Posts by Johnb89 169 publicly visible posts • joined 14 Jan 2022
Indeed. If 'your'* software is in charge of the car, then 'you' are liable for what it does as if 'you' were driving.
*you being whoever signs off the release of it, more or less.
PS, the 'first do no harm' thing is too strong for autonomous vehicles, IMHO. That would lead to having no vehicles at all, including delivering food to shops, ambulances and whatnot.
If only that were the case. Several manufacturers (can't be bothered to look it up) have said aloud that in their view the 'driver' is still legally liable for what the car does in autonomous mode.
Which makes perfect sense, if you think about it. In stupid land.
I usually conclude that whoever wrote a Reach article failed all their GCSEs, and did so without even starting their English one. So an AI might actually be an improvement to grammar and hints of being coherent.
Let alone the lack of actual content, the clickbait headlines and the million ads.
In the UK we have the ICO, whose job it specifically is to do exactly that. If only they would/did. They don't. Around Europe many ICOs have done small things, but not the big things. Mr Schrems gets much credit.
But the problem is voters aren't going to like not having access to Facebook, Instagram, Google and the like.
So we get what we 'want', collectively, whether we few here agree or not.
Recently the UK supreme court ruled very similarly. Though at least the court here ruled that what the spies are doing is wrong while ruling that they could continue to do it. Yup.
Politicians will get voted out if they "let" baddies do bad things, and for that we get much deeper spying. I'd much prefer if the trade off was open and clear, but that is either too hard to explain to the electorate and media, or just too complicated, or something.
Look, if there really is a need for them to have access to whatever data then Parliament should legistlate so, publicly and properly. This bollocks about 'yeah we broke the law but we really had to' is bollocks.
If and when I get a speeding ticket or otherwise am found to be breaking the law can I do the same? I think I shall give it a go.
"But Occifer, I was speeding to stop Chinese/Russian/North Korean (delete as required) baddies from baddying, and HM Government has decided that's ok, so ta."
AFAIK the forced arbitration thing is strictly an American thing... can anyone tell us if they've seen it elsewhere? I've been many enough Euro, UK and other contracts and not seen it. Which is nice, because then I'd have had to have had the whole "You don't seriously think that's enforceable?" conversation with someone.
Like many other little inventions over the many years this is best thought of as a toy*. Its fun (to some), it produces silly outputs, it mimics things in a funny or interesting way.
When Siri/Alexa/Bixby/OK Google first came out how much fun did we have asking questions and getting the silliest answers, before giving up because it was more or less useless? Neat toys, put on the shelf. Photo apps that show you what you look like when old, the latest game, whatever, fun for a short time.
Anyone that thinks its intelligent, correct or otherwise is wilfully misled.
*It might even be useful in some contexts
Of course the Taliban are 'bad' and references to hanging and whatnot are true. But for the Americans to be all holier-than-thou when they still do the death penalty is a mite hypocritical.
Along the lines of 'we are not arguing about what you are, now we are haggling on price'.
--> Analysis of the TimeCamp data showed she had made a timesheet entry for a file she had not worked on,
This line in the article makes it simple to me. You don't need AI to detect this, and it is black and white (presuming its verifiably true). She got caught because she was dumb.
Also, accountants historically bill by the hour... efficience doesn't enter into it directly. They aren't paid to have ideas per se, or to do work, they are paid by the hour.
This is an example of being able to decide something sensible and just do it, which could be considered an advantage over regulators that have to discuss and review and get 'lobbied' and what-have-you.
Also, penalties that amount to a fine of 1 minute's revenue are ineffective when compared to a spot of re-education.
The BBC gets most of its money with the backing of the police, an advantage many businesses would love to have. Do they take that money and do their job of being a public service broadcaster? Only partly. For example: A true public service broadcaster would tell me how to watch the footie no matter what channel its on... the BBC does not do that, they only talk about BBC channels/radio/app/website. The BBC's attitude is to compete, and they have the field tilted in their favour.
Then they spend money on silly things... Search? Changing the logo of their apps every 6 months instead of making them work well? Pushing DAB on us even though it hardly works?
That's ignoring that the licence fee has to be the least efficient way of collecting a tax imaginable.
At first glance at least, this sounds like the UK online harms bill currently in parliament. Perhaps lessons could be shared, approaches could be compared, ideas exchanged?
Better yet, let someone else (ie California) give this a go, gov.uk, and see how they get on... save us on this side of the pond a lot of faffing about.
Back at Shrems1 a key failure was that, while there was an arbitration panel, there was no way for an EU citizen to KNOW that their data had been accessed, in order to take it to arbitration. That is, if one found that one's data had been accessed improperly one could take it to arbitration, but no entity was obliged to tell an EU citizen that anything had been accessed.
