> She said at the point Homeland Security ended her abuse she had been "praying actively for it to end".
You can provide your plausible suggestions as to what the family relationship looked like that the girl could neither ask her own mother for help nor was her father there for her.
> But it was estimated that from 30% to even 80% of victims do not purposefully disclose their misuse before adulthood.
[...]
> Arata found an inverse relationship between the disclosure and severity of abuse. Subjects reporting contact sexual abuse were significantly less likely to disclose it than those reporting non-contact sexual abuse.
> The duration of sexual abuse has a significant impact on its disclosure – the longer children are abused, the more hesitant they may be to disclose their abuse.
I do test manually in salesforce. Mainly its because you do not control everything and I find the best test is to log in as the user and go through the screens as they do. I built up some selenium scripts to do testing.
In old days, for the kinds of things I had to work on, I would test manually. Usually it is a piece of code that acts as glue to transform multiple data sources in different formats into a database to be used by another piece of code.
Or a aws lambda that had to ingest a json and make a determination about what to do, send an email, change a flag, that sort of thing.
Not saying mock testing is bad. Just seems like overkill for the kinds of things I worked on.
I don't understand why you think it'd be an issue?
Dumbed down understanding of mine: evolutionary theory predicts that graph goes from (0.1; 0) to (very high; in a million years). X axis: years, Y axis: progress or evolution. The only difference such discoveries make is to further refine the slope of the graph. Was the development linear or exponential? How fast did it progress? Obviously, in the past 500 years we didn't change as humans but our technological progress accelerated beyond belief.
If the world ran by conspiracy theories, the goal would be to normalize censorship at DNS level. Sony has tried (>2 years ago) by taking Quad9 to court over a copyright matter. There are too many parties involved for whom this practice would be a useful tool to have.
Good job on AdGuard's end for bringing this to the Internet's attention. I especially enjoyed the unearthed details about this "N"GO's short history.
I think the e-mail exchange should've been kept short, although it is good that the owner of archive.today was eventually notified (by them) about these links in good faith to remove them. Their reply should've been the following:
"Thank you for contacting us. If you have conclusive proof of illegal behavior, you should contact police and seek legal assistance. A website's administrator is expected to adequately react to illegal actions conducted by its users, such as removing media that's breaking a law.
We have visited the URLs provided by you (https://archive[.]today/ , ...) and found no evidence to corroborate your concerns. To avoid misunderstandings, we require you to send a certified mail to <Adguards company address> before further replies on this matter."
Remember guys, it should always be certified mail (bonus points for international). And yes, I mean literal index pages as provided in the first e-mail. Play by the legal understanding of words. Be creative and break the rules to the extent of not breaking them ;)
PS: If you want to see more of "funny replies" you should read Njalla's blog (<https://njal.la/blog/>) and TPB's infamous e-mail replies.
“You sent claims of CSAM hosted on someone else’s servers and we decided to download it.”
Hell no. I don’t want to see that and I don’t want it being ingested into systems I control. Of all the stuff here, “download some supposed CSAM to see if it’s real” is the absolute worst advice I can imagine.
You misunderstand the situation and what I was suggesting. GP was saying that AdGuard should have checked the contents of some random URL supposedly containing CSAM on archive.today.
This is not AdGuard’s job. Knowingly downloading CSAM is very likely illegal. And it also potentially opens them up for additional liability if they do determine that CSAM is present.
AdGuard seems like they did exactly the right thing, which is to send the report along to the party actually responsible for cleaning up the supposed CSAM.
> Knowingly downloading CSAM is very likely illegal.
Put CSAM in a banner ad, and arrest everyone who was served that ad?
Post a CSAM photo behind plexiglass on a wall in a public space, and arrest everyone who walks by and glanced at it?
Just how stupid do you think lawmakers, judges, prosecutors, and police are? People get arrested for paying for, or sharing CSAM, not just stumbling on a website that might have something questionable. It is illegal to possess, but just loading a website is hardly possession... If it was, all of Facebook and Google's content moderators would be facing life-sentences.
