In Sweden, we have one as well but organised by the banks, called BankID[0]. There used to be an open-source client[1] for it but it looks dead, now.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_identification#Swed...
415 karma · joined April 9, 2019
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_identification#Swed...
In a choice between strictly maintaining your privacy and fines/jail time, most - if not all - companies will sell you down the river (if given a feasible chance that it doesn't entirely ruin them, say for example, if they weren't purely in the privacy trade) to save their own hide[s] (e.g.: see the whole PRISM scandal and its fall-out).
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-brazil-idUSKCN0W...
Elaboration with example: LinkedIn is notarious for swiping up any data points that it can find. Your carrier, your GPS location, etc.
As long as there are two or more data points to successfully tie you to that id, it's already game over. It'll just be added to your "targeted advertising profile" and, given the wrong company getting ahold of it (looking at you, Equifax), sold/traded on the advertising market to third-party advertisers to build better profiles because... ...advertising dollars?
Anyways, the premise is cool but I think - without addressing the dragnet that is targeted advertising - it'll just be a minor inconvenience, which will be conquered over time with the collection of enough data points to tie it back to the "you" that they already know.
...unless you start-off with a brand new phone (new IMEI) and don't associate any old accounts with it, that is.
I'm sure there's logging or other AD property (think something like sidHistory[0]) to keep track of this.
Companies don't like being liable for not being able to provide data under order[s].
[0] - https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/ADSchema/a-...
I think it's far graver than that, sadly: A cacophony of kangaroo courts, all yelling into echo chambers.
Worse, though, is the failure to delineate between an individual's actions and those who have nothing to do with the 'x' thing in question.
More egregiously, as a result of that aforementioned failure, even family members of those "suspected" for 'x' thing are ripe targets for abuse; which is entirely ignoring the premise that the individual in question could ultimately be innocent, in the end[0].
It seems that this group of individuals (en masse) demands its pound of flesh and its going to get it, no matter who it comes from.
I'd say that's far worse than simply mistaking vengeance for justice.
[0] - https://www.businessinsider.com/reddit-falsely-accuses-sunil...
...but isn't this addressing a symptom, as it were, and not the problem?
I know I'll probably get down-voted to hell, because this is primarily an American board, but if the issue is systemic to society, shouldn't society redress the cause[s]?
Inb4 the "homogenous" argument: Yes, American society is homogenous but so are other societies. Wouldn't something like, say, affordable (or free), easily accessible and not ostracised mental health tools be equally or even more effective?
I get that people are scared of mass shootings and that drives the reactionary responses we are seeing, such as this, but wouldn't be better to find ways to reprieve the causes?
After all, it wasn't that long ago that "going postal" was a common parlance in American English for such events but those particular events (postal workers "going postal") have diminished - considerably.
Edit: So, clearly, if the rates for postal workers "going postal" have considerably declined, then something can be done to prevent these events - but this would have to be on a societal scale; which is a daunting task, I'm fully aware.
A FAANG did this in a European country and it's amazing to see the backlogged line after things like pre-determined fire drills.
Took to waiting for 30 minutes because I didn't create the problem but I was getting paid, either way, so, why should I have to "fight the crowd" to achieve the same goal, which comes with more stress and effort, when I could simply do it on my own terms?
We used to take advantage of this on conference calls, where one of the participants was on speaker-phone and had an Alexa.
"Alex, play 'Never going to give you up' by Rick Astley"
Hopefully, people start waking up to this attack surface, as it's taken adventage of more because it's a very dangerous "gotcha".
Consider, for example, saying, "OK, Google, show me my last messages," during a conference call, in which Google will also read the messages aloud.
Fun times...
Not to get all tin-foil-hat, but this is going to sound like it, but if you have a car that has 9+ cameras upon it that drives in areas full of these, then maybe there would be some use for it for Google.
Bear in mind that I'm not saying that they are doing this but to dismiss it unequivocally as something that can't or wouldn't be done entirely ignores the premise that it could prove useful to other areas of their business, which might have a vested interest in such use (say, for example, if Google or it's parent company were trying to break into the self-driving car area[0]).
"It works in Chrome and Edge, which is based on Chrome, so what's your problem, again?"
Agreed. Hadrian's Wall has always been considered the last, defensible hard border of the Roman Empire. As even the article notes:
>But the story of Rome’s north-west frontier far from ends there, for it was the Antonine Wall that, albeit briefly, held the title of the wildest edge of the empire.
If the zone between the Antonine and Hadrian's would've been a buffered no-man's land, the likes of how international borders stand to this day, then the Antonine - if only the demarcation of the beginning of the no man's land - really wouldn't have been the final frontier.
I imagine the Roman Army, in all it's due dilligence, would've swept the area of around five to ten miles from the Antonine - to make sure they weren't going to get "surprise visitors" whilst they were building the Antonine.
Assuming this posit is true, then the "final frontier" of the Roman Army was actually much further north than one would assume (in the sense of frontiers being realms of exploration and not demarcated boundaries).
I have the same problem but I suppose I come off as an asshole to a lot of people because I can't be arsed to take interest in something that bores me. I think it equally (or even maybe more so) disingenuous to pretend otherwise because people can tell when you're faking it. This isn't a "fake it until you make it" scenario.
There are some people I catch easy strides with and have kept in touch with, years later - without having Facebook or the like. Those are few and far-between, though.
So, to my point: How do you hold your own perfectly fine in conversational settings if it bores you? Any tips you can provide?
