Re: Re: Re: Re: Upholding only the highest of military standards
[Sad but True]
That said, I've not seen a president ignore the recommendations of his chief officers before. They usually take them on board. Trump is going out of his way to alienate them.
Agreed. The trouble with vigilantes is they often hit the wrong target. Even if they hit the right target, we have to maintain order. Imagine a society in which vigilantes ran around dishing out street justice and got clean away with it. Not okay.
For this reason I think it's fair to see if it's possible to bring new charges against the offender. This, in order to ensure fairness, should be done only once and not repeatedly. It's up to the prosecutors to make the case watertight. It seems to me they fouled the last one up.
The end of some of our double jeopardy laws here have seen murderers, etc., put away. I did a spot of research to ensure I didn't get a "But look at these abuses!" response. The criteria for retrials are very narrow to ensure the process is not abused to victimise a person the Government doesn't like.
I'd be more inclined to agree with you if the first case hadn't proven that he did the deed he was accused of. He only got off because he was charged against a law that shouldn't have been on the books in the first place. For that reason it's reasonable to hold a new trial.
I could understand this issue if yer woman had been subject to unauthorised recording and photography, but to store them online, perhaps with a view to sharing them with...whoever?
ALWAYS assume that if there's a photo or video, someone may find it.
ALWAYS assume that if it's online, someone will find it.
These cases keep coming up and nobody's learning the lesson? Why not? No one is immune to jerkery. Someone will be a jerk to you sooner or later, so limit the ways in which they can do that. NEVER put images or videos online that can be used to humiliate you if the "wrong" people see them.
Stephen, the "P****d off Conservatives" are actually right wing nut jobs pretending to be conservative. Their favourite thing is whingeing about bias for those outlets that don't slavishly repeat what they say without question. They're not worth taking seriously. I just file them under "Liars" and leave them to it.
Genetics was used by bigots to springboard eugenics into the public debate where it then nurtured racism at the highest level of politics for well over a century.
True, but it's also done a lot of good. None of the good done outweighs the lives lost or ruined by the Eugenics nutters, though. I'm just saying "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."
The GPS-equipped smartphone gave rise to the Data Retention Directive which would have had every citizen in the EU carrying the equivalent of an electronic shackle - until fortunately the ECHR struck that directive down in bolts of thunder.
I love it when the courts protect us from politicians being politicians.
FRT is a way to make a computer TRY to identify a human and match a face against a list of known miscreants. The paradox of false positives guarantees that this will cause "death by triggerhappy cop" with fair excuses already provided.
Not in every case, but I get your point.
Worse, how many citizens will be quietly flagged without their or even the government's notice by an algorithm which thinks it has seen John Doe in sufficiently many compromising places or situations to determine that s/he is a security risk?
You mean, "Already have been." The overzealous LEOs and their cohorts in the military-surveillance complex are already doing this to put people on no-fly lists, etc. The thing is, any Shiny New Thing will be abused to Hell and back. This doesn't mean there's a problem with the tech, but with people. Yes, I know the tech makes it easier for them to abuse us. The solution is to put curbs on their powers.
In 1984 the hazard with always being monitored was that you never knew when someone was watching through your installed monitor. FRT ensures there always will be something monitoring every step you take in public - and fuck up the conclusion of what you were doing and who you are, without any recourse available to fix whatever register you find yourself in.
I acknowledge that FRT is a part of the ubiquitous surveillance we live in but it's not the only application. You've forgotten that the only time FRT or surveillance becomes an issue is when you're a target. When you're not, you're just another piece of dried grass in the ever-expanding haystack; sooner or later the data must be parsed. We know from various TD stories that there's not enough manpower to surveil each individual; there are too many of us. Result: they pick and choose who to spy on and unless they can demonstrate that we're a clear and present danger, they usually let it drop. We saw this with a range of terrorist offenders who were being monitored. Basically, the monitoring ended because the suspects just weren't suspicious enough to justify continuing the monitoring until they up and murdered people. So while surveillance apparatus is ubiquitous, the idea that all of us are being carefully watched all the time is inaccurate.
We know, cheat sheet in hand, just how badly this pans out from the archives in the old DDR where it was found that in addition to the genuine dissidents a significant proportion of the east german population had been flagged as security risks just because of bad linking.
A large proportion of DDR's resources was spent on policiing the public. Detailed dossiers were kept on each member of the public and were constantly updated. Basically, more manpower was devoted to spying on the public, which is why it was so effective. The modern surveillance regime is being run on the cheap, which is why so many actual threats slip through the net.
FRT is an inherent force multiplier for the bad effects of mass surveillance. It needs proper debunking, not a fervent effort to roll it out in the wishful idea that "Hey, someday we'll make it work".
If it's only used for surveillance or the only identifier, yes, I agree. But it's not. I get where you're coming from but as I stated earlier, this is a people problem more than a tech problem.
