When they tell you they’re walking back Recall and it’s “off by default”, remember that they constantly do this shit.

deleted by creator

I don’t usually read walls of text (attention span) but this was a good one, worth reading to the end. Well said tbh

This is where I would deliver your package
IF I HAD ONE

The article itself says Google is already complying. Come on man

Samwise was a fellow who was always there with a ready smile and a network security recommendation

I mean, credit to Microsoft and VS Code for not putting bullshit like this right in your face

At this point both of these guys are saying “I have seen horrible things”

why the fuck they need to show you an ad. you’re already there buying chicken

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

one three seven seven
vs
one three three seven

And you’ll notice that the entry under “Torrents” does not actually match the name you typed into your description text, as yours has two sevens. Crafty indeed, and they could stand to make this a little more obvious in the document.

Indeed. If a site simply doesn’t send you cookies, there’s no question of GDPR compliance. Blocking the cookies amounts to the same thing.

I’m currently wondering if CNN may actually be in violation by doing this.

Yeah. GDPR should have been implemented as a mandatory part of HTML or even HTTP that interacts with a builtin browser feature. Let the user make the choice once, in the browser, and let the browser tell the visited site what’s allowed. Statutory compliance would mean something like

• browser detects and warns about cookies which do not appear to be in compliance with user’s preferences (optionally: browser can block cookies which do not appear to be in compliance)
• browser detects sites which do not implement the spec at all, and warns the user about that
• regulatory body checks for compliance on any site with over X number of users
• regulatory body checks major browsers for compliance
• any combination or all of the above

deleted by creator

The statement I was responding to was “This is the correct email regex”. There is no correct email regex. Don’t parse emails with a regex. You probably don’t need to parse emails at all.

Therefore the correct amount of validation is that which satisfies whatever format the underlying API requires.

You mean the validation which the underlying API will perform on its own? You don’t need to do it.

Sorry, this is not a correct regex for an email address.

Sending using mail on a local unix system? You only need the local part.

STOP VALIDATING NAMES AND EMAIL ADDRESSES. Send a verification email. Full stop. Don’t do anything else. You really want to do this anyway, because it’s a defense against bots.

Fixed it ages ago

Eh, it’s less intuitive than you might think, as someone who already knows how to do it.

I once had to explain this process to a software engineer who was quite senior to me. The guy wasn’t any idiot, he was a pretty competent engineer, he just didn’t know this trick.

The cops might even already know how to do it, they just don’t want to, because they’re cops.