fuckyouriotshit

9 ms·

1.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
Why do you think the Five-Eyes agreement exists? This is exactly the sort "capability" that is designed to be used through the legal loophole of "you spy on our citizens and we'll spy on yours" which is the (realpol
2.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
The various stunts that the Bundy family has pulled off prove less about guns being > sufficiently potent weapons to give the government trouble and prove far more about how the US federal government has and continues to be reluctant to
3.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
Making it hard to siphon personal data doesn't require manufacturers to prevent side-loading of apps. A much better solution would be to create better permissions models (capability-based) for mobile devices. As an example, one could b
4.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
I think we're actually in agreement. I'm not suggesting that the manufacturer should be creating closed platforms to "secure" things for the user; I'm saying that closed platforms can't guarantee an increase in
5.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
The only way that sort of corporate behavior by Facebook, etc. is to regulate how data about users can be collected and have real (potentially criminal) penalties for data collection without informed consent. Technical solutions (like preve
6.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
> ideological position that they should be able to do anything with the device While there are people who make this argument purely on ideological grounds (similar to arguments you hear about individual freedoms vs collective rights), it
7.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
Yeah, I think we're both in agreement that things need to change. Fundamentally though, I think that there will have to be a bigger catalyst for that change to happen and while I think people are slowly becoming more aware of how bulls
8.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
Unfortunately I don't think you'll get a genuine response. It'd be fascinating to watch someone to try and recreate concepts from cryptography without the crypto though!
9.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
So I gave you a real-world example of a situation where someone could be harmed by loss of privacy, and then asked if you thought it was OK to advocate the destruction of a person's privacy in that situation. Your response was that you
10.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
Oh right. I didn't think about the extra time that signal propagation through a big ugly ROM would take. I my comment earlier about EDA tools being able to "simplify" the ROM into the die was probably a paraphrasing of what I
11.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
There's also this great example of Brendan Gregg screaming at hard disks to demonstrate exactly that sort of latency spike: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDacjrSCeq4 I don't know if the latency spike is caused b
12.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
I was specifically referring to the process of instruction decode, but I may be using the incorrect terminology. My understanding (as explained to me by someone who did work on some CPU-like ASICs) was that they were able to produce the ear
13.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
I'm not a semiconductor engineer, but it is my understanding that most CPUs today either use a PROM, which is programmed at the factory the correct version/variant for that part, or (a sometimes compacted?) variant of mask ROM whi
14.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
> Yes it could cause serious problem but not the privacy itself that the problem, its other people using it to harm other people is the problem. So is it OK to advocate for the destruction of people's privacy in this situation or no
15.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
> It's just that all these devices and microchips have opened a way to trade on data that we'll never be able to regulate and control with 100% clarity and precision. So we're definitely gonna have to get more clever than
16.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
> I'm not saying that its going to be easy but I doubt that its impossible. So you're willing to concede that people being unable to make the choice to keep something about themselves private will make it harder for them to p
17.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
And what if it's a domestic company that is destroying those people's privacy and a foreign government that is using this to prosecute them? Should we avoid preventing further damage that the domestic company is doing? Or should w
18.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
> The difference that ownership would give is consent. Western liberal democracies are based on the idea that you can do what you want as long as all parties agree to it. No, there are things that two parties cannot legally agree to do e
19.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
Without some expectation of privacy it would have been impossible for people to gather together with others who had been similarly criminalized. Without those gatherings, organizing against anti-gay propaganda (equating it to pedophilia, cl
20.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
> Where do we draw the line? I can't claim to have a complete answer to that question, but it seems that every time that the line is drawn too far towards the direction of slavery (i.e. away from individual liberty) there is a subst
21.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
That sounds like it would be very useful, but doesn't really have a (monetary) "value" in the sense that most people use when talking about sharing the profits of the Data Economy. It'd be much more interesting to see th
22.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
> I never heard any convincing argument about why privacy has value. You have either _never_ had to keep a secret (which I highly doubt, unless you happen to be a literal child) or you simply aren't arguing in good faith. Assuming t
23.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
"If you don't use Facebook we will still collect[1] and sell all the data about you we can" "But I never agreed to that." "Too bad." Under what circumstances would you describe that as consensual? And that
24.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
I can't say I'm at all surprised. I've had similar conversations in a non-advertising field with non-technical managers where their attitude basically boiled down to "What do we care?" when it came to problems that
25.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
Saying "We can't really stop the Data Economy" is like saying that humanity can't do anything about climate change because we can't afford to upset the petrochemical industry. We can have a discussion about the cost
26.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
> The large online platforms don't need to track you - you give them your data willingly. Most people don't know the extent to which companies track them across the internet and their devices. It really would be better describe
27.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
> The large advertising brokers are handling petabytes of cookie tracking data per day. Citation needed. Also, you don't need a copy of every single byte that a tracking company collects; summaries are more than enough to be useful
28.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
How about intentional publishing of "anonymized" data? It's intentional, so it should be even less potentially harmful than an unintentional leak, right? Well, Yahoo's publishing of supposedly "anonymized" data
29.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
Simply assigning a price to an activity doesn't solve the ethical and moral issues that can arise from that activity. Having a price for something doesn't exactly help victims of human trafficking (whether the illegal organ trade,
30.
by fuckyouriotshit 5y ago
Manufacturers don't necessarily have to rotate the keys on older devices; they could rotate the keys on newer devices such that it's difficult to reliably tell what batch/generation a newer device is from, because it could be

More ›