Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

uis ,
@uis@lemm.ee avatar
  1. Dutch court convicts engieneer, not Dutch engieneer gets convicted.
  2. I wouldn't be surprised if Dutch court wants to say that he should have stayed in Russia and supported Putin's war.
kn98 ,
@kn98@feddit.nl avatar

Dutch court convicts engieneer, not Dutch engieneer gets convicted.

Honest question, what do you mean by this? What’s the difference really?

uis ,
@uis@lemm.ee avatar

Citizenship.

kn98 ,
@kn98@feddit.nl avatar

I see, thanks.

uis ,
@uis@lemm.ee avatar

Sure.

Here's your I seeal.

https://derpicdn.net/img/view/2018/6/2/1748078.png

Synnr ,

I have no idea what this is but I don't like it and you should feel bad.

This is both a primally philosophical and a pointed statement, but I mean the latter.

uis ,
@uis@lemm.ee avatar

I have no idea what this is

"I see" seal.

but I don't like it and you should feel bad.

Why?

grandma OP ,

Updated, my bad.

uriel238 ,
@uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Due to its mode of operation, the court considered the software to be “specifically intended for criminals”

Crime is an action a state doesn't like, not necessarily wrong or evil, but serves interests other than the state. If the state has to authorize everything, then the state is favoring dominance over governance.

When the state has to monitor all transactions it is tyranny.

Telodzrum ,

The state is just the abstraction of the collective will of the governed, if the Dutch people have determined this is a crime against their society, then it is.

The state holds a monopoly on violence, another monopoly isn’t a stretch.

mukt ,
@mukt@lemmy.ml avatar

For an entity hat already has monopoly over violence, how difficult is it to claim monopoly over the collective will?

jonne ,

That's really only in theory. I don't think there's any country where the government does what the polis wants in every instance.

C126 ,

What a fantasy world you live in. Must be nice. In truth, the state is a gang of thugs and parasites. Has nothing to do with the collective will of the people, a concept which doesn't exist in reality.

Aria ,

This is only true in a people's democracy. The Netherlands is capitalist. The government is the collective will of the capitalist class.

bl_r ,

Collective will is just the myth that is used to legitimize the state

The state is also so much more than the will of the governed. To say that it is all there is to it would consider governments like those governed by the divine right of kings fo be stateless. Stalin’s Russia, or Kim Jong Un’s DPRK would then be stateless.

Telodzrum ,

Nah

to55 ,

Official link to ruling (in Dutch):
https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2024:2069

Snapshot of translation:
https://archive.ph/JKdbV

delirious_owl , (edited )
@delirious_owl@discuss.online avatar

Wasn't the arrest over a year ago? How much time is left on the sentence?

This is terrible, but 5 years is pretty tolerable. Assange is in locked up for being a journalist and faces life in tortuous conditions.

Also, write your MEP and vote pirate party.

Alphane_Moon ,

Assange isn't merely a journalist. He collobarated with russian security services and was on their payroll during his work on their "RT" initiative.

Grumbles ,

Please stop with the C.I.A. talking points. Have some self awareness. All of this McCarthy red scare shit is embarrassing.

uis ,
@uis@lemm.ee avatar

Horseapples. Why I suddenly see a lot of out of touch with reality statements lately?

onlinepersona ,

Looks like development of such things will have to start happening on the dark web. What a ridiculous conviction.

In its judgement, the court accused him of an “ideology of maximum privacy.”

What the fuck is this kind of reasoning? Is privacy illegal now?

Anti Commercial-AI license

interdimensionalmeme ,

Oops I'm a privacy maximalist now, I didn't even know. Time to privacymaxx this removed up !!

Crack0n7uesday , (edited )

Some famous ex felon and computer hacker named Kevin Mitnick wrote some books about privacy maxing, you might want to read a few of them. I guess he's still a felon, he just served his sentence and is no longer in prison. He did legit steal some people's identity and commit wire fraud.

elltee ,

Not a felon anymore. He died.

jonne ,

Damn, even your slurs get maximum privacy.

interdimensionalmeme ,

I can't say removed ?? That's removed removed !!!

refalo ,

Just wait until th

refalo ,

privlets don't stand a chance

possiblylinux127 ,
@possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip avatar

Privacy maximums end up in supermax

rymdlord ,

Thank fuck for the PirateParty!🏴‍☠️

Anti Commercial AI thingy

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

alexdeathway ,
@alexdeathway@programming.dev avatar

About the licence, how are you going to prove that your data was indeed used in training a Model ?