I'd like to thank every writer and commenter here on TD (even the trolls!) for making this my favourite tech website. I love the well-written stories and the thoughtful comments, which have taught me much of what I know about tech and all that is possible. I wish you all a very happy and prosperous new year.
When you spend so very much time denying factual reality in favor of faith-based explanations you have acquired all the mental tools required to reconcile what anyone else would call hypocrisy without ever encountering a single bout of cognitive dissonance on the way.
I thought that meant "cognitive dissonance."
I don't approve of denying factual reality in favour of faith-based explanations. I leave the faith-based explanations to those matters outside of established fact. So basically, I'm on board with climate change activists, etc. The way I see it, if you have to deny reality itself in order to promote a narrative based on a set of principles, you're a liar and your principles are wrong. Get back to the drawing board, come up with principles that work in practice, and tell the truth.
On the post: Navy SEAL Leader Accused Of War Crimes Threatens Defamation Suit Against NY Times Reporter For Revealing Videos & Text Of Men Who Reported Him
Re: Re: Re: Re: Upholding only the highest of military standards
[Sad but True]
That said, I've not seen a president ignore the recommendations of his chief officers before. They usually take them on board. Trump is going out of his way to alienate them.
On the post: Minnesota Appeals Court Nukes State's Broadly-Written Revenge Porn Law
Re: Re: Start with negligence and work up
What John Roddy says. Put the sledgehammer away and use the right tool for the job.
On the post: Minnesota Appeals Court Nukes State's Broadly-Written Revenge Porn Law
Re: Re: Start with negligence and work up
^This. Using copyright law to handle abusive situations feels like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.
On the post: Minnesota Appeals Court Nukes State's Broadly-Written Revenge Porn Law
Re: Re: Put Him in Prison Anyway
Exactly right: when the state fouls up, the people pay for it. Not okay.
On the post: Minnesota Appeals Court Nukes State's Broadly-Written Revenge Porn Law
Re:
Agreed. The trouble with vigilantes is they often hit the wrong target. Even if they hit the right target, we have to maintain order. Imagine a society in which vigilantes ran around dishing out street justice and got clean away with it. Not okay.
For this reason I think it's fair to see if it's possible to bring new charges against the offender. This, in order to ensure fairness, should be done only once and not repeatedly. It's up to the prosecutors to make the case watertight. It seems to me they fouled the last one up.
On the post: Minnesota Appeals Court Nukes State's Broadly-Written Revenge Porn Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Put Him in Prison Anyway
If he has caused harm, why not?
The end of some of our double jeopardy laws here have seen murderers, etc., put away. I did a spot of research to ensure I didn't get a "But look at these abuses!" response. The criteria for retrials are very narrow to ensure the process is not abused to victimise a person the Government doesn't like.
I'd be more inclined to agree with you if the first case hadn't proven that he did the deed he was accused of. He only got off because he was charged against a law that shouldn't have been on the books in the first place. For that reason it's reasonable to hold a new trial.
On the post: Minnesota Appeals Court Nukes State's Broadly-Written Revenge Porn Law
Re: Put Him in Prison Anyway
Yes, indeed. I spy with my little eye a CFAA violation.
On the post: Minnesota Appeals Court Nukes State's Broadly-Written Revenge Porn Law
Re:
Bang on the money, Norahc.
On the post: Minnesota Appeals Court Nukes State's Broadly-Written Revenge Porn Law
Re: Re: Re: voting rights restoration for felons
Yeahhhh... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disfranchisement#United_States_2
It's not true all the time. It depends on where you live.
On the post: Minnesota Appeals Court Nukes State's Broadly-Written Revenge Porn Law
Sexual photos and videos: don't put them online
I could understand this issue if yer woman had been subject to unauthorised recording and photography, but to store them online, perhaps with a view to sharing them with...whoever?
ALWAYS assume that if there's a photo or video, someone may find it.
ALWAYS assume that if it's online, someone will find it.
These cases keep coming up and nobody's learning the lesson? Why not? No one is immune to jerkery. Someone will be a jerk to you sooner or later, so limit the ways in which they can do that. NEVER put images or videos online that can be used to humiliate you if the "wrong" people see them.
On the post: In This Time Of Techlash, It's Important To Remember That Sometimes Social Media Is Actually Good
Re: Re: Re:
Indeed. It's a people problem. People can be very creative when it comes to abusing communications tools.
On the post: In This Time Of Techlash, It's Important To Remember That Sometimes Social Media Is Actually Good
Re: Re: Hmmmmmmm
There's a high chance of that.
On the post: In This Time Of Techlash, It's Important To Remember That Sometimes Social Media Is Actually Good
Re:
Stephen, the "P****d off Conservatives" are actually right wing nut jobs pretending to be conservative. Their favourite thing is whingeing about bias for those outlets that don't slavishly repeat what they say without question. They're not worth taking seriously. I just file them under "Liars" and leave them to it.
On the post: In This Time Of Techlash, It's Important To Remember That Sometimes Social Media Is Actually Good
Re: Re: "Hashtag hashtag activism"?
