Copie du texe du mail :

Information concernant vos données personnelles

Chère abonnée, Cher abonné,

Nous vous écrivons afin de vous informer que Free a été victime d’une cyberattaque ciblant un outil de gestion.

Cette attaque a entrainé un accès non autorisé à une partie des données personnelles associées à votre compte abonné : nom, prénom, adresses email et postale, date et lieu de naissance, numéro de téléphone, identifiant abonné et données contractuelles (type d’offre souscrite, date de souscription, abonnement actif ou non).

Aucun de vos mots de passe n’est concerné.

Toutes les mesures nécessaires ont été prises immédiatement pour mettre fin à cette attaque et renforcer la protection de nos systèmes d’information.

Cette attaque a été notifiée à la Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL) et à l’Agence nationale de la sécurité des systèmes d’information (ANSSI). Une plainte pénale a également été déposée auprès du procureur de la République. L’auteur de ce délit s’expose à une peine de 5 ans d’emprisonnement et de 150 000 € d’amende.

Nous vous invitons à la plus grande vigilance face au risque d’emails, SMS ou appels frauduleux. Sachez que nos conseillers ne vous demanderont jamais vos mots de passe à l’oral.

En cas de suspicion ou de situation anormale, nous vous invitons à contacter le service officiel d’assistance aux victimes numériques sur : www.cybermalveillance.gouv.fr pour effectuer un signalement et faire valoir vos droits.

Nous regrettons sincèrement cette atteinte à la confidentialité de vos informations.

Abstention pour ma part.

Je pense être dans la même mentalité que @Snoopy@jlai.lu ; le meilleur des mondes serait d'être une sorte de "bonne influence" sur elleux, et elleux inversement sur nous - ce qui devient quasi-impossible en se dé-fédérant de l'instance. En même temps, non seulement ça ne justifie pas d'exposer le reste de jlai.lu à leur toxicité, mais je me méfie aussi de ne pas tomber dans du "I can fix [them]" - ce qui (à ma connaissance) est juste contre-productif pour tout le monde, y compris nous-mêmes.

Je ne voterai pas pour dé-fédérer, pour autant, car actuellement leurs postes dans mon flux me font prendre connaissance de pas mal de tragédies quotidiennes que font subir l'Occident au reste du monde. Tragédies que je dois attendre des jours, des semaines, voir des mois pour les voir apparaître dans nos médias (quand ils finissent par apparaître). Oui c'est de la paraisse de ma part (je pourrais bien créer un alt chez eux, par ex, ou même trouver d'autres sources d'info que lemmy).

J'ai quand même fini par bloquer ~~ShitLiberalsSay~~ ShitReactionariesSay, je trouve cette commu encore plus bas-du-front, réac, et contre-productive que MeanwhileOnGrad. (J'ai aussi bloqué MoreTankie196, mais c'est moins pertinent pour mon propos).

D'ailleurs, j'en profite pour une parenthèse : le problème avec ces instances serait bien moindre si les gens qui interagissent avec eux savaient d'avance à quoi s'attendre. Je ne vais pas me pointer à Pékin et y débattre de l'autoritarisme du parti communiste chinois avec les passants dans la rue. Si je n'étais pas citoyen français, je ne me pointerai pas à La Défense pour exiger le remboursement des "réparations" (lire: rançon) que l'état a exigé de Haïti pour son indépendance. C'est une question de tact. Ce que j'ignore, c'est comment pallier ce problème quand Lemmy et/ou le fédivers restent des interactions dématérialisées qui empêchent toute communication non-verbale, et permettent d'être asocial sans en subir les conséquences sociales au quotidien.

Et j'ai envie de rajouter que, de cet angle, je comprends le comportement des ours et grad. Quand tu es conscient de l'ampleur de l'injustice qui sévit dans le monde depuis 2-3 siècles, l'ampleur de la responsabilité de l'Occident et de son capitalisme dans ces horreurs, et le lavage de cerveau anti-communiste qui a lieu encore aujourd'hui, c'est vite insupportable de voir des gens perpétuer le processus. Et beaucoup de gens que je vois essayer de débattre avec les ours ici sur le fédivers répètent (sans s'en rendre compte) précisément les phrases et argumentaires qui vont trigger. Pour reprendre mes analogies, ce n'est pas dans un abri pour femmes battues que tu vas militer contre les terfs comme Dora Moutot et Marguerite Stern, ça serait limite pousser ces femmes dans leurs bras.

Je n'ai pas de solution, mais je ne peux me résoudre à voter pour ni contre.

Smart of Mata to tell them that. I like that they fight the hackers on their own "turf", so to speak, in the propaganda war. Makes their power and hegemony that much more believable.

Aside from echoing @SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone and Doctorow's statements about unionizing, I am aware of a few others who are trying things that I'd describe as complimentary to unions.

