Re: Victim shaming
Sorry RM Myers
I was replying to you I just read your opening statement as congratulating Jim in victim shaming (as a virtue :) ) sorry if I misread.
75 posts • joined 8 Dec 2011
"Crimes can be tried either in the country where the perpetrator resides or the country where the crime took place (for digital crimes, this means the country of the victim).”
That maybe the case but I believe you should be tried in the country where the act was committed. Why because laws differ from country to county what maybe minor in one could be much more serious in another. I know that ignorance of the law is no excuse but ignorance of the law of other countries should be. In this case Mason Sheppard’s acts were committed in the UK so he should be tried in the UK.
Country of the victim and who is the victim? Twitter a multinational who are register in multiple counties or the owners of the twitter accounts who are residents and nationals of many different counties. If it was hacked by social-engineering staff, are the staff not victims? So where were the staff could they have been out sourced to another country?
When it comes down to it you should be tried in the country where the act was committed.
Jim Mitchell is not really victim shaming, just pointing out what could happen if tried in the UK. To be honest the “just kids never thought it would work” would probably work because in the UK the 17 year old would be tried as a minor not an adult.
However, Mason Sheppard would be treated a little harsher as he is 19. Still no way as heavy handed as he would in a US court.
Then again why should Mason Sheppard be tried in the US, British citizen in UK when it happened, surely subject to UK law. The UK has laws to cover what happened so he should be tried in the UK. If the situations were reversed would the US extradite? No fucking way.
"You can keep that if you need to. The point under dispute is whether you keep a public record of an arrest. You can keep the interviews and evidence in private without allowing the names of the people who were released without charges to be inextricably linked to something that is now viewed as not criminal."
That's what I meant with this
"Also the arrest should not be stored in a way that makes it searchable on police computers or any other system."
Just did not say it very well :(
I had the same initial reaction as you everything should be erased. But I am not so sure now. Just because someone has been arrested and then released without charge if the case is still open do you delete everything e.g. the interview. Do you delete everything when the case is closed and say someone else is convicted. Surely you still have to keep the info just in case there has been a miscarriage of justice.
Personal information like photo/mugshot finger prints dna should be deleted.
Also the arrest should not be stored in a way that makes it searchable on police computers or any other system.
Of course there is bugger all you can do if it is reported in the press.
"the traffic it sends to publishers is sufficiently valuable"
Is it really sending traffic?
We use search to find a site or sites most relevant to what we need. We search and google ranks them in relation to our search criteria. Then normally we go to the ones at the top. So the sites lower down the ranking do not get visited. A different search and the ranking can change
So it is also turning traffic away from sites.
The way I see it is google is not sending you to a site it is because the content on the site is most relevant (so google says) to what you are looking for that sends you there. Google just provides the info for you to make a decision on what site/sites fits your need.
I disagree with how you said it. The way you said it seems like you are saying there is a gay gender or a lesbian gender etc or your sexuality defines your gender. If you meant people have a gender no matter what their sexuality then say that. Or just everyone has a gender.
If I misread what you were saying I apologise.
To be honest what does it matter gender is so arbitrary people are people why should gender matter.
It must break EU (not sure about others) privacy laws because they are indexing and storing the data.
But this statement “Clearview AI is a search engine that uses only publicly available images accessible on the internet. It is absurd that the ACLU wants to censor which search engines people can use to access public information on the internet." got me thinking.
Say it was possible to search the internet and perform the image recognition of publicly available images and do it in a reasonable time. Then every image that matched they just return the page url. Would that break privacy laws? I don’t think it would, it is all publicly available and data is not stored. I find that a very frightening thought.
Well not 20 years but 15 for sure.
In fact I am compiling at this very moment.
One of the products I work on (windows desktop) has been going since just before .Net 2 and we continue to develop it adding new features. It is build nightly.
But though all the changes of .Net we have not had to go back and rewrite the earlier code. Of course new code is written to take advantage of the current level of .Net.
I not disagreeing with you , it is not hypocritical for developers not wanting what they develop being used in an unethical way. (have an up vote)
I am saying it is not wrong to develop for the military but there will always be the problem that it can be and sometimes has been used against the very people it was meant to protect.