Gaah! You got there before I did, B#bvi#us.
On the post: NIST Study Of 189 Facial Recognition Algorithms Finds Minorities Are Misidentified Almost 100 Times More Often Than White Men
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fb tag recommended
Genetics was used by bigots to springboard eugenics into the public debate where it then nurtured racism at the highest level of politics for well over a century.
True, but it's also done a lot of good. None of the good done outweighs the lives lost or ruined by the Eugenics nutters, though. I'm just saying "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."
The GPS-equipped smartphone gave rise to the Data Retention Directive which would have had every citizen in the EU carrying the equivalent of an electronic shackle - until fortunately the ECHR struck that directive down in bolts of thunder.
I love it when the courts protect us from politicians being politicians.
FRT is a way to make a computer TRY to identify a human and match a face against a list of known miscreants. The paradox of false positives guarantees that this will cause "death by triggerhappy cop" with fair excuses already provided.
Not in every case, but I get your point.
Worse, how many citizens will be quietly flagged without their or even the government's notice by an algorithm which thinks it has seen John Doe in sufficiently many compromising places or situations to determine that s/he is a security risk?
You mean, "Already have been." The overzealous LEOs and their cohorts in the military-surveillance complex are already doing this to put people on no-fly lists, etc. The thing is, any Shiny New Thing will be abused to Hell and back. This doesn't mean there's a problem with the tech, but with people. Yes, I know the tech makes it easier for them to abuse us. The solution is to put curbs on their powers.
In 1984 the hazard with always being monitored was that you never knew when someone was watching through your installed monitor. FRT ensures there always will be something monitoring every step you take in public - and fuck up the conclusion of what you were doing and who you are, without any recourse available to fix whatever register you find yourself in.
I acknowledge that FRT is a part of the ubiquitous surveillance we live in but it's not the only application. You've forgotten that the only time FRT or surveillance becomes an issue is when you're a target. When you're not, you're just another piece of dried grass in the ever-expanding haystack; sooner or later the data must be parsed. We know from various TD stories that there's not enough manpower to surveil each individual; there are too many of us. Result: they pick and choose who to spy on and unless they can demonstrate that we're a clear and present danger, they usually let it drop. We saw this with a range of terrorist offenders who were being monitored. Basically, the monitoring ended because the suspects just weren't suspicious enough to justify continuing the monitoring until they up and murdered people. So while surveillance apparatus is ubiquitous, the idea that all of us are being carefully watched all the time is inaccurate.
We know, cheat sheet in hand, just how badly this pans out from the archives in the old DDR where it was found that in addition to the genuine dissidents a significant proportion of the east german population had been flagged as security risks just because of bad linking.
A large proportion of DDR's resources was spent on policiing the public. Detailed dossiers were kept on each member of the public and were constantly updated. Basically, more manpower was devoted to spying on the public, which is why it was so effective. The modern surveillance regime is being run on the cheap, which is why so many actual threats slip through the net.
FRT is an inherent force multiplier for the bad effects of mass surveillance. It needs proper debunking, not a fervent effort to roll it out in the wishful idea that "Hey, someday we'll make it work".
If it's only used for surveillance or the only identifier, yes, I agree. But it's not. I get where you're coming from but as I stated earlier, this is a people problem more than a tech problem.
On the post: New Year's Message: Opportunities Come From Unexpected Places
Re: Re: Happy New Year
Aw, shucks! Thanks, Samuel.
On the post: NIST Study Of 189 Facial Recognition Algorithms Finds Minorities Are Misidentified Almost 100 Times More Often Than White Men
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fb tag recommended
Eh, all tech has its limitations. Politicians will be politicians. The best we can do is try to influence them.
On the post: NIST Study Of 189 Facial Recognition Algorithms Finds Minorities Are Misidentified Almost 100 Times More Often Than White Men
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fb tag recommend
At a guess, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
On the post: New Year's Message: Opportunities Come From Unexpected Places
Happy New Year
I'd like to thank every writer and commenter here on TD (even the trolls!) for making this my favourite tech website. I love the well-written stories and the thoughtful comments, which have taught me much of what I know about tech and all that is possible. I wish you all a very happy and prosperous new year.
Keep up the great work, all of you!
On the post: Cloudflare Removes Warrant Canary: Thoughtful Post Says It Can No Longer Say It Hasn't Removed A Site Due To Political Pressure
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When you spend so very much time denying factual reality in favor of faith-based explanations you have acquired all the mental tools required to reconcile what anyone else would call hypocrisy without ever encountering a single bout of cognitive dissonance on the way.
I thought that meant "cognitive dissonance."
I don't approve of denying factual reality in favour of faith-based explanations. I leave the faith-based explanations to those matters outside of established fact. So basically, I'm on board with climate change activists, etc. The way I see it, if you have to deny reality itself in order to promote a narrative based on a set of principles, you're a liar and your principles are wrong. Get back to the drawing board, come up with principles that work in practice, and tell the truth.
Next >>