Does anyone know if that flaw/loophole has been fixed here? It would be a small step, though only a small step.
I used to think that, but then realised that as most roads in London tourist areas are one way no one knows what direction the traffic is coming from. So they are as much for the locals as the tourists.
What is funny is the amount of absolutely no notice whatsoever that pedestrians in London pay to crossings. "Like I'm going to wait 60s for this crossing to stop the stopped traffic for me to cross this single lane road?"
Exactly that... it isn't Microsoft's 'fault', its that they are a US company, subject to US law. No matter what they do under current US law they breach GDPR. So does every other US-registered company. US-based companies? Companies that operate at all in the US? Don't know.
There might be one or two other US companies having the same flaw in their ability to do GDPR compatible business. Well done Mr. Schrems!
Not that we should feel sorry for M$, but their weasel words give it away... they can't squeal against US law lest they lose their big contracts there.
I've said it before: express to anyone you know that works at Facebook (or google) that you have a legitimate interest in what they do in their bedroom, so will be putting a camera there.
Particularly if they are a VP or higher, or Director etc. If they think its ok to watch us, then its ok for us to watch them. Shall we organise to follow them home? Sit awkwardly close to them at the pub and listen?
Why do they think that's not ok?
Ok, so the agreement here is that WE don't like Alexa etc. But if Amazon doesn't like it does that mean that data harvesting isn't as lucrative as they had hoped? Listening to our ramblings in the house doesn't yield monetisable insights?
Or is their processing of all that as unreliable as searching on Amazon for a thing, as others have noted, where searching for a thing presents me with such a collection of rubbish, mishits and price variety that I can't be bothered to try to make sense of it all?
Also... you forgot Bixby! That assistant with the unmissable un-unprogrammable button on at least a few generations of Samsung phones!
The fine distinctions and things-not-said and incredibly long agreements and backwards wording in all of these things, as put in by too many lawyers whose job it is to trick users and ofuscate information are just not ok.
As Iglethal said, a reasonable user would interpret 'do not let apps track' to include Apple, and only a weasel would even suggest otherwise.
One is reminded of Google getting done for tracking location after people had set 'do not track location'... 'yeah but they didn't set it that way in the 2nd hidden place...'
Not wanting to defend the use of AI in anything, but I think you've misunderstood....
These will let you go the speed of skating with the effort of walking, is the idea. So you can 'walk' fast and not get sweaty.
The interesting matter of stopping, which is nigh on impossible on rollerblades without ruining them quickly, intrigues me... how do they know when I want to stop? I'm assuming they've figured that out.
This may be the least of Elon's problems, but 2 tons of uncontrolled car because they couldn't be arsed to test the software properly, let alone develop it properly, is A Big Problem. Perhaps there shouldn't BE software in the steering system until we find a way to make software work reliably? Or brakes, or indeed any part of a car that makes it go or stop. Or perhaps at least not software that an amateur can push out at will because its too easy to update to fix.
Literally move fast and break things. Things including other people, cyclists, houses, cars, ships, poles, reg readers, what have you.
Having inflicted low-level misery on millions* for so long, you have to applaud Mr. Bill for trying to do some good with his ill-gotten gains. Well done Sir!
*Windows etc being as useless as it was/is causing annoyance and suffering, which is low-level compared to say not having food or clean water.
Apple solved the aeroplane mode issue... putting an iphone in airplane mode doesn't necessarily turn the bluetooth off. Notably, if you turned bluetooth on last time you were in airplane mode, then next time you activate airplane mode the bluetooth stays on. Not sure how that's even legal, let alone not stupid.
Sure, MS has had problems with quality and whatnot in the past. But THIS time it'll all be fine. Of course it will.
I recently removed 365 and wasn't even thinking they could do something this stupid.
Apps I've recently ditched because they won't not auto update: Brave browser, Zoom.
I think its the 80/20 rule. Googlers, and google, love to play with shiny things, love to announce pretty things, and love when colleagues and others say 'oh neat!'. 20% of the effort gets you 80% of the pretty shiny thing, but then it gets boring finishing it off... because effort. Without incentives - google prints money with the ad engine, so nothing else needs to generate cash - to finish things to a point where its a business, people get bored, can't be arsed, move on to other things, and things get abandoned. Simples.
Yes, I'm jealous, because that sounds really fun.
It never ceases to amaze me that software devs can hold two conflicting ideas: "Well duh, ALL software has bugs, obvs." and "MY code is PERFECT, how DARE you suggest otherwise".
The latter leads them to instantly conclude that problems are caused by the user or whatever else. Support agents are told to stay with that line upon pain of never getting an answer again, so that's what we users get.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
