>The same mentality can be seen in the West too.
Most demonstrated, IMPE, by the phrase, "You have nothing to fear, if you have nothing hide."
415 karma · joined April 9, 2019
Most demonstrated, IMPE, by the phrase, "You have nothing to fear, if you have nothing hide."
The repercussions are far more egregious than that:
The right to vote can be stripped for life[0]. After you've "paid your dues" to society, you will find it hard, if not impossible, to find employment again (also known as having a felony on your record [e.g.: felony possession]); which some states are now recognising is a form of cruel and unusual punishment[1].
To be fair, American society is trending better towards being less militant about justice but it still has quite a long way to go.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_of_rights_due_to_convicti...
[1] - https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Pennsylvania-automatical...
I'm no rocket scientist but $3,000 (USD) is less than $77M (USD), yeah?
>That’s because Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles said companies buying data on Floridians are not allowed to use that information for marketing.
What did they expect it to be used for? Genealogy reports? /s
I gave you the data, you did a cursory look over it, cherry-picked the data points you wanted, and then continued on with your belief that you are correct.
If you take offense to my frustrations at having heard this for the three-thousandth time, then I do apologise but this tired, old cliche is burning itself out faster than a B1 in a binary system.
>Sort the first table by rank US - 87 UK -109 France - 117 Germany - 148. When we talk about the West who else is anyone referring to? Denmark - 144. Norway - 146.
...and...
>The data shows the US is more diverse than other western countries.
From the exact same table that you referenced: Bosnia and Herzegovina - 41, Latvia - 61, Switzerland - 63, Belgium - 65, Estonia - 77, Moldova - 78, Spain - 82
Now back to:
>When we talk about the West who else is anyone referring to?
From a non-American exceptionalism perspective, when we mention the west we are generally speaking about the countries that make up the western world, not just the United States, yeah? ...or we can even go so far as to say countries that have been directly influenced by or have direct political affiliations with countries in the Western Hemisphere. ...or if you want to go Soviet-era, the west could just be any country that has any form of democracy.
>The data shows the US is more diverse than other western countries.
It does not, as the data I originally referenced proves. Even limited to just the Northern and Western Hemispheres, Canada and Mexico are far more diverse and have cities that are just as densely populated.
>My city has a population somewhere between Ireland and Norway but it's impossible to handle social issues the way those countries do or use them as models precisely because of the population density and diversity.
This makes no sense. They all have forms of representative democracies, county governments, city governments, etc. Why do you believe it's "easier" for these areas to handle social issues and that it comes down to the sole factor of diversity and/or population density...? Do you honestly believe that differences do not exist in the political spectrum in homogeneous areas? Are you not aware that there have been periods where countries didn't have official governments for this reason (e.g.: Ireland and Sweden)?
Why is this always a fallback reference point? It is demonstrably false[0,1,2,3] and is continually regurgitated - as if the continued repetition would make it consequently true. There are countries in Europe that are far more diverse than the United States. Full stop.
>But dealing with that chaos, at that scale, produces lessons and learning that won't happen anywhere else, other than probably India.
You could start with your immediate neighbours, yeah? Canada and Mexico are both far more diverse than the United States and would - by your own argument - be far more chaotic than anything the United States or Europe has to deal with, yeah?
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_et...
[1] - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/18/the-most-an...
[2] - https://www.atlasandboots.com/worlds-most-diverse-country/
[3] - https://archive.fo/9AV1K
Given this, I'd be inclined to believe that it's curated. However, I haven't studied it enough to verify if news links > x months are added as "related news" to current news articles.
[0] - https://nyhetsnotiser.se/ekonomi/merkels-eftertradare_-ecb-s...
I don't believe that this is true.
For example, the world wasn't a "safer" place to be in between 7 Dec 1941 and 11 Sep 2001, just as it's not a "safer" place now. The danger was ever-present, as the Munich Massacre (1972) clearly demonstrated (and the entire world witnessed).
Instead, what's happened is the ongoing implication that your safety is paramount and any concessions to privacy are an ultimately necessary byproduct to keep you safe from that "new" danger; however, it wasn't a "necessary evil" for the preceeding six (seven, including the oughts?)decades and the danger - certainly - ins't new, right?
The problem is that you've already handed this biometric information over; say, when you get a passport. There is no "opt-out" for that context. This is also why RealId was so vehemently opposed[0].
At the end of the day, they're getting your data - one way or another and there is no opt-out for that.
So, to make an appeal on the argument of privacy of data is being woefully ignorant of the fact that this encroachment has been happening for years and it didn't seem to matter very much then.
[0] - https://iapp.org/news/a/why-some-states-wont-comply-with-rea...
