Just wanted to say thank you for this tool! I hope you keep it online as I want to use this for my kids as they grow up to teach them this when they reach it in school.
Also, as it stands right now as of this post I found the UI to be fine, the speed was decent and did a good job of following the path without taking too long or being too fast, I think its at a good balance right now.
Camscanner was one of my favourite apps! I had even paid for the pro version back before it sold. Then when it sold that actually meant nothing, and now I have a "pro" app that is useless essentially.
If anyone has good alternative suggestions I'm open, I haven't tried to look as I don't use it much anymore.
I agree, and I believe this is in part because it is these kind of people that malware is targeted at. We, the tech savvy, will be smart enough to not do something because we pay attention at permissions or what extensions, programs, tools, etc are doing or want to do. The tech illiterate still do know how to use Google, search for what they want to do, click on the first thing that looks like it will do what they want, download and use it. If it doesn't do what they want, it remains there and they go and repeat these steps until they find exactly what program, etc does what they want, all while the bad ones remain installed, doing bad things.
My wife fell into this category when we first met, after I began teaching her even just some basics and she learned to question things and be more careful, I haven't needed to "diagnose" her computer in a long time (I still do regular maintenance, but irregular issues never come up anymore). So I would say that education is the biggest key in this regard, teach them to start with a zero trust model.
Tech savvyness and paying attention will not save you when you're bombarded with dark patterns all the time. Even then, I prefer not to be one click away from losing my privacy, money or being bombarded with ads.
If I am understanding you correctly, dark patterns are meant to be a psychological hit to you, it's not tech savvyness but clarity of mind and knowing that most every big business out there wants to make money off you and will do anything to get that money. This is a huge reason I am not on Facebook (among others, including the standard ones), and other social media platforms. I investigate claims myself, and do not trust what is thrown at me. Perhaps this is the biggest reason dark patterns have never worked on me. Also keeping a strong privacy/security setup that you don't compromise on helps too.
This is a terrible mindset to have. When I was a manager I took every opportunity to praise my employees (with meaningful compliments and feedback) and discouraged negativity. During a management team meeting I even stood against the others on promoting someone because he was always negative and I pointed out how inefficient his coworkers were around him and that he would only continue that, it didn't matter how good he was himself at the job, he needed to be encouraged to change for the better. After working with him for a while and helping him see how he was hurting others and himself, he changed his mindset, and was later promoted, I continued to coach him even after I left that location.
My basic point is this, even those with the wrong mindset can be swayed with the right mindset, as long as it is sincere.
Very good point, and I would add that line can be moved based on individual circumstances. I've seen people complain about issues with a service, but the moment I offer an alternative and a way to migrate (painlessly for me to do, and I typically offer to help them) suddenly all is good with their service and they're sticking with it. I've even pushed a little further in the past to say I will do ALL of the work for you, just sit back and relax and in a couple hours done. Most still refuse and I don't get why once all barriers have been removed.
Google's "business" model has been in question for years now, I now am extra glad that I already downloaded all my data from Google, acquired my own domain and set up a nextcloud server. If I need more space, I buy another/larger hard drive, and never need to worry about data collection, services shutting down or prices changing.
Yes I do, offline and offsite backup of important and valuable data stored on a HDD at my parents. Not the most seemless or user friendly options, but the privacy and security of my data is more important.
I have also considered looking into mirroring my data on a trusted hosting provider for some day when I can afford to pay.
Yeah, that's a good strategy I suppose even if you do need to cart around a HDD to update every so often. You just need to make sure your parents backup is updated periodically.
The carting around and updating is made simpler with a tool I have found and love, free file sync. One of the few tools I buy into (even though its free).
I am not in law enforcement myself, but do some online investigations, and like many others in my field we use YouTube-dl to save a copy of video evidence relevant to a case we are working on. It can be instrumental for archiving the evidence if it is ever removed or taken down, can also be used to grab extra info (CC text log is one example) and then manually searched for specific strings. This tool has made ma y investigations pay off in ways they never could have otherwise.
Eek, the thought of that makes me cringe. I guess it would be passable in some circumstances, but I can imagine a bunch of reasons why it would be miserable or useless:
* the quality drop; recompressing, non-matching frame rates, non-matching resolution--all the same goes for audio. You're very likely clipping (losing) data. This is assuming you're doing screen-capture. If you're literally video taping a monitor you will get moiré in the video, room tone in the audio, losing any stereo separation, and other audio/video artifacts.
* performance; must be done in real-time, cannot queue up multiple sources. This is likely the biggest efficiency killer and makes things 100x more labor intensive.
* reliable Internet; if you get a blip or have a slow connection you have to hopefully catch it and start over. With youtube-dl you can pause, resume, confirm even on the slowest, spottiest connections.
* metadata, organizing, indexing; likely hand-typed separately, prone to error, prone to not knowing if you've done that video already.
