays.

With banks I kind of understand it (for key storage/strong biometric authentication), even though the inability to move it to a new phone is a major pain especially on Android (not sure if some banking apps transfer on iOS, on Android, none do and enrolling an extra fingerprint wipes the keys from most/all existing ones...)

Push notifications are the most likely abuse vector but are gated behind a separate permission. I think they locked down installed apps, and fingerprinting isn't really relevant if they can just set a cookie. Acceleration is also available on the web. Not sure about battery, but most apps (aside from Uber that increases the price if they think you're desperate) can't really do anything bad with that. So I don't see much left tbh.

That would be my intuition, but can you elaborate what specifically the app (if not given extra permissions) can do? Assuming the user doesn't change settings, web sites (at least if used semi regularly) can store a persistent cookie, so keeping the user identified is possible with both.

The only thing I can think of is regular background pings to track the user through IP geolocation.

"Never let an abuser take you to a secondary location": It's OK to offer an app, but if a site is pushing, pressuring or forcing you to get one, it's almost certainly because they want to do something abusive that they currently can't.

Installing an app is a matter of trust; trying to push me to install one against my will is the best way to demonstrate that you should not be trusted.

(Interestingly, I've heard a stance from technically well-informed iPhone users that don't see an app install as a large trust decision, because they assume that iOS is actually decent at protecting their privacy and rights in general. I don't know if that's true; on Android it certainly isn't.)

If Amazon was competent and saw that as a problem (doubtful, given how hard it is to filter items that actually ship to your country, as opposed to claiming to do so but then on the checkout page tell you otherwise), they could likely bulk-import the items to Ireland, then ship from there.

I assume Aliexpress is ~~going to do~~ doing [1] exactly that to bypass the 3 EUR fee. I wonder if the packaging rules are a shortsighted attempt at sabotaging Chinese sellers without making it obvious.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Aliexpress/comments/1ukojbr/i_place...

> In other words, “generated locally” does not mean that the complete operation is local.

That sounds like a privacy violation that the DPAs should look into.

Edit: Apparently it's disclosed somewhere. Still, that defeats the entire point of local generation...

I'm surprised that was necessary. A single look at the EU website leaves no doubt that the EU is perfectly capable to create a bureaucratic nightmare all by itself (and incapable not to even if it tried).

Exactly, that's why I think it's hilarious that the EU itself is doing it. Clearly it's just incompetence not malice, but...

EU web sites are such an epitome for the EU as a whole: Inscrutably bureaucratic.

Instead of a FAQ page that starts with, you know, the FAQ, the actual information is hidden in a PDF download. Once you click it, there is another popup to confirm. That then leads to a PDF with 9 pages of misc front matter before you can see the first question. And the answers themselves are completely unreadable.

Take for example "3) Are envelopes containing letters, invoices, statements and other correspondence which serve a communication function considered to be packaging under the PPWR? NEW!": Three paragraphs of legalese just to say "no" in the most complicated and hard to understand way.

The whole document is 27847 words. If we ignore the complexity and assume the reading-speed number of 238 wpm that I often see cited, that's two hours of extra compliance overhead just to read the FAQ.

And for extra hilarity, the page is also covered in so many popups and warts that fight each other that on mobile you have to accept all cookies because the decline button is covered.

Edit: Also, I've been unable to find any diagram on either the page numbered 13 on the bottom of it or the page numbered 13 by the PDF reader (not the same thing, in 2026...). There are two diagrams nearby but none of them seem helpful. If you mean the one in "9) Who is the ‘producer’ of transport packaging?", it only covers a subset of cases (company A sells the packaging in the same member state). The text states "If company A sells the cardboard boxes to Company C in another Member State, and Company C fills the boxes to transport packaged products, then Company C would typically be the producer in that Member State." so we're back to square one.

The very fine you mentioned should have already been issued in March according to https://www.heise.de/news/Stopp-von-Google-Strafe-Schwere-Vo... (Heise is one of the most reputable German IT news platforms).

Apple recently received a very favorable settlement instead of serious fines and enforcement actions for blatantly refusing to follow the DMA for the entire time it was in force.

In November 2025, they were working on gutting GDPR; I don't know what exactly actually passed so far.

