This is one side of the story. It’s entirely possible CF did provide those details

Infamous implies somebody is famous in a negative way. If anything, Gabe is a shining example that should be upheld.

Not sure why you’re citing US law when we’re discussing foreign govts. Also the obvious thing signal can do, that most complainants would probably expect as a minimum, is banning their accounts and closing the group.

I don’t get what you’re trying to say at all. If a party is in a group chat and reports it, they can provide their credentials to Signal to enable Signal to view the contents of the chat.

Yes, they’re a carrier that does not know the content of what they carry. But once they are made aware, the legal system considers them to now bear responsibility if they don’t take action. Whether or not that’s fair is a pretty large topic, though I’m inclined to think so myself.

Funny how the .ml admins are so opposed to free speech on their own server, then.

Yes, but we’re discussing group chats disseminating piracy links. Do you think it’s harder to join such a group chat and report it to signal than it is to do all the cloak and dagger nonsense?

In a group chat, M wouldn’t be a 3rd party.

Becky sounds fun. Got her number?

It’s not a database. God, how many years is it going to take before people understand just what LLMs are and are not capable of?

That is what LLMs do in EVERY conversation. Most of the time you don’t notice it, because it fits your expectations.

No, because that requires it to understand the words. It doesn’t.

That pretty much depends on where in the world you are, FYI. Librarian == professional fucking researcher is not a thing in Asia.

We could discuss all sorts of hypotheticals, including where there’s a secret supervillain base under the library and they’re about to assassinate OP for jacking into their network. It’s pointless because we’re not discussing an event we have any way of obtaining any other information about other than what OP has provided.

Do you trust every one-sided story to be entirely accurate of all details?

No, but for the sake of discussion in this thread, that is the scenario we’re all going by. We’re not rendering a legal judgement here, we’re discussing the situation as described.

In a public library, I would fully expect public-facing ethernet ports, especially in sitting / working areas, to be available for public use. I’m not sure why they would be there otherwise. And if they’re no longer meant for public use, it would be on the library IT staff to have disabled those ports.

what does trust have to do with it?

Because I don’t trust non-IT-savvy people to even properly understand the question. I’ve met way too many people with no technical clue who refuse to admit to any sort of lack of knowledge when it’s extremely obvious.

“Do you have ethernet or wired internet?” is actually a common library question and the response from whoever works the front desk will likely tell you everything you need to know.

Would you trust the reply somebody like the librarian in the OP gave you? Seems like the sort of person who would refuse to admit to any lack of knowledge and just bluster.

Sounds like a her problem.

No wonder Ukraine and Russia have better soil quality, that’s a pretty low bar.

Around here

Where’s that, for those of us who aren’t your neighbours? 😛

Have you met babies? They’ll eat anything, period. Except their food. That’s half the challenge in parenting.

I am a software developer. That is absolutely how development works in some places