Well that is illegal as fuck. These people should sue.

Because you are still using it. You are still participating, it's still triggering thier api. Its still views.

For most Americans, it would take a lawyer present just to know what is safe to do while under arrest. The problem is, SCOTUS has already ruled on this in 1985, via the good faith exception. If a police officer mistakenly violates your fourth-amendment rights, but did so in good faith, then evidence of any crime found is inadmissible. It's very difficult to prove bad faith, and officers have learned to lie to cover up, say, that they knew they were crossing a line, or were motivated by corruption, bigotry or ideology to fish for evidence beyond the scope of a reasonable search. Besides which, I wouldn't trust an officer to turn off data before combing though my phone, and the difference between what is on the phone and what is cloud data is transparent. They would absolutely have access to my entire email history of decades, and law enforcement has intrinsic personal cause to fish for criminal activity. For one thing, collars is how police officers get accolades and promotions. And for another, there's the matter of asset forfeiture. Police routinely will declare any open cash or valuable property as criminal in order to confiscate it. And it's very difficult to get it back. In the 2010s some precincts already had the capability to empty pre-loaded credit cards, so it wouldn't surprise me if they could do something similar with mobile payment services. In the US since the aughts, law enforcement departments have regarded the public as enemy, and this shows up countless times in uncovered intra-department memorandums. It also shows up in precinct suspicious activity guidelines that are contradictory and include all possible forms of behavior (including inaction). It also shows up in police tools like poorly-trained detection dogs who signal at a 90%+ false positive rate, or the two-dollar roadside drug test that false positives on dozens of inert chemicals, such as donut sugar glaze. In the twentieth century, I would hypothesize over 50% of our incarcerated are innocent, or are serving a sentence disproportionate to the alleged crime they committed. Of course we're now in the era of random abductions and detention centers run by private prison companies.

E' lo stesso dubbio che ho avuto anch'io. Però mi è stato risposto che ci sono stati altri test che puoi trovare su https://privacytests.org dove, anche lì, si vede che Vivaldi non ne esce benissimo. Qualcuno dei test indicati li ho fatti per conto mio, ed effettivamente Vivaldi non blocca quei traccianti, nemmeno con il blocco attivato. Detto questo, per me il discorso ha senso solo se hanno lasciato le impostazioni di default su tutti. Mi spiego meglio: Librewolf risulta uno dei migliori, ed è vero, ma ha preinstallata l'estensione uBLock Origin che blocca un bel po' di schifezze. Se a Vivaldi installi un'estensione similare, ad es. uBlockLite (dello stesso autore), ovviamente anche lui bloccherà più schifezze. Insomma, ho il forse sospetto che si paragonino le mele con le pere.