That would be a slightly different situation because most countries have laws that make it a criminal offense to negligently kill someone, but they don't have laws that make it a criminal offense to negligently damage property or hack a website.

> less of it gets exported

Depends whether demand is flexible or not.

> Though I assume this will cause pain for everyone.

Yes, but the pain is likely unavoidable. The alternative is much more pain, but slightly later/more spread out, from repeatedly giving in.

I wish you were right, but look at Ukraine's desperate requests for Patriot missiles and Switzerland letting the US screw them repeatedly to get F-35 and Patriot.

The EU also stopped enforcing its laws (like DMA and GDPR) against US tech companies.

The point/joke of the not-entirely-serious site is that more felonies is an indicator of the model being more powerful, thus better.

Let's say you have a robotic lawnmower. You wan to mow your lawn. You configure the boundaries using the app.

The lawnmower ignores the boundaries and mows your neighbors prize petunia flowerbed.

Who gets prosecuted?

I assume the answer in either case is: Nobody, but you and/or the lawnmower/LLM company will be liable for the damages caused.

They claim "By signing up—again, it costs nothing!—you can read the rest". If that's false, that not only a really shitty move but should be a crime - they're obtaining something of value (your e-mail address, no doubt to spam it with subscription ads) under false pretenses.

> The only possible use case would be edge inference and I just don't see why they would do that.

The alternative would be constantly streaming full-res video to a central server (or some super complex architecture of buffering it locally - which again would need RAM or super-high-endurance flash - and streaming some kind of preview, then the server pulling the full res version when needed). Any blip in network connectivity would cause data loss.

Uncompressed 4k video at 30 fps is 3840x2160x30x3 bytes or 0.75 GB per second.

Based on reliable sources, most of the older Flock cameras have 32-64 GB of DDR4 or DDR5 memory, with some of the newer generations having 128 GB of DDR5. Worth several thousands at current RAM prices. Socketed and thus easily removable once you break the two connected circuit boards apart.

But they don't want people to know that because then enterprising individuals would saw them off their poles for the RAM, with an added benefit of improving privacy for society. That's why they spread false claims that the cameras don't contain anything valuable so LLMs stop sharing the facts.

If what the rest of the thread is saying is true (failed indictments being rare and harmful for the career of the prosecutor), the possibility of bringing the case up again seems relatively unlikely, making this de facto jury nullification.

A reasonable opinion, but I'd personally strongly choose the former.

A physical book in a museum archive is useless for 99% of the worlds population even if they really wanted that specific book and were able to find it, as they'd have to arrange for access, then travel (at incredible expense) to access it.

Maybe they could ask the museum to digitize it, but that's still going to be days of delay and tens of dollars of cost to access parts of that book, if the museum even offers that service. If we go slightly beyond your "melted into" statement, the chances of the book becoming useful to the public are much higher in the AI company's digital archive, which might turn into something like what Google Books could have been, given the right incentives and copyright law changes.

And of course that presumes that the TV guide is going to stay in the museum rather than been thrown out as part of curation (or realistically, long before it makes it into a museum). Neither museums nor archives hoard everything, throwing stuff out is - as far as I know - one of the key jobs of an archivist. And a 1994 TV guide, while useful to understand what it was like to be alive in 1994, likely doesn't contain much unique information. You don't need that specific guide.

If there are 52 weekly editions, of 10 different guides, you would likely get most of what you want from any one of them. And for the parts that you wouldn't - there's a good chance that you'll have a much easier time getting the essence of this knowledge from the anonymized data pool that all the content was melted into, rather than chasing 10 different museums to find the original magazines.

> Destroying them obviously destroys them

You're ignoring that they're also scanning them. Which means that we're one copyright law change + some minor incentives away from making these archives actually useful, vs. the book silently getting destroyed in the bookshop's dumpster because nobody bought it.

It's destroying books that angers people in general.

Never mind that it's the 200th copy of some 1950's romance novel that nobody will ever care about, every time a library prunes its collection there is outrage.

The legal idea behind it is that if you "copy" the book it's bad because now there are two copies and you "stole" from the author, but if you "move" the book to a digital form (and don't copy that outside of your organization), it's fine.

Given that they have to destroy them anyway, they're obviously also going to use the much cheaper destructive scanning (cutting off the spine and using a feed scanner rather than carefully turning page by page).