What are the odds that someone right now is saying "Scotty, I told you this could happen. I warned you not to pick that account and go with the other one. Did you listen to me? No, of course you didn't. Don't whine at me and demand I fix it. There is nothing to fix, this is working as intended. Don't call me again you annoying dipshit"?
... 'cos that advert got things backwards. It's showing us what life would be like without encryption ... everyone's personal life exposed for anyone to exploit and prey upon.
Otherwise I'm confused about the message they are trying to send. Pedos only operate in greenhouses, telephone booths and similar spaces? Children locked inside a small unventilated and sealed environment won't suffocate? The UK government thinks taxpayers are idiots to be exploited at will?
... and the part of me that thinks this might be lies or a distortion of the truth is based on the simple fact that there is no way something like this would stay a secret forever.
The reputational damage, the endless wave of civil suits as everyone sues the tits off Google / Alphabet / whatever-shell-corporation-it-is-this-week, the fact anyone involved would be happily thrown to the wolves if it got Google /Alphabet off the hook legally speaking ... the consequences for when the game was up, not if, are so severe that it's difficult to see how it could get green lit.
Yes, I know corporate America and late stage capitalism seem to just dive headlong into short term profit at the exclusion of anything else (including long term sustainability) but the consequences here seem so bad that I can't see how this went beyond a dubious experiment that was shut down afterwards as the downsides vastly outweighed the positives.
I have no difficulty seeing Google / Alphabet (any US company frankly) being greedy enough to pull a stunt like this. Being smart enough to figure out a scam like this, yet somehow stupid enough to think it will never be uncovered? That's a whole different ballgame.
"...the secret services in many countries are using the Pegasus software to combat crime and corruption."
Strange the spellchecker got it so wrong, please use:
"... the secret services in many countries are using the Pegasus software to commit crime and facilitate corruption."
"In 20 years or so, we're going to look back on these moral panics and laugh ...".
Why wait so long? We can all smell the bullshit coming off it right now. I'm just going to to ahead and point and laugh now instead, I might have forgotten just how stupid it was in 20 year's time.
No it does not. Multicore CPUs have been around for years at this point in time. A system that that has all the evidence to indicate to it that it has encountered a multicore CPU (reports the same IP address, MAC address, machine name, group name, Windows license key, same Steam / GOG/ UbiSoft / EA account, etc.), and incorrectly classifies it is 2 separate systems does not make technical sense.
Instead, it shows me the system is badly flawed and was not written with a scrap of future proofing in mind. New CPUs are to be expected, if you're hardcoding your software for specific CPUs I think the 1990s is calling on line #1 and would like you to stop being a Luddite.
Granted we are talking about DRM here and the end user experience is something no fucks were given towards at any stage in the development of the software.
But not seriously enough to start legal proceedings against someone, costing them money and time and not just mildly inconveniencing them in response to them actually stealing people's income via DCMA fraud or extortion / blackmail using DCMA (as YouTube has implemented it) as a weapon.
I guess YouTube has a very different understanding of the words "abuse", "very" and "seriously" to the rest of the planet.
The parents are suing for the return of their property, namely the car. The cash was their sons, if he is suing, or plans to sue, that would be a separate case?
... and now you're just wilfully misinterpreting the situation or trying to separate the demand a government made from the directly corresponding reactions of a company to the demand in order to create a hollow "moderation" leg to stand on and claim that the company is not censoring.
The best case scenario if you want to go down that road is the the company is facilitating censorship, or engaging with censorship. Again, I ask please provide an example to support your position. I can't see one myself but am curious if such a situation could exist.
It's not, or at least it wasn't. I tried to use it to translate official documents, pension agreements, and other official documents when I worked overseas. These were documents that did not contain slang or colloquialisms and it struggled badly with them. Granted Bing and other translation services faired no better.
The common problem was they all translated a sentence one word at a time rather than taking the whole sentence in context. The end result is a literal translation of the text, not a translation of the meaning of the text. I shudder to think how such systems would mangle slang, colloquialisms or contractions (I'd, shouldn't, ain't, etc.).
