It looks like they have a GPL licensed "community edition" and a closed $19.99/month commercial edition. I supposed the GPL licensed version's raison d'etre is marketing, since non-technical users cannot tell the difference between the two.
The grass is always greener on the other side. I live in the EU and GDPR isn't much better. All it requires is "informed consent" (i.e a click or a tap on a button) from the "data subject" and people can evade privacy with impunity. The only side effect is that those of us on this side of the pond, get ugly cookie banners.
> All it requires is "informed consent" (i.e a click or a tap on a button) from the "data subject"
Correct. Clear, opt-in informed consent to use personal data is the fundamental principle of the GDPR. As it should be. I'm puzzled why you think this is a negative.
> and people can evade privacy with impunity.
Certainly not. The GDPR does not permit data trawling or allowing data controllers to do what they like with your personal data once they have it. It must only be used for the purpose it was requested for.
> ugly cookie banners
Once again, there is no requirement for 'cookie banners'. You are free to use whatever cookies you want to run your site. HOWEVER, if you are using those cookies to track me (advertisers take a bow) then you need my clear, opt-in informed consent to do so. And so you should!
I continue to be astounded at the ignorance some people have of such a vital privacy law; one that is fundamental to modern data use and respect for the customer.
> Certainly not. The GDPR does not permit data trawling or allowing data controllers to do what they like with your personal data once they have it. It must only be used for the purpose it was requested for.
You might want to read the privacy policies of some of the European fintech and ad-tech companies (nb: I've worked at some of them). They cast a wide blanket over all purposes.
At best, the GDPR only introduces a minor indirection, the problem of hoodwinking the "data subject" into clicking the accept button. At worst, it gives them false sense of privacy, where there isn't much.
> At best, the GDPR only introduces a minor indirection, the problem of hoodwinking the "data subject" into clicking the accept button
True. Some people are daft enough to opt-in and click the "accept cookies" and "give my personal and location data to strangers" buttons. These people don't care about privacy and are beyond help.
> At worst, it gives them false sense of privacy, where there isn't much.
Those of us who bother to understand and use privacy law have very good protection thankyouverymuch.
> we support 0-day retention, and we don’t train models on customer data.
Checks out the website[1]:
> By default, all media associated with a recording is retained indefinitely. If needed, you can request early deletion of this data at any time via our API.
Data shared with 25 "subprocessors", some of who also retain data indefinitely. Yikes!
No, it categorically doesn't. Not just that, it's CPU support is quite lacking (fp32 only). Currently, there are two ways to support the ANE: CoreML and MPSGraph.
Contrary to their privacy-washing marketing, DuckDuckGo serves cloaked Bing ads URLs with plenty of tracking parameters. Is that sort of surveillance fine?
Who is working on AI agents startup to automate this? /s