parable

To the best of my understanding, ZDR is often a promise that your data is not used for model training. It doesn't mean "what it says on the tin", so to speak. There are cases where data needs to be retained regardless, for example, preventing abuse. This isn't for training, so a company can still claim ZDR.

I did some research and corroborated with Claude. No banks in my country offer anything akin to Privacy.com. There are a few "virtual card" services but they have limits that make them virtually unusable.

I doubt I'll have any influence on the products any one bank in my country offers, but it doesn't hurt to ask.

My bank is the opposite of yours. They used to offer a similar service but shuttered it a few years ago. A shame.

This is good advice for anyone who lives in the USA, but there are hardly any adequate alternatives for the rest of the world, as far as I know.

Please forgive my stupidity, but is there any particular reason why companies never seem to disclose what "system" of theirs was breached? If this breach came about as a result of a security incident at a third-party, would it not benefit everyone minus the vendor to shift the blame? I understand that they say "our systems", but I've seen companies say this before when what they mean is "a system controlled by a vendor we contracted".

Hi. I was briefly following the developments regarding legal representation and thought everything was going well. Is there anything more you could disclose as to how you were misled or what happened here? Thank you again for creating and maintaining Nitter, it's such a valuable tool and I've donated a few times over the years.

Not an ad or promotion, I'm just also addicted to buying cool domains and I remember seeing this up for sale: DomainEmpire.com is currently trying to sell sesqui.net, registered in 1987, for $33,000. I think they have others that are cheaper, but you'll have to scrape WHOIS data for each domain to find their creation dates.

I don't really care if anything else gets blocked as a side effect, except for Find My. As far as I know, `fmfd` and `findmydeviced` are the binaries responsible for that feature, so if I whitelist those binaries I should be fine.

Through my own usage of Little Snitch, it appears that all the iCloud-related features use individual binaries and that iCloud connections go to specific hosts for specific use cases (e.g. pxxx-contacts.icloud.com, pxxx-quota.icloud.com, pxxx-caldav.icloud.com). I'd assume the AI features are the same - specific hosts and binaries that I can block.

Is it possible to block Apple Intelligence from sending data over the Internet via Little Snitch? I would assume it is, but I'm not sure if anything significant has changed in macOS 27 that makes this impossible now. I don't really mind the local features - I'd rather they stay disabled, but it's not the end of the world - but I really don't want any data leaving my Mac.

This would be nice, and I hope I get to see a future like this, but I moreso meant that I don't see a solution for this issue given the current landscape of things. Ideally, yes, companies wouldn't collect the data and it would be illegal to do so. However, this currently isn't the case, so what can be done that lets all sides win? Something has to give, and I'm certain users will receive the short end of the stick at all times - at least, until there are better laws in place.

Metabase can be self-hosted, but you cannot self-host Salesforce or Mixpanel or many of the other products I'm referring to. In an ideal world, every company would self-host their own instances of all of their products, since that ultimately forces them to be solely responsible for their customers' data. Using the cloud versions of these products shifts the blame from the company itself to the vendor when things go sideways, so it makes more sense for them to do this instead of taking responsibility.