621–630 of 696 posts
I really like this passage: >It is always the case that there are benefits available from relinquishing core civil liberties: allowing infringements on free speech may reduce false claims and hateful ideas; allowing searches and seizures without warrants will likely help the police catch more criminals, and do so more quickly; giving up privacy may, in fact, enhance security. > But the core premise of the West genera…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Cool, it’s encrypted on transit to me… now what about at rest with them? Is it encrypted and they absolutely can not view or hand that footage to police/gov? No. Technically yes, e2e encryption means video hosted on their servers is only viewable by devices with decryption keys. So if the police/gov brought a subpoena to request the video, Ring could only offer them the encrypted video. They would have to take poss…
We already 100% know this is misleading though. Amazon has access to your ring footage. They are acknowledging that the end to end TRANSIT is encrypted. They are not encrypting from themselves at rest.
They are encrypting at rest, that's my whole point and what everyone in this thread seems to be missing. When you turn on e2e, the video is not viewable anywhere but your phone. That's why you can no longer view your videos on ring.com and a myriad of ring features will no longer work.
https://ring.com/gb/en/support/articles/7e3lk/using-video-en...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We concurrently see failures on both the "attempts to preserve liberty" and "attempts to preserve security" front, so let's stop arguing about abstract principles. Quotes are pointless, discussion should be limited to what's happening on the ground. For any given thing that happens, do we think that it, specifically, is helpful or harmful. It's trivial to reverse that quote: we can, and have, pushed to keep the US po…
> discussion should be limited to what's happening on the ground Does anyone actually have any idea what's actually happening "on the ground?" > without actually gaining any protection against authoritarian styles of government use of force There are three weapons for every man, woman, and child in the USA. You may enjoy more of this protection than you realize. > While just making civilian-on-civilian violence easie…
Americans are not safer then people in other comparable countries. They get shot more often.
In particular, they are much more likely to be shot by cops. And one of the hardest thing a layer can do is to prosecute a cop for it - they are simply untouchable unless stars align just right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Western Roman Empire has nothing to do with "the West". I think it's fascinating that that's even suggested. I lived in Germany for a while. Germany is definitely a part of "the West", have been the defining border with "the East" in the Cold War. Germans do not share a cultural viewpoint about liberty and security with the USA. So claiming that westerners "prefer liberty over security" while also including Germa…
> The Western Roman Empire has nothing to do with "the West". I think it's fascinating that that's even suggested. I got that bit from wikipedia, it amused me. As for germans, if they do not share such a viewpoint (and now I want evidence either way), the claim about the west is merely wrong, not "cultural erasure".
I really like this passage: >It is always the case that there are benefits available from relinquishing core civil liberties: allowing infringements on free speech may reduce false claims and hateful ideas; allowing searches and seizures without warrants will likely help the police catch more criminals, and do so more quickly; giving up privacy may, in fact, enhance security. > But the core premise of the West genera…
While I agree with Henry, and intend for _my_ life and social impact to fall there, "where the U.S. was intended to fall" is a misnomer here. That quote was one man's opinion. The U.S. is millions of living beings who, if they have liberty, should get to do whatever they want with it (which in itself is an oxymoron).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I worked in that world for a solid decade as a “creative” (video production) and when it comes to the big dogs, that is absolutely not true. They are incredibly top down and have to review everything. We have to pitch our ideas even when we’re in the door. They have strict brand bibles we have to adhere to. Ones that gave us free rein were the exception, not the rule. Sometimes it was for no other reason than a bunch…
Are any of these brand bibles public?
Some companies put up “press kits” on their site for public use but it’s usually logos and just basic info/stats .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But there are other ways that we could figure out who to blame after the fact that don't require everything you will ever do to be recorded, forever. No one said anything about retaining footage forever. What are your suggestions for help finding an attacker without CCTV footage?
> No one said anything about retaining footage forever. It's inevitably what happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The people are part of the problem. They're largely fine with all this.
The people are brainwashed by corporate controlled media. In a functioning democracy, there is counter balance against the oligarchs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AFAIC we started the whole conflict. Is this talking point still being paid for? I haven't seen it in a while, but I guess I don't keep track that closely. What are the other russian provided talking points these days?
I would direct you to George Kennan[1] and his 1997 NYT article where he said, among other things: "... expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere o…
Saying we should constrain the sovereignty of Eastern European nations to not hurt the feelings of their most dangerous rival is just bullshit. Russia's goals are simply neoimperialist and they obviously had no intention of waiting for Ukraine to join NATO or the EU before invading. They certainly had no similar provocation to snatch territory from Moldova and Georgia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We concurrently see failures on both the "attempts to preserve liberty" and "attempts to preserve security" front, so let's stop arguing about abstract principles. Quotes are pointless, discussion should be limited to what's happening on the ground. For any given thing that happens, do we think that it, specifically, is helpful or harmful. It's trivial to reverse that quote: we can, and have, pushed to keep the US po…
> discussion should be limited to what's happening on the ground Does anyone actually have any idea what's actually happening "on the ground?" > without actually gaining any protection against authoritarian styles of government use of force There are three weapons for every man, woman, and child in the USA. You may enjoy more of this protection than you realize. > While just making civilian-on-civilian violence easie…
What do you mean by that? You just gave people those statistics and they are widely available if people would want to look them up afaik.
Who should give other people statistics?