401–410 of 467 posts
Injecting hidden GUIDs into local files without explicit user consent is a massive privacy overreach. It makes you wonder what other local tools are silently tagging user generated content.
Haven’t printers done the same thing for decades?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No it's not. Sign up for a virtual mailbox for $15-$25/month. Did you notice that it's an affordability crisis out there? An absolutely enormous number of people are skipping bills, taking on credit, and using predatory lenders to make end meets, and your recommendation is to add another fee on top of things. It's not practical or useful guidance for the vast majority of people. I strongly agree with supporting pri…
At least in the US it's not even a good method either. Own a house? Boom, your information is publically available and you won't be able to remove it without a court order, which in most states is impossible to get. In most states, you don't even need to own a house, decide to vote? You information again is publically available. Tie your real name to a single account to purchase something, and you are trackable. Want…
https://transparency.ky.gov/search/Pages/SalarySearch.aspx#/...
> and work underground for cash
My sister was a member of Scientology for 2 decades and she was encouraged to do this. As a result, she has almost no Social Security earnings and her Social Security check is about 1/4 of what she would be getting if she reported (and paid taxes to the government instead of to her "church") her income.
> decide to vote? Your information again is publicly available
I ran for elected office in the past. When I asked the voter registration office for a "walking list", they only checked that I did get on the ballot and I was provided with a list of every registered voter in the district I was running for. It had names, addresses, phone numbers, political party and a list of what elections you voted in (I think it went back 8 years). Some people were rather upset that I had access to that information when I knocked on their door and asked them to vote for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is broadly impractical for the average citizen. No it's not. Sign up for a virtual mailbox for $15-$25/month. > A scalable solution would be to make this sort of thing illegal. I'm posting this in the genuine interest of people being able to maintain anonymity from data leaks, privacy leaks, and in general not needing to tell businesses more personal information than is necessary to render services. This is in…
> No it's not. Sign up for a virtual mailbox for $15-$25/month. You are out of touch.
Injecting hidden GUIDs into local files without explicit user consent is a massive privacy overreach. It makes you wonder what other local tools are silently tagging user generated content.
Edit to add: I just tested LibreOffice/26.2.5.2 and it is not injecting a UUID into the metadata either for a ODT or a DOCx (2007) file. I do not have native MS Office available on hand to test at the moment. I do see these UUIDs in published government documents but cannot swear to exactly what step of the pipeline is stamping them. Definitely on files that predate the AI integration push by Microsoft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably just means they haven't (yet) figured out how to do the watermarking carrying enough bits of data to encode a GUID.
It could also mean they are lying. It could be they are being forced to downplay how good the watermarking is because gov agencies want that tool available to them without people knowing about it. We'll have to wait for the next Snowden to find out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> IANAL but they are not a government or financial institution and do not have a right to that information. As soon as you purchase something from Microsoft - e.g. your Office 365 subscription - they have at the very least your billing address on file for the credit card.
We gotta stop normalizing that. Why do you need my address to receive my money? My birth date? Even in places with strong privacy regulations requiring businesses not to collect data they don’t need, businesses apparently get away with asking this.
Because of the volume of stolen credit card numbers. If you have the address, you are much less likely to be someone using stolen CCs. Seriously, most of the crooks are that lazy. So the real reason is the credit card processing companies.
Also, post 911, there is this thing called "know your customer". It was set up to fight money laundering and financing terrorists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably just means they haven't (yet) figured out how to do the watermarking carrying enough bits of data to encode a GUID.
It could also mean they are lying. It could be they are being forced to downplay how good the watermarking is because gov agencies want that tool available to them without people knowing about it. We'll have to wait for the next Snowden to find out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was forced to create multiple as part of the mojang migration - truly a nightmarish experience to use their AuthN, haven’t seen something quite as bad since
Maybe you were "tricked into", but probably not forced. We are free to refuse, at cost, but free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could also mean they are lying. It could be they are being forced to downplay how good the watermarking is because gov agencies want that tool available to them without people knowing about it. We'll have to wait for the next Snowden to find out.
I still don't see how this is supposed to work for text content that I copy and paste somewhere else. And with models getting better and better to "human language", wouldn't the false positives also rise as "real text" is flagged to be AI generated?