* Chain of custody; grabbing the original video allows you to prove two identical copies match (using file hashes or other comparisons) screen recording makes that difficult to impossible to confirm--maybe with fancy AI you'd have to run by the courts?
Eek, you are responding to my comment as if it was a freestanding response about archival copy and law enforcement work, when it was specifically in response to someone saying he was using it for neither. It's not surprising it makes you cringe, but please consider in context.
> the quality drop; recompressing, non-matching frame rates, non-matching resolution--all the same goes for audio.
Are you trying to preserve quality or prove something? My response was in context for "gathering evidence" but not police work, and not archival quality. Would such a copy cause your problem to prove libel, copyright infringement, illegitimate disclosure, etc?
> performance; must be done in real-time, cannot queue up multiple sources
Can most definitely queue up multiple sources. Just make a youtube playlist and record it. Yes, it takes "real time latency", you'll take 10 hours to download 10 hours of video in general -- that's not an issue for evidence or gathering in a non law-enforcement context.
> metadata, organizing, indexing; likely hand-typed separately, prone to error, prone to not knowing if you've done that video already.
Again - consider the context of my answer, NOT archival quality anything. The "cc" stream GP mentioned, which can be searchable etc - has also seen many revisions for many files when the Google STT algorithms are revised, and with corrections.
> Chain of custody; grabbing the original video allows you to prove two identical copies match (using file hashes or other comparisons) screen recording makes that difficult to impossible to confirm--maybe with fancy AI you'd have to run by the courts?
You have no chain of custody. You can prove two downloads are the same, but YouTube does not guarantee they keep the file the same (indeed, they've modified files several times, changing formats and even remastering old '80s videos). If a file is later pulled (which is what GP was talking about), what are you going to compare it to?
Chain of custody is law enforcement business. They'll get the files from YouTube directly, with affidavits and statements about it and any modifications, if they need it in court. You are going to civil court, and youtube-dl is not making your evidence more valid than a screen recording.
This, along with screen capture, is known as a form of rebroadcast and it's used to obscure and obfuscate digital alterations, watermarks, deepfake artifacts and the like. When doing media forensics, it's optimal to get as close to the raw source as possible.
Isn't this just due to more compression? What's stopping someone from turning down the bitrate and re-encoding a video into different formats a few times to kill the quality (which will still look fine on a 6 inch phone in portrait orientation)?
That's one of the effects we model in fact, "social media laundering" is the term of art.
Various detectors are more or less thwarted by it. It actually surprised me how strong the artifacts from some GANs are - they can survive several passes of re-encoding, but accuracy does suffer.
But I still need the raw 720/1080 stream for training.
With the appropriate tools, such as gnome-screenshot.
But when I find myself on a locked down computer - e.g. watching a movie on an AppleTV, or when I was shown surveillance video but was refused a copy for some bureaucratic reason (or it required a different license to export, reasons were unconvincing) - I use a mobile device.
Filming the screen, means that in order to fake it, you have to setup something that routes youtube.com to your own fake version of youtube, before filming. To me, that sounds much harder than say "this file was downloaded from here on that date"
"oh nice, a youtube-link from one of my sources, let me get my camera set up to archive it ..."
I kind of expect a serious investigator to archive these materials just for the sake of it. I don't expect them to make it harder on themselves for no good reason.
So - if the issue is really the marketing around youtube-dl, does this mean someone can create a fork named something else, use different marketing, and carry on?
Well, sure, but google/YouTube search does find in it. The GP was talking about their work collecting evidence - they can find it just as well, and record a copy for posterity just as well.
I am not saying it’s as convenient (more options >> less options except for analysis-paralysis). But I don’t understand how it tips the scale to making any archiving or evidence gathering unusable or uneconomical. (I am not saying GP is wrong - just want more explanation so I can understand)
> I’m wondering if my experience is an outlier or if this is pretty much what everyone experiences today?
I experience very much the same issues. While I do occasionally have great conversations over IM with select few people, most are similar to what you describe, write a long letter and only receive a few sentences or less. I myself though do still prefer in person conversation, too much inflection, tones and meaning is lost in text based conversation, it is even taken the wrong way a lot as a result.
One option I also think we are forgetting, Services like ProtonMail and Tutanota. Both are private and encrypted, both are free (with an option to pay for more services). These services are out there, but general knowledge of them is not so high. I believe more users would switch to them if they knew about them. My own parents came to me asking if there was something they could do after being creeped out/scared by big techs privacy invasive tracking and stalking. They weren't aware of the availability of other services and yet they went looking when it got bad enough. How much sooner for others if they were aware of these alternative services? We could all argue back and forth about both sides, but I believe that both sides would be truly surprised about what would actually happen.
Also, as it stands right now as of this post I found the UI to be fine, the speed was decent and did a good job of following the path without taking too long or being too fast, I think its at a good balance right now.