If it is operating mechanically, then it is following a process chosen by the developers who wrote the code. They work for the company, so the consequences are still the company's responsibility.
The car is following a process chosen by Mercedes' engineers (to go forward when the user presses the accelerator.) The newsfeed is likewise following a mechanistic process driven by user input (they wouldn't be showing misinformation if users weren't uploading and sharing them.)
If the Mercedes infotainment screen had shown you a curated recommendation that you run them over, prior to you doing so, they very possibly would (and should).
I usually just find former employees on LinkedIn. I feel like most people are pretty honest once they're no longer part of the company (unless they're manager/execs or slightly adjacent, those types are in PR mode 25/8), and people tend to want to help others out if it's a truly shitty company they didn't enjoy.
Of course, take what they say, praise or otherwise, with a grain of salt. It's more about looking at the general theme between a few people, rather than what an individual or two says.
I wrote one sentence about how "there are ways for companies to go too far", which I think is pretty dang uncontroversial and trivially-true. However that user replied with what is clearly a disagreement, with corporate justifications and placing sole responsibility on employees to avoid the hardware.
This leads to two competing options:
(A) They simply can't imagine any scenario where a company might "go too far" and be at fault.
(B) Their stance is much milder, but for some reason they are replying to a straw-man argument that isn't what I actually wrote.
Of those two ambiguities, I went with (A), but if you think (B) is a more-charitable reading...
Or that the discussion was about information on and being transmitted through the devices and I was limiting my opinion on "there being nothing wrong with corporations tracking use of their hardware" to that scope, and not extending it to include spying on people in their homes using the device peripherals.
No, they shouldn't be flicking on your laptop camera or mic remotely, as these are pretty obviously violations of your privacy.
Seconded. No-Frost freezer compartments since the 80's i think and they are manufactured in Germany actually. Miele's fridges are also whitelabeled Liebherrs
If the only analogy you can think of removes the challenge of the problem your facing to be applicable, it's not an appropriate analogy.
The entire difference is that from my mobile phone I can send more traffic in an hour than most services will ever see legitimate traffic in their entire lifetime, and the cost to me is minimal.
The comparison is as invalid as comparing piracy to theft - piracy isn't theft, it's piracy, and understanding the difference between them is the key to dealing with the problem.
What does the number/second have to do with 'It’s hard to remain anonymous in the real world. The real world largely runs on identity and (identity) trust.'?
There are very few places in the real world which can handl 1,000 people per second.
In the real world I rarely need to identify myself. I can see a movie, visit the library, buy groceries, go to a restaurant, and more.
> What does the number/second have to do with 'It’s hard to remain anonymous in the real world. The real world largely runs on identity and (identity) trust.'?
Hobest question, are you being serious here? The sxale of fraud and automated traffic is disproportionately large, and has a significantly lower barrier to entry than other forms of abuse. That's the entire reason.
> There are very few places in the real world which can handl 1,000 people per second.
Exactly, and if someone started sending thousands of people per second there, they would make it significantly more difficult to do so.
I honestly don't understand how your point is relevant.
Most of the real world does not require identity, so how does "The real world doesn’t allow that" make any sense?
Yes, some parts of the real world require you to identify yourself, and the same for some places on the internet.
Is that really the point? That if you have to use your real identify to log into your bank's web site that you don't have "unconstrained anonymity"?
Because I don't think even the cryptopunks of the 1990s required that sort of anonymity.
> and if someone started sending thousands of people per second
So, 100/second is okay but 1,000/second not okay?
I ask because it looks like 100 people per second enter Manhattan during the peak morning commute time, and I don't see massive calls to make it harder for commuters to enter the borough. (Go to http://manpopex.us/ , go to statistics, "Estimated Pop. for Wednesday, 9 AM: 2,888,116", for "10 AM: 3,284,591" gives 110 people per second.)
And these people aren't all required to identify themselves.
Question for you: does the internet currently have more anonymity than the real world?
Question #2: how much fraud is done on the internet vs. fraud in the real world, measured by dollars?
And when you do show ID, to buy booze for example, it’s checked and immediate forgotten by a human. Computers don’t forget, and any attempts to make companies do so (GDPR) are met with massive pushback from the players in the industry
I have no problem with Joan over the road curtain twitching. It doesn’t scale. I have a massive problem with the 24/7 surveillance from ring though.
In the us, I noticed that grocery stores increasingly scan your drivers license (my state has bar codes). I think it's probably a way to keep clerks from passing someone through who is not quite 21 (a different captcha!).
I have wondered if they keep the scan or does the state? I asked and the random hourly worker there said they don't.
And that’s the problem. It’s not the ID checks, it’s the ability to scale. Check it at the door? Fine. Scan it and keep it forever (perhaps selling it on at a later date)? Not fine.
Personal Data has to be treated as a liability, but too much of the economy treats it as an asset.
Eh, what's worse is these stores are likely scanning your face and keeping it in a database. There was some mall a few years back scanning license plates and keeping the info.
But yea, so many people are nieve of what the authoritarian types would do with data like that (looking at you Texas with your civil laws on abortion now).
