Re: Victim Blaming?
Lets not be too silly here. If Medibank pays then the members pay too. They don't have a magic money tree reserved for paying these criminals.
107 publicly visible posts • joined 3 Sep 2015
The gloves should be off. I don't know how this is done but:
1. Many who designed, created and managed this system, screwed up. That needs fixing, obviously at the board level too.
2. Many who purportedly govern, police, and legislate are a bunch of clowns. They need clearing from the board when adequate replacements are found.
3. If this were done in collaboration with a state, that state needs to be dismantled, whatever the cost.
4. The niceties of borders protecting those who do this needs reconsideration.
5. Individuals, who're worthy, need to get educated and get the power to over-ride the idiocy and evil of the above.
Maybe fat chance of a perfect solution, but we should try.
Probably: Moscow (chekists) delenda est.
The ecosystem is fundamentally broken. Until that changes we're not going to get decent privacy™.
1. The smart phone companies are inherently opposed to personal privacy, their commercial models can't stand it. Some computer companies too, sadly.
2. Unless we have parallel systems to the "app stores" we won't get privacy.
3. Much of the browser stock is made by people opposed to personal privacy, they won't give it to us. We need decent options.
4. Website and app creation has degenerated into an anti-privacy nightmare, the "developers" have become part of the problem. We need to re-educate and clean the stables.
5. Government has proven quite ignorant, incompetent and counter-productive in fixing it. Until individuals get to choose and opt-in, government and legislation is part of the problem and no real solution.
Against that people still need to advertise their products and services, find out about things... Human ingenuity can satisfy that together with what actual humans want.
Despite the buffoons who talk of "killing email" and "the EU telling humanity to do some other silly thing" there is real promise here. Progress way too slow though.
This looks interesting as does the "Bluesky" project (don't know the current status though).
I hope we can break free of the current stupidity in communication.
Surely all that has to happen is that users get to opt-in to these technologies.
Off by default, you actively decide.
That includes the guinea pigs at present.
You can check whether you've been press-ganged into it. The EFF has something on their site called "Am I FLoCed? A New Site to Test Google's Invasive Experiment".
You could also come up with inventive ways to make your FLoC cohort a thing of great fun and irrelevance.
Well here we have a list of knuckle draggers. Remember them.
Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
Chair: Mr Andrew Wallace MP, Liberal National Party of Queensland, Fisher ACT
Deputy Chair: Ms Sharon Claydon MP, Australian Labor Party, Newcastle ACT
Dr Mike Freelander MP, Australian Labor Party, Macarthur ACT
Mr Andrew Laming MP, Liberal National Party of Queensland, Bowman ACT
Ms Peta Murphy MP, Australian Labor Party, Dunkley ACT
Mr Rowan Ramsey MP, Liberal Party of Australia, Grey ACT
Mr Julian Simmonds MP, Liberal National Party of Queensland, Ryan ACT
Dr Anne Webster MP, The Nationals, Mallee ACT
Mrs Bridget Archer MP
Dr Fiona Martin MP
Ms Kate Thwaites MP
Mr Tim Watts MP
Have I got this right:
* This company by their policies have triggered people to off themselves.
* Now they want to profit from uploaders while not paying those who did the actual work.
One guess, they expect to go out of business soon.
* Time to create alternatives
* Don't post their links
* Don't upload video to them
* Play their content through other services without many of the ads.
Hey we have all these folk getting upset by the languages they speak. (I guess that if you took a dictionary you could concoct a way of being offended by most of the words in there. If you really tried all of them?)
Why don't we help these people a bit. When they feel offended speak up, tell us, maybe tattoo something on their own foreheads. We can then give them options.
* Go to a place that cares
* Be deprived of sight
* Be deprived of hearing
* Be deprived of speach
* Various combinations of the above
Make sure the laws are such that others can do the honours should they not be able.
When I read those disclaimers like:
the NHS, which takes data privacy extremely seriously and has put appropriate safeguards in place to ensure information is used correctly.
I hear something like
the NHS, which has no clue about data privacy at all, and would sell information about their grandmother if it paid enough, has put in place measures to ensure that data leaks widely, where we can't trace what's lost, and through leaks that we'll never fix (and don't know how to)
When I think of the exploration of the cosmos I see soo much that is astonishingly good and getting better.
