The solution to school shootings is not to focus on dodgeball.

This is a comment about phone privacy.

I've seen at least half a dozen other projects that looked like this, received criticism, and the supposed author responded that way verbatim. It's actually eerie.

Freedom of Speech^TM^*

*Terms and condition apply and are subject to change at any given moment and is enforced however we (the enforcers) like it. We can and will infringe on it but you may take legal action after our work is complete. You may be entitled to some compensation, which will come from the tax dollars, while we face no consequences, aren't held accountable and free to repeat it. Your case may also be used as a propaganda to show how we are the freeest country in the world.

What's your pin?

I don't recall at the moment.

What's your pin?

I don't recall at the moment.

What's your pin?

I don't know..

Over the years the courts have decided that LEOs can't force you to give your pin/password. The issue that wasn't really addressed is why US citizens lack certain rights in the grey zone between US and international territory.

This all seems illegal but I'm not a laywer

I wonder if I'd get arrested if they run out of tries then it wipes itself, as opposed to providing a duress pin.

Maybe backup your phone, wipe it, and restore it?

Which Congress?

It makes them look strong without actually working on fixing the issues at hand.

You get arrested for wiping your phone at the border as we learned last month.

For now people that need to cross the border should probably carry a travel phone and mail their real one.

For those not in the know, this can be risky too.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2026/07/american-being-prosecuted-for-wiping-his-phone-before-handing-it-over-to-border-officials.html

Good ruling, but weird reasoning.

I would have thought the reasoning should be that in a legal system based on the rule of law, people need to be notified and able to inform themselves of which laws exist and apply to them. The source in the text of the US Constitution for this idea could be in the part about depriving people of liberty without due process of law.

If a company has no way of knowing or exercising control over whether users are accessing its services from Utah, how can Utah apply any of its state laws to that company?

Looking everywhere except the mirror

https://floodlit.org/

https://grapheneos.org/ is waiting for its time to shine

Well you see gop lawmakers want more power or they start panicking.

One estimate says that over 300 state bills to regulate social media and kid safety on the internet were introduced in 2025 alone.

Jesus. These law makers have nothing better to do?

But both parties also agree that there is no way for a website operator to determine a user’s physical location with perfect certainty. Aylo argues that Utah’s actual location requirement means that Aylo must “impose age verification on every user of their platforms, everywhere in the world” because it is impossible to know for sure whether any given user actually is in Utah.

It becomes a purely jurisdictional issue, as Server Location A sending data to Router Location A wouldn't be subject to jurisdictional in Location B.

At best, the Router would be liable for transmitting the data across state lines. But really, you'd think the Client would be the one breaking the law, by importing illicit data.

Of course, this would mean any attempt to prosecute the law would just bring the hammer down on Client side. A bit like saying you can only prosecute a cop in a drug sting for illegal possession.

I agree. I actually just wanted to point out its not the ai bot having you committed but instead its more likea situation like your neighbors calling that there were wierd noises from the house next store. not really though as the police are asking specific questions. As a PnP RPG person I certainly do searches for all sorts of crazy weapon and what type of damage can this do or something.

That sounds by definition not random.

And I think it's correct for a professional therapist to start this process but not for some automated warning system hooked up to an AI bot.

its more about lawsuits I think. I really can't say for poland but anyone who sees a therapist is taking the same risk.

in the us doctors are loathe to involuntarily sign someone in so generally they try to convince them to voluntarily do it.

That's because in US insurance companies don't want to pay for it. In Poland the police and the doctor can decide to just let you go and take the responsibility for it or they can put you under observation just in case. I think the idea that talking with a AI bot can put you in a situation where one person can decide to lock you up is scary in itself. This should be reserved for people that pose clear danger to themselves (they report having suicidal thoughts) or to others (they threaten someone).

Isn't that a major theme in all crime shows and movies?

@okamiueru@lemmy.world and yourself I also have your concerns but just specifically to yours exlisper lets remember he did have a session with a doctor made the decision to hold for observation. So its not just the auto generated report its the report followed by a call from a medical team, followed by a call from a physcician and just to observe more. Which suggests no final type determination is made. I can say for sure that in the us doctors are loathe to involuntarily sign someone in so generally they try to convince them to voluntarily do it.

I don't have any problem with police getting in touch with someone they believe is at risk of committing a crime. Better to check in and make sure they are okay, rather than waiting until something terrible happens. As long as its limited to "Are you okay?" then its fine IMO.

Requires a police force that has the trust of the people though, and that is increasingly rare.

And its difficult to square that with the right to privacy/no unreasonable searches.