So if this is just a part of the Google News platform, sounds like to me that Google just needs to get out of that business. It can't be a huge money maker unless it is a loss leader to more data for better ad targeting. So, just quit doing it in countries that don't like nice things.
If this is literally ANY search, then that seems absolutely ridiculous. That could get really bad really quick. Wait til quotes from movies or books start showing up in Google searches and those 'creators' (well, the publisher that owns the rights) starts knocking on the door. IMDB needs to start paying every actor for use of their 'likeness' and Wikipedia might as well shut down because where did they get all of THEIR information? 'Stolen' from OTHER sites!
Baltimore -- you impress me for all the wrong reasons
I watched The Wire and was like 'Man, Baltimore is crazy!'. Then I read about all the stuff the real Baltimore ACTUALLY does and wonder why it doesn't have a reality show.
These administrators would rather let their own staff and patients die because they are too afraid of what people might say if they gasp ask for help during a crisis.
In times like this it is easy to tell what is important to people; health and safety or managing one's own image... I think we all know that these administrators made the wrong choice and adversely affected both.
It isn't news. It is entertainment. This is just them pandering to their base like Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh. They don't care about 'journalism', they care about keeping ratings and their loyal sycophantic fan base tuning in to sell more ads.
So, back in the day; a technician had to come to your house, install a cable from an access point, or put a dish on your roof. That cost money. People didn't like to spend lots of money up front just to start watching TV that they then had to pay more money for. So companies made these contracts that said, stick with us for two years and we will install for free. This let the companies guarantee revenue and spread that installation fee over a minimum of two years.
Then came the age of streaming. It didn't require some rando coming to your house. It didn't require a dish or a dedicated cable. It just requires the internet, which people interested in streaming already had. All they had to do is go onto the internet, click a button, and they had TV. No additional fees to recoup, no additional installs required. These contracts were no longer necessary.
Then AT&T released streaming. And they had contracts for.... reasons?
Screw T-Mobile, I'm gonna go to Verizon and show them! ...wait, i switched from Verizon because they were tracking me on the internet with super cookies a few years back (and probably still are). Fine, I'll go to AT&T! ... wait, they work closely with the NSA to circumvent my constitutional protections... Fine, I'll go with...out a mobile phone?
So, why did these machines not just have a local script that told it when to feed (5AM every day, 7PM every day, 12PM on Thursdays) and just keep it that way until the 'internet' told it to do something else? Having a server connection just to say 'feed' seems like a really crappy architecture.
Not everything needs to live in the cloud, people... The fact that we have to have this discussion makes me really question the 'developers' at PetNet and their competency at architecting software.
Does GIG have customer service staff, or are they just repurposing their internal IT support? I balk at getting told sleeping in my car from a customer service rep. I've learned to expect it when troubleshooting anything with IT.
The very idea of the government overseeing content moderation is a terrible idea. The fact that there is a 'threshold' that they are measured against already has problems. Firstly, what is 'measured'? The number of posts that get flagged before someone gets outraged? The number of posts that people 'feel' are inappropriate? Secondly, if you gamify it (which you have...) you can easily fake the numbers by just being overzealous until you (A) hit your target, or (B) if you don't think you are going to hit your 'target', then ramp up the algorithm to be more choosy.
This isn't a solution; this is a fancy way to add overhead to small businesses and let the government get a toe hold in somewhere it doesn't belong... in regulating speech!
Now that we know a vendor, Venntel, I think it is important to find out who and where they get their information from. Just like any other data broker, you start naming and shaming the companies that sell their data to these guys, maybe we can get them cut off. No data, no customers, no money. Might make the next Venntel think twice before selling to government agencies in such a sketch way.
This game of whack-a-mole won't do much in the long run, but watching big companies squirm is always good fun. Their knee-jerk reaction is usually to cut access and behave.... for a while...
So, if Tesla sells a car with a feature, the feature is enabled, they sell the car, the seller touts these features, the customer buys the car, and then the original seller revokes a feature... That sounds an awful lot like a bait and switch...
I can tell you that an $8,000 upgrade on a used car is enough for me to return it. And what sucks is, the dealer in the middle is the one stuck holding the bag since they 'bought' it from Tesla with an $8000 option that they can no longer sell.
Sounds like a lawsuit or two need to occur to get Tesla to shape up.
I guess the best way to look at how a lawyer goes about their job without hating themselves for their immediate hypocrisy is they use the law as a cudgel. Whoever has the bigger stick wins. Sometimes you have to take away a stick because you aren't using it right now, but that is ok.There are more sticks around just waiting to be picked up and bludgeon each other with, you just have to know where to look.
