Earlier quoted context omitted.
And they got filthy rich. If I built Palantir instead, I'd be filthy rich. It's a pretty rational choice to build Palantir. Sadly.
The sequence of this is reversed. First Thiel got filthy rich, and THEN he used that money to hire people who didn't whistle-blow to build Palantir. If EVERYONE that got hired to build the enshittification of humanity would just speak up about what they were asked to build there is no 'next guy' - ar at least we all know that the 'next guy' is wilfully complicit in the evil done at the company and you can disinvite h…
Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
321–330 of 357 posts
Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
#322Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sequence of this is reversed. First Thiel got filthy rich, and THEN he used that money to hire people who didn't whistle-blow to build Palantir. If EVERYONE that got hired to build the enshittification of humanity would just speak up about what they were asked to build there is no 'next guy' - ar at least we all know that the 'next guy' is wilfully complicit in the evil done at the company and you can disinvite h…
You could work at Palantir and leak details, and I don't think thats what this discussion is about. If you wanted to destroy a company from the inside by whatever means, you'd have to get hired there.
Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The only permitted ones require your to link your real-life identity. This is a huge boon to the intelligence services and law enforcement. Then let's talk about THAT!! why is that not the discussion instead of "nah, we'll find a solution some other day, for now, let's not solve anything"?? > Even among the few permitted verification methods, These laws are still being debated, what's permitted has not been decided…
> The internet multiplied and empowered many things, chief amongst them is human cruelty and apathy. Bare in mind we aren't banning the internet, just kids on social media. > Take that and multiply that by like a billion and that might come close to painting a fair picture of the internet A billion people have died from.... the internet? Youve GOT to explain this one lol how exactly?
It's neither. it isn't social media only, there will be various sites that are age restricted, similar to IRL businesses.
> A billion people have died from.... the internet? Youve GOT to explain this one lol how exactly?
I didn't claim 'died', you assumed. I meant sum total of suffering and pain facilitated by it. The internet is just a "road", except it connected everyone. sex, violence, extortion, slavery, you name it. a decent argument could be made that in the past one or two decades alone more slaves were trafficked and traded than in the entire history of the transatlantic trade, except smartphones, wifi and 5G were used to facilitate trade and allow real-time live HD monitoring of the "merchandize" and advertisement to buyers thereof. think of it in terms of graph theory perhaps, edges and nodes and all. just in the past 30 or so years the planet's population doubled and all those "nodes" have the capability to form edges with all other nodes on demand, interact with and in engage in unregulated commerce (cryptocurrency doesn't help either).
Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The only permitted ones require your to link your real-life identity. This is a huge boon to the intelligence services and law enforcement. Then let's talk about THAT!! why is that not the discussion instead of "nah, we'll find a solution some other day, for now, let's not solve anything"?? > Even among the few permitted verification methods, These laws are still being debated, what's permitted has not been decided…
>People can see your face and make decisions when they interact with you IRL, they can't over the internet Man you're just reaching at this point... Should we ban telephones, and written correspondence also? You're hysterical
Speaking of, do you know how common it was by all sorts of middle parties to listen in on POTS phone calls? or paper mail being intercepted by law enforcement? (not that I support either - just putting into context the history of surveillance and societal acceptance of it).
Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sequence of this is reversed. First Thiel got filthy rich, and THEN he used that money to hire people who didn't whistle-blow to build Palantir. If EVERYONE that got hired to build the enshittification of humanity would just speak up about what they were asked to build there is no 'next guy' - ar at least we all know that the 'next guy' is wilfully complicit in the evil done at the company and you can disinvite h…
You could work at Palantir and leak details, and I don't think thats what this discussion is about. If you wanted to destroy a company from the inside by whatever means, you'd have to get hired there.
That's not my view of how things are, or how they would ever actually be, just one loose idea of how we might have avoided the current outcome, if all of the developers at "Nefarious, Inc." had not been trying as hard as possible to join the ranks of some subset of "rich dude club" as a gradient above poverty in any nation.
I get the need to make a living; and I have actually gone from working profitably in IT to subsistence goat farmer who's wardrobe was entirely found at the local waste transfer station's "community exchange table" for over ten years. So I do know the cost of 'declining to participate in building tools for evil' firsthand. It's not a game; and it has serious outcomes if you aren't located in, or relocate to, a place with significant natural resources for survival. Requirements include clean and plentiful rainfall, long growing seasons, volcanic or otherwise enriched||enrichable soil, healthy wild game populations and functional local systems for ensuring the durability of the same, intact social networks of mutual support among a community of people in similar conditions with the cultural traditions for shared resources, and the willing support of your spouse, partner, and dependent family members.
The learning curve from suburban North America is not so much steep, as it is a cliff. The lessons are immeasurable; and there is so much we would/will do different the next time going from "here" to "there."
Stay tuned.
Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't TPMs nor attestation nor DRM making this possible. It isn't secure boot either. It's walled gardens with secure boot -yes, secure boot- that the consumer can't bypass. Secure booting isn't the problem in an enterprise setting -- of course we _want secure booting_ in the enterprise. It's consumer devices that can't be jail-broken that are the problem. Although even then, the silly age verification laws and th…
And yet you can secure boot Linux
Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
#328Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The first kind think "This is the law, we must follow it" and the other kind think "This law doesn't make sense, we must change it". Indeed. I can't understand the people who blindly believe any law is good just because. Stop, think. Is the law good? What's good about it? What's bad about it? Can it be abused? Then maybe it should be changed? I advocate that every law should have an annual review to catalog every c…
There are so many laws on the books that reviewing all of them every year is completely impossible. Doing what you propose would require the government to be greatly shrunk and simplified (which, to be fair, I'm not necessarily against). Personally I would put myself somewhere between your two "kinds of people". Many individual laws are bad and should be changed, but the rule of law itself is a good, stabilizing forc…
Oh well, so maybe there are too many laws, let's simplify.
That is only partially tongue in cheek.
I'd say if there is no time to review and vote to keep or cancel a law, it is automatically cancelled. If it was important maybe someone will reintroduce the legislation later. Fewer laws are better, we should consolidate around laws with the most bipartisan support and scrap the rest.
But also in how I envision the system, if a law is repeatedely affirmed year after year, it should receive an increasing TTL. The formula should also have some modifier for which party controls legislature at the time. So if some law is reaffirmed multiple times under legislatures controlled by different parties, it's probably a fairly uncontroversial law, so we can increase the refresh rate to 3 or 5 years (avoid multiples of 4 since that is election cycle). Over time, the TTL can increase and perhaps there should be a way to eventually promote it to a permanent law, but that should have a very very high bar.
One can dream.. of course it won't happen, so back to your country controlled by a few oligarchs grifting for their personal profit.
Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The first kind think "This is the law, we must follow it" and the other kind think "This law doesn't make sense, we must change it". Indeed. I can't understand the people who blindly believe any law is good just because. Stop, think. Is the law good? What's good about it? What's bad about it? Can it be abused? Then maybe it should be changed? I advocate that every law should have an annual review to catalog every c…
> I advocate that every law should have an annual review to catalog every case where it has been applied. I like this idea but frankly I don't trust our lawmakers to do a fair assessment of this. Maybe there's an independent, non-partisan committee that does this.
Absolutely true. But at least it would force every legislator to put their name yay or nay on every law every year. There are few things that politicians hate more than having to be on the record for supporting or rejecting something.
Then we all could review the full list of laws they voted for or against and vote accordingly.