I don't look forward to corporations "automating" (unleashing) their "defenses" (hackbots) with AI, and ending up bricking random people's and businesses' phones and devices because they start hallucinating attacks.
Not sure if I agree that the only solution is to give up now; we need sensible people that know how the technology works in power and that are not beholden to serve big corporations, but rather the average person. We need less populist and long-drawn campaigns. We need less politicizing. And we need all of that yesterday.
It is the fault of the coders, the salespeople who over-promised the capabilities of the system, the lawmakers who have not regulated or demanded a minimum percentage of accuracy from those products, the AI' company's onboarding trainers, the cops that were trained to use the software, the jailers, and maybe other related positions that should've taken a better interest in making a better system, not a more cruel one
Which means that, if the cops (and other relevant personnel) gets it wrong, they should get served with the same injustices that they committed, no questions asked... you know, because they didn't raise any when they were the ones dishing out punishments.
> What if no one would want to work as a policemen
This is by far the worst argument. What if we held doctors accountable for malpractice and no one wanted to be a doctor? What if we held engineers liable for faulty designs that break and kill people and no one wanted to be an engineer? What if we held OCCUPATION accountable for DOING JOB BADLY / BREAKING THE LAW? Its a nonsense argument.
What would happen is that only the people that intended to be bad police would not want to the job and/or the people that were bad police (intentional or otherwise) get kicked out of the police force. Same as with every other profession. This is a fantastic outcome and we should do it immediately.
> The ~foo as backup convention is not part of any standard.
> [...]
> It's the second thing I fix in either Vim or Emacs: Put backup files in a central location. (The first is proper indentation/spacing rules.)
Perhaps not a standard, but you yourself admit it's the default behavior.
Though I agree that the simple mechanism acts ... er,... simply, shouldn't it be at the very least aware of the default behavior of common editors?
They will be able to do banking at least once the legislators tear down the walled gardens in a sensible way. Are the security benefits from the Appstore/Playstore real or security theatre?
I'm pretty sure that, if there are security benefits, they have been artificially tied to the use of the company's distribution method, that coincidentally really needs to be sending usage statistics, monitoring, etc. Surely there exist no conflicts of interest to be found.
fifteen years ago I use to do mobile pentests for banks and when we could not find anything significant for the reports we could’ve always count on “lack of rooting detection” and pin the risk on some vague mobile banking malware threat pushed by marketing. I am sorry I contributed to this nonsense.
It's understandable; I would maybe expect to undergo an extra step in verification for a sensitive app like, "we noticed this is the first time you are using this system that is not locked down; please type in the token we have mailed you".
But locking users out (which may not directly be the bank's fault for relying on OS's security APIs) seems anti-competitive.
Ha! Well, not right now! Previous to the last year or so, this wouldn't have escalated to the current situation where we're actively having to be wary of fending off Big Brother or blatant power grabs.
However, given that we're talking about a European phone, I'm willing to bet that this type of effort goes hand in hand with decoupling from American-backed services (at least for those who've seen the writing on the wall and understand the risk to their sovereignty if they put all their eggs on an American basket).
It's all just games, they just want to win. Dollars are the overall points, but they're even willing to sacrifice some of those to win bigger cases more brutally.
Honest question, wouldn't the Ad Topics proposal by Google have shifted away from all this data being leaked during bids? IIRC, advertisers would've received something like 4 words to specify your interests. Maybe I'm misremembering.
reply