Yeah. Shockingly people store things where it is convenient to have them. :) I’m glad I didn’t have a keyless system to with about.
Yeah. Shockingly people store things where it is convenient to have them. :) I’m glad I didn’t have a keyless system to with about.
I did read the article. I’m unfamiliar with the “hacking” tools or methods they mention given they use terms like emulator. I was simply sharing one wireless attack that is common in certain areas and why.
I think most of the wireless attacks aren’t trying to be so sophisticated. They target cars parked at home and use a relay attack that uses a repeater antenna to rebroadcast the signal from the car to the fob inside and vice versa, tricking the car into thinking the fob is nearby. Canada has seen a large spike in this kind of attack. Faraday pouches that you put the fob inside of at home mitigates the attack.
I’m not sure about what the article is referencing, which is probably a little more exotic, but relay attacks are very common against keyless cars. Keyless cars are constantly pinging for their matching fob. A relay attack just involves a repeater antenna held outside the car that repeats the signal between the car and the fob inside the house. Since many people leave the fob near the front of the house, it works and allows thieves to enter and start the car. Canada has has a big problem with car thieves using relay attacks to then drive cars into shipping containers and then sell them overseas.
I didn’t see it on the article, but I would expect that returns/replacements for broken, defective, or misleading items will still be free. I’m guessing the problem is people using free returns when buyers remorse kicks in.
Not the person you asked, but I grew up in a rural blue collar area. Construction beats up your body, and even with the right PPE you are at high risk of injury from accident or simple repetitive stress injuries. The work is often exposed to the elements, on stressful timetables, with pressure to work long hours.
Some of the trades can be better, but many have the same issues I listed above. Lots of people in trades or construction feel 60 at 40 from beating their body up.
I don’t think you have anything to worry about. All this requires is that any models used by the government are tested for bias. Which is a good thing.
Go ask an early generation ai image generator to make pictures of people cleaning and it will give you a bunch of pictures of women. There are all sorts of examples of racial, sex, and religious biases in the models because of the data they were trained on.
Requiring the executive agencies to test for bias is a good thing.
Small world, but I helped form many of the broadband action teams in Washington State, and consulted on the broadband plans for each country that was submitted for federal funding. We’re getting there, slowly, but progress is being made.
I have a lot of experience with rural broadband initiatives, and generally yes, the FCC designation sets the minimums we see in terms of new service delivery to underserved communities. I specifically worked with state and municipal entities to build grant packages to fund infrastructure and these new minimums would be a great help.
I would recommend people read the IAB ad blocker detection guide for Europe which provides a good summary of what is possible. It lays out the that depending on how the detection is done it might be defensible to rely on ToS, and to remove all risk, implement a consent banner, wall, or both.
Which is to say, even if it was ruled that YouTube can’t rely on ToS, which I don’t think is a sure thing, they would just have a consent wall like for cookies.
Yep that’s it. I’ll double check the link in my post.
Edit: yep borked the link, fixed now. Thanks for letting me know!
One thing I’ll add is I often found it helpful to glide them in which helps straighten the wires, then pull them out and trim the ends to be even. Then put back in connector, and make sure all pins touch all wire ends.
I suppose that’s my point though. Most of this thread, and the page linked have been asserting clear and unequivocal violation of gdpr, but that doesn’t appear to be true. It hasn’t been tested or ruled on authoritatively, and the technical mechanism makes s difference as well. There is room to equivocate.
My own personal opinion is that I doubt the EU policy makers or courts will treat the mechanism to ensure the delivery of ads with as much skepticism as they treat tracking, fingerprinting, and other things that violate privacy. Courts and policy interpreters often think of the intent of a law, and I don’t think the intent of GDPR was to potentially undermine ad supported business.
My goal in replying throughout the thread has been to address what feels like misinformation via misplaced certainty. I’m all for explicit consent walls, but most people in this thread don’t seem to be taking an objective look at things.
Here is a guide from a publisher trade group on the implementation of ad block detectors under gdpr.
It says that listing the use in your ToS is a defensible strategy but could have some risk. If the organization wants to further limit risk, they can add a consent banner, consent wall, or both.
My guess is Google is the risk accepting type on this issue and it’s willing to litigate to argue that its ToS is sufficient or the way they implement it differs from cookies. Either way, they could completely make this go away by asking a consent for ad delivery to their cookie notice.
That is addressed in the source I linked, which is an industry groups advice to publishers on the implementation of ad block detector. They specifically say that having it listed in your ToS is a defensible strategy but could have some risk. To mitigate the risk, you can introduce either a consent banner, consent wall, or both.
It’s an interesting read, and something I wish I’d had a few years ago in a prior role when I wrote my organizations gdpr strategy, though I’m not an expert on EU specific law.
All they need to implement ad block detection is user consent, which they likely cover on their terms of service and privacy policy.
That doesn’t appear to be correct.
Executive Summary
• Ad blocker detection is not illegal, but might, under a strict interpretation of the ePrivacy Directive be regulated and require the informed consent of users.
• Depending on the technical implementation of ad blocker detection, such detection may be out of scope of the consent requirement of the ePrivacy Directive, or fall within an exemption to the consent requirement. But the legal situation is not very clear.
• Publishers who use ad blocker detection should update their privacy policy to
include use of ad blocker detection scripts.
• Publishers may want to err on the side of caution and obtain consent for the use of ad blocker detection scripts to preempt and avoid any legal challenges.
• Publishers could obtain consent by slightly modifying their existing compliance mechanisms for the use of cookies as the possible new consent requirement
emanates from the same law mandating consent for the use of cookies.
• Publishers could use two practical solutions to request and obtain consent for
the use of ad blocker detection: a consent banner or a consent wall.
Publishers could also make use of a combination of the two to complement
each other.
But he didn’t cite policy, law, or legal analysis. I work as a technology policy writer/interpreter in the US so I can’t address the EU issues. But I’ve never responded to someone who asked for the basis of my conclusion by listing my credentials. When I publish a policy position paper, I cite chapter and verse all relevant laws, policies, statutes, and explanation for interpretation. I’ve written entire pages offering justification for the interpretation of a single sentence a particular way. He didn’t do that. He might be right, but he didn’t justify it in any meaningful way.
This is true. And I’ll disclaim again that I’m not an expert on EU law or policy. But I’m not familiar with a US policy or law that would preclude that consent to collection from being a condition of use. I’ve written these policies for organizations, and I think it will be a difficult argument to make. I’d love to read an analysis by a lawyer or policy writer who specializes in the EU.
Hey, sorry it took so long to see your question. Here is a paper (PDF) on the subject with diagrams.
https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/bitstream/handle/20.500.11850/42365/eth-4572-01.pdf
Edit: and here is a times article that covers the problem in one area. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/24/world/canada/toronto-car-theft-epidemic.html