![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/h1ChnLuBHr.png)
It’s impossible to do without signing the with the valid cert. I think destroying the anonymity is the point
It’s impossible to do without signing the with the valid cert. I think destroying the anonymity is the point
No you’re right. The ARF just ignored that constraint and intentionally built in a back door here. From the linked article:
However, the current ARF stipulates that law enforcement authorities can retroactively trace pseudonyms back to their legal identity. The provisions therefore „strongly contradicts the legal requirements,“ epicenter.works writes.
If they are checking data brokers or aggregators it’s not really a background check. Carefully read any consent you give for a potential employer to perform a background check. Look for the records they are accessing and make a determination based on that language.
It is possible that some vendor is the space incorporates data brokers into their service, and that’s hard to tell. But they still should ask for your consent, I believe.
Depends on what you mean by matter. The point of the criminal justice system is, theoretically, to determine who breaks the law, and to punish people who break the law. In that sense it matters because Trump was found guilty in a fair trial by a jury of his peers.
If what you mean is that it will change the politics of America, certainly. Trump is now running with the specter of a conviction hanging over him. Even assuming appeals and pardons, that fundamentally changes the nature of the election. It raises real and serious questions about how he could serve if under house arrest, parole, or in prison. It forces us to reckon with the balance of powers in this country - can a person dodge justice because they attain high office, or do we hold them accountable no matter what?
If what you mean is in reality, no it probably won’t do shit.
So far that hasn’t really been tested in court, and when it has (Trump v. Anderson) it’s not been upheld in that way.
Look I’m not saying I like it. I’m saying it’s not really that straightforward.
And why do old people randomly capitalize nouns? Every Sentence reads like the just read the Written Word for the first time and wanted to give It a Try For Themselves
Those are not the minimum qualifications. They should be read as “anyone who meets them is eligible” rather than “no one who fails to meet them is eligible.” The Rehnquist court found that states could not add a felony exclusion for Congressional candidates in the 1990s and that is broadly considered to extend to the Presidency as well. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1456
If the constitution doesn’t say it, it’s not typically intended to be assumed true. The constitution doesn’t say that felons can’t be president - so we can’t assume that the states or congress could pass laws forbidding them from being president. It specifically says you can’t be president if you’re 34 or were not born a US citizen. If the writers wanted to exclude felons, they would have said so.
Yes. The constitution is actually shockingly specific about what the qualifications are. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
No other qualifications can be considered, barring a Constitutional Amendment.
Me too \s
No need to apologize haha! You were giving good advice and didn’t do anything funny. It’s just tech names that are funny. I appreciate your attitude fwiw and your English is better than mine, so it not being your first language is not apparent at all
No no, I’m not laughing at you. It’s the names of the services that are cracking me up. You didn’t do anything
I know those are all real but this sentence is objectively hilarious
Because leaf blowers are fucking annoying and we need hope
There isn’t necessarily a problem but it is definitely circumventing at least the spirit if not the letter of the law by not allowing data subjects to provide fully informed consent.
Legally obfuscation can be anonymization depending on how it’s done
Depending on the data structures there are many methods to anonymize without supervision. None of them are perfect but the don’t have to be - just legally defensible.
That is very much what the EU AI act is trying to get at. LLMs are covered under GPDR and EU AI act, it is not a simple matter
Assuming it is PII when you store it. This is a complicated discussion that will absolutely come down to what Slack can defend to a regulator
That’s not true at all. If you obfuscate the PII it stops being PII. This is an extremely common trick companies use to circumvent these laws.
That’s not strictly speaking true. It requires more oversight and mechanisms of control but those very well could already be in place.
Because being a fringe lunatic insurrectionist fascist is forgivable. Left or right, everyone either assumes Trump is so bad or so good that he is beyond criticism.
Same as it ever was. No one, left or right, expects the Republicans to change or get better.