What I do find hypocritical is when a company spins out a statement about not developing for military only to still do so.
Also it is wrong to develop for military/goverment something you know the purpose for it is to be used against the people.
“Defence against foreign aggressors = ok”
The problem is that anything that the military has can always be used against its own population or section of its population from clubs and guns to planes and drones. There are plenty of examples of this in the past 100 years even from my country UK.
I really do not have a problem with major companies producing/developing for the military. I do have a problem when they are hypocrites about it, by saying they won’t but still do. The only exception to this is when what they are developing’s obvious purpose is to be used against their own population, I always have a problem with that.
Also, it is almost impossible not to have somethings a large company develops being used by the military they will find a way to militarise it.
The military are very good and seeing military use for things. I remember 30 odd years ago my degree dissertation was on using neural networks to classify crops from satellite images. I was working in the mapping lab running a network to produce a map. The University had an open day for business (funding for the University) and were showing people around the lab telling them what each of the students was working on. The only one of these people interested in what I was doing was from the Army (the uniform gave it away). He was asking question like accuracy and could it be used to identify other things rather than crops. Like what I asked to which he replied tanks. He actually gave quite a few things all that would be military targets but its tanks I remember it was first one he mentioned.
This system is a defense lawyers dream. I can see it now in defense cross-examination of a police witness.
Defense "So was the Facial Recognition used to identify my Client?"
Police Witness "Yes"
Defense "That's the system that 96% of the time identifies the wrong person?"
Defense "No need to answer that it is a public record that 96% of the time it is wrong."
Defense "So there is a 96% chance my client is not the perpetrator of the crime?"
Way to introduce doubt in the minds of the jury.
So facial recognition does work, just not the way they expected. With 96% failure rate it is great at identifying people who should not be arrested. (Joke).
So what next tarot cards? I am sure they can beat 96% accuracy. Perhaps we can turn police investigation into a role playing game and just role dice.
Seriously at 96% the use of facial recognition must be a hindrance to the police.
How could he keep a straight face when he said this "The [facial-recognition tech] is no more intrusive than the use of CCTV on the streets."
If the tech actually worked, then the very nature of what it is meant to do makes it more intrusive. You have CCTV that can track everyone whose face it captures. How can that be anything but more intrusive?
If (when) this gets fully deployed it will be so open to abuse. I can see it now some plod has a grudge against someone, partner playing away from home, feed their image into the system to track where they have been.
How the hell can they blame their users for choosing to make their phone numbers public.
They are the ones to make it public by putting the unencrypted phone numbers on the web. But hey to make it easier they even make them visible to search engines.
They add a new feature for people to use and then blame their users for using that feature.
They are the ones to blame for designing (I use the term lightly) and then coding a piece of software without once ever thinking about security from beginning to end.
To make it worse they do not even see it as a bug and refuse to pay a bug bounty. I can see why. Athul Jayaram did not find a bug in the feature, because the whole bloody feature is just one giant bug.
I do not understand why Uber and Lyft are being sued by the State Attorney General?
A new law has come onto the books in California Uber and Lyft are breaking that law.
So why are they not taken to court for breaking that law and if found guilty punished (presumably fined) under said law.
Why the hell are they being sued?
On a second point this line from the article “The law came into force in January this year”, though Uber and Lyft have resisted the change” really does show how these so-called disruptive companies operate.
Their business model is to be cheaper than incumbent businesses by not saying the rules do not apply to us.
That probably would not work.
In my youth I was a skilled welder.
A multi national car company (funnily French) I worked for decided to lay a lot of people off at my plant.
They used the last in first out policy capped at 2 years so no redundancy would have to be paid from them as the company redundancy which was in the contract only came into force after 2 years of employment.
Problem was they wanted to put me on the production line, because they had one more welders then bays or equipment.
At 24 I was a mouthy git and was having none of that. So on the Monday morning I went to the welding area sat down and said I would not go on the line i wanted redundancy as my job no longer existed.
I repeated this for three days people came and told me that I would be sacked if I did not go on the line. Forman, HR, Plant manager even the works convener (union was in the pocket of management don't rock the don't nice little lower management job you for you after a few years).
