I wish I kept track of where I read that. Could have been case law, or EDPB guidelines. Maybe I was speed-reading Art.21¶4 (which is really a requirement on the data controller).
It might be a good idea to send a registered letter with reply advice (Einschreiben mit Rückschein).
If I did that it would cost me over €10 for every single request. Even if it leads to lawsuit and the court favors my claim, registered letters are still a loss. They cannot be claimed back in court.
You say for suspicious users, but for the 4-month stretch of beehaw being unreachable there was no opportunity to login. So there was apparently a user agnostic systemwide change.
It’s worse than being reversible. The problem is that it’s unprovable. A switch from “zero logging” to “log everything” is wholly undetectible to users. You have to rely on blind faith that a profit-driven entity will act in your interest and resist their opportunity to profit from data collection. All you have is trust. Tor avoids that whole dicey mess and reliance on trust.
Indeed the ISP can only see where you go when using TLS, and that data can be aggregated to who you are along with everywhere else you go. It’s sensitive enough that in the US lawmakers decided on whether ISPs need consent to collect that info. Obama signed into force a requirement of ISPs to get consent. Then Trump reversed that. Biden did not reverse it back AFAIK.
W.r.t VPNs, you merely shift the surveillance point; you do not avoid the surveillance. The VPN provider can grab all that info just as well.
I am anonymous. Only doxxing experts know who is behind my account. Using clearnet makes it trivially simple for doxxers. Activitypub msgs include the IP address of the sending source which anyone with their own instance can see, IIRC.
But note as well Tor offers more than anonymity. It mitigates tracking by your ISP.
lemm.ee is centralized in Cloudflare’s exclusive walled garden. I can’t speek for the admins but it’s antithetical to the purpose of the fedi to advocate for federation with centralized hosts.
And there are consequences. If an image is posted to Lemmy.world, sh.itjust.works, or discuss.online, those of us who are excluded from Cloudflare cannot see it. A non-CF node federating to a CF node creates a broken network.
If I recall correctly, the main reason we defederated from those instances at the time was the sheer volume of spam we were getting from users of those instances.
Good point (if that’s true). I can’t help but expose the irony of instances centralized under Cloudflare having a spam problem. It seems to show that those instances sold their sole to the devil only to not get the benefits of the devil’s offer.
That’s the topic of discussion at hand.
When you say “we are at 2”, you make it sound like the royal “we” as a society. So it’s not the right language for what you were trying to express. The correct pronoun would be “they”. Some libraries are inclusive and some are not. The exclusive ones are at #2.
BTW- this necropost is due to Beehaw being unreachable for 4 months. I finally got back in today to see your msg.
The elitist idea that it’s okay to exclude people from public service for not having property cannot be framed as “harm reduction” when in fact it fails at that. The people who have mobile phones and subscriptions are the same people who can afford Wi-Fi at home, data plans, etc. These are people who are already served by the private marketplace. You merely give them a convenience at the expense of spending money in a way that marginalises the needy. It’s not just discrimination you advocate -- the money is poorly allocated when it should go toward serving precisely those you exclude; the ones underserved by the private sector. By catering for the more privileged you only introduce harm by creating a false baseline that harms the excluded groups even more. Libraries were more inclusive 10 years ago, before they needlessly introduced these SMS-imposing captive portals. And some still are inclusive. Some poorly managed libraries have gone in an exclusive direction and this trend is spreading.
We’re at #2.
Who? Which library is at #2? Some libraries are entirely inclusive and treat everyone equally. Some libraries have regressed and have no pressure to join the inclusive world. You’re opposing the pressure that’s needed to make them better. That’s not helpful.. that just enables the problem to worsen.
Having services for some rather than none is quintessential harm reduction.
No it’s not. It increases the harm. We have already reached a point where many governments assume everyone is online and they have used that assumption to remove offline services. So people who are excluded are further harmed by the exclusivity as it creates more exclusivity. If a public service cannot be inclusive then nixing it ensures the infrastucture is in place to compensate knowing that the service is not in place.
extremely childish and harmful.
Elitism is extremely childish and harmful. Respect for human rights is socially responsible. It’s the adult stance.
Unified Declaration of Human Rights, Article 21:
“2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.”
If a library is exclusive the threat of defunding has two outcomes:
Either outcome is better than directing public money toward exclusive services. In the case of closure, the same money can rightfully be redirected toward other libraries that are inclusive.
Compliance splits into two possible outcomes:
Both of those are better outcomes than inequality. Dropping an exclusive service invites pressure to fix it. In any case, the elitism of exclusive public service is unacceptible because it undermines human rights.
(edit) One thing I did not consider is the exclusive services getting non-public funding. If Wi-Fi is going to be exclusive/elitist, perhaps it’s fair enough to continue as such as long as Google or Apple finances it. The private sector is littered with exclusivity and that doesn’t pose a human rights issue. In any case it’s an injustice if one dime of public money goes toward a service that is exclusive, which has the perversion of potentially excluding someone whose tax funded it.
Every method has a barrier:
A webform could potentially have the fewest barriers, but they blew it.