> Just how stupid do you think lawmakers, judges, prosecutors, and police are?
Very! Unimaginably so! A friend of mine from Germany received a GIF that contained ONE FRAME of CSAM from someone in a group chat, Whatsapp auto-downloaded it into the gallery, something auto reported it and a month later, cops showed up to take away all his electronic devices. This is apparently a thing people do there, like americans SWAT livestreamers. I think it took over a year for them to return his devices. He had to pay for a lawyer and buy a new phone and laptop. He wasn't charged with anything, but because the report was automated, there wasn't even anyone to sue for a false report.
There is no such thing as not to sue anyone. Police can squeeze and lie as much as they want, but there are laws about the abuse of power, false police reporting, obstruction of justice. But it will be expensive as effectively you are going to the court against a state.
Also of course there is a person somewhere behind a keyboard who wrote the software which flags, correctly or incorrectly, files. Their name (Thorn) is kept strictly away from any public testimonial with NDAs with police, because eventually there will be class action lawsuits against them in the USA.
The thing is, it was technically a correct report. One frame of that gif did correpond to a known piece of CSAM (presumably they use some kind of perceptual hashing). The facts that 1) the gif was clearly a sick joke (he described it as a slow motion bullet shot from a movie, landing in something/someone and then flashing the one frame, presumably the intention being "haha, get shot with the child porn bullet"); 2) it was only one inconsequential piece, not a whole collection; 3) it was downloaded automatically from a group chat... are not in scope of the "did this user just upload CSAM to our servers" function (from what I understood, it was triggered by the picture being backed up to Google Photos or Apple's equivalent).
These are all things that, in a functioning system, the police officer receiving the report would take into account. If it's a first report, diaregard. If it's a second, check the file name that was also presumably in the report, see it's a Whatsapp folder and disregard it. If it's a third report or there are multiple pieces, get a warrant to run a CSAM scan on the person's device, go to their apartment, run it, see there's nothing else, close the case. If it's a clear "prank", start investigating the person who sent it.
But since the police are, in general, trigger happy lunatics, you get a full raid instead. And since computer forensics is hard and doesn't pay well, the investigation took many months instead of an afternoon. The fuckup was squarely on the law enforcement side, as well as in the law itself.
>(he described it as a slow motion bullet shot from a movie, landing in something/someone and then flashing the one frame, presumably the intention being "haha, get shot with the child porn bullet")
That's the slippery slope nature of these laws. For sure a CSAM is "out there" and easily acquired. And now it some sort of toxic, radioactive content that destroys systems, corporations, and most importantly, invididuals if weaponized.
I suppose these people with good intentions, seeking to wipe CSAM off the face of the earth with religious fervor ... I suppose they never realized that such thing as a troll exists on the internet who will gladly point their fervor as the troll pleases like a firehose of seething
This is one good reason we should not tolerate our devices auto-snitching on us to the police. Any tool can be weaponized. The legal system has a presumption of innocence, but it grinds painfully slowly, and the mere investigation can be extremely disruptive, even assuming they don't find anything further to pursue once they turn the eye of Sauron upon you.
Quite stupid, actually. Stuff like CSAM is not to be messed around with. Having it in your cache is considered possession by police forces, even if the judge won't convict you if you can explain it. Even if the police doesn't come after you, it's the exact point in almost every jurisdiction where someone else's content suddenly becomes your problem, legally speaking.
You won't go to jail or life most of the time if you can explain how or why, but there are extremely strict rules around CSAM that you need to deal with. One of those is "don't look at it unless absolutely necessary". For AdGuard, I doubt this use would qualify for "absolutely necessary". Even police forces use dedicated software that doesn't keep too many copies around, and restrict how many people are allowed to look at the screens for screening computers.
The people applying mass censorship are using CSAM as a weapon. It'd be unwise for AdGuard to give them the extra ammunition by (admitting to) checking the CSAM content themselves.
