381–390 of 516 posts
I'll note that Persona's CEO responded on LinkedIn [1] pointing out that: - No personal data processed is used for AI/model training. Data is exclusively used to confirm your identity. - All biometric personal data is deleted immediately after processing. - All other personal data processed is automatically deleted within 30 days. Data is retained during this period to help users troubleshoot. - The only subprocessor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First I'm not american, I'm simply displeased to see my fellow Europeans seething about the consequences, while refusing to address the causes. You speak about China: their government is very eager to favor local alternatives, which helps fund the local ecosystem. In contrast, Euro countries don't generally procure office software from elsewhere than US companies (especially, Microsoft). It's always talk, talk, when…
The point here isn’t that Europe lacks innovation and is too bureaucratic. I have no problem admitting that. The crux of the matter is that, in response to my complaint about the possible failure to comply with a European law, the reply was: LinkedIn answers to American laws, you have no alternative to LinkedIn, and therefore there’s no point in opposing it. You just have to put up with it; it’s your own fault for no…
Guess who holds the guns that protect Europe right now? So yeah, either comply, leave (what I did), or create an alternative. The EU had Viadeo[0], it could have pushed it to have an alternative. It didn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - All biometric personal data is deleted immediately after processing. The implication is that biometric data leaves the device. Is that even a requirement? Shouldn't that be processed on device, in memory, and only some hash + salt leave? Isn't this how passwords work? I'm not a security expert so please correct me. Or if I'm on the right track please add more nuance because I'd like to know more and I'm sure othe…
I'm not an expert but i imagine bio data being much less exact than a password. Hashes work on passwords because you can be sure that only the exact date would allow entry, but something like a face scan or fingerprint is never _exactly_ the same. One major tenant that makes hashes secure is that changing any singlw bit of input changes the entirety of the output. So hashes will by definition never allow the fuzzy au…
Btw, hashes aren't unique. I really do mean that an input doesn't have a unique output. If f(x)=y then there is some z such that f(z)=y.
Remember, a hash is a "one way function". It isn't invertible (that would defeat the purpose!). It is a surjective function. Meaning that reversing the function results in a non-unique output. In the hash style you're thinking of you try to make the output range so large that the likelihood of a collision is low (a salt making it even harder), but in a perceptual hash you want collisions, but only from certain subsets of the input.
In a typical hash your collision input should be in a random location (knowing x doesn't inform us about z). Knowledge of the input shouldn't give you knowledge of a valid collision. But in a perceptual hash you want collisions to be known. To exist in a localized region of the input (all z are near x. Perturbations of x).
I'll note that Persona's CEO responded on LinkedIn [1] pointing out that: - No personal data processed is used for AI/model training. Data is exclusively used to confirm your identity. - All biometric personal data is deleted immediately after processing. - All other personal data processed is automatically deleted within 30 days. Data is retained during this period to help users troubleshoot. - The only subprocessor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? It's pretty useful for connecting with recruiters in my experience, and I don't think anyone can actually do anything just because they have a connection with you. I do ignore the connections from random students though tbf.
Connecting with recruiters is mostly a waste of time, and generally anyone can just fake being a recruiter. Once someone has a connection with you they can see your extended network, they know where you work, they find out all information you have shared with on your profile, &c. The recruiter may be using you to connect with someone else. You also start to consume their content since you are connected. Better to let…
Probably depends on the field but this definitely isn't always true. I've got my last two jobs through recruiters, and speaking to colleagues a lot of them do too.
> they can see your extended network, they know where you work, they find out all information you have shared with on your profile
This is public anyway though? Isn't that the point of LinkedIn?
> You also start to consume their content since you are connected.
I don't because I don't read LinkedIn. I pretty much only use it to get jobs. Although I have actually started posting technical stuff I've done there because people actually read it (I guess other people do read LinkedIn tbf!)
> Generally speaking, unless you operate at an elite level or at an elite institution, you're not getting a ton of worthwhile cold intros from recruiters.
I'm definitely not elite level and I would say ~20% of the jobs I get from LinkedIn recruiters are of interest. That's pretty good! Almost all of them are at least relevant to my field (silicon verification). Sometimes I get stuff about mechanical engineering validation, or software jobs that aren't relevant but that's pretty rare. It must depend on the field. Maybe the country too?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must.
Indeed. But Americans are told they never use that strength to their advantage. It's all just the working 23 hours a day, determination and chasing the American dream that has resulted in supreme economic success. Military is just for defence against baddies and liberating countries from dictators etc
Yes or that using strength to one's advantage is necessarily bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 1. they are selling you as a target. This is why people sign up for LinkedIn. They want to be targeted by companies for jobs. Or when they’re applying for a job, they want to be easily found by people at that company so they can see more information. If you don’t want those things, you don’t need a LinkedIn page. > Do the corporations that participate in this scheme provide mutual economic benefit? Do they contribu…
You assume that targeting is to find the best worker for the correct pay. What if it's just to find the most desperate worker for the lowest pay possible?
In your example, so what if they give the job to the most desperate worker instead of a different one at a higher price? Are we supposed to prefer that the desperate worker does not get the job and instead it goes to someone else at a higher rate?
If someone is desperate for a job because they really need work, I’d prefer that a platform help them get matched with jobs. Wouldn’t you? I think you’re so focused on penalizing corporations that you’re missing the obvious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My assumption was that it was an intelligence platform first. What do you mean by "intelligence platform"?
"Spyware" doesn't quite capture it. It's "intelligence platform" in the sense that you can gain a ton of information on individuals, organizations, and relationships that drive it all. If you can track how people move and interact between organizations, you can determine who someone is doing business with and even make an educated guess if that's a sale or interview. I started writing about it almost 20 years ago: ht…
I really appreciate this write-up. Was forced to verify to get access to a new account. Like, an interstitial page that forced verification before even basic access. Brief context for that: was being granted a salesnav licence, but to my work address with no account attached to it. Plus I had an existing salesnav trial underway on main account and didn't want to give access to that work. So I reluctantly verified wit…
Thank you for sharing this. I understand, and even agree, that how this is being handled has some pretty creepy aspects. But one thing missing from the comments I see here and elsewhere is: How else should verification be handled? We have a real problem with AI/bots online these days, trust will be at a premium. How can we try to assure it? I can think of one way: Everyone must pay to be a member (there will still be…