So Vance is right in that Apple does 'get into his phone all the time' by patching his OS (to make him and everyone else safer). He is just asking for Apple to use that mechanism to get into Terrorist Bob's phone. Why couldn't they? It is possible, Apple could design an update to do just that.
But what he fails to realize is EVERYONE GETS THAT SAME UPDATE. Instead of just compromising Terrorist Bob's phone, they compromise everyone's phone. He's trying to fish with dynamite because Terrorist Bob's search history is worth more than the digital protection of all of Cy Vance's constituents...
So we have Microsoft OneDrive, OneNote, and Verizon OneSearch? Come on guys... you are stealing branding from another company AND you are using them as your behind-the-scenes search engine? Grats on the corporate branding appropriation there bud.
While they may feign being upset, adding all these additional hurdles and unexpected fees gives the people RIAA ACTUALLY represents more money. It makes the environment so toxic for an independent that they HAVE to sign to a label out of fear of having their creation taken away from other greedy labels, lawyers, and whoever else thinks they are entitled to free money for nothing.
I mean... it is really a perfect model when you are trying to extract extortionate rents from the artists who really do all the work...
So while I agree in theory, that AI should not get copyrights (I can imagine that a few thousand dollars and access to AWS could copyright a large swath of every valid sentence in very short order), I do wonder when the idea of curation comes into play.
Example 1: Let's say that I do digital art and make a picture using MS Paint. Everyone agrees that I get a copyright (I, a human, did this).
Example 2: Let's say that I click the 'random' button on a photoshop plugin that automatically generates an image. The 'creative' element is me choosing to curate that image. Does THIS count as copyright? I would assume yes, but I understand that could be debatable.
So, assuming that Example 2 you do get a copyright, where does that line stop? If a human reviewed and decided to publish that report, does that count as curation, and thus, a copyrighted work? I mean, if the report was full of junk nonsense, I would assume that the company would not have published it.
It is an interesting line that I'd like to know opinions on.
If each and every point were given a unique identifier, not each DEVICE, then it could be considered 'more' anonymized. Anything that tracks the movement of a person to their work, to their home, to their after-hours hookup is not anonymous. Full. Stop.
Now if each and every 'ping' were anonymous (no key tying them together), you would be safe in most cases, but not all. Think of it in a rural setting where the dataset is small. You could tell when a certain individual was hosting a party (multiple pings from the same location). You could tell who was home and who wasn't... The to-the-square-foot-level tracking is really problematic of this data regardless of how it is 'anonymized'.
Why is it that every scumbag leader that seems to like Trump has ended up on the Authoritarian spectrum? You have Modi, Netanyahu (fighting his own corruption battles atm), Putin, and Kim Jong Un. I swear... I'm amazed Maduro and him aren't golfing at Mar a Lago...
On the post: Australia Gives Up Any Pretense: Pushes Straight Up Tax On Facebook & Google To Pay News Orgs
So... why not leave?
So if this is just a part of the Google News platform, sounds like to me that Google just needs to get out of that business. It can't be a huge money maker unless it is a loss leader to more data for better ad targeting. So, just quit doing it in countries that don't like nice things.
If this is literally ANY search, then that seems absolutely ridiculous. That could get really bad really quick. Wait til quotes from movies or books start showing up in Google searches and those 'creators' (well, the publisher that owns the rights) starts knocking on the door. IMDB needs to start paying every actor for use of their 'likeness' and Wikipedia might as well shut down because where did they get all of THEIR information? 'Stolen' from OTHER sites!
This is getting beyond ridiculous...
On the post: Appeals Court Tells Baltimore PD To Start Coughing Up Information About Its Cell Site Simulators
Baltimore -- you impress me for all the wrong reasons
I watched The Wire and was like 'Man, Baltimore is crazy!'. Then I read about all the stuff the real Baltimore ACTUALLY does and wonder why it doesn't have a reality show.
On the post: WTF Hospital Administrators? Now Is NOT The Time To Silence Doctors & Nurses From Commenting On COVID-19 Shortages
No shortage of ego-filled administrators
These administrators would rather let their own staff and patients die because they are too afraid of what people might say if they gasp ask for help during a crisis.
In times like this it is easy to tell what is important to people; health and safety or managing one's own image... I think we all know that these administrators made the wrong choice and adversely affected both.