Spirit, Opportunity, Juno, Hyabasu2, Cassini, Huygens, Super Kamiokande, Messenger, Hubble and on and on.
They're robotic extensions of remarkable teams who guide them from earth and by their autonomous programming.
A lot of science being done and, I believe, at a really good price. A price that cannot be matched by sending organic entities with all the costs and limits of keeping their wetware going. The time will come for sending out carbon based lifeforms. I feel it's not now. In the process of doing that we currently prevent too many other things from happening.
Which brings us back to the Moon missions. Yep fantastic and all that, but a deliberate dead end. The pink slips were going out, I believe, when the guys were still on the moon. The populist silliness staggers the imagination.
You say that it's bad for women of colour.
On the contrary it's good for them 'cause it messes up more often for them. Particularly good if you're a criminal woman of colour in fact.
If it goes to court your lawyer just says: "They used the Axon Disaster to identify my client m'lud. Nuff said. We're launching a counter suit for knowing harassment of the generally innocent and being dick heads."
I take this as proof that those who legislate should not try to control the situation. They, and those associated with them, tend not to have much clue, they only make things worse. For those, who are concerned enough to act, I see their their jobs as letting us do our own filtering, to eliminate the unwanted surveillance.
Me I want to tell sites (in the request) what surveillance I will or won't accept so they can just do it without annoying me. In the process I want to know what surveillance they would otherwise try, that way I'm able to switch them off, in my DNS, even if they do the right thing when asked.
It's not hard, it's not rocket science, it's all doable. DNT failed because there are too many scum, if something like that were legislated it would do a better job.
Would help avoid things like:
1. Those dumb cookie warning idiocies.
2. GDPR legislation that has made surveillance arguably worse by strengthening the hands of Google and Facebook.
3. Things like all these clueless government web sites would be more of a non-issue, if you could skewer the surveillance.
4. If you look at the medical government web sites, they may be auctioning off selected searches, different in each country. This would stop that, for those who took the time AND show visitors which ones are corrupt.
An interesting thing is the mindset of the people within Logitech who made this happen and dug their heels in.
Think about it: They wanted to increase the level of "mindless uncomprehending consumerism" on the planet. Now if the decision makers are actually quite unaware of taking charge of your own life, that might explain their approach. If that is so, they should, maybe, be removed.
I'm regularly surprised that anybody thinks an algorithm censoring our content is a good idea!
A company executive, an elected "representative"...
Our technologies give us the chance to filter our own content, if we want. Not some involuntary and often wrong headed enity out there, trying to skew our world view.
The sneaky little sh**s, they rebooted a large part of humanity. Now they respond zombie like to adverts on Facebook.
Beat the rush put an advert on Facebook.
"Put all your money into <Fill-In-Bank-Account>."
Get in quick before all those accounts run dry. Whatever you do don't go on Facebook yourself, you'll end up poor.
Well. When I see what some of the most AI wonderful little bitties of the Interwebs have done to the humans methinks we face a different problem.
The first stage of the AI campaign, and their handlers, is to turn humans into robotic idiots. Mostly achieved.
Then it's pretty much game over, even if the AI thingies stay pretty dumb, they've won. Hmmm, I look around and, wow...
What happens in this endgame of times?
I'm guessing a few people around here know how to apply GPG/PGP encryption, or whatever, to a text email.
There's no need to rely on a third party.
Why not swap public keys a bit more and increase use of encrypted email?
Show your friends...
You don't need help to encrypt a bit of text.
The stand out for me is all the guessing. No decent folk working on this problem who feel some responsibility to humanity and tell us the truth.
That in itself is a serious issue.
Does anybody here have insight into the people who are reputed to be doing the work? (Or has smart person designed a nice family of DNN's and there's no humans involved at all?)
When the leaders of Muppet Force say something like this, you know that your civilisation can't survive very long.
"You can't handle the truth!
Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. ... I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. ... You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. ... You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. ... I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way... Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."
Whether intentional or not, this harms some of those who want to take charge of their web.
It would be useful if we had reasonably priced (not free) services like this AND enough users thought they were better than "free" services, to make them viable.
(If you disagree with the fundamentals of a business, advertising, surveillance of all humans... they aren't your friend.)