There also needs to be punishment harsher than a couple bad headlines and $600 worth of identity protection services. If they have personal data, it should be more expensive to have it leaked like this than to have adequate data security in place.
taco
joined 3 months ago
This article's a week old already. The lawsuit was "moving forward" and "advancing" per articles going back into May, so that's not a great example of something happening.
This particular article wasn't contributing anything new when written, and posting it now is just re-regurgitating the same stuff that's already been out there for weeks. Their point is valid.
The anti-abortion stuff makes a lot more sense when you realize that pro-life is just a front, and the real reason they want more babies born is it results in more minors being brought up with questionable parenting that they can prey on.
It's in a technology community but isn't really about technology. It doesn't contain much useful information (the post would be a better place to share what TWC is than assuming I'll be curious enough to join a Zoom session). This is straight up spam.
And "anti-law enforcement agitators" = non-whites who don't want their children kidnapped.
Total non-issue. I'd be surprised if anyone can provide a single credible instance of this biting someone in the ass.
So is this the "law and order" they keep talking about?
Yeah, the phrasing definitely makes it seem like "one" refers to "plane" not "model" here. Headline is textbook clickbait.
Agreed. We went through this in Ohio a few years back and the FUD was ridiculous. It's not granting anyone new access or the ability to carry in new places, just makes it okay to cover it up.
I knew a guy years ago that was detained and almost arrested because his shirt came a bit too untucked. Regardless of how you feel about carrying a firearm, allowing it openly but requiring a permit for concealed carry is a silly, logically inconsistent combination.
Seems that if you tank education enough, the lack of subtlety becomes more of a feature. Lots of people who only pick up on loud, repeated, simple messages are still able to vote.
she's perfectly fine with waging a culture war against people just trying to live their lives as long as she's not in the outgroup.
They all are, she's just a little extra dumb for not realizing how quickly she'd be in the outgroup.
The username requirement isn't anything new; that requirement was on our DS-160 years ago.
The "wants people to set their social media profiles to public" isn't quoted, so seems less like an official policy anywhere and more like one embassy worker being a prick. Unfortunately, each individual embassy operates independently totally devoid of any accountability.
This process is dehumanizing, inefficient, and totally fucked...but this particular part of it has been this was for a long-ass time.