Mastodawn

@EUCommission
Maybe, just maybe, instead building a suvilience state in EU and forcing us to give our data to private enteties, you will give Parents a proper tools? Apple devices have parental control embeded in OS.
Instead collecting data just made obligatory to add to the OS that type of function, or a manual how to setup the proper one by parents for their children.
EU is willing to give our passports, ID or other data to private enteties instead helping parents to protect children.

Show thread

wod0bow 3d ago

@arstechnica

Instead of collecting more data there should be a simple law, that the OS by default should have a software which allow parents to block some sites and apps for minors.

No need to ID verification not even way to create account.
VPN will not be problematic.

Why goverments don't do that? Becouse this is not for Children protection it is for survelience and ripping off Internet anonimity.

Show thread

wod0bow 6d ago

@MeaningfulBits @arstechnica This is not a "post law world", this is a tier system. Where "law" is used only to control poor. We saw some simple examples last year, like the copyright laws which was not applied to AI companies. Same law that was forced on simple people.
So called "law" instead be a science and art of justice is now only a tool of opression, and the main concern is that they are not hiding that this tool of opression is only for ppor and people who don't obey.

Show thread

wod0bow May 23

@nileane @macgeneration
@GrapheneOS
More over Canada Bill C-22. That is also targeting encrypted messages.
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-22/first-reading

With that direction in 2034 we will wake up in 1984 or a Brave New World.

Government Bill (House of Commons) C-22 (45-1) - First Reading - Lawful Access Act, 2026 - Parliament of Canada

Show thread

wod0bow May 23

@signalapp

I just want to ask:
Will Signal comply with Canada authorities or remove app from Canada app stores if the C-22 bill will be implemented in Canada?
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-22/first-reading

Government Bill (House of Commons) C-22 (45-1) - First Reading - Lawful Access Act, 2026 - Parliament of Canada

wod0bow May 10

@[email protected] @GrapheneOS As in the changelog Pixel 9a and 8a are using same BCM4383 chip. The drivers update between 20260507 and 20260509 made it still in alpha when other devices (which didn't need driver update) go to Beta / Stable.
After testing new drivers for 8a and 9a the Beta and Stable will be updated.
If the issue is critical on Alpha stage it is not going to Beta or to Stable. Same in Beta. If there will be a critical issue in Beta than the Stable will be not updated to that build.

Show thread

wod0bow Apr 6

@GrapheneOS @glimbusGlorbo

All people understand that. Add it to "about GrapheneOS" / "history of the project" page on GrapheneOS website with references instead just repeating that over and over...
And instead posting information that you will take legal actions if... Just take legal actions. We (as a comunity) will even help to rise funds for that.
But information should be simple and not constantly repeated.
People just have enough of same drama instead of news.
Thats all.

wod0bow Apr 2

@GrapheneOS Do I understand the situation correctly, that GrapheneOS is after the misrepresentation, false narrative, false project history etc. right now because of the Motorola/GrapheneOS Phone? As I understand you want to clean narrative and ensure that there will be no PR supprises like false founding accusations etc.
How we, as a community can help?

Show thread

wod0bow Mar 29

@HybridStaticAnimate @GrapheneOS
I understand what was originally written.
But if you are trying to reach someone you usually calling/email them. IDK if they even have mastodon accounts.
This is not a effective way to reach them and let them know that you have will of forgiveness.
If someone misrepresented the conversation, than instead of whole conversation send short e-mail that you are ready to forgive them, that can't be misrepresented.
I just don't like public dirt washing. Nothing else.

Show thread

wod0bow Mar 27

@GrapheneOS

I understand your approach. Even the legal path. I just don't know if it should be public before the final resolution or even any true actions.

IMHO if you are trying to have good relations with someone you should talk with that particular person and try to solve issues instead of talking about that to the public.

If you are going with legal path than instead talking about that file a lawsuit. And announce that to public.

But maybe this is only my approach.