How is Adobe modifying a system file at all? Does Adobe run a background process with root privileges?

Yup. Just checked. Right now I have "com.adobe.acc.installer.v2" running as root on two threads. The other 3 background processes (at least those with adobe in the name) are under the user. The whole stack is using like 75mb ram at all times. You kill the process they restart. You delete the files from your launchd, open adobe software they come back.

AGMServices it's optional but gets shoe horned at install time.

Even then, the installer itself has administrative access already, should they choose to do it then.

> But when all of the Epstein thing happened, I genuinely thought that US media which moved the headlines faster than I can think about the issues for, would actually slow down given the severity and we as a society could think about it.

Not to worry since the public face of the Epstein files coverup is back in the news.

Suppose for argument this statistic were true. It still does not fully capture people's risk.

P(malware) = P(nalware | Google Play) * P(Google Play) + P(malware | non-Google Play) * P(non-Google Play)

It's the combination of both factors that counts. Even if Google Play has a lower malware rate, a user is still far more likely to try to install apps through Google Play given the sheer size of its catalog and its prominent, default placement on people's devices.

Are there any anti-trust angles to this?

Perhaps if you're the highly motivated type who would excel even without ai. But it's far too easy to become like maths students who learn only how to use a calculator instead of how to actually add fractions.

In fact, he is trying to pave the road for these "age verification" laws in multiple projects:

- https://github.com/archlinux/archinstall/pull/4290

- https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xdg/xdg-specs/-/merge_request...

- https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-desktop-provision/pull/1...

- https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-desktop-provision/pull/1... -

HOLY CRAP. THATS AMAZING.

This isn't just some guy that's overzealous.

Apparently this has escalated: https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/1rz8i4r/dylan_usef...

Theres a lot of smoke here.

Off his rocker: https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-desktop-provision/pull/1...

> This is honestly some of the dumbest false equivalence I've ever read. Entering a birth date (that doesn't even have a check for truthfulness) during account setup when the system is first installed equals returning escaped slaves or turning in jews? I'm actually baffled by this comparison. And no, I don't particularly care about North Korean laws.

It boggles the mind how so eagerly open source projects are trying to pave the way for these laws.

> People tend to distrust websites.

How did the world come to this when the internet long predated smartphones and so many "apps" are little more than bookmarked wrappers around websites?

Don't know why this was downvoted. Some people prefer to access online services from the safety of a web browser sandbox than through an always-installed wrapper app.

> As far as I could tell, they did it by convincing her to install some android app on her phone and then grant that app accessibility permissions.

Did she make it through the non-google play app install flow?

I think all the software the scammers used was in the google play store. I don't think they sideloaded anything.

But I'm not entirely sure. I wasn't there, and she's not tech literate. She was so rattled when I spoke to her about it that it was hard to get a clear story out of her about what happened.