conciselyverbose

joined 2 years ago
[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago (5 children)

You should work on your reading comprehension. None of this has any relationship to the first amendment.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Browser attestation is a massive, unconditionally unforgivable invasion of privacy, for the exclusive purpose of strengthening Google's monopoly on the internet.

There's no possible scenario you could contrive where there's even .00000001% good faith mixed in with the bad, because if even that little was there, you would never consider implementing it.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago

Going after you with a rifle is illegal in its own right. The first amendment is not a factor in any way.

Firing you for it is unambiguously and unconditionally legal, unless you're in a state that has other limitations on your ability to terminate employees.

There is no scenario you can contrive where a non-government employer firing an employee for speech can be connected to the first amendment in any way. The first amendment can only possibly be relevant to the government.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

No, it's not.

Use your "you don't get funding unless..." lever to ban schools from doing business with shitbag companies with invasive requirements and your problem is solved.

Allowing Google to abuse their market position to destroy the internet is not a valid answer.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 25 points 2 years ago (11 children)

It has literally nothing to do with the first amendment.

The first amendment gives you zero protections from anyone but the government. All other entities are entitled to respond to your speech however the fuck they want.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago

I'm pretty sure I skipped step 3.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

Even if we pretended it was possible for their anticheat to work (it isn't), it's pure unredeemable evil to think it's possible for there to be a scenario you're entitled to that access.

If 50 percent of players were cheaters without that access and literally no one ever cheated again with it, you would be a monster to consider using it. It should be a criminal offense with mandatory jail time to the CEO and board of directors for every single computer it's installed on.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 12 points 2 years ago

And Android and whatever else.

You want to lock down bootloaders and installed software while you're supporting it? It depends on how you manage it how much I like or dislike it. But any software on a device you don't support should automatically enter public domain and you should be required to unlock it.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago (7 children)

I can understand that bugs happen. It's absolutely possible for well intentioned software to have a fatal flaw that leads to catastrophic security breaches.

But there's no scenario where a game having that access is defensible. It's gross overreach that can't possibly be in good faith and you deserve all the hate you get if anything bad happens.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 14 points 2 years ago (10 children)

A new whitepaper published August 24th to Trend Micro explains how the perfectly legitimate driver mhyprot2.sys was used, absent any other parts of Genshin Impact, to gain root access to a system.

I think maybe you should re-evaluate your definition of "perfectly legitimate".

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 50 points 2 years ago (12 children)

Malware labeled "anticheat software" that wants obscene access to low level OS information and is a massive security liability.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 16 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

It's not my normal thing, but Doom's soundtrack really gets the juices flowing and fits beautifully with fast paced frantic gameplay.

Edit: 2016 Mick Gordon

view more: ‹ prev next ›