Can’t figure out if this is a joke or serious, so just in case, you might want to look up what happened to the Library of Alexandria.

They’re not hurting the people they need to be hurting.

These aren’t regular people, these are navy soldiers on a high tech warship, I have to imagine their IT would know how to find rogue wifi APs.

You could easily scan for hidden SSIDs. It might not show up in your phone’s wifi list, but that’s by design. The traffic is still there and discoverable. Even with an app like WiFiman (made by Ubiquiti).

Just like in this case, it isn’t straight forward. She wasn’t simply “letting her friends use it”, she was selling use of the trick.

Google has been doing it with YouTube for as long as there has been a paid version of it. If you’re a premium subscriber, the creators you watch get a portion of your subscription based on how much you watch them. It’s why premium subscriber views are worth more than free views.

That’s why IMO YouTube premium is worth it. My subscription supports the creators I watch and I get no ads.

Let’s be real, no matter how you’re watching YouTube, if you’re accessing the video directly and not cached through a third party server, Google is still tracking you.

I have young kids in school currently. At the open house, that’s the very first thing they asked.

To be fair, lots of students mess with subs. It’s possible the sub assumed the kids were fucking with them.

That’s not how it would work for us. We’d receive a report from the MPAA/RIAA that showed the torrent they were downloading, the IP address involved, if they were seeding or leeching and an affidavit saying that all the information was correct to the best of their knowledge.

The letter we sent basically was a notification that we received that letter (with a copy) and that if we received two more for the same IP (three in total) we would have to release their information to the reporting body and that they could be open to legal action. It also included some information on how to secure their network and check for viruses in case that was the cause.

In my 15 years working there, we never once released information about a client. Because this was business accounts, most clients had multiple IPs (at least a /29) and would cycle what IPs they showed up as on the public Internet to keep them from getting multiple notices on the same IP. The music venue I mentioned had an entire /24.

I had to process these requests at a company I used to work for. They do send “proof” (proof in quotes because you have to believe in good faith they didn’t just make it up, which I have to believe they didn’t).

We never shut anyone off though. We worked with business exclusively and only ever sent “scary” letters. Though we had one client that was a major music venue (a very known venue that’s pretty famous) who would get these letters all the time. The irony was too much for me. I ended up calling them personally most of the time because it was too funny.

People who made accounts before they start charging will be grandfathered in for free.

There’s also how much of a pain that would be for the end user. Would I have to create new accounts for all their services? That would be a mess.

Ground News’s whole thing is they rate sources on a far right to far left scale and use that to compare stories. I tried it (the free version) and found it to be at best a news aggregator that gives you their opinion of media bias. In theory it sounded great, in practice I didn’t find a whole lot of value in it.

That’s what his supporters will say he means. It really doesn’t matter what he says.

Your first link talks about Google consuming data for its AI

Your next two links (which are talking about the same thing) talks about how other companies are abusing Google’s adbid system to try and collect correlated data against their own.

Love it or hate it, Google has been pretty transparent that they use your data for advertising, but nothing there talks about Google selling your data to third parties.

Probably, hopefully, who knows for sure. That’s the problem with using an open source project run by a corporation.

Google doesn’t sell user data, they sell user eyeballs. There’s no incentive for Google to sell user data since they’re an ad company and the only people who would buy the data are competitors.

deleted by creator

Here’s the concern with Brave since it’s Chromium based:

For as long as we’re able (and assuming the cooperation of the extension authors), Brave will continue to support some privacy-relevant MV2 extensions—specifically AdGuard, NoScript, uBlock Origin, and uMatrix

source

My emphasis, not theirs