Maeve

The real fight is on multiple fronts.

Sorry I deleted my post because I was mistaken. I haven’t tried it.

deleted by creator

Desktop: librewolf. I’ve not found anything remotely comparable for Android.

That’s part of what I picked as a teaser:

Start with what the GPL actually prohibits. It does not prohibit keeping source code private. It imposes no constraint on privately modifying GPL software and using it yourself. The GPL’s conditions are triggered only by distribution. If you distribute modified code, or offer it as a networked service, you must make the source available under the same terms. This is not a restriction on sharing. It is a condition placed on sharing: if you share, you must share in kind. The requirement that improvements be returned to the commons is not a mechanism that suppresses sharing. It is a mechanism that makes sharing recursive and self-reinforcing. The claim that imposing contribution obligations on users of a commons undermines sharing culture does not hold together logically. The contrast with the MIT license clarifies the point. Under MIT, anyone may take code, improve it, and close it off into a proprietary product. You can receive from the commons without giving back. If Ronacher calls this structure “more share-friendly,” he is using a concept of sharing with a specific directionality built in: sharing flows toward whoever has more capital and more engineers to take advantage of it. The historical record bears this out. In the 1990s, companies routinely absorbed GPL code into proprietary products—not because they had chosen permissive licenses, but because copyleft enforcement was slack. The strengthening of copyleft mechanisms closed that gap. For individual developers and small projects without the resources to compete on anything but reciprocity, copyleft was what made the exchange approximately fair. The creator of Flask knows this distinction. If he elides it anyway, the argument is not naïve—it is convenient.

Once a user verifies their identity with Persona, the software performs 269 distinct verification checks and scours the internet and government sources for potential matches, such as by matching your face to politically exposed persons (PEPs), and generating risk and similarity scores for each individual. IP addresses, browser fingerprints, device fingerprints, government ID numbers, phone numbers, names, faces, and even selfie backgrounds are analyzed and retained for up to three years. The information the software evaluates on the images themselves includes “Selfie Suspicious Entity Detection,” a “Selfie Age Inconsistency Comparison,” similar background detection, which appears to be matched to other users in the database, and a “Selfie Pose Repeated Detection,” which seems to be used to determine whether you are using the same pose as in previous pictures. In short, the software “flags you as a ‘suspicious entity’ based on your face alone,” the researchers write. An act that may prove dangerous, as Persona’s software has reportedly made significant mistakes when attempting to estimate the age of users in the past. When paired with AML reporting, such suspicious analysis can quickly lead to the unjust termination of bank accounts. And that seems to be exactly what Persona was built to do. In addition to facial recognition, Persona’s software is able to perform checks on financial data — including running checks on sanctions lists, running checks on cryptocurrency activity via the blockchain analysis firms Chainalysis and TRM Labs, and an interface to file suspicious activity reports (SARs) directly with US and Canadian federal agencies.

🤯

“boosted” this for visibility. Perhaps random devs will take interest.