LWD

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 hours ago

I did upload a screenshot with the link, but I guess it's inaccessible... Here it is in full resolution

[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago

There may be some combination of this and political partisanry going on. This isn't the only thread where one moderator is suppressing criticism of big tech and big government. I might need to take advantage of that community for recording some stuff, thank you for pointing it out.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 13 hours ago

I have many negative things to say about AI (and China) but like I stated earlier, this is in no way unique to DeepSeek.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

Hmm. FOSStodon team:

The moderators are the unsung heroes of Fosstodon. They’re the people who work every single report we receive, and take appropriate action to keep Fosstodon a friendly and inclusive place for all our members.

CarrotCypher
Role: Moderator

And on Reddit:

MODERATOR OF
r/privacy
r/Pareidolia
r/opensource
r/OSINT
r/tails
… and 51 more ⇒

[–] [email protected] 16 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Many accusations of astroturfing but no evidence. I thought it was obvious.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

r/privacy moderators also censored this post with the same reason:

IRS nears deal with ICE to share addresses of SUSpected undocumented immigrants

Really makes you think.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Another deleted comment

Note, it seems you are not allowed in this reddit to express an opinion containing doubt about the security of WhatsApp - it will be removed by mods. As such, you can not read the replies here and form a judgement about what the consensus is.

carrotcypher (mod) 1 point 3 days, 1 hour ago

Or, you know, obvious astroturfing as an excuse to promote alternatives is against the rules.

 

Original post text

Given the recent detainment of a French person who got detained because he said something bad about the current administration in his WhatsApp messages. It makes me wonder if WhatsApp is truly end to end encrypted as they claimed. How did they even single him out?

As a corollary question, if I were to pass Customs, and if I delete WhatsApp , Reddit etc just before I reach the counter, will they be able to find out that I just deleted the apps minutes ago? I’ll be deleting them from my phone but keep them on the cloud.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (2 children)

OP's post history is illuminating.

On this particular article, "DeepSeek can be used to create malware" is unsurprising. Know what else can be used to create malware? Microsoft Visual Studio. Too complicated? Forums on the internet. Sam Altman's OpenAI, which they allege was used to train DeepSeek.

This isn't a breach. Nothing is getting breached here. A more honest title might be "I can use DeepSeek to help me code malware!" but this is not surprising, novel or unique to DeepSeek. See: OpenAI above. Also see: all the ways people have gotten OpenAI to simply tell them how to commit crimes with the right phrasing.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Between the papers, the source code, and the fully downloadable models that punch well above their weight class, it's the closest thing to actual open-source AI we've seen so far.

I would say the models don't really count as open source, but Facebook and OpenAI made their own perverted definition of "open-source" so while this technically meets that standard, I mostly impressed that it exceeds it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Vijil is some shitty AI auditing startup that appears to have only "reviewed" this one product.

So when it says Deepseek is bad, the answer to "compared to what?" is "lol, idk, hopefully not the things my customers want to use."

And when it says Deepseek isn't private, it has absolutely nothing to do with a fully offline model, but just the responses to some of its synthetic tests.

These benchmarks are, effectively, useless.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

Pebble was from a time when enshittifiaction wasn't as terrible as it is today, and died (post acquisition) before it could really be implemented in its products. Eric Migicovsky is an odd duck in that regard. Between this and Beeper, privacy has always been "not great, not malicious (yet)", and before enshittifiaction could set in under his watch, the company gets bought out by a bigger one with a truly lousy CEO.

Under his watch. Heh.

Pebble was possibly one of the last great tech innovations before AI, in its desperate attempt to sell our stolen data back to us in a thoroughly butchered format. Which means it pains me to read

Upgrades to the hardware will include a speaker alongside the microphone, which Migicovsky teases will be used for talking with AI assistants (ChatGPT being one example).

Personal home labs might be able to go much further with this, I hope.

Considering how popular this product originally was with hackers and open source enthusiasts, I really hope the hardware has as much longevity as its predecessor. And considering that was closed source and got so much mileage, I have the feeling that this will be better simply by how open-source works.

 

It looks like the Privacy Act might be a way to audit DOGE on a per-person level. Jamie Raskin has suggested mailing them a formal request for your data.

While there does appear to be precedent for this, I can't find much more information about it. So this is more of a thread in search of info.