Morning of the fourth day I was marched up to HR they were all there my foreman, Plant Manager works convener and HR manager (the ex convener) and given an ultimatum. If I did not report to work on the line I would be fired. They said they were within their rights to move someone to a lower skilled job it was in my contract of employment.
I pointed out that moving someone to a lesser skilled job was intended to be a temporary thing used when less production was needed not meant to be permanent.
But I agreed they could move me to the line. But pointed out that they could not change what I was employed as, my skill level and what I got paid. I said I would report to the line and take great pleasure in telling everyone I worked with how much more I was getting paid than them.
The works convener was the first to break ranks and within the hour I was out the factory gates with my redundancy check plus 8 weeks notice.
I thought that was how sales work.
Sell software to a customer with features that do not exist.
Then come back to engineering telling them that these features have to be done by a certain date or the company will lose a major sale. That certain date is the delivery date which was yesterday.
Hence the saying I need that yesterday :)
I never see any of those warning.
I downloaded Inkscape not from the store so not signed through the new edge with out a warning the one and only warning was the unknow publisher.
Which is the same warning I have been getting the last couple of days with my companies software installers before I changed them to be signed.
Is my windows 10 broken ;)
I know it was a joke but I really like the video calls as we are in lockdown its the closest you can get to really taking to someone.
I hate email's chat even the phone I can't really engage converse with people unless I can see them in person I really need to see their body language. But video not a bad substitute for face to face conversation in the real world.
From the article “The most loved category in the survey of 65,000 developers reflects the percentage of coders using the technology in some capacity who want to continue doing so.”
I wonder is that truly representative of language use or even love.
The reason for using the site is to get answers on how to do something. By their nature newer languages or languages that have started to become popular will have more questions therefore causing the site to have more active users of those languages.
Whereas users of older more established languages will have less need for the site due to the depth of knowledge of the programmer and those around them and the size of their code base to look for an example of how to do something.
Surely this is illegal even before GDPR.
This should not even be a thing that you can opt into.
This is recording conversations therefore other people how can you opt in for them.
If the police what to place a recording device in your home or wire tap your phone in most countries they need a warrant.
But hey Apple can do it if a someone I invite into my home has an IPhone.
Storing of voice data should stop. Any company that wants to do this should first have to prove that what they do does not violate any rights/laws I think you will find that on closer examination they would all violate rights/laws of most countries.
When I am on the phone to a company’s support desk they make an announcement that the conversation maybe recorded for training purposes maybe IPhone uses should have that statement printed on their forehead.
This is an Israeli company subject to the laws of Israel not USA/California.
What governments do with their software surely makes that government responsible if they beak international laws not the manufacture.
If so then lots of arms and aero space companies should be held accountable for illegal use of their wares.
Hey I am all in favour of that but not going to happen.
If they have sold to unfriendly governments deemed so by their government (Israel) then they should be held accountable by they laws of their country Israel not the US of A.
It is not a slippery slope. Facebook google etc should be treated in the same way as printed material is.
A newspaper or magazine is responsible for what appears in their print even when they have a letters page they can't just wash their hands of what appears there even when they are letters from readers.
Of course in print it is easier to moderate what comes in from readers. But just because it is possibly more difficult to do in the digital world does not mean companies should be allowed to have a business model which avoids moderation just because it is difficult.
I agree the first thing I thought was that it would eliminate cheating in games where the game processing is done on the player's machine.
Streaming just the GPU instructions seems like halfway between full streaming of the video and just sending down game instructions to be processed locally. It would be interesting to know now how much more data has to be sent than just game instructions, and how much less has to be sent than streaming video for some of the more popular MMOs.
Bronek that law was created 2016 what was the law the time of the offence 2010.
Personally I think this extradition is a farce. He committed the act in the UK if it is an offence in the UK he should be tried in the UK if not a UK offence then that should be the end of it.
Real shame its a nice piece of kit works well straight out the box.
Has all the features on it I need (basically fitness).
Works well with my Win phone and PC.
One (Novelty) feature I really like is that you can map your runs and then display them on you phone. On the pc you can zoom and see an aerial view of the run.
Maybe you just missed it Quote:-
"Despite all these protections, the data thieves managed to get around them all by setting up systems that could start multiple bogus accounts – bypassing the CAPTCHA mechanism designed to stop this."
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020