Eh, SMS could be a burner phone or virtual number but I sort of agree that the site could recommend people do that rather than entering their own real phone number if they want to sign up for optional SMS alerts. It’s probably one of those convenience vs privacy issues - how to enable non-tech savvy people to receive optional alerts if they choose to.
From the posted link
In a lengthy statement released over the weekend, the StopICE team rejected claims that any personal user data was exposed or handed over to authorities. According to them, the platform does not collect names, addresses, or precise GPS coordinates from its users. Instead, it uses anonymized polar coordinate calculations based on ZIP codes to trigger location-based alerts.
The statement also attributes the attempted breach to a personal server allegedly tied to a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agent in Southern California. The attackers reportedly tried to inject false alerts into the system but were unsuccessful, the platform says, due to countermeasures and quick isolation of the attack vector. The operators claim the attackers fell for “bait” in the form of fake data and API keys, enabling StopICE to trace their networks and even publish associated IP addresses and phone numbers.
StopICE further downplayed the scale of the incident, claiming the only exposure involved temporary file names after a backend management tool update modified security headers, an issue they say was minor and resolved swiftly.
Keep in mind StopICE is a website, not an app, so some of the stuff the hackers claimed they got don’t seem to make sense. The only “personal” info I see the website could collect is a phone number if you sign up for text alerts when someone posts an alert at a zip code / city / state.
Not too different vs IPFS, essentially the IPFS network if it was using WebTorrent. Both rely on swarms of p2p users/servers to seed/pin data to keep it online.
I’m not too familiar with Veilid but that does seem different since it’s built for privacy so I doubt all the peers are public in that scenario. There is nothing private about IPFS or WebTorrent, all peer IP addresses are public in their respective swarms.
Not really. Decentralized does not mean anonymous… and I doubt people sharing that type of content are doing it publicly with their public IP addresses.
Looks like PeerWeb uses WebTorrent - so that means every single IP address serving the website is easily found in the peer list of the torrent swarm. Nothing anonymous about this.
I’m confused about that too.
InterDigital seems to claim that the patent in question is about dynamically overlaying multiple video streams e.g. from https://ir.interdigital.com/news-events/press-releases/news-details/2025/InterDigital-awarded-injunction-against-Disney-by-German-court-5ad043c60/default.aspx
What’s interesting is that HDR10 is still available on Disney supposedly. So it sort of sounds like the claim is that Disney is adding DV with HDR10+ fallback dynamically during the video stream… and maybe regular HDR is pre-generated by Disney hence is not affected by the patent. The solution might be to always have multiple pre-generated copies of video before the stream even takes place…that would be a lot of extra storage space Disney would need!