GrievingWidow420

Hello there!

Edit: I'm sure this post belongs in [email protected] because this post's concern is with shilling facial recognition, promising benefits for it and overall describing it like the only sane option - "you wouldn't want to stay in line for an hour, now, would you?".

Just bought a Ryanair ticket that was, like, 17 euros. I saw that price and said "Wow! That's like going to a movie but the movie is Slovakia!". Bought the ticket, then received a looooot of spam, among which there was a letter saying that, since I bought from a third-party, I need to verify my identity first. On top there were 2 nice looking buttons that said "Verify Now" and above them there were two ways of verifying my identity enclosed in a nice frame. The first one would only take me 2 minutes and cost only 0.59 cents, and would utilize facial recognition technology,

Uses facial recognition technology. Verify in approx. 2 minutes. Requires a copy of the passenger's identification documentation and a device with a camera.

the other one didn't look so appetizing, because it might have taken up to 7 days (I'd be leaving in 4), it would have no cost (for free) and would use no facial recognition technology, hence the 7 day wait

Verifies the passenger's signature. Verify within 7 days. Requires a copy of the passenger's identification documentation and a device with a camera.

Following the two ways there was a third way, which was in no way highlighted as the first two, and it said that if I wanted, I could go there myself and hand them my passport, but they explicitly dissuade me from doing so because "it would imply a payment of a check-in fee"

Passengers who do not avail of Express Verification or Standard Verification to verify their bookings can verify at the Ryanair ticket desk up to 60 minutes before departure.

However, we do not recommend this option as an airport check-in fee will apply (please see our Table of Fees).

The facial recognition way sounded like an angel's voice among the devil's screams, when compared to the other two. It was presented almost like "an offer JUST for you", like "Look. I normally don't do this, but since you're such a nice guy...". I obviously discarded the facial-recognition way as soon as I read "facial recognition", but also because they so strongly suggested against me paying 55 euros (I called and asked) to them. Now, if the 55 euros are going to Ryanair, it sounds so unreasonable for them to almost refuse taking my money [However, we do not recommend this option as an airport check-in fee will apply (please see our Table of Fees).]. Who doesn't want an extra 55 from each old person that buys their ticket? I would, however, understand if that 55 were to go entirely to the airport, not Ryanair, but I don't think that's how it works (correct me if I'm wrong). It seemed like they wanted to own my face more than my 55 euros, so it must be that they would earn much more from my face than from my wallet. I don't want to allow that. I assume that, when applying to the facial recognition option, I would need to accept a specific ToS allowing them to store and sell my pretty little face around. I can't allow that. I also understand that this is a low-cost flight and they need to reach a certain earning with alternative methods (i.e. selling my face to third-party and whatnot), but since they allow to pay for the ticket AND the 55 for the check-in then that sum must cover the whole thing and it must be the non-low-cost full price. Why then would I sell you my face allowing you to use me to make much more money than you should? For the commodity of doing the verification from my couch in 2 minutes? That's not enough for me to sell myself, and neither should it be for anyone else (who has some, if not pride, then self-respect).

The whole picture looks a bit manipulative to me and I'd rather waste the money I spent on the two-way ticket and airbnb, stay home and never have anything to do with Ryanair.

Was casually reading through Firefox release notes for version 115, and in "Changes" section there is an introduction of a new back-end feature that restricts extensions behavior

We have introduced a new back-end feature to only allow some extensions monitored by Mozilla to run on specific websites for various reasons, including security concerns.

This feature is obviously still under development, but it already forced people to look for fixes. This suggests the user-unfriendliness of this feature, which may be related to the goals that the infamous Web Integrity API is seeking: partly, controlling and limiting extensions, which are there for the community(!)

I, of course, understand that this update dates back to 4th of July 2023 - some time before this DRM-the-web thing exploded, but still it contradicts things that Mozilla stated in opposition of Google's plan to hijack [even more] the internet.

How long before the YouTube page will be too private, sensitive and important to allow uBlock Origin from running on it? Will Mozilla decide that youtube.com is "quarantined domain" or will it accept suggestions from its monopoly colleagues?

This ~~feature~~ bug can be fixed by going to about:config and setting "extensions.quarantinedDomains.enabled" to "False". For now.

Not trying to make a fuss and/or cause a hysteria, just pointing out that such a thing was introduced and slipped under the radar (haven't seen a discussion about this on the internet). Mozilla may have other intentions for it, but it doesn't look like something made truly "for the people, not for profit" as some of Mozilla's slogans state.

Will be happy to discuss.

EDIT: "uBlock" > "uBlock Origin"