Can they see you dropping a deuce?
Everything you do is being recorded
391–398 of 398 posts
Re: Everything you do is being recorded
#392Earlier quoted context omitted.
What narrow thing? "AI" has been used to refer to ML models for longer than LLMs have existed. Your choice to see "AI" and assume some narrow definition is a personal issue that you could correct on your own if you chose.
Look you can be pedantic about the language all you want. I'm 100% for preferring saying LLM when you mean LLM. We're in a thread about AI surveillence. Note the "I imagine there are a number of similar situations in every country, where the deployment of AI surveillance has a sufficiently measurably positive impact that it becomes popular" Someone said please don't refer to license plate scanners as AI. One can be o…
> We're in a thread about AI surveillence.
We're only in a thread about AI surveillance because I used the work "AI" when describing the license plate cameras.
Neither the comment I replied to, nor the original article, are particularly about AI in general nor about LLMs specifically. They're about data collection. The "AI" topic is a tangent.
I don't see the difference between "please don't lump more deterministic ML together haphazardly by calling them all AI" and taking what was said at face value. I completely understand the commenter's request that I encode their values into my speech in the way they prefer! I just disagree with them and decline to do so. What you misread as me being obtuse and not "reading" it correctly, is in fact just me saying "no".
Re: Everything you do is being recorded
#393Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In a democracy, consumers and the government are the exact same thing. This is a straw man. Consumers are represented by representatives who should have their interests in mind, e.g the consumer votes for someone who in turn votes for outcomes . This means that there can absolutely be a difference in knowledge between the government and its citizens, and so no, they are not the exact same thing. One group is trying…
> Consumers are represented by representatives who should have their interests in mind Exactly. Representatives are merely messengers, so they can only represent the consumers when sharing the message of the consumers to the extent that the consumers have already recognized. Furthermore, representatives are only consumers themselves, so even if you imagine them not as representatives but dictators who step up and act…
> Representatives are merely messengers
No, that is not how representation works. The representative represents, i.e they act in the absence of the citizen. They are not the human equivalent of an email broker.
> representatives are only consumers themselves
No, they are informed experts, or have informed experts at their disposal, to deeply understand the subject matter at hand so they can weigh it against the broad wishes of whom they represent. Furthermore, they have the time and responsibility to use their knowledge wisely.
> but dictators who step up and act for the people
I'm not sure why you keep bringing up dictators. Dictators don't step up and act for the people, that's what representatives do in a democracy. Are you from the US by chance? In that case I can understand why this concept is new.
> consumers love nothing more than protecting market incumbents
This is like saying: consumers sure did love dying from polio before the vaccine was invented.
Re: Everything you do is being recorded
#394I feel like sooner or later we all hollow out a little more. All this data is either used to prevent crime or to influence your thoughts and what you do in the world. Outsourcing your thinking to something else leads to digital dementia. What is the point of all of this technology?
> What is the point of all of this technology? It is the over-reaction to 911. The 3-letter agencies were all traumatized by not knowing in advance that they pushed every single anti-privacy initiative possible. Like the PATRIOT ACT which was already written when 911 happened. The current administration has shown that they use all these recording stuffs in order to persecute their political enemies.
The crazy thing is, they did have warning, but these were ignored due to organizations failing to share information amongst each other.
Re: Everything you do is being recorded
#395Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look you can be pedantic about the language all you want. I'm 100% for preferring saying LLM when you mean LLM. We're in a thread about AI surveillence. Note the "I imagine there are a number of similar situations in every country, where the deployment of AI surveillance has a sufficiently measurably positive impact that it becomes popular" Someone said please don't refer to license plate scanners as AI. One can be o…
> We're in a thread about AI surveillence. We're only in a thread about AI surveillance because I used the work "AI" when describing the license plate cameras. Neither the comment I replied to, nor the original article, are particularly about AI in general nor about LLMs specifically. They're about data collection. The "AI" topic is a tangent. I don't see the difference between "please don't lump more deterministic M…
My bad did not intend to imply you were obtuse. Tbh I thought you were on the other end of that and thinking they were denying LLMs were AI.
Re: Everything you do is being recorded
#396Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since the courts decided you have to use your fingerprint to unlock your phone (because they decided that's not giving up your password and they can't compel you to give up your password), what if you use your fingerprint to wipe your phone? But you don't tell anyone ahead of time when they force you to use it. I'm sure you'd be arrested at the least. I can't be the only person who has thought of this.
> you have to use your fingerprint to unlock your phone Nitpick, but that's only if you have biometric authentication configured in the first place, which you aren't compelled to do.
Yes. But I apparently didn't make the point I wanted to. If you set your phone to delete everything when you scan your fingerprint, is that a crime? No password need be provided. You cannot avoid giving them your fingerprint to unlock a phone, already established in the US as a legal rule.
I'm sure they will claim its a crime if you set it up that way, but is it?
They can already legally compel you to provide your fingerprint. You can't avoid that, you'll get put in jail. Do you have to tell them "don't do that with my phone, it will reset everything if you do that".
Re: Everything you do is being recorded
#397Earlier quoted context omitted.
AFAIK it's legal to set up a trigger that wipes a device. It isn't legal to choose to wipe your device after you know the government wants the data. Tricking the government into wiping it is still allowed, especially if you tell them not to do that.
That matches my understanding too. Unfortunately it sounds like the poster was suggesting to wipe the device after the government requests access, and was probably not planning on telling the officers about the trigger.
The theoretical scenario was the government seized your device, they don't give it back to you. You decline to give them they password. You don't say anything else, you have the right to remain silent. You aren't not telling the government to do anything. You don't suggest they scan your fingerprint. They are in charge, you are cooperating with lawful orders ("provide your fingerprint").
There are videos on youtube where the lawyers tell you what your rights are at traffic stops, also there are ones that talk about the different rules when coming through immigration. These can be painful to see when they show the ones where cops ignore limits.
So at the border, they tell you that you are legally required to provide your finger print, you do that, and don't say a word. I'm sure it will be a bad day for you, regardless of how it works out after years of litigation on whether it is your duty to tell them how NOT to unlock your device.
Re: Everything you do is being recorded
#398Earlier quoted context omitted.
isn't this what that guy did and he got in trouble for it? I'm talking about the one when asked for the pin gave the pin that would wipe the data from his graphene os phone
No he gave the duress PIN while implying it was the correct PIN. That was the crime. Also they only caught him because he bragged that it was the duress PIN after the wipe.
Yes, the difference is you do exactly what they say, you follow legal orders to give your fingerprint, or also it could be "take a picture of you to unlock". I'm sure eventually the govt will make a new rule and a judge will say "you have to tell us in detail if we give you legal orders and it won't do what we think" or something like that.