7 minutes ago, Caroline said:

My apologies to all who love MCM furniture. But I think this piece is super ugly. It reminds me of my parents' 50's furniture. I even disliked our furniture then. 

 

This particular MCM piece is not my favorite. But there are other MCM pieces I love. 

My apologies to all who love MCM furniture. But I think this piece is super ugly. It reminds me of my parents' 50's furniture. I even disliked our furniture then. 

A little aside, but one thing I've wondered about since Josh's case is, well, the muck behind Covenant Eyes.

CE takes screenshots of any activity that it deems "suspicious"* and then blurs them (in a way they claim cannot be unblurred, but I'm doubtful). In any case, it appears they do this to protect the "monitoring allies" from seeing all the porn their husbands are watching or whatever, but. 

But. This means that CE has to put that screenshot in its database, blur (and then encrypt it, they claim), and store it somewhere for the report for the accountability ally user. Which is...okay. But I've always wondered, does this mean there is actually a database that includes CSAM sitting on the CE servers? 

They seem to allude to this being a possibility in their End User Agreement.

Quote

11. Agreement to comply with laws and restrictions on harmful transmissions. You, as the User, agree that you will comply with all applicable laws regarding computing device use, both now and in the future as laws are generated which may affect use of the computing device. You also agree not to attempt to pursue in any way any transmission of information to Covenant Eyes servers or other equipment which could be harmful to its database or other functions. The transmission of any material in violation of any state or United States regulations is expressly prohibited, and will result in immediate termination of use.

I don't think we'll ever see this kind of thing in court (in any capacity) but it has struck me as strange since Josh's case that this private company is distributing (blurred) screenshots of unknown material and is also designed specifically to store all these images into their own databases and how do you even...legally manage such a database and...? And how do they know that content is illegal? Are they monitoring it to just terminate it and...? Not report? Do they have any (legal) duty to report? I don't think so. Do they have any ability to report this? (They will give over your info when requests by a court, but that's standard.)

It's such a strange app to me and its always seemed like you could get a big can of worms about it when it comes to cases like Josh. 

*Tumblr, a few years ago, used a similar early AI to detect "adult" content but ended up banning a lot of pictures of sand dunes because if you are a robot, the curves of a sand dune look roughly the same as those of a pale-to-tan naked lady because...that's a robot and it doesn't know. 

The math says she paid like $500 for this. She thinks she got a great deal. But she didn’t need it in the first place! She had a different one that used to be in her dining room. It wasn’t damaged in the “flood.” So why did she need to spend $500 for this new one? Because she has a shopping problem that she would never admit. 

1 hour ago, Four is Enough said:

Did she though? did she even turn the computer on? My guess is that Submissive Wife believed in his innocence and never checked.

That's always been my assumption. When I was still fundy I dated someone who, like me, was in church leadership. Once we started dating I would be so anxious about bringing ministry-related things up to him in public because of my anxiety surrounding things like "how will this look due to us dating? Will it seem like I'm challenging his authority?" It was quite the mindf*! So yes, I'd be shocked if Anna actually did anything with any emails she received.