This is a panel titled "Why hasn't Open Source Won?" where several of the speakers attempt to sketch out a framework wherein a programmer would have more decision over how their code is used: https://youtu.be/k3eycjekIAk . I'll admit, I'm not the most impressed with where they get to in the limited time they have. Nevertheless, I think it's a useful angle of consideration to have in the tool belt.

This is an org/foundation that is trying to walk the walk with regards to governing tech democratically: https://nivenly.org/ I haven't kept up with any recent developments of theirs.

Some choice excerpts:

Problems arose immediately for the A-TEAM nationwide. In California's Salinas Valley, 200 teenagers from New Mexico, Kansas and Wyoming quit after just two weeks on the job. "We worked three days and all of us are broke," the Associated Press quoted one teen as saying. Students elsewhere staged strikes. At the end, the A-TEAM was considered a giant failure and was never tried again.

"These [high school students] had the words and whiteness to say what they were feeling and could act out in a way that Mexican-Americans who had been living this way for decades simply didn't have the power or space for the American public to listen to them," [Stony Brook University history professor Lori A. Flores] says. "The students dropped out because the conditions were so atrocious, and the growers weren't able to mask that up."

She says the A-TEAM "reveals a very important reality: It's not about work ethic [for undocumented workers]. It's about [the fact] that this labor is not meant to be done under such bad conditions and bad wages."

And what one dude who went through the program as a 17 year old has to say about it now:

But he says the experience also taught them empathy toward immigrant workers that Carter says the rest of the country should learn, especially during these times.

"There's nothing you can say to us that [migrant laborers] are rapists or they're lazy," he says. "We know the work they do. And they do it all their lives, not just one summer for a couple of months. And they raise their families on it. Anyone ever talks bad on them, I always think, 'Keep talking, buddy, because I know what the real deal is.' "

My reading is that it failed because there was no political will to actually provide for local-born farmers any more than immigrants. And as such, it was doomed to fail from the start.

Get off of .world if you want to see a difference.

The size of that instance almost guarantees these kinds of dynamics will emerge, especially on a website run by volunteers and paid for by donations.

Stop complaining to other users; go be the change you wish to see.

Lol. What, are we going to be installing Candy Crush on our robots? Expecting to be able to project recurring revenue from a humanoid robot based on smartphone numbers is a new kind of ignorance.

Not necessarily cash, but definitely a bit of luck. Some lawyers, if they think a case is guaranteed to go your way, will do the work for free in exchange for receiving a portion of the damages the final judgement will award you. Even rarer, some lawyers care enough about some issues on a personal level that they'll work for free, or reduced rates, on certain cases.

In this case, I'm not sure there are any damages whatsoever to award to OP - a "win" is forcing the company to abide by the GPL, not pay up money. The EFF and the FSF, as others have brought up, are probably the best bet to find lawyers that would work on this case for the outcome instead of the pay.

The problem is that lemmy.ml hosts too many popular communities. There are people who want them gone from their feeds but also don’t want their Lemmy experience to become empty and boring.

The solution is to build up more attractive alternatives of those communities elsewhere, not endlessly campaign the existing users to just drop them. I understand that awareness of why people want alternatives is important for those alternatives to have a chance at attracting users, and being discovered in the first place. I just have yet to actually see these alternatives receive the care they (imo) require to justify switching to them.

The current fedidb stats, to me, state that 488 people is, colloquially speaking, nobody.

Maybe it's too soon to make such a judgement call, we'll see over the next few days as people get the chance to see this post.

Maybe it's just because it's all actually real, but there's a mind-melting yet quiet horror to this article that I feel Lovecraft could only dream of imagining.

Like some sort of Ionesco's Rhinoceros mixed with a reverse Kafka's Metamorphosis, grotesquely stretched over Primo Levi's If This Is A Man.

That's probably too convoluted of a metaphor to mean much to anyone else, but, fuck, I don't have the energy or the will to unpack it further than that.

To think, when I first read the post title, that my initial reaction was "here we go, techtakes has finally gotten too edgy for me".

I need a cigarette and a scalding hot shower.

For what it's worth: I self-host gitea, and it gives me the possibility to import not only repos but also issues, projects, etc from GitHub, gitlab, bit bucket, and a handful of others.

I don't know if Utterances can work with gitea's API. If it does, then in theory you should be able to migrate to gitea from GitHub for this use case.

"But look how convincing [it] sounds!"

.... how did we get to the point where the ai bros are un-ironically telling us, as a selling point, that their shiny toy literally gives false yet convincing-sounding medical diagnoses ?!?!?!

If I were working on Claude and wanted to hype it up, I would not talk about this experiment online or in public. If I were working on Claude and wanted to be responsible towards "the public", I would use this example as a cautionary warning, not to further hype up the tool.

This feels like the slight period at the beginning of the NFT craze when I wasn't yet comfortable dismissing out of hand anyone excited about them, because surely there was a least some useful application that wasn't for scamming people, and surely this many people couldn't all be so deluded about the same idea.