I would be careful of anything ‘smart’.

It’s a privilege lol

Fair. Pulling rules makes sense. Code wouldn’t. (I wouldn’t consider regex as code.)

Thanks for the details.

Google is Mozilla’s dad so I’m not sure how long we will be able to use FF with v2.

Why does it need to run remotely hosted code though?

As someone who works on data anonymization, I never trust anonymization.

What’s the behavior before this option was added? Would websites track you or not?

I’m not sure if I understand your point.

If you say their law sucks, their LE agency sucks, they freely interpret their laws in prosecution, etc. , I completely agree with you. But if you’re trying to say using vpn to browse internet in China can risk a big fine, which is what the title of the article is saying, I don’t think it’s accurate. News agency should state the facts, not their ill formed opinions.

“Man’s income of 1m was confiscated due to using VPN for work’ would be accurate.

‘Man is fined 1m for using VPN’ is not.

There’s no evidence (yet) that someone will be fined this much by simply using vpn in China to browse otherwise banned sites.

Intentionally misleading by summarizing partial facts is simply evil. Not sure if anyone may be satisfied with this approach, but even if some do, I’m willing to bet they will become unsatisfied if missing part of the facts is actually what they care about.

Removed by mod

Agree. But practically they may claim using such data to improve their systems. This is a valid LI justification. But still it provides no benefits to users to whom those data are collected from, while at the same time increases their risks (such as mishandling of their data - which is common since it’s very difficult to handle data 100% correctly).

Legitimate interest is their interest, not yours.

there will be far more losers who will happily hand over their data in exchange of free service

Honestly I’m not sure if I fully understand their points:

1. “Entire message data is not always passed…” - so sometimes it works, while sometimes doesn’t? At a glance MailKit seems to have the necessary hooks (MEMessageSecurityHandler) though i have not used it myself so can’t say if it works as expected or not.

2. When they say they’ll release a version with 14.1 (or 14.0.1), do they have confirmation from Apple that the said blockers will be resolved in that release? If they need more time to implement this it’s fair, but the wording of the ‘key points’ sounds like there are blockers out of their control, then how could they commit a release date without Apple’s commitment?

lol. only those who lack something need to keep emphasizing it. Google has always been evil.

The explanation of auto-renew says: “On expiration, new port forwardings will be created. The source port will be chosen randomly.”. How will that work with bt client?

Including cars?

Understand. I was simply joking.

people often assume if they run their own instances it will be more secure. from one perspective it’s true: everything is in your own hands; from the other perspective, they are rarely capable of doing it correctly.