Men du hade inte säga varför du skulle skriver detta på engelska. Till exampel, är engelska mycket bättre än svenska för som programmerarspråk?
4 x 30 (just easy rounding) = 120 days against 149 individuals.
This is not a small-scale surveillance operation and all of that time, money, and effort amounted to zero arrests? Then what was the justification for the warrant that was used to enact the wiretap, in the first place? "We kind of think that something maybe kind of sort is happening, potentially, with this possible group of possibly known individuals..."?
This doesn't add-up.
Aren't warrants supposed to be used to investigate for evidence of crimes where other evidence is presented with the warrant application that a crime has possibly been committed and, thus, such gathering is necessary to further collect information directly pertinent to the investigation?
This just sounds like rubber-stamping surveillance to maybe catch individuals that may be involved in some possibly nefarious actions that some officers suspect is going on but don't really have anything else to go on...
Otherwise, how can you go to a court and say, "Based on 'x', we think these 149 individuals are involved in 'y' crime and we need to gather evidence in support of that...", waste so much time, resources, man-hours, etc. and still come up empty-handed; especially, when you were supposed to have sufficient enough evidence against at least one individual to have the warrant granted in the first place?
The way this unfolded, it seems like it was more of a fishing expedition than anything worth-while and that is the most disconcerting part.
This depends on your definition of "bug". I think, in the classical sense, a bug is something that you understand both the cause and the resultant undesired behaviour and, as of consequence, you can reproduce the chain of events.
Given that definition, I would be disinclined to agree with calling it a "bug".
However, I would also like to point out that we're getting so nuanced in terms that we're, quite literally, dropping the notion of lauding the attempts of the OP to go down the road of wanting to deduce the problem, themselves.
Precisely. Not only everywhere but it will be a constant. Calling it climate change is probably a disservice because it seems to infer a binary (false ==> true) relationship, where it's just hotter than it was before - not that it will continually worsen as the problem compounds exponentially over time.
>Good farmland will become bad. Areas with bad farmland will become good. And it's not easy to just shift the agriculture industry from one place to the other, and there's no control over where this happens. Also climate change doesn't care about borders. A country that has a lot of food production could suddenly have almost nothing. And even if a country is lucky and suddenly has good farmland, it's still a food crisis until that country can get their agriculture industry up and running.
Agreed but it's also not like good farmland will also remain a constant, as the problem progresses.
I liken it to being in a car and you know you're driving in an heavy snow storm but you expect not to hit a patch of black-ice because... ...reasons?...
The problem is: Once you hit it (the black ice signifying crops dying and food supplies dwindling), it's already too late. You're over-correcting, under-correcting, what-have-you as you continue to drive the car by the cliff's edge, thinking it could never happen to you - when that assumption is gravely incorrect and people could effectively die because of your arrogance.
Remember "Time Enough, At Last" from The Twilight Zone? Well, we have a seed bank in Svalbard (Norway) with which to rebuild from any major calamity but it will be effectively useless, unless we plan now where those seeds should be planted in the future.
Lab-grown food products aren't at the technology level to scale to feed a predominant portion of the planet.
So, if we have no plan, is the plan just to have no plan? It's confounding that we're having this discussion in a "dark corner of the internet" because the implications are far-more-reaching and far-more-tangible than this discussion could hope to address, which saddens me.
I'm going to go have some ice cream or something...
>However, deforestation is the second-leading cause of climate change after burning fossil fuels and accounts for nearly 20 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions — more than the world’s entire transport sector.
How can we be doing "not that bad" and it be the second-leading cause? These do not equate.
[0] - https://web.archive.org/web/20190627040941/http://www.fao.or...
Essentially, you're never going to drive car use down (and, thereby, fossil fuel use), if there are no viable alternatives than using a car and the poorest areas can't afford to "catch-up" to the electic vehicle trend[s].
Yes, the effect might be miniscule, compared to the output of CO^2 by businesses, but every little bit helps - when deforestation continues in the Amazon (e.g.: "the world's lungs") and we're not planting enough trees (anywhere) to counter-act that.
>Felkod: SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN
>cambridgecamps.paytrax.com
The OC comment was:
>I expect there would have been a warning given in that case before assessing a fine.
To which your initial retort was:
>What makes you expect this? Unless you and I have read entirely different versions of GDPR, no provision of GDPR requires any warning of any kind prior to issuing fines.
When you started receiving the downvote storm is when you challeneged for proof that the GDPR requires warnings.
I gave a response that supports the OC's position, that a warning could and would be expected; not because of requirement but because it is up to the discretion of the supervisory authority.
After all, the initial challenge that was given to the OC was, "What makes you expect this?" was it not?
Now, it's your turn to disprove that a warning would be expected. I'll wait...
