debanqued
@debanqued@beehaw.org
- Comment on Colorado: to test the 911 service, you must first place a normal call to the 911 center. WTF, they don’t think you might be unable to do that? 1 week ago:
It is nobody’s duty to expose anything for the sake of exposing it.
Bullshit. Exposure is the 1st step.
It is our duty to expose things for the sake of solving them.
Of course.
If you have a better solution, we’re ready to hear it.
It’s not my problem to solve. Do you also demand that testers fix the bugs they report?
You’re perversely out of step with out volunteer effort is managed. Volunteers choose for themselves how much effort they contribute. You are not their manager. It’s not for you to drive-by task people and bark out orders. When a bug is reported, it’s public for anyone to solve, if they want.
I don’t see anything being covered up.
You don’t know how threadcrap works. It’s designed to suppress the thesis by creating a distraction.
- Comment on Colorado: to test the 911 service, you must first place a normal call to the 911 center. WTF, they don’t think you might be unable to do that? 1 week ago:
I’m confused what you think a better alternative would be? If there was a test number, what if that worked, but you couldn’t call the real 911?
A test number would suffice in some situations. When an incompetent VOIP provider takes an action to block calls “for security purposes”, they cannot block /all/ calls. 911 calls must be permitted. And 911 test calls would obviously require the same status. If their call blocking allows a 911 test number through, it proves that their blockade is not blocking /everything/.
A test number would not be the only solution. With some services you can set the CID to whatever you want. So in principle a CID of 555-1212 could have special meaning to 911 receiptionists.
911 is not always answered by humans. When answered by a machine, there could be a cancel code. E.g. dial “119” after connecting to cancel it.
There’s no way around it: to be absolutely sure your phone can contact 911, you have to… dial 911.
Sure, if you need that extra level of certainty.
- Comment on Colorado: to test the 911 service, you must first place a normal call to the 911 center. WTF, they don’t think you might be unable to do that? 1 week ago:
and it will be fine.
Citation needed that there will be no fine to pay.
- Comment on Colorado: to test the 911 service, you must first place a normal call to the 911 center. WTF, they don’t think you might be unable to do that? 1 week ago:
That’s a dicey hack. There are typically fines for placing illegit 911 calls because they get enough false calls to have in place a system that automatically charges whatever the fine is. Was $50 for the 1st offense decades ago IIRC… likely higher now.
- Comment on Colorado: to test the 911 service, you must first place a normal call to the 911 center. WTF, they don’t think you might be unable to do that? 1 week ago:
Gotta reference? At the moment, I have a VOIP phone I need to test.
- Comment on Colorado: to test the 911 service, you must first place a normal call to the 911 center. WTF, they don’t think you might be unable to do that? 1 week ago:
First, it’s wrong to assume everyone has multiple phones.
But if we can get past that, are you also assuming that the test phone has a phone number? Suppose you call the test center with a friend’s phone. The conversation goes like this:
me: I will make a test call from a different phone than the one I am calling from.
911 center: Okay, what is the phone number of the phone you are testing (so we know which inbound call to disregard)?
me: The test phone is not subscribed. There is no number.Of course if a GSM phone has no chip, it also has no number assignment. If the test phone is a VOIP phone, the subscriber may not have a DID. There could be a phony internal number assignment in that case, but the customer does not necessarily know it.
- Colorado: to test the 911 service, you must first place a normal call to the 911 center. WTF, they don’t think you might be unable to do that?puc.colorado.gov ↗Submitted 1 week ago to technology@beehaw.org | 20 comments
- Comment on Logging In Was Never Supposed to Be This Complicated 1 week ago:
Website enshitified. Had to use lynx:
$ lynx https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/08/password-manager-login-difficulty/688396/?gift=A_VYuI0Bs4X1cJsYonaJVE29HRH1L8Ei13mJ3d1owSA - Comment on Charges Dropped Against Person Who Clapped at a City Data Center Meeting / Lux Claridge was dragged from a city meeting about data centers and charged with interfering with the police after they clap… 1 week ago:
Timing is important with clapping. No mention of what happened just before Lux clapped.
- Comment on U.S. Citizen Who Deleted Phone’s Data Says His Prosecution Puts Privacy at Risk 1 week ago:
Enshitified website says: “Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker”
Would someone plz post the text of this article?
- Comment on (Europe) email self hosters can use the GDPR fight big mail hosters who block you 1 year ago:
Depends on how you define the goal. It’s not going to work like magic, all in one motion. Indeed you are right that the DPAs are not going to take action. The DPAs ignore most cases that get filed by individuals no matter how solid the law and evidence is.
After dealing with deadbeat DPAs, I’ve lowered my expectations quite a bit. The DPA cannot legally ignore the complain wholly. They must file it and acknowledge it. Then they will ignore it, sure. For me, it’s about getting the complaint on record. Then it gets reported in the stats and metrics in annual reports and the 4-year report that the EDPB prepares for the Commission.
- Submitted 1 year ago to selfhosting@slrpnk.net | 2 comments
- Comment on Net neutrality is back as FCC votes to regulate internet providers 2 years ago:
A website isn’t a common carrier
The discussion is about network neutrality, not just common carriers (which are only part of the netneutrality problem).
you cannot argue that a website isn’t allowed to control who they serve their content to.
Permission wasn’t the argument. When a website violates netneutrality principles, it’s not a problem of acting outside of authority. They are of course permitted to push access inequality.
