Sometimes I will say things I don't actually believe so we can have a more lively debate. Also, I will upvote stuff I don't necessarily agree or like to increase visibility and diversity of positions on that matter.
Sure, the definition changes but whoever are the bad actors now create the desire to deal with them, which creates a motive or excuse to create or change systems for that. No matter how fair or unfair the treatment is, if you actually manage to stonewall that through technological or other means, those will be destroyed.
>It's a metaphor for a process. Calling people names like "maxxers" is unhelpful and probably against the rules here.
Yeah we don't mean frogs, that's obvious. Calling people maxxers being offensive is surprising. Maybe you should consider offended for being called cancer instead?
I’m no military expert by any means but US appears to be obsessed with destroying some super important target to win, like they did with killing Iran leaders only to find out that new leader replace the perished.
The same with the other stuff, they have super important radar and super important ships that need to be defended and a failure creates irreplaceable loses.
Iran on the other hand, just like with their super important leaders lost all its “super weapons” like destroyers and the drone ships and yet again brought USA to its knees.
Maybe USA has more fundamental problems, not just drones. Maybe the problem is the obsession of wonderweapons for destroying wondertargets.
It is fascinating that there are so many movies revolving around the US president, as if he has some ability that no one has and you can’t simply elect a new one if the enemy gets him.
Maybe the desire for concentration of power and seeing everything through that lens is the issue?
Then I'm not very moved about this. I always assumed that anything unencrypted is scanned one way or another. What I care is not having a backdoor for E2E, i.e. like client-side scanning telling me what I am allowed to talk about like with the LLMs. CSAM excuse is a great excuse to turn every conversation to what we have with AI today.
What changes with the return of Chat Control 1.0—and what stays the same:
*What is coming back:*
US tech companies are once again allowed to scan private messages without a warrant or prior suspicion. This affects direct messages on platforms like Instagram, Discord, Snapchat, Skype, and Xbox, as well as emails via Google’s Gmail and Apple’s iCloud.
*What remains unchanged:*
Public social media posts and files hosted in cloud storage could already be scanned without this law. Furthermore, private messages can always be reported by users, or monitored by authorities using targeted, court-ordered wiretapping.
*What is still NOT being scanned:*
End-to-end encrypted chats, such as those on WhatsApp, have always been exempt from these scans. Additionally, European providers of messaging and email services have never implemented chat control measures.
In other words, you believe that because they mandate driver attention monitoring the manufacturers will install systems that are equipped wit storage and connectivity and they will process, transmit and sell this, no one will find out and even if they find out nothing will happen to them.
I disagree, that's a recipe for companies to spend more than they need at install time, then pay billions in fines and then pay again to re-call the vehicles to replace these systems.
GDPR is enforced, that's why US tech companies constantly complain about EU regulations.
I think the test for being accepted is when you screw up. For example, if you parked wrongly do you become “that foreigner/ethnic guy” or do you remain “one of our idiots”.
That's literally why we have GDPR. This will be very illegal and the law itself specifically bans user identification with camera on top of the stuff protected by GDPR.
You need to have the hardware(camera isn't enough, you need storage and way to transmit) in place to do these things. I guess Tesla's and other connected smart cars can do that already but that's not what this regulation requires.
That's actually illegal in EU without consent. In this particular case, there's also specific ban on identifying the user with the cameras that the system may use. It's in the text, as a result we may hear from the tech companies how EU regulations are making it hard to do business even.
If you want to believe that when light shines on a CCD chip the only option is to record the data and transmit it to the corporations and the governments then keep believing it. Everything needs to be extreme after all, right?
If you really want to believe that if a light shines on a CCD chip the only way forward is to record that and send that to corporations and the governments that keep believing it. We are in an age of extremism, everything must be extreme and detached from reality.
If you want to be pedantic you can choose to be pedantic about the fact that the text literally does not require a camera. If we can pass that, then let's stick with the reality and understand that processing the light that shines on CCD sensor doesn't automatically mean that it is being recorded and handed over to the police. Since we are allowed to use our brains, we can understand that recording and transmitting would require extra hardware over what's required to process the data from CCD sensor and discard it right away.
There are no camera requirements and if cameras are used they are prohibited from using them for the stuff the article implies because the privacy is protected by GDPR. Remember how US corporations really hate EU regulations? Yes that's the regulation preventing them from processing your face even if the system is implemented with a camera.