The act of recording isn't the problem but the retention of the data records. If you have no need to keep a recording of a day's video for any purposes, then that falls under the provisions of likely being exploited data (e.g.: being used to build a profile of a person's travels throughout the day, week, year, etc.).
In the sense of the allowances, it's about balancing the need of the data's use (e.g.: in car accidents) versus the privacy impacts to other individuals (e.g.: you post your dashcam footage to YouTube and don't obfuscate faces or license plates).
An example of this, pre-GDPR, was when Google was forced to obfuscate faces and license plates in Google Maps for Street View.
Edit: the downvotes on this are coming in fast. Because you are downvoting it, you must know of a specific section of GDPR that requires warnings to be issued (otherwise you wouldn’t be downvoting it, right?). So, along with your downvote, please reply to this comment with a link to the specific section that requires warnings, and I will be happy to say that I am wrong.
Nothing in the GDPR requires compulsory fines for every infraction. In fact, if you had read Chapter VI, Section 2, Article 58, 2(a)[0], you would know this.
[0] - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
>heads up that this is NOT from @amazonmturk! black hat SEO/shady reputation management techniques like this are strictly against amzn's policy. this is from a competing micro task site
The title makes it seem like intentional click-bait, given this.
I think that, maybe, you're confusing the Thomson Reuters situation[0] and this one. In this one, they're contracting the actual Title III intercepts[1] to be done via a contractor (which is what I understand from words such as: annual support, operation, and maintenance. [Well, operation by itself, really, but packaged together it's more inferred to as being as simple as going to a cloud provider.])
>ICE working with this contractor is not what would cause them to monitor "people sympathetic to enforcing immigrants’ rights"
Right. I never said it was? ...but to infer that ICE was just doing this as a normal course of business ignores the fact that some of what it's doing isn't (and never should have been) considered it's normative operations.
I have the distinct impression that we're talking past each and I apologise if any of the fault to be had is my own.
[0] - https://www.privacyinternational.org/feature/2079/updated-th...
...but he's not American?
It's quite a stretch to arrive at an honest question about the use of a word - by someone outside of your own country's culture - to it being equated to racism, merely because it's from a egocentric (American society) point of view.
The world is a lot bigger than just America.
Maybe tone down the racist accusations until you have some qualitative context to use it. Otherwise, if antagonising people that might otherwise be sympathetic to your plights is your end goal, then by all means, carry on.
(Quotes from (A) https://privacyinternational.org/news-analysis/2995/ice-payi...)
>(A)In 2014, US-based surveillance and analytics company, JSI Telecom, signed a contract with ICE worth over $19.7 million for annual support, operation, and maintenance of its “Title III digital collection system”, according to US procurement records.
Yeah... I'm going to call bullshit on the "they're just trying to do their job" excuse. It's one thing to do it, it's an entirely different perspective to outright outsource the entire process to a contractor - with little to no oversight.
>(A)ICE is also known to be monitoring people sympathetic to enforcing immigrants’ rights, labelling them as “Anti-Trump” protestors.
Again, not an orginisation "carrying out it's work".
>(OC)What is the practical difference between this and their own "open source intelligence" efforts?
"Practical" left the building, a long time ago. We're in "real" world scenarios, right now. Let's address those, shall we?
To look at it from the dystopian, draconian point-of-view, deep-fakes created and used by the local justice system[s] could be signed by a police officer (who's intent is "solving the case, no matter what").
No matter how many witnesses and experts that you throw at it, the court will almost always believe the officer (because of unjustly doted infallibility) and that deep-fake could cost someone their life.
Just as other tools have been used for good and bad, on both sides of law enforcement, the probability lends to this equally be abused; especially, in areas where "south of the Mason-Dixon line" and "the south will rise again" are still parts of every-day parlance.
Of course, part of that initialisation is self-tests, harkening back to the O.G. POST[0] days.
Something, something, site guidelines about suggesting the commentor didn't RTFA.
>I trust the NSA more than random contributors on the internet that have less known motives and may in many cases be agents of foreign spy agencies.
To be fair, I think that you stated the OC's point and failed to recognise it:
Your domestic spy agency is another's foregin spy agency. Why should they trust yours over theirs? Both have (presumably) equally less-known motives, yeah?
I think that's because code reviews have changed from being helpful form of preventing you from stubbing yourself on your toe to, "Why would you do this...? No0b..." kind of format.
If code reviews were weighted as equally beneficial to the code and as being approached as being beneficial to the growth of the developer making the change, then I could see it having much more benefit in learning; however, that would take a dynamic change in the general culture.
...but saying that code reviews don't provide as much learning benefit is to just infer that there's nothing that can be done about that when, in fact, there is. :)