Doubtful. I can't even get Rust to work here on my slightly older Mac system. So with TOR switching away from a well supported language like C it's simple another project lost to me (unlikely you can stick with an older version for long in this case as they regularly break backwards compatibility in their network.)
> I can't even get Rust to work here on my slightly older Mac system.
Could you elaborate on that? macOS Sierra (released on 2016) on Intel macs is supported[1][2], which should allow for Macs from late 2009 onward to work. The Intel Mac build is no longer Tier 1 because the project no longer has access to CI machines for them, and 32-bit cross building is hampered by Xcode 14 not shipping the corresponding SDK[3].
> Portability has been far easier than C, though sometimes we're forced to deal with differences between operating systems. (For example, when we've had to get into the fine details of filesystem permissions, we've found that most everything we do takes different handling on Windows.)
Remember, we’re not talking about the language. We’re talking about the stdlib and the surrounding ecosystem. The Rust stdlib and third party libraries generally handle windows well, so the Tor developers don’t need to special case windows.
>Hey, if you want a fast anonymity netowrk, there are commercial providers.
For most people seeking anonymity via Tor network (whistleblowers, journalists, activists, etc.), paying a company who can then subsequently be compelled to hand over your information is a bad choice.
And in most other scenarios, Authentic8 is probably still a bad choice. If you require a FedRAMP-authorized service, then sure, look at Authentic8.
>It’s not supposed to be a primary browsing outlet nor a replacement for a VPN.
Tor wants people to use the network for primary browsing because it helps mask the people that need the protection. The more people using the network, the better for everyone's anonymity.
Obviously this depends on the country, but many countries have so-called "Romeo and Juliet" laws which carve out specific exclusions for situations along these lines.
I'm certainly no expert, but if my memory serves me correctly from cases that have hit the media, the carve outs are more broadly applicable than just to sex (e.g. intimate images between partners). But I could certainly be wrong!
(I didn't really want to start looking up the exact details of this topic while at work, so just went from memory. At the very least, the terminology "Romeo & Juliet Law" should give the original commenter enough to base a search on)
This varies by country, but in many countries it doesn't matter if it is a drawing, AI, or a real image -- they are treated equally for the purposes of CSAM.
>They got banned for uploading child porn to Google Drive
They uploaded the full "widely-used" training dataset, which happened to include CSAM (child sexual abuse material).
While the title of the article is not great, your wording here implies that they purposefully uploaded some independent CSAM pictures, which is not accurate.
No but "They got banned for uploading child porn to Google Drive" is a correct framing and "google banned a developer for finding child porn" is incorrect.
There is important additional context around it, of course, which mitigates (should remove) any criminal legal implications, and should also result in google unsuspending his account in a reasonable timeframe but what happened is also reasonable. Google does automated scans of all data uploaded to drive and caught CP images being uploaded (presumably via hashes from something like NCMEC?) and banned the user. Totally reasonable thing. Google should have an appeal process where a reasonable human can look at it and say "oh shit the guy just uploaded 100m AI training images and 7 of them were CP, he's not a pedo, unban him, ask him not to do it again and report this to someone."
The headline frames it like the story was "A developer found CP in AI training data from google and banned him in retaliation for reporting it." Totally disingenuous framing of the situation.
"There is important additional context around it, of course,"
Indeed, which is why a comment that has infinitely more room to expand on the context should include that context when they are criticizing the title for being misleading.
Both the title and the comment I replied to are misleading. One because of the framing, the other because of the deliberate exclusion of extremely important context.
Imagine if someone accused you of "Uploading CSAM to Google Drive" without any other context. It's one of the most serious accusations possible! Adding like five extra words of context to make it clear that you are not a pedophile trafficking CSAM is not that much of an ask.
Fair enough. I'd already included the fact about it being a data set in the post once, which seemed clear enough especially when my actual point was that the author did not "find" the CSAM, and by implication were not aware of it. But I have edited the message and added a repetition of it.
I bet the journalists and editors working for 404 will not correct their intentionally misleading headline. Why hold a random forum post buried in the middle of a large thread to a higher standard then the professionals writing headlines shown in 30-point font on the frontpage of their publication?
>Why hold a random forum post buried in the middle of a large thread to a higher standard then the professionals writing headlines shown in 30-point font on the frontpage of their publication?
How many times do I need to repeat that I agree the headline is misleading? Yes, the article here has a shit title. You already made that point, I have already agreed to that point.
If I had an easy and direct line to the editor who came up with the title, I would point that out to them. Unfortunately they aren't on HN, that I'm aware, or I could also write a comment to them similar to yours.
There's probably already terabytes and terabytes of disney porn out there. It's not clear to me why this would make much of a difference on that front.
reply