Spotlight7573

joined 1 year ago
 

The Pro Codes Act has been submitted as an amendment to the "must pass" National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It allows copyrighted standards to be incorporated by reference into the law, preventing people from accessing or sharing these standards except through the systems the standards development organizations have that "makes all portions of the standard so incorporated publicly accessible online at no monetary cost and in a format that includes a searchable table of contents and index, or equivalent aids to facilitate the location of specific content. " Note that that does not include searchable text, the ability to access it without a login, or any ability to host it elsewhere (such as alongside the laws that incorporate it).

The NDAA bill:

https://rules.house.gov/bill/118/hr-8070

The amendment:

https://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/ISSA_180_xml240531155108634.pdf

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Another KOReader recommendation here. I typically use it on an eink device but also have it on my phone and it works well.

Looks like for syncing there's a plugin:

https://github.com/koreader/koreader/wiki/Progress-sync

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I'm pretty sure that people were unhappy because it was opt-out at first. Now that bridging is opt-in, I don't think most people have a problem with it and I've seen a number of posts from both sides of the bridge so it seems to be working.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Malware won't even need to wait for the user to access something sensitive, they can just go back through the user's Recall history and get the data for immediate exfiltration. No chance for anti-malware software to update and catch it before it does anything truly bad, it will just always be too late if given even a minute.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

And of Course, if you stream Netflix, tons of copyright protected material, lol.

Nope, DRM protected content like Netflix is one of the few things it doesn't capture, it's even mentioned in Recall's privacy section. I'll admit that that's likely due to technical reasons with how the video stream is decrypted and decoded on the GPU and is never actually accessible to the user, not necessarily because they wouldn't want to save that as well.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I feel like even if it was open-source, it would still be too big of a target for malware and data exfiltration to ever be justified for most people.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It's always been a possibility that someone could do this but this makes it a default on feature for a lot of users you might interact with and makes them a prime target for malware to steal the sensitive data that wouldn't have existed in most cases before.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

To protect against casual theft of a device causing the data to be in the thief's hands in addition to the actual device.

The average person unfortunately is not likely to properly backup their encryption keys so if they forget their password (or don't use one and rely on the default of just TPM), they'll complain about losing their data. Having the key backed up gives them a way to get their data back in non-theft situations.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

That's true. I know they did increase the number of filters from the initial amount but they really should just make it effectively infinite.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (3 children)

As long as that extension developer can be trusted to have access to read and modify the data of any site you load and to not sell the extension (and its userbase) for a quick buck (see Hover Zoom+ for an example of how much they're willing to offer, as recently as today).

There are definitely trade-offs between the permissions allowed in V2 versus V3. It really depends on where you think the main threat is (websites and online tracking versus extension developers).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

It's basically similar to this example from the health field:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/07/ftc-hhs-warn-hospital-systems-telehealth-providers-about-privacy-security-risks-online-tracking

Like givesomefucks said, it's probably not that they were actually after that information specifically, but that it just got caught up in regular website analytics that services put on their sites. You can still infer a lot about a person's health information by just looking at the URLs they visit, so I'd say it is a concern but I'm not sure it should go beyond companies/agencies/organizations needing to know about the risks and a "stop doing this" warning. If analytics services were doing this intentionally and evaluating and using that data explicitly at the direction of some human in their company, then I think it would be a much bigger issue and a much bigger story.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

That's a sentiment that quite a few others online feel too:

https://www.techdirt.com/2019/03/13/do-people-want-better-facebook-dead-facebook/

I do get the argument though that if no improvement will ever be good enough for some people, then what incentive do they have to change for the better if it won't make a difference to those people either way?

 

Upcoming Policy Changes

One of the major focal points of Version 1.5 requires that applicants seeking inclusion in the Chrome Root Store must support automated certificate issuance and management. [...] It’s important to note that these new requirements do not prohibit Chrome Root Store applicants from supporting “non-automated” methods of certificate issuance and renewal, nor require website operators to only rely on the automated solution(s) for certificate issuance and renewal. The intent behind this policy update is to make automated certificate issuance an option for a CA owner’s customers.

 

[...]

To provide better security, Google introduced an Enhanced Safe Browsing feature in 2020 that offers real-time protection from malicious sites you are visiting. It does this by checking in real-time against Google's cloud database to see if a site is malicious and should be blocked.

[...]

Google announced today that it is rolling out the Enhanced Safe Browsing feature to all Chrome users over the coming weeks without any way to go back to the legacy version.

The browser developer says it's doing this as the locally hosted Safe Browsing list is only updated every 30 to 60 minutes, but 60% of all phishing domains last only 10 minutes. This creates a significant time gap that leaves people are unprotected from new malicious URLs.

[...]

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/3301227

Chrome will be experimenting with defaulting to https:// if the site supports it, even when an http:// link is used and will warn about downloads from insecure sources for "high-risk files" (example given is an exe). They're also planning on enabling it by default for Incognito Mode and "sites that Chrome knows you typically access over HTTPS".

 

A hybrid quantum-resistant Key Encapsulation Method combined with a regular elliptic curve backup will be available in Chrome 116 for securing connections.

view more: next ›