I didn’t read their comment as defensive at all. Their comment ended not in defense but in questioning your original claim/original assessment. The sentence before that serves as reasoning for that.

The first factor is you physical passport, the second factor is your pin.

I don’t see how an age verification could prevent selling verified age. Once they acquire data they could theoretically sell it, illegally, if they ignore law.

The point is, you can share a small subset of fields without others. No need to share your face or passport number.

I’m not sure about whether the authority knows about the request and response at all. I previously thought so, but this description did not mention it, and it doesn’t seem technically required, if both sides can verify public key/cert validity independently, and then communicate with each other.

an exposed MongoDB database containing nearly 1 terabyte of personally identifiable information (PII) exposing approximately a billion sensitive records across 26 countries.

Not even a hack. Pure incompetence and negligence.

It’s not about recent tech, it’s about historical territorial claims, and broader territorial strategy. Of course, while ignoring history/historic context at the same time.

China claiming Taiwan is its territory and threatening invasion, the regular military “training exercises”, even including the specific goal of Taiwan landing operations, and continuous hybrid attacks for years already, like invasion of Taiwan waters with fishing vessels, and cyber attacks, and you’re sitting here claiming China isn’t a country that would invade others. What do you make of these kinds of activities, then?

The what-aboutism deflection doesn’t work very well on an international comment section, either.

Did they, though?

Why do you expect people to change their opinion based on who this is about?

Such people exist, but people who have integrity and think on principle exist too.

No way of actually checking that they did delete anything

Not a random individual, but I would expect a court to be able to do so. Hold them, get an expert, verify.

Self-hug

I’m not the original commenter, but in Germany, you can record in public, but can not record individuals specifically. People walking past in the background while you record something else is fine. Recording someone specifically is not.

That’s the baseline, at least. Exceptions may apply (public figures, public interest, etc).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#Germany

A succinct statement of the German law can be found in the following judicial statement from the Marlene Dietrich case: the general right of personality has been recognised in the case law of the German Federal Court of Justice since 1954 as a basic right constitutionally guaranteed by Articles 1 and 2 of the Basic Law and at the same time as an “other right” protected in civil law under § 823 (1) of the BGB (established case law since BGHZ 13, 334, 338—readers’ letters). It guarantees as against all the world the protection of human dignity and the right to free development of the personality. Special forms of manifestation of the general right of personality are the right to one’s own picture (§§ 22 ff. of the KUG [de]) and the right to one’s name (§ 12 of the BGB). They guarantee protection of the personality for the sphere regulated by them.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EIDAS
• https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personalausweis_(Deutschland)#eID-Funktion

1. Register as a service, with justification why you need to be able to read the fields or properties you say you need
2. Upon acceptance, aquire a digital permission certificate
3. Set up a server, that handles communication with the ID
4. For a request, prove you own the permission cert through a challenge sent by the ID document
5. ID document proves through a challenge to the server that it is what it is (a set of produced ID documents use the same private and public keys so they are not personally identifiable / associatable to an individual)
6. User enters PIN so that this process can proceed
7. Open secured connection between server and ID document
8. Server can request/challenge age verification, and the ID document answers with “is met”

At least the Wikipedia page is not detailed/technical on step 8, but if you were to attempt to man-in-the-middle, you could not because you can’t fake identifying as a valid ID document, which is ensured by the challenge and private/public key cryptography.

across multiple availability zones

Better spread across different providers.

Remember that time a popular cloud hoster lost a customer’s data, including their in-service backups? Luckily, they had off-service backups.

Even if the goal is not to kill the company, provoking the expected risks through malicious compliance is a good way to demonstrate the risks and push for a more careful and skeptical assessment and use.

is a well-researched topic. The elimination of wolves, less so.

There’s plenty of research on wolves, their disappearance/eradication, and (incentivised, supported) reintroduction to Europe.

A well fed wolf has little interest in breaking your door.

I find this symbolism stupid. Wolves aren’t exactly well known to attack doors.

One approach to keeping the wolves fed might be UBI.

They were talking about sheep becoming wolves, not wolves going hungry. Wolves will be wolves. A UBI won’t change that.

Why is privacy important? Be specific.

That’s how I prompt AI, not how I would address [a community of] people. But that’s just me, I guess.

Is the propaganda about this still there? Or just not a topic anymore in general?

The German passport allows services to verify age through you NFC reading your passport on your phone and confirmation of validity through intermediates state service. All they see is a confirmation of age requirement met. No name, no age, no address, no face.

Some other countries have similar systems. It’s already a EU directive to be implemented on a broader European level.

What do you man by tell it to write good code?

You mean specific prompts, which you mention afterwards, but as also hit and miss?

Most projects don’t have enough people or external interest for that kind of process.

It would be possible to establish some tooling like that, but standard forges don’t provide that. So it’d feel cumbersome.

And in the end your back at having contributors, trustworthiness, and quality control. Because testing and reviewing are contributions too. You don’t want just a popularity contest (I want this) nor blindly trust unknown contribute.

The because of training claim is wrong.

Quoting the Gentoo post:

Mostly because of the continuous attempts to force Copilot usage for our repositories,

It seems to be about GitHub pushing copilot usage, not them training on data. Moving away doesn’t prevent training anyway. And I’m sure someone will host a mirror on hitting if they don’t.