Literal definition of spyware:
Also From Microsoft’s own FAQ: "Note that Recall does not perform content moderation. It will not hide information such as passwords or financial account numbers. 🤡
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from Türkiye
seen from Canada

seen from Singapore
seen from Czechia

seen from Malaysia

seen from Canada
seen from Czechia

seen from Germany
seen from Czechia

seen from Czechia
seen from Iraq

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Canada
seen from Malaysia
seen from China
Literal definition of spyware:
Also From Microsoft’s own FAQ: "Note that Recall does not perform content moderation. It will not hide information such as passwords or financial account numbers. 🤡
If you are on Linux you are better update your kernel RIGHT NOW.
Reminder that twitter is now an informal, unregulated (i.e. warrantless) information source for Trump administration use.
New car surveillance tech becomes mandatory by 2027, using infrared cameras to monitor driver sobriety and alertness with privacy and cost c
Key Takeaways
Federal mandate requires surveillance cameras monitoring driver alertness in new vehicles by 2027
Infrared sensors track eye movement and prevent ignition if impairment detected
Technology adds $100-500 per vehicle cost while raising biometric data privacy concerns
Your next car purchase comes with an unwelcome passenger: a federal mandate requiring surveillance technology that monitors your every blink, glance, and head nod. Thanks to Section 24220 of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, NHTSA must finalize rules forcing all new passenger vehicles to include “advanced impaired driving prevention technology”—essentially turning your dashboard into a judgment-free zone that’s anything but judgment-free.
The Technology That’s Watching
Infrared cameras and sensors create a constant biometric assessment of driver alertness and sobriety.
The tech involves infrared cameras mounted on steering columns or A-pillars, tracking eye movement, pupil dilation, and drowsiness patterns. Unlike the breathalyzer ignition interlocks from DUI convictions, these systems operate passively—no blowing required. Your car simply watches and decides whether you’re fit to drive.
If the AI determines you’re impaired (blood alcohol ≥0.08% or showing fatigue), it can prevent ignition startup or limit vehicle speed. Think Minority Report, but for your morning commute.
Timeline for Implementation
The surveillance rollout targets late 2026 to 2027 for all new passenger vehicles.
While NHTSA’s final rule faced delays beyond the November 2024 deadline, automakers will still get 2-3 years for full implementation once regulations are finalized. Your current vehicle stays surveillance-free, but shopping for a 2027 model means accepting this digital copilot.
The timing coincides with broader automotive software integration, making these systems potentially updatable through over-the-air patches—expanding monitoring capabilities post-purchase.
Privacy and Cost Concerns Mount
Data collection worries combine with $100-500 per vehicle cost increases passed to consumers.
The privacy implications extend beyond federal oversight. While the law doesn’t mandate external data sharing, manufacturers could potentially upload biometric data to corporate servers, raising concerns about sharing with insurance companies to adjust your premiums based on driving behavior.
The technology adds significant costs—estimates range from $100-500 per vehicle—that automakers will inevitably pass to consumers already struggling with inflated car prices.
Industry Pushback Intensifies
Automakers oppose the mandate citing technical readiness concerns and sales impact fears.
Car manufacturers argue the technology remains unreliable, warning of false positives that could strand drivers. They’re concerned about customer backlash and potential sales declines as buyers seek older, unmonitored vehicles.
The federal government promises this surveillance saves 9,000-10,000 lives annually. Whether that justifies your car becoming a mobile panopticon depends on how much vehicle autonomy you’re willing to trade for theoretical safety gains. Your driving privacy expires with your current car’s lifespan.
DON'T FALL FOR THIS SCAM!🚩🚩🚩🚩
I'd appreciate it if you reblogged this post! I almost fell for that shit!
A Tumblr user called me saying they reported my account by accident and I needed to call a Tumblr support on Discord: Jarell Perry (this Tumblr user account was already hacked, now I know that)
Then I called this guy on Discord. I was desperate cause in the "warning" said my account would be blocked in 24 hours. But the whole conversation was REALLY strange, even more when he gave me, OUT OF NOWHERE, his "certificate":
Here is the "certificate":
He asked, then, for me to change my email and I was like "what kind of support would ask this crap?"
Besides my suspicions, TWO things saved me to fall for this shit:
>>> Another Tumblr Warning: I decided to search a little more and found ONE, ONE POST ABOUT IT ON TUMBLR, by @stuffymcstuffsworldthesecond (here is the link, please check it too and repost).
>>> The original person that called me was hacked: I even went a little further and searched the tumblr user on Google (I needed to contact them some other way to confirm the message) and, guess what, they have an Instagram account AND A NEW TUMBLR ACCOUNT, cause the first one was HACKED!! THE ONE THAT WAS TALKING WITH ME!!! (Here is the post explaining it, also consider to follow this artist, their art is amazing! The NEW and SAFE account is @cypher-030)
THEN, I reported both the scammers and blocked them! Apparently, the hacked Tumblr account that called me is already banned at the time I write this warning! But must be more of them!
