Meta devised an ingenious system (“localhost tracking”) that bypassed Android’s sandbox protections to identify you while browsing on your mobile phone — even if you used a VPN, the browser’s incognito mode, and refused or deleted cookies in every session.
Next, we preview what may (and should) become the combined sanctioning smackdown of the century, and then we explain — in simple terms (because it’s complicated) — what Meta was doing.
IA et vie privée : selon les spécialistes de la sécurité, tout n'est pas si rose et malgré le grand mixage qu'est la phase d'entraînement du modèle de données, il est tout à fait possible que des données privées soient involontairement préservées, et donc publiquement accessibles dans le modèle final.
I think most privacy experts would agree with this post so far. There are divergences of opinion when you start asking "do the benefits of AI outweigh the risks". If you ask me, the benefits are extremely over-hyped, while the harms (including, but not limited to, privacy risks) are very tangible and costly. But other privacy experts I respect are more bullish on the potentials of this technology, so I don't think there's a consensus there.
AI companies, however, do not want to carefully weigh benefits against risks. They want to sell you more AI, so they have a strong incentive to downplay the risks, and no ethical qualms doing so. So all these facts about privacy and AI… they're pretty inconvenient. AI salespeople would like it a lot if everyone — especially regulators — stayed blissfully unaware of these.
Telegram est généralement présentée comme une application de messagerie du même type que WhatsApp et Signal, parce qu'elles se ressemblent au niveau de leurs interfaces d'utilisation ainsi qu'en terme de fonctionnalités. Pourtant sous le capot, Telegram est très différente des deux autres.
Imposer aux gens qui s'expriment sur le web d'utiliser leur véritable identité ne résout aucun problème et en introduit de nouveaux, comme le montre l'exemple de la Corée du Sud : moins de 1% de diminution des commentaires malveillants, réduction de la liberté d'expression et de la sphère privée, augmentation massive des tentatives de piratage des sites qui doivent désormais stocker les données personnelles des gens, coûts importants pour les sites, application à deux vitesses de la loi, etc.
It’s hard to overstate the devastation to some people’s lives from having their names published as part of this hack: not only to their relationships with their spouses and children but to their careers, reputations, and – depending on where they live – possibly their liberty or even life. What appears on the internet is permanent and inescapable. All of the people whose names appear in this data base will now be permanently branded with a digital “A.” Whether they actually did what they are accused of will be irrelevant: digital lynch mobs offer no due process or appeals. And it seems certain that many of the people whose lives are harmed, or ruined, by this hack will have been guilty of nothing.
