If copyright holders want to take action, their complaints will go to the ISP subscriber.
So, that would either be the entity operating the public wifi, or yourself (if your mobile data plan is associated with your name).
If you're in a country where downloading copyrighted material can have legal consequences (eg, the USA and many EU countries), in my opinion doing it on public wifi can be rather anti-social: if it's a small business offering you free wifi, you risk causing them actual harm, and if it is a big business with open wifi you could be contributing to them deciding to stop having open wifi in the future.
So, use a VPN, or use wifi provided by a large entity you don't mind causing potential legal hassles for.
Note that if your name is somehow associated with your use of a wifi network, that can come back to haunt you: for example, at big hotels it is common that each customer gets a unique password; in cases like that your copyright-infringing network activity could potentially be linked to you even months or years later.
Note also that for more serious privacy threat models than copyright enforcement, your other network activities on even a completely open network can also be linked to identify you, but for the copyright case you probably don't need to worry about that (currently).
For some reason that article doesn't link to it, but it is a real tweet he made in February (and didn't even delete after being called out for the highlighted search terms in his screenshot).
I’m pretty sure that immigration in the US can just confiscate your devices if you are not a citizen .
CBP can and does "detain" travelers' devices at (or near) the border, without a warrant or any stated cause, even if they are US citizens.
Here is part of the notice they give people when they do:
Or just removing my biometrics?
Ultimately you shouldn't cross the US border carrying devices or encrypted data which you aren't prepared to unlock for DHS/CBP, unless you're willing to lose the hardware and/or be denied entry if/when you refuse to comply.
If they decide to, you'll be handed this: "You are receiving this document because CBP intends to conduct a border search of your electronic device(s). This may include copying and retaining data contained in the device(s). [...] Failure to assist CBP in accessing the electronic device and its contents for examination may result in the detention of the device in order to complete the inspection."
Device searches were happening a few hundred times each month circa 2009 (the most recent data i could find in a quick search) but, given other CBP trends, presumably they've become more frequent since then.
In 2016 they began asking some visa applicants for social media usernames, and then expanded it to most applicants in 2019, and the new administration has continued that policy. I haven't found any numbers about how often they actually deny people entry for failing to disclose a social media account.
In 2017 they proposed adding the authority to also demand social media passwords but at least that doesn't appear to have been implemented.
actually it stands for "Privacy-Preserving Attribution".
They had to make it the default though. That was unavoidable.
For it to be useful at scale, sure, but reading this it sounds like Chrome's version of it is still "experimental" and opt-in. Hopefully the backlash prevents it from being developed further.
via https://mastodon.social/@spiralganglion/112294836298449151
image description
Photographs of the front and back of Apple's original Mac 128k. A finger is touching the power switch on the back, and a hand is inserting a floppy disk into the front. Text below reads: Insert the Macintosh System Disk into the disk drive, metal end first, label side up. Push the disk until it clicks into place. The soft hum is your Macintosh getting information from the disk. A message appears, welcoming you to Macintosh.
view more: next ›
Snopes says they haven't found evidence that this is something he actually said, and also that even if he did say it, it was most likely "kayfabe" - a pro wrestling term for maintaining the story line outside of the ring.
Otoh, https://www.houstonpress.com/news/opinion-the-reality-behind-hulk-hogan-vs-andre-the-giant-16554572 is an interesting read i just found while searching for the above which includes some good reasons why Andre might legitimately have stopped being friends with Hogan. Also TIL Jesse Ventura tried to unionize WWF and later learned in court that it was in fact Hogan who had ratted him out to their boss (Vince McMahon). (Or maybe this is all just higher-order kayfabe? 🤡)