cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/47263342

The investment will be used to strengthen the structural reliability and security of KDE's core infrastructure, including Plasma, KDE Linux, and the frameworks underlying its communication services.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/47263342

The investment will be used to strengthen the structural reliability and security of KDE's core infrastructure, including Plasma, KDE Linux, and the frameworks underlying its communication services.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/47263342

The investment will be used to strengthen the structural reliability and security of KDE's core infrastructure, including Plasma, KDE Linux, and the frameworks underlying its communication services.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/47263342

The investment will be used to strengthen the structural reliability and security of KDE's core infrastructure, including Plasma, KDE Linux, and the frameworks underlying its communication services.

The investment will be used to strengthen the structural reliability and security of KDE's core infrastructure, including Plasma, KDE Linux, and the frameworks underlying its communication services.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/47263094

Current approaches to addressing deceptive design largely focus on visible interface manipulations, commonly referred to as "dark patterns". With the rise of generative AI, deception is becoming more difficult to spot and easier to live with, as it is quietly embedded in default settings, automated suggestions, and conversational interactions rather than discrete interface elements. These subtle, normalised forms of influence, which Simone Natale frames as "banal deception", shape everyday digital use and blur the line between AI-enabled assistance and manipulation.

This position paper explores banality as a lens through which to reason through deception in generative AI experiences, especially with chatbots. We explore what Natale describes as users' own involvement in their deception, and argue that this perspective could lead to future work for introducing friction to safeguard users from deception in generative AI interactions, such as empowering users through raising awareness, providing them with intervention tools, and regulatory or enforcement improvements. We present these concepts as points for discussion for the deceptive design scholarly community.

Full paper: PDF | HTML | TeX source

Current approaches to addressing deceptive design largely focus on visible interface manipulations, commonly referred to as "dark patterns". With the rise of generative AI, deception is becoming more difficult to spot and easier to live with, as it is quietly embedded in default settings, automated suggestions, and conversational interactions rather than discrete interface elements. These subtle, normalised forms of influence, which Simone Natale frames as "banal deception", shape everyday digital use and blur the line between AI-enabled assistance and manipulation.

This position paper explores banality as a lens through which to reason through deception in generative AI experiences, especially with chatbots. We explore what Natale describes as users' own involvement in their deception, and argue that this perspective could lead to future work for introducing friction to safeguard users from deception in generative AI interactions, such as empowering users through raising awareness, providing them with intervention tools, and regulatory or enforcement improvements. We present these concepts as points for discussion for the deceptive design scholarly community.

Full paper: PDF | HTML | TeX source

cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/europe/p/1102854/european-union-surveillance-technology-sold-to-rights-violators

cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/tech/p/1102847/european-union-surveillance-technology-sold-to-rights-violators

Languages

• Français;
• Deutsch;
• Italiano;
• Español.

54-Page Report “Looking the Other Way: EU Failure to Prevent Surveillance Exports to Rights Violators": HTML/Online— PDF.

• EU member states host many companies that produce dangerous surveillance technology that can be used to violate rights, the export of which necessitates robust controls.
• The implementation and oversight of the EU regulatory framework governing export of surveillance technologies have serious flaws, resulting in the technology being sold to those who use it in violation of international human rights and humanitarian law.
• The EU should tighten the controls requiring states to do greater human rights due diligence, block risky exports, and enforce the transparency and reporting requirements so they provide meaningful oversight and accountability.

cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/europe/p/1102854/european-union-surveillance-technology-sold-to-rights-violators

cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/tech/p/1102847/european-union-surveillance-technology-sold-to-rights-violators

Languages

• Français;
• Deutsch;
• Italiano;
• Español.

54-Page Report “Looking the Other Way: EU Failure to Prevent Surveillance Exports to Rights Violators": HTML/Online— PDF.