Here is some from NPR:

The Privacy Act was once a quite sleepy law in my privacy classes. It's gotten increasing prominence in part because there's been so much compliance with the Privacy Act. You know, every agency now has to put out, you know, notices about having new collections of information in databases. And there's chief privacy officers at every agency. You have to pay attention to it and adhere to its commitments, which are to ensure that you don't collect information you shouldn't be collecting for a proper purpose, and that you're not sharing it unless you meet the conditions of the Privacy Act.

 

The IRS rules governing nonprofits still required the Mozilla Foundation to beg big to go big: the parent had to go find big grants from Soros, Ford, Knight, MacArthur, and give smaller grants to many. This put it in the lefties-only-no-righty-Irish-need-apply revolving-door personnel sector of NGOs and nonprofits (too many glowies there for me, too). Which meant I had a hostile MoFo over my head the minute I got CEO appointment from the MoCo board...

Of course I can't comment on anything about my exit, for reasons that only the most loopy HN h8ers still can't figure out.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43251203

 

Now that Google and Microsoft each consume more power than some fairly big countries, maybe it's time for 2024 Mozilla to take heed of 2021 Mozilla's warnings.

 

There seems to be minimal information about this online, so I'm leaving this here so cooler heads can prevail in discussion.

Link to filing: https://archive.org/details/jyjfub

Notable portions:

Teixeira was hired as Chief Product Officer and was in line to become CEO.

Mr. Teixeira became Chief Product Officer (“CPO”) of Mozilla in August, 2022. During the hiring process, Mr. Teixeira had conversations with executive recruiting firm, Russell Reynolds Associates, that one of Mozilla Corporation’s hiring criteria for the CPO role was an executive that could succeed Mitchell Baker as CEO.

Also, shortly after being hired, Mr. Teixeira had conversations with Ms. Baker about being positioned as her successor.

After taking medical leave to deal with cancer, Mozilla swiftly moved to replace CEO Mitchell Baker with someone else.

Shortly before Mr. Teixeira returned from leave, Mozilla board member Laura Chambers was appointed Interim CEO of Mozilla and Ms. Baker was removed as CEO and became Executive Chair of the Board of Directors.

After returning, Teixeira was ordered to lay off 50 preselected employees, and he objected due to Mozilla not needing to cut them and their disproportionate minority status.

In a meeting with Human Resources Business Partner Joni Cassidy, Mr. Teixeira discussed his concern that people from groups underrepresented in technology, like female leaders and persons of color, were disproportionately impacted by the layoff.

... Ms. Chehak verbally reprimanded Mr. Teixeira, accusing him of violating [a] non-existent “onboarding plan” and threatening to place Mr. Teixeira back on medical leave if he did not execute the layoffs as instructed.

Mozilla's lack of inclusivity was a known problem

In February 2022, Mozilla commissioned the firm of Tiangay Kemokai Law, P.C. to assess its performance in providing a diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplace culture.

The report delivered in 2023 from Tiangay Kemokai Law, P.C. states in part: “MoCo falls into the Cultural Incapacity category based on leadership’s inadequate response to the needs of a diverse culture or else the need to create a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive culture, which is reflected in current systems, processes and procedures, policies and practices, or the lack thereof, and are incongruent with MoCo’s stated values and goals.”

Steve Teixeira has been put on leave.

On May 23, 2024, Mozilla placed Mr. Teixeira on administrative leave.

Mr. Teixeira requested a reason for being placed on administrative leave.

Mozilla did not provide Mr. Teixeira with a reason why he was placed on administrative leave.

Mozilla cut off Mr. Teixeira’s access to email, Slack messaging, and other Mozilla systems.

Mozilla instructed employees not to communicate with Mr. Teixeira about work-related matters.

Upon information and belief, an investigation into Mr. Teixeira’s allegations was finally conducted in late May 2024, but Mozilla did not do so under its internal policies and procedures regarding managing complaints of discrimination. Mr. Teixeira was not contacted to participate in the investigation into his complaint of unlawful treatment.

Coverage online so far

~~I say "alleged" because there appears to be no consensus on the veracity of this document.~~

Update: this appears to be confirmed.

This has received no "news" coverage besides one angry loudmouth (Bryan Lunduke) whose entire commentary career has been shaped by his political beliefs, regardless of truth.

2
deleted (www.google.com)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
8
deleted (i.imgur.com)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

Done in Boost.

view more: next ›