On the post: Why Is Fox News Acting As State Media, Announcing Trump's Lawsuits Before They're Filed And Failing To Point Out How Frivolous They Are?
Fox News has proven it isn't news
It isn't news. It is entertainment. This is just them pandering to their base like Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh. They don't care about 'journalism', they care about keeping ratings and their loyal sycophantic fan base tuning in to sell more ads.
On the post: AT&T Can't Get Out Of Its Own Way As It Tries To 'Disrupt' Traditional TV
Story time!
So, back in the day; a technician had to come to your house, install a cable from an access point, or put a dish on your roof. That cost money. People didn't like to spend lots of money up front just to start watching TV that they then had to pay more money for. So companies made these contracts that said, stick with us for two years and we will install for free. This let the companies guarantee revenue and spread that installation fee over a minimum of two years.
Then came the age of streaming. It didn't require some rando coming to your house. It didn't require a dish or a dedicated cable. It just requires the internet, which people interested in streaming already had. All they had to do is go onto the internet, click a button, and they had TV. No additional fees to recoup, no additional installs required. These contracts were no longer necessary.
Then AT&T released streaming. And they had contracts for.... reasons?
On the post: Right On Cue, Post-Merger T-Mobile Layoffs Begin
Thats it, I'm Switching Carriers!
Screw T-Mobile, I'm gonna go to Verizon and show them! ...wait, i switched from Verizon because they were tracking me on the internet with super cookies a few years back (and probably still are). Fine, I'll go to AT&T! ... wait, they work closely with the NSA to circumvent my constitutional protections... Fine, I'll go with...out a mobile phone?
On the post: PetNet 'Smart' Pet Feeders Go Offline For A Week, Customer Service Completely Breaks Down
How bad is this design?
So, why did these machines not just have a local script that told it when to feed (5AM every day, 7PM every day, 12PM on Thursdays) and just keep it that way until the 'internet' told it to do something else? Having a server connection just to say 'feed' seems like a really crappy architecture.
Not everything needs to live in the cloud, people... The fact that we have to have this discussion makes me really question the 'developers' at PetNet and their competency at architecting software.
On the post: Barr's Motives, Encryption and Protecting Children; DOJ 230 Workshop Review, Part III
Bill Barr says...
... Go down the hall and ask Ron Wyden... You know he still works there and kind of wrote Section 230, right?
On the post: Driver Stranded After 'Smart' Rental Car Can't Phone Home
Customer Service?
Does GIG have customer service staff, or are they just repurposing their internal IT support? I balk at getting told sleeping in my car from a customer service rep. I've learned to expect it when troubleshooting anything with IT.
On the post: Mark Zuckerberg Suggests Getting Rid Of Section 230; Maybe People Should Stop Pretending It's A Gift To Facebook
Government back-door censorship
The very idea of the government overseeing content moderation is a terrible idea. The fact that there is a 'threshold' that they are measured against already has problems. Firstly, what is 'measured'? The number of posts that get flagged before someone gets outraged? The number of posts that people 'feel' are inappropriate? Secondly, if you gamify it (which you have...) you can easily fake the numbers by just being overzealous until you (A) hit your target, or (B) if you don't think you are going to hit your 'target', then ramp up the algorithm to be more choosy.
This isn't a solution; this is a fancy way to add overhead to small businesses and let the government get a toe hold in somewhere it doesn't belong... in regulating speech!
On the post: CBP, ICE Hoovering Up Cell Location Data From Third Party Vendors To Track Down Immigrants
A good way to start losing your info, Venntel
Now that we know a vendor, Venntel, I think it is important to find out who and where they get their information from. Just like any other data broker, you start naming and shaming the companies that sell their data to these guys, maybe we can get them cut off. No data, no customers, no money. Might make the next Venntel think twice before selling to government agencies in such a sketch way.
This game of whack-a-mole won't do much in the long run, but watching big companies squirm is always good fun. Their knee-jerk reaction is usually to cut access and behave.... for a while...
On the post: The End Of Ownership: Tesla Software Updates Giveth... And Tesla Software Updates Taketh Away...
Bait and Switch
So, if Tesla sells a car with a feature, the feature is enabled, they sell the car, the seller touts these features, the customer buys the car, and then the original seller revokes a feature... That sounds an awful lot like a bait and switch...
I can tell you that an $8,000 upgrade on a used car is enough for me to return it. And what sucks is, the dealer in the middle is the one stuck holding the bag since they 'bought' it from Tesla with an $8000 option that they can no longer sell.