EVERYONE, DON'T FALL FOR THIS! If this happened with you, it would mean a lot if you reblogged!
Also, my followers: I will NEVER send a message about anything like this for you on private! I almost NEVER talk on private, I just talk on comments, asks and hashtag reblogs! Please please, know that!
I will mention all my moots here cause I think this whole scam warning is REALLY important!
@illytian @bapple117 @mark-the-snark @mimzy6bunny @bigmegachad @thiamsxbitch @empressnom @neighborhood-cryptic @niafromheaven @batgirl68649 @sunnydeedraws @melodylyricx @ruthlessness69 @autismdonkid @chaoticlycollected @i-am-a-living-god @jaestelle @eliothedud9000 @becacomum @recycledglass @andistarbee1 @gh0st-keeper @pinkydoggy83
Be safe everyone!
Love you all! 🙏✨️
NEW BLOG POST: How To Add DRM To Your Backend (easy) [2026 WORKING]
Ever wondered how KineMaster stopped some modded clients from accessing their asset market?
How KineMaster stopped some modded clients from accessing their asset market
thanks as always to ryan fae for the editing :)
I saw a post before about how hackers are now feeding Google false phone numbers for major companies so that the AI Overview will suggest scam phone numbers, but in case you haven't heard,
PLEASE don't call ANY phone number recommended by AI Overview
unless you can follow a link back to the OFFICIAL website and verify that that number comes from the OFFICIAL domain.
My friend just got scammed by calling a phone number that was SUPPOSED to be a number for Microsoft tech support according to the AI Overview
It was not, in fact, Microsoft. It was a scammer. Don't fall victim to these scams. Don't trust AI generated phone numbers ever.
Georgia’s voting technology blunder
Angelenos! I’ll be at the Los Angeles Festival of Books TOMORROW (Apr 19) for a panel called “Nature or Nurture: How Humans and AI Are Changing Each Other” with Adam Becker, Joanne McNeil, and Lucas Cantor Santiago.
Nearly 25 years ago, in the aftermath of Bush v Gore, I got involved in a bunch of ugly tech policy fights over voting machines. The hanging chad debacle in Florida prompted Congress to appropriate funds for states to purchase new touchscreen voting machines based on a robust, open standard. The problem was, those machines didn't exist.
The voting machine industry in those days was already very consolidated (it's far more consolidated today). They went shopping for a standards body that would publish a spec for a "standard" voting machine that could soak up those federal dollars in time for the 2004 election. The only taker was the IEEE, who unwisely offered to serve as host for this impossible rush job.
Once the voting machine reps were around a table at IEEE – largely sheltered from antitrust scrutiny thanks to the broad latitude enjoyed by firms engaged in standardization, which is otherwise uncomfortably close to collusion – they admitted what everyone already knew: there was zero chance they were going to develop a new standard in time for the election.
Instead, they decided they were going to publish a "descriptive standard." Rather than designing a new standard, they'd write down the specs of their own products – the same products that were considered so defective they needed to be replaced before the election – and call that the standard.
That was my first encounter with this issue as an activist. I had just started at EFF and a lot of our supporters were IEEE members, who were appalled to see their professional association being used to launder this incredibly politically salient, technically incoherent scam. We got a ton of IEEE members to write to the board, who shut down the standards committee and kicked the voting machine companies to the curb.
The voting machine companies weren't done, though. Diebold – one of the leaders in the cartel – knew that its voting machines were defective. They'd crash, lose their vote-counts and malfunction in other ways that were equally damaging to election integrity.
This was an alarming piece of news, but perhaps just as alarming is the way it came to light. A Diebold employee described this situation in a memo that was subsequently hacked and dumped by parties unknown. That memo, along with the accompanying tranche of extremely alarming revelations about Diebold's voting machine division, was the subject of one of the first mass-censorship copyright campaigns in internet history.
Diebold didn't dispute the veracity of these damning revelations: rather, it claimed that since the memos detailing its gross democracy-endangering misconduct had been prepared by an employee, that they were therefore works-made-for-hire whose copyright was held by Diebold, and thus anyone who reproduced the memo was infringing on the company's copyright.
Under Section 512 of the then-new Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Diebold was empowered to send "takedown notices" to the web hosting providers whose users had posted the memos, and if the web hosts didn't remove the content "expeditiously," they would be jointly liable for any eventual copyright damages, which are statutorily set at $150,000 per infringement.
Every web host folded. No one wanted to take the risk of tens of millions of dollars in statutory damages.
(Incidentally: anyone who tells you that "online safety" requires us to make online platforms liable for their users' speech needs to explain how this wouldn't empower every crooked company whose dirty laundry had ended up online wouldn't just do what Diebold did. It's not technically insanity to do the same thing over again in expectation of a different outcome, but it is awfully stupid and reckless.)