• EU member states host many companies that produce dangerous surveillance technology that can be used to violate rights, the export of which necessitates robust controls.
• The implementation and oversight of the EU regulatory framework governing export of surveillance technologies have serious flaws, resulting in the technology being sold to those who use it in violation of international human rights and humanitarian law.
• The EU should tighten the controls requiring states to do greater human rights due diligence, block risky exports, and enforce the transparency and reporting requirements so they provide meaningful oversight and accountability.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/47214950

The new report, Permission to Pollute, reveals how the European Commission is taking a chainsaw to permitting rules for energy and industrial infrastructure. This is part of a wider deregulatory push driven by some of Europe’s most polluting industries. Although the EU presents this agenda as the “simplification” of permitting laws, in practice, it risks eroding the hard-won social and environmental protections that underpin these rules.

Since European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, took up her second term in office, permitting rules have come under sustained attack from Big Tech, the fossil fuel industry, and mining lobby groups. What’s more, under labels such as “strategic” or “overriding public interest”, harmful projects are increasingly able to side-step normal permitting procedures. But who decides what sort of projects enjoy the label?

Documents obtained by CEO expose how major polluters have lobbied for easier access to permits – and public subsidies – for polluting infrastructure projects. They reveal how the European Commission has actively invited industry players to shape its permitting deregulation agenda. Europe risks not only living with more pollution but paying polluters to create it.

Some of the key industry demands being delivered include:

• fast-tracked permitting for industrial and energy infrastructure, side-lining democratic participation;
• simpler, quicker environmental assessments, meaning less protection;
• more dirty projects classed as ‘strategic’ or ‘public interest’ and therefore getting special treatment in permitting processes, elevated above environmental or social concerns;
• water protection and nature laws opened up to be weakened.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/47214950

The new report, Permission to Pollute, reveals how the European Commission is taking a chainsaw to permitting rules for energy and industrial infrastructure. This is part of a wider deregulatory push driven by some of Europe’s most polluting industries. Although the EU presents this agenda as the “simplification” of permitting laws, in practice, it risks eroding the hard-won social and environmental protections that underpin these rules.

Since European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, took up her second term in office, permitting rules have come under sustained attack from Big Tech, the fossil fuel industry, and mining lobby groups. What’s more, under labels such as “strategic” or “overriding public interest”, harmful projects are increasingly able to side-step normal permitting procedures. But who decides what sort of projects enjoy the label?

Documents obtained by CEO expose how major polluters have lobbied for easier access to permits – and public subsidies – for polluting infrastructure projects. They reveal how the European Commission has actively invited industry players to shape its permitting deregulation agenda. Europe risks not only living with more pollution but paying polluters to create it.

Some of the key industry demands being delivered include:

• fast-tracked permitting for industrial and energy infrastructure, side-lining democratic participation;
• simpler, quicker environmental assessments, meaning less protection;
• more dirty projects classed as ‘strategic’ or ‘public interest’ and therefore getting special treatment in permitting processes, elevated above environmental or social concerns;
• water protection and nature laws opened up to be weakened.

The new report, Permission to Pollute, reveals how the European Commission is taking a chainsaw to permitting rules for energy and industrial infrastructure. This is part of a wider deregulatory push driven by some of Europe’s most polluting industries. Although the EU presents this agenda as the “simplification” of permitting laws, in practice, it risks eroding the hard-won social and environmental protections that underpin these rules.

Since European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, took up her second term in office, permitting rules have come under sustained attack from Big Tech, the fossil fuel industry, and mining lobby groups. What’s more, under labels such as “strategic” or “overriding public interest”, harmful projects are increasingly able to side-step normal permitting procedures. But who decides what sort of projects enjoy the label?

Documents obtained by CEO expose how major polluters have lobbied for easier access to permits – and public subsidies – for polluting infrastructure projects. They reveal how the European Commission has actively invited industry players to shape its permitting deregulation agenda. Europe risks not only living with more pollution but paying polluters to create it.

Some of the key industry demands being delivered include:

• fast-tracked permitting for industrial and energy infrastructure, side-lining democratic participation;
• simpler, quicker environmental assessments, meaning less protection;
• more dirty projects classed as ‘strategic’ or ‘public interest’ and therefore getting special treatment in permitting processes, elevated above environmental or social concerns;
• water protection and nature laws opened up to be weakened.