Y
RE: https://mastodon.world/@nlnews/116147515782935732
ok but how much money did Odido invest in cybersecurity talent?
where is the CTO/CIO/CISO in all of this - are they going to jail for the failures?
how much money did executives make in the past 5 years?
what's the cybersecurity and data privacy culture like at the company?
ok but how much money did Odido invest in cybersecurity talent?
where is the CTO/CIO/CISO in all of this - are they going to jail for the failures?
how money money did executives make in the past 5 years?
https://nltimes.nl/2026/02/28/experts-second-batch-stolen-odido-data-puts-stalking-abuse-victims-risk
# A new California law says all operating systems, including Linux, need to have some form of age verification at account setup
"Assembly Bill No. 1043 was approved by California governor Gavin Newsom in October of last year, and becomes active on January 1, 2027. The bill states, among other factors, that "An operating system provider shall do all of the following:"
"(1) Provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store.
"(2) Provide a developer who has requested a signal with respect to a particular user with a digital signal via a reasonably consistent real-time application programming interface that identifies, at a minimum, which of the following categories pertains to the user."
"Following rigorous security testing and extensive evaluation by the German government, iPhone and iPad become the first consumer devices approved for use with classified information in NATO restricted environments"
Today, Apple announced iPhone and iPad are the first and only consumer devices in compliance with information assurance requirements of NATO nations.
Apple Newsroom (www.apple.com)
Bill Summary:
The bill requires an operating system provider to:
- Provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder to indicate the birth date or age of the user of that device to provide a signal regarding the user's age bracket (age signal) to applications available in a covered application store;
- Provide an application developer (developer) that requests an age signal, with respect to a particular user, the technical ability to call an age signal via a reasonably consistent real-time application programming interface that identifies, at a minimum, the user's age-bracket data; and
- Send only the minimum amount of information necessary to comply with the bill. An operating system provider shall not share an age signal with a third party for a purpose not required by the bill.
RE: https://mstdn.social/@globalvoices/116101683050135632
"In justifying the hefty sentence, the court cited Pakistan’s Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), legislation which was first introduced to combat cybercrime, but is increasingly being weaponized to silence dissent, according to rights advocates."
I think URL shorteners are (speaking as someone who professionally manages TLS intercept proxies):
1) a security risk - to your point - because they obfuscate the true destination. further, some URL shorteners, even today in 2026, do not use TLS - meaning network adversaries can trivially inject new behavior.
2) a privacy risk - because shorteners are almost always designed to track clicks to companies selling data likely in breach of GDPR. Usually the forwards include multiple domain changes meaning multiple third-parties are extracting tracking data to potentially thousands of data brokers. and again, some URL shorteners, even today in 2026, do not use TLS - meaning even ISPs can see the full URL, meaning more pathways to more data brokers.
3) unnecessary. Since, idk, 2010? social media companies like Twitter auto-shortening any link to a maximum size in a way that massively long links dont count towards max character limits.
4) something that should be "against the law" on the fediverse for the above 3 reasons, and is even worth soemthing blocking accounts for doing.
1. cars burning fossil fuels
2. cars shredding micro-particles of their tires on roads while driving and flinging them into the air
3. capitalists entrapping people into cars by requiring them drive into work
4. car companies lobbying municipalities to fund car infrastructure over trains
5. federal tax incentives to fund car infrastructure
6. car culture, a "dominant culture", persuading entire populations that owning cars is good and dissuading nay-sayers
this is why we have Alteimers Disease
https://abcnews.com/US/air-pollution-emerges-direct-risk-factor-alzheimers-disease/story?id=130220279
"The $900 million acquisition of Paragon by U.S. private equity firm AE Industrial Partners tells you everything you need to know about who profits from your digital insecurity. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak reportedly pocketed $10-15 million from the deal, a tidy sum for a politician-turned-surveillance capitalist.
What the LinkedIn photos show is chilling: a Czech phone number labeled “Valentina,” interception logs marked “Completed,” and application-level data categories targeting encrypted services. This isn’t some theoretical cybersecurity threat, it is the real-time dashboard of the modern surveillance capitalism system we endure."
https://ahmedeldin.substack.com/p/the-israeli-spyware-firm-that-accidentally
don't smell the flowers
https://nltimes.nl/2026/02/14/dutch-flower-growers-massively-using-banned-pesticides
#Trump administration removes rainbow flag from #Stonewall National Monument
# WhatsApp clears fast track to EU court, reshaping how privacy cases are fought
## The bloc’s top judges opened a faster legal route for WhatsApp to challenge EU-level rulings on privacy matters, a tactic other tech giants are likely to follow.
"A clash over how WhatsApp handles personal data reached a new stage in Europe on Tuesday, after judges in Luxembourg said the messaging app can go straight to EU courts to challenge a binding decision by Europe’s data watchdog, rather than waiting for national regulators.
In its ruling, the Court of Justice of the European Union said the watchdog’s decision in a transparency dispute against WhatsApp was not just procedural but a measure that set out binding legal findings with concrete effects. Because those conclusions were fixed at the EU level, judges rejected the idea that WhatsApp had to wait for a final national enforcement decision before seeking judicial review.
The judges did not weigh in on whether WhatsApp broke Europe’s privacy rules. Instead, they redrew the procedural map, sending the dispute back to the EU’s General Court and opening the door for closer scrutiny of the bloc’s data protection board in WhatsApp’s case."