Furthermore, if the complaint has merit and the content linked does contain CSAM, there is some pretty bad shit out there. I'm not prepared to look at pictures of raped babies or tortured children but I know full well that that content is out there on the internet.
Arrests aren't the only way a company can be harmed. Being flagged or investigated is enough of a legal burden and reputational hit that it could be catastrophic. "Stumbling" is not a part of any network protocol. Over a network, viewing a link is indistinguishable from downloading its contents.
Illegal to possess, and you would have accessed it to view content that is illegal to access as well?
The people who do this as part of their job do so under strict supervision, legal guard rails AND mandatory counselling. Which happens to include a number of content moderators.[0]
There's another reason: the criminal justice system is structured in such a way that it requires material evidence to prove someone is guilty and punish them. It would be unacceptable to send an innocent person to prison, and you can't prove that someone has merely viewed content.
We need a rule that people who haven't had to deal with the police and courts need to shut up about how police and courts work.
Even if nobody involved commits a crime and just does their job resonably well, getting your apartment raided, all your neighbours seeing that, your coworkers hearing about it, having to pay for a lawyer, losing all your electronic devices for months if not years and having to buy new ones, not being ablo to make proper plans because you never know when they might throw another court date at you...
But more often than not, they don't do their job well. They're sloppy, indifferent, they don't really understand computers or technology... You might get convicted just because a judge doesn't understand what downloading actually means.
And then you also get the ass-covering. They spent all this time and effort, but now it looks like you're innocent. Their bosses would be pissed, maybe you could even sue them. So they do their best to make even the smallest and dumbest charges stick. They look for other potentian crimes. They threaten you until you take a plea deal. They dissect and twist everything you said. Just so they don't have to admit they made a
"Innocent until proven guilty" might be true in the most technical sense. But being innocent doesn't help when your entire life is thrown upside down, everyone you know thinks you're a criminal, you're spending thousands on legal costs...
That's not the argument. The argument is that "when someone relays to you a claim of illegal activity, you are not allowed to verify for yourself" is not tenable in a free society.
In this particular example, you have admitted to reading the subversive post and therefore your post should also be deleted.
I am not from USA, I mentioned facts you can check, so you can judge the guys action or you be "navie" and trust his words. So for actuaal people that want the truth the badstatd was caiming in the day of Romanian election that France asked him to push pro EU propaganda in Telegram and he the big hero refussed. For some reason he only had the ability to tell the truth about his heroism in the day of the elections and not before when the press could demand him to bring some evidence or details. Ofc there was no evidence and I think he repeated this shit again in Moldova elections... The facts show the bastards is working for the KGB, maybe he is forced to do it and maybe he actually hatest Putin but he plays the Kremlin dance for some reason.
P.S. for lazy Ruzzian cyber trolls, when you see an old account where less then 1% of shit is about Putin and the Zeds then this is clearly a real person, find more inteligent or less drunk keybord worriors.
I trust no one, not *fact-checked facts*, nor you, nor Durov, nor any government official. There exist enough inconsistencies about Durov's/Telegram's relationship with the government of Russia that you wouldn't see surface in the anglophonic sphere. The "French situation" added yet more to the pile of doubts.
If you wanted my reply to the rest of what you wrote, it is this: if you choose to believe a single social network/app is influential enough to manipulate an election, be logically consequential to recognize that they all are and do. Whether as a first party (the company itself is involved) or as an intermediary (via third-party bots).
To be fair, there wasn't much evidence for removing a popular candidate, except for a "report" anyone could print in an hour. It turns out Europe is not much different from Russia in methods to get the wanted result.
> The candidate declared ZERO money spent in campaign
I thought to win you need to get more votes than competitors, not to spend more money.
Also, I think you are not seeing the obvious "backdoors" in law. Think for a second, why the punishment for errors in documentation or misreporting is barring a candidate from elections, and not a fine (or imprisonment for cases with serious fraud)? It is obviously intentional. It is relatively easy to make a mistake in documentation (given the large volume of documentation one has to deal with even in mayoral elections), and even more so if you manage to plant your man into candidate's staff or bribe/pressure someone dealing with documentation to "accidentally" make some mistakes.