Crozekiel ,

My best guess for the hopeful outcome is the ai starts tacking on the license magic words at the end of things it says... But ultimately it feels like a digital version of sovereign citizens to me.

bilb , (edited )
@bilb@lem.monster avatar

I see it as a social signifier more than anything else.

bartolomeo ,

This is a good question but I would just like to point out that 15 years ago nobody would have predicted that the questions we were asking and answering on stackoverflow would be used to train models (and that open source would have it's license violated so brazenly) and that if you tried to delete your contributions because you didn't want them to be used to train models you would get banned from the site, so even though adding a license to your comments might be meaningless, it might also be a powerful tool down the line. You never know how it'll go.

MHLoppy ,
@MHLoppy@fedia.io avatar

SO comments are already CC-BY licensed (granted not -NC licensed, but still). It doesn't seem to have helped much.

rymdlord ,

How would I prove it? I don't know. Do I think it will work? Probably not. But if I have the license someone might find it when a LLM accidentally reveals that it was trained with data that is under that license, and maybe the EU does something about it. Maybe the Pirate party will make the EU do something about it? Who knows? But they are the only ones I see that are actively trying to protect all of us an our right to privacy, and for that they have my vote! 🏴‍☠️🇪🇺

Anti Commercial AI thingy

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

refalo , (edited )

It's not enforceable in any way, it's just virtue signaling. Lemmy itself is a privacy dumpsterfire. GDPR compliance is literally impossible.

Scolding0513 ,

money laundering is a big bad no-no word that THEY have stigmatized (conditional brainwashing) in order to get every day people to SUPPORT their regime of THEFT and CONTROL.

"You are trying to keep your money to yourself and stop us from seeing it so that we can't steal some of it and punish you for using it how you like??? You're a MONEY LAUNDERER. Money laundering Money laundering Money laundering"

When you control money, you control minds, livelihoods, and monopolize fear itself.

shortwavesurfer ,

I spotted the libertarian in the room, LOL. Although I completely agree, so I'm right with you, brother.

ganymede , (edited )

its not the actual money laundering they object to.

it's that they didn't get a cut.

pedroapero ,

Same as CP used against encryption.

ricdeh ,
@ricdeh@lemmy.world avatar

Hopefully, not all is lost. He has appealed and hopefully a greater authority will overturn this ruling.

mr_satan ,
@mr_satan@monyet.cc avatar

Where could I follow up on this story?

delirious_owl ,
@delirious_owl@discuss.online avatar

This article was posted by a MEP of the pirate party. You can follow him on mastodon.

https://digitalcourage.social/@echo_pbreyer

Metz , (edited )

the court accused him of an “ideology of maximum privacy.”

In what twisted fucked up crazy world is that a bad thing?

I hate this timeline..

Akasazh ,
@Akasazh@feddit.nl avatar

If you read the verdict it says: maximum privacy combined with optimal obfuscation techniques. This implies that the sole role of the software is money laundering. The striving for privacy itself is not in question.

possiblylinux127 ,
@possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip avatar

Free software can be used for what every you want to use it for.

XTL , (edited )

That is the first software freedom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

uis ,
@uis@lemm.ee avatar

That dot became part of url

FutileRecipe ,

The ending period? Not for me on Voyager.

uis ,
@uis@lemm.ee avatar

For me on Jerboa(official lemmy app)

FutileRecipe ,

Sounds to me like you need an upgrade. I tried Jerboa, but it felt like it always lagged behind or was buggy for some reason. Then I switched to Voyager, which gets constant updates. Also, it's a PWA, so I don't need an app and it can thus be used on mobile, tablet, desktop, etc. Not to mention the theming is one of the best, in my opinion.

uis ,
@uis@lemm.ee avatar

Jerboa parses url correctly. Look at RFC1738. hpath is made of hsegments, which are made from arbitrary amount of uchars and other symbols, uchars include unreserved, which includes safe, which includes dot.

So correct way to end sentence with url would be either by escaping url with some characters like [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1738], or using markdown urls like [display text](url).

XTL ,

Thanks, fixed. I usually notice to be careful around URLs because the parsing varies

Akasazh ,
@Akasazh@feddit.nl avatar

I do not disturb that in any way, just clarified the verdict from Dutch

Gigasser ,

If you guys do want to get into crypto to buy certain....things, though if ill advise it, I'd recommend Monero not stuff like Bitcoin.