When they are moderating on behalf of a state or state agency, and it's not due to regulatory/legal requirements, please explain how that is not censorship?
I'm genuinely curious if such a situation can exist but still can be objectively considered as moderation.
Yes they do. It's on their list of Top Priorities. Somewhere. Along with Making All The Money, Pay No Taxes, and Protect Our Executives From Any Consequences and many more Top Priorities.
Just remember the list includes zero, negative numbers and imaginary numbers.
... or willfully ignoring that some people are complete assholess, that there are ample examples of people blackmailing sites, channel owners, content creators, small musicians, etc. via abuse of DCMA / copyright / ContentID systems.
Such people are in all probability jizzing in their pants at the though of the fuckery they can get up to if section 230 is weakened or fundamentally rescinded.
Seriously? That's how civil suits work in the US? I honestly have no idea if it works the same in my neck of the woods for civil cases but I'd have expected there to be some judicial cog in the process to say "knock it off, you're being an asshat".
... and if official/government access was all we had to worry about that would be tolerable ... possibly.
That's not all we have to worry about though. A system like this is 100% going to be targeted by adversarial intelligence services, criminal, hackers, etc. One way or another people that have no legitimate or court authorised right to the system will make use of it. Whether it's old fashioned bribery/blackmail, hacking, exploiting software flaws, etc. they will get access to it.
It's an abuser's wet dream if they are a staff member.
Learn where the dead zones are, set up an alert to monitor that pretty cheerleader. Use the data gathered over the space of a few weeks to determine when and which deadzones she frequents, who is usually with her and when she is alone.
It's an automated stalking tool if it doesn't have the proper oversight and control baked into it.
Integrity Partners?
Yeah, I'm gonna go out a limb here and say that name is about as believable as Honest Joe's Pre-owned Cars.
Re: Re: Re: The less charitable read....
Given enough time 3D printing might get us downloadable cars ...
Re: Re: Re: Asn an Australian...
What are the odds that someone right now is saying "Scotty, I told you this could happen. I warned you not to pick that account and go with the other one. Did you listen to me? No, of course you didn't. Don't whine at me and demand I fix it. There is nothing to fix, this is working as intended. Don't call me again you annoying dipshit"?
They should ask for a refund ...
... 'cos that advert got things backwards. It's showing us what life would be like without encryption ... everyone's personal life exposed for anyone to exploit and prey upon.
Otherwise I'm confused about the message they are trying to send. Pedos only operate in greenhouses, telephone booths and similar spaces? Children locked inside a small unventilated and sealed environment won't suffocate? The UK government thinks taxpayers are idiots to be exploited at will?
It's probably the last one.
Re:
... and the part of me that thinks this might be lies or a distortion of the truth is based on the simple fact that there is no way something like this would stay a secret forever.
The reputational damage, the endless wave of civil suits as everyone sues the tits off Google / Alphabet / whatever-shell-corporation-it-is-this-week, the fact anyone involved would be happily thrown to the wolves if it got Google /Alphabet off the hook legally speaking ... the consequences for when the game was up, not if, are so severe that it's difficult to see how it could get green lit.
Yes, I know corporate America and late stage capitalism seem to just dive headlong into short term profit at the exclusion of anything else (including long term sustainability) but the consequences here seem so bad that I can't see how this went beyond a dubious experiment that was shut down afterwards as the downsides vastly outweighed the positives.
I have no difficulty seeing Google / Alphabet (any US company frankly) being greedy enough to pull a stunt like this. Being smart enough to figure out a scam like this, yet somehow stupid enough to think it will never be uncovered? That's a whole different ballgame.
FTFY
"...the secret services in many countries are using the Pegasus software to combat crime and corruption."
Strange the spellchecker got it so wrong, please use:
"... the secret services in many countries are using the Pegasus software to commit crime and facilitate corruption."
Wait 20 years ... why?
"In 20 years or so, we're going to look back on these moral panics and laugh ...".
Why wait so long? We can all smell the bullshit coming off it right now. I'm just going to to ahead and point and laugh now instead, I might have forgotten just how stupid it was in 20 year's time.
