gian

It is my memory at fault or it was discovered, various times, that Google (and all the others obviously) tracked people also when they opted out ?

What are they so afraid of?

The drug lord or mafia boss that sends killers to eliminate their families ?

The police yes, but he is speaking about a convicted criminal that want revenge when he get out of jail. Or even without getting out of jail, sending some of his accomplices to do the job.

Good that there’s an opt-out.

A supposed opt-out

If I understand correctly they are ruling you can by a book once, and redistribute the information to as many people you want without consequences. Aka 1 student should be able to buy a textbook and redistribute it to all other students for free. (Yet the rules only work for companies apparently, as the students would still be committing a crime)

Well, it would be interesting if this case would be used as precedence in a case invonving a single student that do the same thing. But you are right

True. And I will be happy if someone sue them and the judge say the same thing.

What a bad judge.

Why ? Basically he simply stated that you can use whatever material you want to train your model as long as you ask the permission to use it (and presumably pay for it) to the author (or copytight holder)

Unfortunately they can block services in the Internet, and this federation will consist of Internet services that can be blocked. There’s no need to go a level above that.

Technically it is possible to have a system that is not based on Internet but with bluetooth. The problem is that it would be effective only if widely used. And probably would have a many more problems.

You do. But you also plan in the case the surrounding infrastructure fails.

But more to the point, in some cases it is better to produce (parto of) your own electricity (where better means cheaper) than buy it on the market. It is not really common but is doable.

They aren’t owners, they are suing to be released from their lease contracts because they feel they suffered “direct and concrete” damage from the way Teslas are now associated with “Elon Musk’s actions”.

As long as they agree to return the car...

Obviously the law must be simple enough to follow so that for Jim’s furniture shop is not a problem nor a too high cost to respect it, but it must be clear that if you break it you can cease to exist as company.

I think this may be the root of our disagreement, I do not believe that there is any law making body today that is capable of an elegantly simple law.

I could be too naive, but I think it is possible.

We also definitely have a difference on opinion when it comes to the severity of the infraction, in my mind, while privacy is important, it should not have the same level of punishments associated with it when compared to something on the level of poisoning water ways; I think that a privacy law should hurt but be able to be learned from while in the poison case it should result in the bankruptcy of a company.

The severity is directly proportional to the number of people affected. If you violate the privacy of 200 million people is the same that you poison the water of 10 people. And while with the poisoning scenario it could be better to jail the responsible people (for a very, very long time) and let the company survive to clean the water, once your privacy is violated there is no way back, a company could not fix it.

The issue we find ourselves with today is that the aggregate of all privacy breaches makes it harmful to the people, but with a sizeable enough fine, I find it hard to believe that there would be major or lasting damage.

So how much money your privacy it's worth ? 6

For this reason I don’t think it is wise to write laws that will bankrupt a company off of one infraction which was not directly or indirectly harmful to the physical well being of the people: and I am using indirectly a little bit more strict than I would like to since as I said before, the aggregate of all the information is harmful.

The point is that the goal is not to bankrupt companies but to have them behave right. The penalty associated to every law IS the tool that make you respect the law. And it must be so high that you don't want to break the law.

I would have to look into the laws in question, but on a surface level I think that any company should be subjected to the same baseline privacy laws, so if there isn’t anything screwy within the law that apple, Google, and Facebook are ignoring, I think it should apply to them.

Trust me on this one, direct experience :-) payment processors have a lot more rules to follow to be able to work.

I do not want jail time for the CEO by default but he need to know that he will pay personally if the company break the law, it is the only way to make him run the company being sure that it follow the laws.

For some reason I don’t have my usual cynicism when it comes to this issue. I think that the magnitude of loses that vested interests have in these companies would make it so that companies would police themselves for fear of losing profits. That being said I wouldn’t be opposed to some form of personal accountability on corporate leadership, but I fear that they will just end up finding a way to create a scapegoat everytime.

It is not cynicism. I simply think that a huge fine to a single person (the CEO for example) is useless since it too easy to avoid and if it really huge realistically it would be never paid anyway so nothing usefull since the net worth of this kind of people is only on the paper. So if you slap a 100 billion file to Musk he will never pay because he has not the money to pay even if technically he is worth way more than that.

Jail time instead is something that even Musk can experience.

In general I like laws that are as objective as possible, I think that a privacy law should be written so that it is very objectively overbearing, but that has a smaller fine associated with it. This way the law is very clear on right and wrong, while also giving the businesses time and incentive to change their practices without having to sink large amount of expenses into lawyers to review every minute detail, which is the logical conclusion of the one infraction bankrupt system that you seem to be supporting.

Then you write a law that explicitally state what you can do and what is not allowed is forbidden by default.

I don’t see the problem: NASA was a state agency, SpaceX is private.

lives are literally at stake, grow the fuck up.

And incidentally SpaceX is the only US entity to have a ship certified for human flight. Where is the Dragon's equivalent of NASA ? Or any other company/state agency.

Elon Musk decided to wreck USAID. The death toll is ghoulish.

An agency created in the 1960's to fight URSS influence. Maybe it is time to let it go and start with something else, don't you think ?
Or maybe it is time that US start to think that without everyone else it is nothing and begin to be an reliable ally and not one that can change idea every 2 years.

This dickwad said “the fundamental weakness of western civilization is empathy”.

To be honest, empathy is something you should be aware of after a certain point.

But whatever...