Serinus ,

This happens with cash too. If you take in a bunch of cash, you have a duty to know what it's from so that you're not facilitating terrorism or crime or subverting sanctions. In fact, of you handle cash or finance, you generally have to take training on these laws every year.

This thing is the definition of money laundering and was known for exactly those problems.

grandma OP ,

There are reasons to use this service that are completely legal. They should sentence the people laundering money, not the people providing privacy tools that happen to be misused.

delirious_owl ,
@delirious_owl@discuss.online avatar

There's no reason people using tornado wouldn't have to disclose their sources to the authorities, same as cash.

But it does protect them from malicious actors.

Serinus ,

I don't think you understand. Banks (or anyone who accepts large amounts of money) has a duty to have some idea of where that money comes from. There are anti money laundering laws.

Go open a bank account right now and try to deposit a briefcase full of $50,000 in cash and see what happens. You might, maybe be able to do it, but there will absolutely be questions.

delirious_owl ,
@delirious_owl@discuss.online avatar

That doesn't apply to small amounts below $10k

But, again, the same applies. I deposit btc or cash into a bank, even $50k, then I disclose its source to the authorities, with the paperwork. But by using a privacy service, I can comply with the law and protect myself from malicious actors

Go open a bank account right now and try to deposit a briefcase full of $50,000

I've done this. They ask you for the paperwork documenting the source of the funds. Just follow the process. It doesn't matter if its fiat or crypto.

mister_monster ,

We know what the rules are dude, we are saying they're wrong.

uis ,
@uis@lemm.ee avatar

I think it will go to my quotes collection. "We know what the rules are, we are saying they're wrong".

mister_monster ,

Yes, we agree. It's still a bunch of bullshit.

shortwavesurfer ,

But in essence, they are punishing this guy for writing code. And at least in the United States, code is considered speech. And this is a very bad precedent. I know that this is a Dutch court, but still that is not a good thing.

Serinus , (edited )

He can write the code. He can release the source. Nothing is illegal until he takes currency.

shortwavesurfer ,

And see, there's where the problem comes in. He never actually took the currency from the smart contract itself. In fact, it is still online and being used as of this day. And he is getting none of the currency just like he got none of the currency before. What they are going after him for is creating a front-end user interface to access the contract. I believe they did take a fee from that user interface since it made it simpler than interacting with the contract directly. The problem is that they are saying that by taking fees from that user interface, he is money laundering, but not everybody who used that user interface was using it for money laundering. A famous example is the creator of Ethereum used it to donate to Ukraine.

Serinus ,

a screenshot of a text message conversation. The text messages are from an encrypted app conversation between Roman Semenov, the defendant, Roman Storm, and CC-1.

He's taking a fee in order to launder your money.

shortwavesurfer ,

Even had the front end website not been running, that money would have still been laundered. I heard an explanation of it earlier that was saying something to the effect of, imagine a door at the edge of a field. There is no walls, there is no nothing else, just a door at the edge of a field. Anybody can come into that field and use it whenever they wish. Putting a lock on the door will not keep people out of the field. They can just walk in wherever the door isn't.

NotMyOldRedditName ,

I feel like this would be better if the field was surrounded by a 1 foot moat, and there was a bridge.

It would take some amount of effort to step over the moat and not trip, vs just walking over the bridge.

The bridge has a small toll to help maintain it.

But bridge or no bridge you're getting into the field.

shortwavesurfer ,

Lol, i like it

uis ,
@uis@lemm.ee avatar

It's continental system. Precedents don't have as much power as in English system. And Netherlands are in ECHR jurisdiction, so it's likely to be overturned found contradicting European Convention on Human Rights.

Vendetta9076 ,
@Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works avatar

By this logic DARPA should be put on trial for creating TOR

golden_zealot ,
@golden_zealot@lemmy.ml avatar

By this logic every locksmith should be put on trial for making locks, every manufacturer of vaults and safes, every lumber company for making wood used in fences, every costume designer for making halloween masks, every post office for renting PO boxes... etc.

delirious_owl ,
@delirious_owl@discuss.online avatar

Dont give them any ideas.

uis ,
@uis@lemm.ee avatar

Too late

interdimensionalmeme ,

Evil privacy maximalists !

myself ,

please don't jinx it :(

uis ,
@uis@lemm.ee avatar

Oh... We are in THAT timeline.

possiblylinux127 ,
@possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip avatar

That would be the story if a lifetime

refalo ,

what about computers and the internet? those were created and used for bad too. also gps and weather satellites.

fun fact: the first digital computer was invented for the explicit purpose of calculating artillery firing tables for the army during the war. what it actually ended up getting used for on its first program, was studying global thermonuclear war.