Whenever you see some bureaucratic, complex procedures in election regulations (or any other law), be sure, they are intentional. The more documentation one needs to fill out correct, the more the chance to find mistakes there. And every mistake would be in the favor of whoever is in power.
Example: France, a popular, but unwanted, candidate barred from elections. Counter example: USA, where a convicted felon, who faked documentation multiple times, still won because of popular support.
In a democratic country the bar for removing a candidate should be exceptionally high. Definitely not decision of several unelected people friendly with the current government.
> TikTok bot farms including one linked to Kremlin boosting Kremlinescus posts
So what you are implying? The voters are dumb and will vote for whoever they saw in TikTok?
> you will find it weird that 25k asians are hitting like on a Romanian politician posts.
So if TikTok promoted Biden, he would win against Trump? Maybe they should replace Electoral College with like counting then and save money. Also, TikTok is mostly used by teenagers listening to dumb robotic music who have no right to vote anyway.
Also, talking about ads, TV also often provides unfair free ads to some candidates under the guise of "news". By the way Youtube - what a coincidence - also nowadays has "news" section on the main screen. Maybe the candidate skirted some rules regarding advertisement, but it's not like he stuffed fake ballots into the box.
And now think why would the voters want to vote for a random shady candidate rather than people who have been on TV screens for 20 years? Only because some evil puppeteer spent several grands on buying TikTok likes, dumb, ungrateful voters forgot about all the good things those candidates have been doing for them, and exorbitant growth of economy and their income?
>I thought to win you need to get more votes than competitors, not to spend more money.
Listen troll, there is a law in civilized countries about how elections should take place, this laws include declaring your spending, labeling political ads as "political", not doing campaign in specific days before elections, gathering real signatures etc. I am not sorry for Putin that his favorite candidate did not respected the law in such an ovvious way that his trolls can't defend it so they have to do some deflection.
For actual humans reading this, Kremlinescu declared ZERO spending, he spend more then ZERO, so law was broken, for Kremlin bots, next time instruct your pawns to avoid doing so obvious illegal shit.
What idiot would think that the guy would brag by mistake that he spends zero ?
Unless Kremlinescu is retarded he knew well that a lot of money is spent in this campaign, and if he is a retard then is a win win we got an actual genius as president then a Putin fanboy.
Kremlinescu is also linked with far right criminals/mercenaries ... and the bastard had the guts to pretend he does not know the criminals until video evidence triggered his memory. Fuck him and his idiots fascists followers.
Unfortunately, p2p is *inhales* fxxxed! due to how modern internet networks are set up.
NAT (potentially VPNed at carrier level), lack of IPv6, firewalls blocking incoming traffic, dysfunctioning UPnP, blocked UDP. Next tier issues: legal, that bound user identities to IPs, showing your IP publically is a privacy risk first and a security risk second (DoS).
It seems like it'll be impossible without an overlay network (like Yggdrasil, i2p), but these will be too heavy for mobile devices without a dedicated functioning relay... here we go again.
I urge you to try and set your display to 25 Hz. I don't quite feel it yet at 30 Hz, although the latter is more widely available as an option.
It all depends on what we do consider "good enough". 200ms total page render time would be "blazing fast" for me already. I've just clicked around Github (supposed to be globally fast, can we agree?) and the SPA page changes are 1-1.5s to complete.
To continue my example above, your computer peripherals are probably good enough. Have you considered what it would be like with a garbage-tier mouse? Similarly, maybe you wouldn't notice the difference to a better mouse. I do, because a standard office mouse is not the pace I'm moving at. (No, I'm not some the Flash, I am just fast and precise with my mouse.)
If anything, this gives us a glimpse of what's possible. The latency benchmark[1] of text editors has given us something to think about. In the past decade (already?!) that article was probably the sole reason for drawing public attention to this topic[2] . For example, JetBrains have since put considerable work into improving their IDEs (IntelliJ IDEA etc). They had called it "zero latency" mode.
reply