Cloudflare is a tool websites use to exercise that right,
One man’s freedom is another man’s oppression.
necessitated by the ever rising prevalence of bots and DDoS attacks.
It is /not/ necessary to use a tool as crude and reckless as Cloudflare to defend from attacks with disregard to collateral damage. There are many tools in the toolbox for that and CF is a poor choice.
Your proposed definition of net neutrality would destroy anyone’s ability to deal with these threats.
Only if you neglect to see admins who have found better ways to counter threats that do not make the security problem someone elses.
Can you at least provide examples of legitimate users who are hindered by the use of Cloudflare?
That was in the linked article.
- Comment on Net neutrality is back as FCC votes to regulate internet providers 2 years ago:
Interstate commerce is governed by the federal government.
Not exclusively. Interstate commerce implies that the feds can regulate it, not that they have exclusive power to do so. We see this with MJ laws. The fed believes it has the power to prohibit marijuana on the basis of interstate commerce, but in fact mj can be grown locally, sold locally, and consumed locally. Just like internet service can be.
Suppose you want to buy a stun gun in New York. You can find stun guns sold via mail order from another state (thus interstate commerce), but New York still managed to ban them despite the role of interstate commerce.
A close analog would be phone laws. The fed has the TCPA to protect you from telemarketers, but at the same time various states add additional legal protections for consumers w.r.t. telemarketing and those laws have force even if the caller is outside the country. (Collecting on the judgement is another matter).
Schools now require the internet for kids. ISPs being allowed to be anything more than a dumb pipe means they have the control of what information is sent across their network.
Education is specifically a service of the state. If you can point to the statute requiring schools to provide internet for students, I believe it will be state law not federal law that you find.
The internet is now a basic human right in the United States for numerous reasons, one of which is #2.
I don’t quite follow. Are you saying that because education is a human right, that internet access is a human right? I don’t think it works that way. First of all, people who do not exercise their right to an education would not derive any rights implied by education. As for the students, if a state requires internet in education that does not mean that internet access becomes a human right. E.g. an Amish family might lawfully opt to homeschool their child, without internet. That would satisfy the right to education enshrined in the Unified Declaration of Human Rights just fine.
Also, if internet could be construed as a human right by some mechanism that’s escaping me, the fed is not exclusively bound by human rights law. The fed signed the treaty, but all governments therein are also bound to uphold human rights. Even private companies are bound to human rights law in the wording of the text, though expectation of enforcement gets shaky.
ISPs cross state boundaries and should be governed by interstate law.
I subscribe to internet service from a WISP. A dude in my neighborhood rolled out his own ISP service. His market did not even exceed the city.
The local ISPs have ISPs themselves and as you climb the supply chain eventually you get into the internet backbone which would be interstate, but that’s not where the netneutrality problem lives. The netneutrality problem is at the bottom of the supply chain, where the end user meets their local ISP. Also with MJ laws, several states have liberated the use of marijuana despite the feds using the interstate commerce act to ban it.
An ISP being a business, especially a publicly-traded one, will sacrifice all manner of consumer/user-protection in order to maximize profit. And having the states govern against that will lead to a smattering of laws where it becomes muddy on what can actually be enforced, and where.
Sure, and if the fed is relaxed because the telecoms feed the warchests of the POTUS and Congress, you have a nationwide shit-show. A progressive state can fix that by imposing netneutrality requirements. Just like many states introduce extra anti-telemarketing laws that give consumers protection above and beyond the TCPA.
- Comment on Net neutrality is back as FCC votes to regulate internet providers 2 years ago:
On a serious note, plenty of people here surely know what net neutrality is. Net neutrality is the guarantee that your ISP doesn’t (de-)prioritize traffic or outright block traffic, all packets are treated equally.
That’s true but it’s also the common (but overly shallow) take. It’s applicable here and good enough for the thread, but it’s worth noting that netneutrality is conceptually deeper than throttling and pricing games and beyond ISP shenanigans. The meaning was coined by Tim Wu, who spoke about access equality.
People fixate on performance which I find annoying in face of Cloudflare, who is not an ISP but who has done by far the most substantial damage to netneutrality worldwide by controlling who gets access to ~50%+ of world’s websites. The general public will never come to grasp Cloudflare’s oppression or the scale of it, much less relate it to netneutrality. Which means netneutrality policy is doomed to ignore Cloudflare and focus on ISPs.
Most people at least have some control over which ISP they select. Competition is paltry, but we all have zero control over whether a website they want to use is in Cloudflare’s exclusive walled garden.
- Comment on Net neutrality is back as FCC votes to regulate internet providers 2 years ago:
Why would it necessarily have to be federal law, and not state law?
- Comment on Net neutrality is back as FCC votes to regulate internet providers 2 years ago:
Whether the legislation is appropriate at the state or fed domain is unclear. Certainly if the orange tyrant takes power again, I would probably want state govs to be able to protect consumers from netneutrality abuses.
- Comment on Net neutrality is back as FCC votes to regulate internet providers 2 years ago:
It’s worth noting that the FCC’s “Open” Internet Advisory Committee (#OIAC) tragically gives two seats on the board to:
- Cloudflare
- Comcast
Both of whom are abusers of #netneutrality, especially Cloudflare. A well-informed non-Trump administration should be showing Cloudflare and Comcast the door ASAP.