MonkderDritte ,

So they throw vendors of knives in jail too?

delirious_owl ,
@delirious_owl@discuss.online avatar

How is that a privacy tool?

I think you meant vendors of safes.

possiblylinux127 ,
@possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip avatar

Same idea

uis ,
@uis@lemm.ee avatar

And vendors of locks.

uis ,
@uis@lemm.ee avatar

No, but they throw vendors of screwdrivers in jail too.

CaptainSpaceman ,

Absolutely disgusting. Privacy is a right!

ced225be4a26 ,

The same logic should apply to manufacturers whose products are used in committing a crime...

SupraMario ,

Uhh really hope that's sarcasm...

SpaceNoodle ,

I dunno. If you manufacture tools designed specifically for killing, for example, you've definitely played a part in somebody's use of your tools for killing.

delirious_owl ,
@delirious_owl@discuss.online avatar

I can't think of many examples. Maybe electric chairs and guillotines.

SpaceNoodle ,

You've never heard of guns?

delirious_owl ,
@delirious_owl@discuss.online avatar

They're not necessarily made for killing. Most people defending themself with a pistol (whose only purpose is for shooting humans) would not want to shoot for the head or chest

SpaceNoodle ,

Ah yes, I forgot that all pistols have a "wound only" setting.

delirious_owl ,
@delirious_owl@discuss.online avatar

Was tornado cash made for laundering money?

My point is that gun manufacturers will say they make their products for defense, not killing. Knife manufacturers, same. Hammer manufacturers, same.

There's very few products which everyone can objectively say are designed for killing.

SpaceNoodle ,

No, guns are tools designed specifically for killing. They have no use as defense if they can't kill. They're not shields. You also can't hammer a nail with a gun, or cut a steak with a gun.

SupraMario ,

You can sport shoot with them, you can hunt for food with them, and every military uses them...for mainly defense.

SpaceNoodle ,

How does hunting not involve killing?

How does such military defense not involve the act or threat of killing?

SupraMario ,

This is like saying veterinarians are killers with their tools because they euthanize animals....

Just having arms is a deterant, yes firearms are designed to destroy, they're also designed as a defensive tool.

You clearly ignored sports shooting which is an actual sport, even an event in the Olympics.

SpaceNoodle ,

The fuck? Vets do much, much more than just euthanize animals. What do guns do other than shoot projectiles intended to kill?

How do guns defend without using the threat of violence? How do they act as a physical shield?

Yes, it's possible to practice using tools designed specifically for killing. Cars are tools designed specifically for transport, and people have contests for driving those, too.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that guns are tools designed specifically for killing? That's literally just what they are.

SupraMario ,

The fuck? Vets do much, much more than just euthanize animals. What do guns do other than shoot projectiles intended to kill?

Just using your silly logic...you know vets have captive bolt guns and suppressed firearms as well, does that make their tools pointless because they only kill?

How do guns defend without using the threat of violence? How do they act as a physical shield?

Same way a sword or knife can be used to kill and also defend, its a force multiplier.

Yes, it's possible to practice using tools designed specifically for killing. Cars are tools designed specifically for transport, and people have contests for driving those, too.

Glad you're grasping it

Why is it so hard for you to accept that guns are tools designed specifically for killing? That's literally just what they are.

Because I'm not the one that suggests magically thinking banning them all will make the world a safer place. Do you think the 100lb woman can defend against a 250lb man? Or what about minorities who are threated by a few racist fucks? Or an LGBTQ+ person who has a bunch of bigots trying to kill them? Should these people just not get a gun because it's designed to kill? What tool do you suggest they use?

SpaceNoodle , (edited )

Where did I suggest magical bans? You're projecting a ton of your own insecurities onto me.

None of your rant contradicts the fact that guns are tools designed specifically for killing.

SupraMario ,

This entire thread chain is in place to suggest that only guns which are designed to kill, should have their manufacturs liable for what other people do with the product. No other industry was brought up, just guns. Why? Because at the end of the day, you're all for complete bans, and no amount of "nuh uh, we're fine with hunting rifles" or whatever else bullshit, that's the end goal...you just try and sugar coat it so you can try and gain some support for the idea.

SpaceNoodle ,

It was a single example as a thought exercise.

All the rest are words you're putting on other people's mouths.