It's not a small issue ...
... when someone wilfully erases 3 years of your work/content.
https://youtu.be/8P4Zn9MKumI?t=44
No, it doesn't make technical sense
"That makes technical sense."
No it does not. Multicore CPUs have been around for years at this point in time. A system that that has all the evidence to indicate to it that it has encountered a multicore CPU (reports the same IP address, MAC address, machine name, group name, Windows license key, same Steam / GOG/ UbiSoft / EA account, etc.), and incorrectly classifies it is 2 separate systems does not make technical sense.
Instead, it shows me the system is badly flawed and was not written with a scrap of future proofing in mind. New CPUs are to be expected, if you're hardcoding your software for specific CPUs I think the 1990s is calling on line #1 and would like you to stop being a Luddite.
Granted we are talking about DRM here and the end user experience is something no fucks were given towards at any stage in the development of the software.
Re:
"we take abuse of that process very seriously."
But not seriously enough to start legal proceedings against someone, costing them money and time and not just mildly inconveniencing them in response to them actually stealing people's income via DCMA fraud or extortion / blackmail using DCMA (as YouTube has implemented it) as a weapon.
I guess YouTube has a very different understanding of the words "abuse", "very" and "seriously" to the rest of the planet.
Re:
With the way Texas has been going lately I doubt it'll be the last flawed law/statute we see from there, sadly.
Re: cash?
The parents are suing for the return of their property, namely the car. The cash was their sons, if he is suing, or plans to sue, that would be a separate case?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just because you can doesn't always
... and now you're just wilfully misinterpreting the situation or trying to separate the demand a government made from the directly corresponding reactions of a company to the demand in order to create a hollow "moderation" leg to stand on and claim that the company is not censoring.
The best case scenario if you want to go down that road is the the company is facilitating censorship, or engaging with censorship. Again, I ask please provide an example to support your position. I can't see one myself but am curious if such a situation could exist.
Re: Re: Linguistics
"No matter how good Google Translate is ..."
It's not, or at least it wasn't. I tried to use it to translate official documents, pension agreements, and other official documents when I worked overseas. These were documents that did not contain slang or colloquialisms and it struggled badly with them. Granted Bing and other translation services faired no better.
The common problem was they all translated a sentence one word at a time rather than taking the whole sentence in context. The end result is a literal translation of the text, not a translation of the meaning of the text. I shudder to think how such systems would mangle slang, colloquialisms or contractions (I'd, shouldn't, ain't, etc.).
Re: Re: Re: Just because you can doesn't always mean you should
When they are moderating on behalf of a state or state agency, and it's not due to regulatory/legal requirements, please explain how that is not censorship?
I'm genuinely curious if such a situation can exist but still can be objectively considered as moderation.
Re:
Yes they do. It's on their list of Top Priorities. Somewhere. Along with Making All The Money, Pay No Taxes, and Protect Our Executives From Any Consequences and many more Top Priorities.
Just remember the list includes zero, negative numbers and imaginary numbers.
Re: Re: An incorrect assumption.
... or willfully ignoring that some people are complete assholess, that there are ample examples of people blackmailing sites, channel owners, content creators, small musicians, etc. via abuse of DCMA / copyright / ContentID systems.
Such people are in all probability jizzing in their pants at the though of the fuckery they can get up to if section 230 is weakened or fundamentally rescinded.
Re: Re:
Re:
... and if official/government access was all we had to worry about that would be tolerable ... possibly.
That's not all we have to worry about though. A system like this is 100% going to be targeted by adversarial intelligence services, criminal, hackers, etc. One way or another people that have no legitimate or court authorised right to the system will make use of it. Whether it's old fashioned bribery/blackmail, hacking, exploiting software flaws, etc. they will get access to it.
Re:
It's an abuser's wet dream if they are a staff member.
Learn where the dead zones are, set up an alert to monitor that pretty cheerleader. Use the data gathered over the space of a few weeks to determine when and which deadzones she frequents, who is usually with her and when she is alone.
It's an automated stalking tool if it doesn't have the proper oversight and control baked into it.
More comments from BG >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by BG.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt