Yes and no. Yes, in that this should be obvious and judges should have dismissed immediately. No, in that it going to court sets precedent, so now any future cases can get dismissed quickly.
So clogging the courts for a brief time is good, clogging them for as long as it did is bad. (IMO)
I was at IETF in Shenzhen a couple weeks ago and made my way over to Huaqiangbei where the tech malls are. I expected the cheap consumer electronics, not the floor after floor of capacitors, chips, wiring, batteries, etc. Makers dream.
The app uses standard Android TrustManager for SSL with no custom certificate pinning. If you're on a network with a compromised CA (corporate proxies, public wifi with MITM, etc.), traffic between the app and its backends can be intercepted and read.
That doesn't seem right. You would still need the compromised CA cert to be installed on your device. This isn't going to be a problem when connecting to a public Wifi.
The rest of the article is bonkers, though. Classic corporate data-grab app, and then some.
Yup, with the few closed source parts rewritten in OSS, and a full audit conducted. Guessing they chose it since it is more modern than Libre and web-native.
After all, any and all age checks we have nowadays are a black box anyways
This is the only part I disagree with. Age verification is typically done via services like ID.me, Lexis Nexus, etc which do it via identity verification with documentation. The alternative method that most social sites have gone with is age prediction from a face scan, of which providers are more than happy to tout how they do it as differentiators. For the latter, there are even FOSS options.
Inside scoop having talked to the company meta uses. Since they use face identification to check age, my belief is that it burdens them with biometric data that the federal government wants rights to. That puts them in a precarious situation if they don't want to share said data, or can't make enough off it for the risk, just like problem Discord had. Much safer to have ad-focused data.
Ahh definately not my problem after figuring this out (couldn't find a guide but looked at the source). My instance is private so this isn't impacting my non-Google results.
Why do these docs look like code? So odd.. For my dumb brain trying to absorb this from a phone, is there a doc for what to enable in the Docker container that I'm not seeing?
If the ruling goes the wrong way, like with many cases like this (drug use is a good example), it won't help those in the past. However, it will open a door for everyone in the future.
My guess is every DCMA entity on the planet has already sent this judge a letter saying that allowing this defense is a terrible idea. I am honestly torn on this one since there are so many unknowns, and if Meta loses it will mostly be publishers that benefit vs authors.
I was only in HK for a day and a half, so didn't really have a lot of time to explore, otherwise I might have!