SupraMario ,

No I'm not, that's literally the end goal of all people who are anti-gun.

SpaceNoodle ,

There you go again, putting words in even more people's mouths.

Anyway, what would that have to do with the fact that guns are tools.designed specifically for killing?

SupraMario ,

Naa that's literally the end goal. It's pointless to sugar coat it.

Because I'm not the one suggesting that companies be liable for what people do with their products. Way more people a year die from alcohol than guns (it's like a 3xs as many) and alcohol has no other purpose but a vice, yet you're probably not going to suggest that companies be liable for drunk drivers who kill people, nor are you going to suggest that they cover all the alcohol related health issues...are you.

SpaceNoodle ,

No, guns are just tools designed specifically for killing.

SupraMario ,

I mean I've already pointed out other uses, but ok...

SpaceNoodle ,

No, you haven't. You've given some examples of how they are useful due to being tools designed specifically for killing, though.

SupraMario ,

Yea sports shooting is totally useful because they're made to kill paper targets and clay doves. Sure thing

SpaceNoodle ,

Yes, it's possible to practice using tools designed specifically for killing. Cars are tools designed specifically for transport, and people have contests for driving those, too.

delirious_owl ,
@delirious_owl@discuss.online avatar

Uh, I started this thread, and I brought up other products: electric chairs and the guillotine.

And, no, hunting rifles are the worst kind of guns. They are definitely designed for killing. But my point was that not all guns are designed for killing.

SupraMario ,

Thread chain == thread. I was talking about noodle...and wtf why are hunting rifles the worst type?

delirious_owl ,
@delirious_owl@discuss.online avatar

This. I guess people here aren't familiar with skeet

frostysauce ,

There's very few products which everyone can objectively say are designed for killing.

Yes, and guns are one of them.

obinice ,
@obinice@lemmy.world avatar

There's very few products which everyone can objectively say are designed for killing.

Agreed, it's very rare, guns are absolutely one of those things though. They're the perfect evolution of the personal handheld killing tool. You just point it at the thing you want dead, push the button, and you've got a good chance of deadding it immediately with your first try.

Guns don't have a secondary use, like how a knife can whittle a tree branch into a nice spoon, or cut some thread, or skin an animal. Guns cause massive damage to whatever they are pointed at, and sometimes to the things around that thing too, if you're particularly unlucky.

They're the solution to a problem when you need the solution to be "escalate this situation to 1000% and start killing stuff".

Gun manufacturers who say they're made for defence and not killing must be delusional or confused about what their products do, or just lying to their potential customers for.... who even knows what reason.

They are made to defend yourself by killing the person you need to be defended from. Pure and simple. They are truly as cut and dry a tool for killing things as there is.

Nobody is out there shooting people defensively with some non-lethal mode built in to their high speed projectile metal lumps that tear through the human body, causing parts of it to explode and massive trauma to the surrounding tissues and organs.

Do guns exist that fire beanbags, or tranquilliser darts, or such? Absolutely, but none of us here are talking about those types of more specialist guns. We're talking about your standard gun, the kind they sell to lots of civilians in countries like the USA.

refalo ,

There’s very few products which everyone can objectively say are designed for killing.

What do you think the first digital computer was invented for? Hint: it wasn't world peace

uis ,
@uis@lemm.ee avatar

I'm downvoting you, but only because you wrote "whose only purpose is for shooting humans", which is false statement.

Really, you could have used better examples like brass knuckles. They can't be used for anything else other than injuring and killing people.

Lemongrab ,

Military weapons, which should be banned lol.

SupraMario ,

You cannot get select fire firearms as a civilian, they're effectively banned.

ced225be4a26 ,

You hoped right.

SupraMario ,

Well apparently the rest of the people here didn't get the memo

JayDee ,

That logic they're using should be burned with fire.

With that logic, cars being highjacked for a crime should make the company liable for the crime (Revolutionary actions would also count as crimes). That gives car manufacturers alot more legal reason for adding kill switches to their vehicles' engines, which would most likely be used by cops for whatever the fuck they want.

How about DJI's drones being used to kill individuals in Ukraine? Steam decks are currently also being used by Ukraine to control machine gun turrets remotely, and they're able to be used that way explicitly because they use regular OS's (a major boon to its users.)

This type of regulation would only further lead to anti-consumer products, and a stronger police state.

sem ,
@sem@lemmy.ml avatar

That is absolutely crazy. I wish the strength to go through that for Alexey Pertsev!

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • privacy@lemmy.ml
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •