711–720 of 773 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you could anonymize your location on Tesla's servers I already anonymise my location on Tesla's servers by simply not owning a Tesla
What kind of car do you have? Your car almost definitely shares its gps location to the manufacturer and downstream data brokers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With respect, the GDPR is a Regulation and this applies uniformly across the bloc. Enforcement varies, obviously. TBH your comment comes off as very condescending and ill-informed.
GDPR is to be implemented independently in each country. There is room for interpretation, it's not a granitic ruleset from above
When talking about the EU, there are two types of laws (well, three if you include treaties), Directives and Regulations.
Directives are common goals which much be transposed into law by each country and there is indeed differences in implementation. An example of a directive is Directive 2012/27/EU on energy efficiency. It set goals on energy efficiency (and minimum targets), but each country implemented it's own legislation to transpose the Directive into law, and those implementations varied wildly.
However, EU Regulations are a different kettle of fish. Regulations are EU legal acts which are immediately enforceable as national law in all EU states. GDPR is a Regulation and so applies uniformly across the bloc.
Regulations are designed to harmonise legislation across the entire bloc. Obviously there are differences in enforcement, but the ultimate arbiter is the CJEU and decisions are binding in all EU states.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A vast majority of kidnappings are done by family members. It's a movie thing that a ski mask vigilante enters your home to kidnap you. I'm almost 100% positive there's virtually no risk of being kidnapped at home by ski-mask wearing criminals that staked your house previously. Or, if you are in that specific, very small target group for e.g. ransom etc, you probably should've been investing in home security beyond a…
> Or, if you are in that specific, very small target group for e.g. ransom etc, I am, as are many thousands of other people, in different fields. Although some of my personal circumstances contribute to my risk being especially high, even within these fields. > you probably should've been investing in home security beyond a front door camera anyways. I have, to an extent that has been called unreasonable by multiple…
Even in germany it is quite easy to legally own a gun. All you have to do is be a member of a Schützenverein ("shooting club") for some time.
What is indeed very hard, is get permission to carry a gun with you.
But your main point seems to have been about home security and having a gun in your home is very possible. Unless you live somewhere with tighter gun laws than germany?
(Also most abductions for ransom happen outside, easier to snatch someone from the road, than come into his home)
"To add to all that, attackers have a huge asymmetric advantage during an attack, as they have the surprise element."
But you can also surprise them with security, they were not aware of and after that initial attack advantage, time is on your side. (Emergency call and panic room).
"It's not like you can just hire a bodyguard and suddenly you are safe, in fact this can make things even worse in some circumstances."
Yeah, because a common bodyguard mainly creates visibility. And the best defense is to not let the attacker know you exist as a target. But there are security guards, that are not visible to the bystander.
And all in all I have to say, that you do sound quite paranoid. And I cannot think of too many professions, where that paranoia in europe is warranted and where you do not have professional security assigned to you, or where you do in fact get permission to carry a weapon. If the walls you build around you are too tight, you eventually just build your own prison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A useful way to think about it is to shift your view from "can I do X?" to "will I bother anyone else by doing X?". I don't think that's particularly useful, because the answer to the second is trivially Yes, regardless of the value of X.
>the answer to the second is trivially Yes, regardless of the value of X then don't do it?
I am sorry to dissapoint you and those people, but for now I keep my hair.
You cannot please everyone and I think it is a path into madness to even try it. There are maaany things people feel bothered about …
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way I see it is that you're supposed to own the car and every feature you paid for it.
Which would you rather have: Option A: A vehicle that lacks the hardware for heated seats, heated steering wheel, and driver assist that costs $25,000 to produce and that you pay $25,000 for. If you want these items next year, you have to buy a new vehicle. Option B: A vehicle that includes the hardware for heated seats, heated steering wheel, and driver assist that costs $27,000 to produce. You can pay $25,000 now a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way I see it is that you're supposed to own the car and every feature you paid for it.
Which would you rather have: Option A: A vehicle that lacks the hardware for heated seats, heated steering wheel, and driver assist that costs $25,000 to produce and that you pay $25,000 for. If you want these items next year, you have to buy a new vehicle. Option B: A vehicle that includes the hardware for heated seats, heated steering wheel, and driver assist that costs $27,000 to produce. You can pay $25,000 now a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The European perspective is broadly to have the "freedom from ", whereas the American one is the "freedom to ". You've got the freedom to aquire an arsenal, I don't, but I prefer the freedom from other people gunning down my kids, which by extension limits the narrow personal freedoms of myself and others. Likewise, the American perspective is to draw a hard line on "in public", the European one is more nuanced. Yes,…
A useful way to think about it is to shift your view from "can I do X?" to "will I bother anyone else by doing X?". I don't think that's particularly useful, because the answer to the second is trivially Yes, regardless of the value of X.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same thing if you sell unsafe food, yet we have regulations, because it's preferable to not be killed in the first place.
And because the impact is exponentially larger. Arguments for regulation prohibiting individuals from tinkering with their cars does no such thing, because those laws are not currently in place, and there is not an epidemic of runaway user-modified vehicles. On the other hand, such regulation would serve to prevent users from enjoying the property they purchased and to facilitate exploitative practices by manufacture…
If you are messing with safety critical software then it is no help to me that you are prosecuted for negligence if I am killed.
Even if your safety critical software works it still is negligent, there should be some barrier to entry for such software. It shouldn't be out there in the wild made by whoever with no oversight.