281–290 of 341 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They havent provided me the Google form for Sift. I'll still submit it to them though. I've once been a Coinbase customer so they likely have it already.
It's linked-to in the NYTimes article: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeGTJHX9edmQOD8Ez-1...
There is a scene at the beginning of the movie Brazil [1] where a literal bug falls into a tele-type, causes an error that starts a chain reaction that frames the events of the movie. The bug is a metaphor in the movie, just some nice visual story-telling to indicate how errors in automated processes can have unintended consequences. I honestly fear that entire lives will be ruined by AI systems mis-analyzing some da…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, you don't have to give them a perfect copy of your DL. They now posses a heavily redacted and aggressively watermarked image of my driver's license that is unlikely to be of any use outside of this specific request.
Heh, now you tell me. :-/ [UPDATE] If the heavily redacted version was good enough to convince them that you are you, then it will almost certainly be enough for them to convince someone else that they are you should they choose to do.
The watermark is what (hopefully) limits the usefulness of the image, by stating when, who and why the image was furnished in a way that is relatively difficult to manipulate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>will our representatives actually give teeth to real data protection legislation No. The majority of them don't even understand what data is being collected, how it can be used, or the technology behind any of it. Until the people in office change, the idea that our representatives can or will protect us is toothless and spineless.
What trouble Congress is in! They have to be experts in law, warfare, every industry from oil refining to adtech, science (at least as far as funding it goes), ecology, economics, medicine... In fact I would say that it's impossible to expect anyone to understand enough to know what they're legislating. Aside from being a powerful libertarian argument against the excessive involvement of government, I think it shows…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not up for debate whether or not what I wrote is an interpretation, what might be up for debate is how valid the interpretation is, and even still, you could strike all reference to the phrase from my comment and the point I made would stand.
[flagged]
Methinks you're projecting more than a little bit. Also your comment is some of the most toxic I've seen on HN in a little while, and I'm not exactly a ray of sunshine on here...
Definitely getting a flag from me, and I think that might be a first.
There is a scene at the beginning of the movie Brazil [1] where a literal bug falls into a tele-type, causes an error that starts a chain reaction that frames the events of the movie. The bug is a metaphor in the movie, just some nice visual story-telling to indicate how errors in automated processes can have unintended consequences. I honestly fear that entire lives will be ruined by AI systems mis-analyzing some da…
Algorithms can be bad as well, but at least you can look into them to understand the reasons.
There is a scene at the beginning of the movie Brazil [1] where a literal bug falls into a tele-type, causes an error that starts a chain reaction that frames the events of the movie. The bug is a metaphor in the movie, just some nice visual story-telling to indicate how errors in automated processes can have unintended consequences. I honestly fear that entire lives will be ruined by AI systems mis-analyzing some da…
But is this really about AI? Almost all aspects of our lives are already controlled by the enormously complex soulless machines of bureaucracy we call firms and governments. Is there any essential difference between a computer bug and a clerical error? If anything, I would assume the former is easier to fix.
I do not mean this to be about finite resources and our planet. I am referring to the way that organizations require more layers of bureaucracy as they grow. A rule of thumb is for every 10x in people, you have another layer of management. So what will this extra layer of management be for people, not just from a government perspective but also a capitalistic corporation perspective? How do Google, Facebook, Apple, Stripe, Amazon, and all of those other companies handle so many customers? How much do they use automation, how many of their rules are archaic, how hard is it to challenge the system if you think there was an error?
I am not convinced AI can solve many of the fundamental problems humanity are facing - and I think overpopulation might actually be the problem. Modern capitalism has conditioned us to believe "growth is good" but growth for the sake of growth is no different from cancer.
Two points: First, the very act of requesting your data is in a way confirming and verifying the accuracy of the data. Second: Every prescription you've ever filled with insurance - and even some without - is recorded by companies like Milliman.[0] When you want to buy life insurance, health insurance, etc. they can request to see what medications you're on, have been on, etc. [0]. https://clark.com/insurance/how-to-…
The Sift report is based on your email address, among other things. My email box is full of random people's insurance quotes, medical and electric bills, birthday greetings, and welcome emails to services I've never heard of. We all know the company is going to spend approximately zero time to sanity check or sanitize that data firehose. Turns out the movie Brazil was a documentary.
Out of curiosity, do you have a particularly simple email address? Over the years, my various email addresses have been some combination of my name and separator characters and I've had exactly one time where I got someone else's confirmation for an airline booking. For most people, I think email is a reasonable identifier. For people whose email is "bob@gmail.com" or the like (who are probably more common on HN than…
(Gmail ignores punctuation in the local part, so I receive e-mail sent to my name both with and without punctuation.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the magnitude of it matters. The cost to consumers of financial corruption runs into the many billions of dollars. > There are plenty of small banks and credit unions out there thus the point that you cannot open a bank is not quite valid. I did not say that you couldn't open a bank. I said that if you tried you would see firsthand evidence of the corruption of the system. The problem is not that the rules are oner…
> The problem is that the rules are not applied evenly and transparently. Of course not. Never are, again you are not saying much here. Also with the billions of wasted dollars. Of course, but that is a natural consequence of dealing with immense scope - it is going to be very inefficient and stupid. Still a far cry from actual corruption. I feel that people tossing around the word corruption don't really understand…
I see. So your position is: I "don't really understand what [corruption] means" -- but you do. And because you possess the true understanding and I don't, nothing in my personal experience can possibly be evidence of corruption because you alone possess the true understanding.
Have I got that right?
> > The problem is that the rules are not applied evenly and transparently.
> Of course not. Never are
This is normalization of deviance. It might be true that the rules are never applied evenly and transparently anywhere and never have been, but it is one thing to posit this as a fact, and quite another to dismiss it as being inevitable (and hence acceptable) by saying, "Of course it's that way." No, it's not "of course." It's corruption, not just because the rules are not applied evenly and transparently, but because this is done by a group of powerful people for their own benefit at the expense of everyone else. Its inevitability is a self-fulfilling prophecy. By accepting it, you have made yourself part of the problem.