Sounds like a lawsuit or two need to occur to get Tesla to shape up.
On the post: Pigs Fly As Charles Harder And Donald Trump Support Anti-SLAPP Laws (When They Protect Trump, Of Course)
Caveman Lawyer
I guess the best way to look at how a lawyer goes about their job without hating themselves for their immediate hypocrisy is they use the law as a cudgel. Whoever has the bigger stick wins. Sometimes you have to take away a stick because you aren't using it right now, but that is ok.There are more sticks around just waiting to be picked up and bludgeon each other with, you just have to know where to look.
On the post: Cy Vance Is So Sure Encryption Is Pure Evil He Thinks Over-The-Air Software Updates Are Just Encryption Backdoors Apple Won't Tell Him About
Vance is right... but in the wrongest of ways
So Vance is right in that Apple does 'get into his phone all the time' by patching his OS (to make him and everyone else safer). He is just asking for Apple to use that mechanism to get into Terrorist Bob's phone. Why couldn't they? It is possible, Apple could design an update to do just that.
But what he fails to realize is EVERYONE GETS THAT SAME UPDATE. Instead of just compromising Terrorist Bob's phone, they compromise everyone's phone. He's trying to fish with dynamite because Terrorist Bob's search history is worth more than the digital protection of all of Cy Vance's constituents...
On the post: Verizon Launches New Private Search Engine In Hopes You've Forgotten Its Terrible Track Record On Privacy
Ah.. OneSearch -- Another Microsoft product???
So we have Microsoft OneDrive, OneNote, and Verizon OneSearch? Come on guys... you are stealing branding from another company AND you are using them as your behind-the-scenes search engine? Grats on the corporate branding appropriation there bud.
On the post: How Years Of Copyright Maximalism Is Now Killing Pop Music
This is working exactly how RIAA wants it to...
While they may feign being upset, adding all these additional hurdles and unexpected fees gives the people RIAA ACTUALLY represents more money. It makes the environment so toxic for an independent that they HAVE to sign to a label out of fear of having their creation taken away from other greedy labels, lawyers, and whoever else thinks they are entitled to free money for nothing.
I mean... it is really a perfect model when you are trying to extract extortionate rents from the artists who really do all the work...
On the post: Chinese Court Says AI-Generated Content Is Subject To Copyright Protection
Does Curation Count?
So while I agree in theory, that AI should not get copyrights (I can imagine that a few thousand dollars and access to AWS could copyright a large swath of every valid sentence in very short order), I do wonder when the idea of curation comes into play.
Example 1: Let's say that I do digital art and make a picture using MS Paint. Everyone agrees that I get a copyright (I, a human, did this).
Example 2: Let's say that I click the 'random' button on a photoshop plugin that automatically generates an image. The 'creative' element is me choosing to curate that image. Does THIS count as copyright? I would assume yes, but I understand that could be debatable.
So, assuming that Example 2 you do get a copyright, where does that line stop? If a human reviewed and decided to publish that report, does that count as curation, and thus, a copyrighted work? I mean, if the report was full of junk nonsense, I would assume that the company would not have published it.
It is an interesting line that I'd like to know opinions on.
On the post: New Study Suggests That YouTube's Recommendation Algorithm Isn't The Tool Of Radicalization Many People Believe (At Least Not Any More)
If Thanksgiving Dinner has tought us anything...
Your crazy uncle was crazy before YouTube.
On the post: NY Times Shows The Scope Of The Cell Location Data Scandal Nobody's Doing Anything About
Removing a name doesn't make data anonymous...
If each and every point were given a unique identifier, not each DEVICE, then it could be considered 'more' anonymized. Anything that tracks the movement of a person to their work, to their home, to their after-hours hookup is not anonymous. Full. Stop.
Now if each and every 'ping' were anonymous (no key tying them together), you would be safe in most cases, but not all. Think of it in a rural setting where the dataset is small. You could tell when a certain individual was hosting a party (multiple pings from the same location). You could tell who was home and who wasn't... The to-the-square-foot-level tracking is really problematic of this data regardless of how it is 'anonymized'.
On the post: Indian Government Sets New Record For 'Internet Shutdown By A Democracy'
Howdy Authoritarianism!
Why is it that every scumbag leader that seems to like Trump has ended up on the Authoritarian spectrum? You have Modi, Netanyahu (fighting his own corruption battles atm), Putin, and Kim Jong Un. I swear... I'm amazed Maduro and him aren't golfing at Mar a Lago...
Next >>