I think the person you’re responding to is suggesting that the “honeypot” never routes you to the internet, it only routes you to some pages it has stored locally that tell you to not connect to random SSIDs.

That’s fun, informative, and harmless.

I know. That portion of their comment is fair enough. It’s the following statement that I took issue with.

You kinda get what you deserve if you connect to unprotected WiFi that you don’t own/setup yourself.

I’m not sure I agree with this line of thinking. Most people are clueless when it comes to security, that doesn’t mean it’s fine to spy on them or scam them and just say “well you connected to an unprotected network, so it’s your fault. You got what you deserved.”

On a place like Lemmy that’s generally tech literate, you’ll probably find no shortage of people thinking that.

But would they feel the same if a car mechanic scammed them by taking advantage of them not being knowledgeable about cars?

I said it in another thread, but…

Good guy EA.

It is unlikely I will ever say that sentence again, but I hope they prove me wrong.

And now Firefox is requiring you to hand over your data to them.

If you’re talking about the recent news, that’s not what the updated privacy notice says.

Mozilla will be adding opt in LLM functionality to Firefox. It can use third party LLM providers. The privacy has been updated to say “btw, any info you give to this LLM will be processed by the LLM by a third party.” I.e. the LLM provider has the data once you send it to them.

For anybody unaware, their new privacy notice essentially states that if you opt in to using a third party LLM within Firefox, the LLM provider will get the info that you give to the LLM.

Brave will support it until it becomes inconvenient or difficult to do so as the Chromium base keeps moving. The more time goes on, the more work it’ll be for Brave to maintain this forked functionality.

My guess is at some point Brave will discontinue V2 and say “just use the Brave inbuilt adblocker”.

Regardless, Brave have their own skeletons in the closet… crypto, the Windows installer installing other Brave applications during browser install without consent (that one is straight up malware behaviour. Reminds me of the days of software installing Internet Explorer toolbars without consent), injecting their affiliate links when nobody asked, a CEO who donated money to homophobic causes more than once.

E: my above theory was correct, sort of:

We will keep Manifest v2 for as long as it’s still available in Chromium. We expect to drop support in June 2025, but we may maintain it longer or be forced to drop support for it sooner, depending on the precise nature of the changes to the code.

They are only committing to enabling the disabled Mv2 code in Chromium. Once it’s removed altogether, Brave probably won’t bother keeping it and maintaining it. Basically, if you want Mv2, only Firefox and its derivatives are committed to keeping it.

I think another major point to consider going forward is if it is problematic if people can generate all sorts of illegal stuff. If it is AI generated it is a victimless crime, so should it be illegal? I personally feel uncomfortable with the thought of several things being legal, but I can’t logically argue for it being illegal without a victim.

I’ve been thinking about this recently too, and I have similar feelings.

I’m just gonna come out and say it without beating around the bush: what is the law’s position on AI-generated child porn?

More importantly, what should it be?

It goes without saying that the training data absolutely should not contain CP, for reasons that should be obvious to anybody. But what if it wasn’t?

If we’re basing the law on pragmatism rather than emotional reaction, I guess it comes down to whether creating this material would embolden paedophiles and lead to more predatory behaviour (i.e. increasing demand), or whether it would satisfy their desires enough to cause a substantial drop in predatory behaviour (I.e. lowering demand).

And to know that, we’d need extensive and extremely controversial studies. Beyond that, even in the event allowing this stuff to be generated is an overall positive (and I don’t know whether it would or won’t), will many politicians actually call for this stuff to be allowed? Seems like the kind of thing that could ruin a political career. Nobody’s touching that with a ten foot pole.

Doing some digging, this is what has been added to the privacy notice:

You have the option to use a third-party AI chatbot of your choice to help you with things like summarizing what you’re reading, writing and brainstorming ideas, subject to that provider’s terms of use and privacy notice.

If you choose to enable a chatbot in the sidebar and/or through a shortcut, Mozilla does not have access to your conversations or the underlying content you input into the selected chatbot. We do collect technical and interaction data on how this feature is used to help improve Firefox, such as how often each third-party chatbot provider is chosen, how often suggested prompts are used, and the length of selected text.

In other words, there will be opt-in LLM functionality that can be tied to third party providers. When you submit information to them… they have that data… the data falls under their privacy policies, not Mozilla’s.

🖖

Good guy EA.

Weirdest sentence I’ve ever written lmao

“You’re serious? He needs a therapist with him to keep his anger under control?”

“That’s what our intelligence suggests, captain. And there’s more… he was once involved in a bar fight with multiple Nausicans. He was stabbed through the heart, then laughed at them. Should I answer his hail?”

“Oh fuck.”