I haven't any id
Information/disinformation operations have been a part of warfare since... ...forever it seems. It is - certainly - nothing new. The medium has merely changed and that's what important to the staging of the front[s], as it were.
You should pick up a copy of Eric Frank Russell's WASP[0], if you haven't read it before. It's a very good read in this area.
I think wording it as "tremendous value" is a stretch but that's just me. Also, businesses are fully able to grow without the likes of the two biggest companies. So, not every business has those companies as a key ingredient. It's not a "too big too fail", doomsday scenario, where the (business) wold is entirely dependent on the two companies to exist, yeah?
>The ignorance that advertising itself is a fine model that subsidizes 99% of the content on the internet and allows for fast, easy, and egalitarian access for billions of people, as well as increased opportunity for creators of all kinds.
You're delineating in your own retort and creating double-speak. Advertising, as a whole, can be fine but the two aforementioned companies can be total shit. That doesn't create a dichotomy or ignorance.
You're already speaking about your audience as unwilling to view your arguments but you treat them as ignorant, which means you're unwilling to be malliable in your own view and see it from their perspective. Isn't that ignorance, in and of itself? :)
>And finally the(y are) obliviousness to the technical and business solutions that already exist to make the experience better instead of going down an endless arms race where nobody wins.
I don't think taking a stance that your solutions are the only ones that work and because no one will accept them, it's an arms race to the bottom is conducive to anything. If anything, that leads directly to your aforementioned arms race to the bottom.
To spin it a different way and benefit your supposed enemy in discourse: Advertising markets worked fine before the two big companies, yeah? The internet still existed? Pages were able to be reached in a fast, easy, egalitarian, and free way, yeah?
Aside from that model being "dead", simply because it's no longer used, why do you believe that this is such an implicitly binary situation of the two companies must exist and be allowed free rampant growth or nothing at all?
I hope that you take this as constructive criticism but it would seem to me, from this exchange, that it's you who's coming to these conversations not willing to listen.
Elucidation would be appreciated: How does irrationality prevail?
I wouldn't say "conspiracy" but they've been mums-the-word about things like shadow-profiles. Perhaps, it comes down to too much kool-aid but to say that engineers would initially speak-up in such cases has been proven wrong, time and again.
Take the Snowden revelations, as an example: How many years were the programs in service before Snowden went public? How long have we known about shadow profiles and no one from Facebook has come forward to say, "yes, this is what they're doing and it's wrong"?
Relying on people to do the good that should be done by the organisations doesn't take into consideration that those engineers face severe penalties for "going pubic" about such things - namely because whistle-blower laws do not supercede such thing as NDAs.
I think this has a lot to do with the, "It doesn't effect me, so its not my problem," mentality that is still pretty prevalent in the globalised world.
As the lyric goes, "Credulous, at best, your desire to believe in angels in the hearts of men."
To further your analogy, one could make a comparative to Cambridge Analytica - where your Facebook data could have been harvested through the seemingly innocuous behaviour of your friend(s).
If you think that's painful, wait until you find out about Windows XP[0]. :)
[0] - https://www.windowslatest.com/2018/04/04/windows-xp-is-still...
I believe this statement is where they tried to delineate between "a number of countries" and this instance but I'm not the OC, so I can't speak for them; however, that's the way that I'm reading it.
What's to stop this from being abused, as the threshold for "potential civil litigation" is probably a low and subjective bar, which the poor couldn't afford to challenge/fight, if they were delinquent anyway...? Also, delinquent is simply late on payments and not defaulted, yeah? One is far more egregious than the other, is it not?
Cooking and coding aren't amalgamous. Cooking is necessary life skill, unless your only sources of sustenance are prepackaged foods or food from restaurants (which would include fast food).
The same cannot be said for coding. You needn't know or even understand technology or software to use a cell phone or browse the internet or what-have-you.
A more apt comparison would've probably been driving but even that is limited in scope, dependent on the public services available (which is, in and of itself, a byproduct of urban life versus rural life - at least in the states).
Also, I think Hanlon's Razor applies here.
The idea that everyone can make a stellar income from being a developer is oft touted as one of the points of these boot-camps. In other words, the argument is that those people can do it, it's just that they've never been afforded the opportunity.
Whilst this might be true for a small percentage of the group, as a whole, it isn't - implicitly - true that all of them will find jobs being programmers the day after they graduate these camps.
So, it isn't pointless for them to learn it, by far (and I'm only speaking for me, here), but it shouldn't be touted as the get-rich-quick-scheme that it's being pushed as because, then, yes, it's pointless for people to think it's possible to become a rockstar overnight; which I would like to point out is precisely what this business has capitalised on...
To continue with the analogy of music, even rockstars had to play gigs and sell records/tapes as up & comers (negating the pop genre) before they became big. People only hear the songs on the radio, they don't want to hear about the years it took before those stars were even given spins on the radio (see: Jewel living out of her van).
That sounds like they used his Google Account/iCloud account to find back-ups and that was how they found that information. Otherwise, that's oddly specific for having been almost five years ago, now.
Likewise. I've never been to a reunion because fuck those guys (and gals).
Have you never heard of the Wassenaar Agreement[0,1]?
[0] - https://www.wassenaar.org/about-us/
[1] - https://www.wassenaar.org/app/uploads/2018/12/WA-DOC-18-PUB-...
...but they were already in their bases, killing their doodz[0], yeah? Why would they focus on something they already had on-hand?
[0] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants...
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog...