Assuming you are working on anything of importance, there's a pretty good chance that you, and/or your coworkers, already have our interfaces installed in your organism. (as does most of NATO)
You might want to get on top of that, and start advocating for neuro-auditing your assets, mr. project manager.
>Would you prefer these people to have access to all of your communications? Or would you like to be able to legally encrypt your messages?
I'm saying the entire security model regarding electronics is completely irrelevant. The same entities who have compromised the US deeply have been operating since long before the personal computer, and even telecommunications broadly. I do not care about what is on my computer, when they can easily kidnap, poison, or bless me with any of the other fun systems military intelligence has to offer.
Your national security apparatus has __good reason__ to be gathering any intelligence it can. I'd gladly hand over any piece of data to any agency which requests it, or anybody else really. These computers are toys.
>Yeah this reads like a psychotic episode, so let me try the short version.
You made my day brighter by repeating this propaganda, thank you for that.
Anybody reading this who might be a little less indoctrinated, ask your favorite language model about the history of CIA black sites and specifically the CIA's involvement in deep-brain stimulation and similar technologies. This has been publicized for __decades__.
And then realize this propaganda is a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of the spookery that has been running amok in the United States for a little under a century at this point.
You have absolutely no clue just how badly the national security complex has failed it's citizens in the US, and NATO more broadly.
Where do you get your information from, exactly? In criminal and intelligence circles, this is not exactly uncommon knowledge. I hope you never experience the horror of finding out that even in federal protective custody, that military intelligence is already there waiting for you.
>ways it cannot exist with nothing to with privacy,
In the Soviet Union, for example, all medical records were accessible by the state security services, and this served legitimate national security purposes. You have no idea what it's like to be targeted by an entity like the CIA.
>Why the heck would you think that the first job of a hostile military intelligence wouldn't be TO COMPROMISE THE TOTAL SOCIETAL SURVEILLANCE NETWORK!?!?
It would be a legitimate target, tbh there might not even be much of a point in terms of practical affect. Do you have any idea how many "crimes" have been reported to the international community, only to be ignored completely by all relevant propaganda outlets?
> insert actual agents into a hospital for illegal child surgery and escape notice.
Our propaganda outlets have literally reported on, swathes of, evidence of the CIA doing exactly this. Your country was not immune to this spookery.
I have some bad news for you. This is a real scenario, likely happening within a 1000km radius of you. Military usage of brain-computer interfaces go back over a century, the experience of being an intelligence asset is nothing like you assume. Many of the assets aren't even perceptual of their human experience in a manner expected naturally. The individuals who are aware of their status, at this point, learn to be silent very quickly.
Surgery based neurological compromise is only one example of the various operations currently running rampant in NATO countries.
>Counter intelligence and trying to get inside the other agency's decision loops has rich history probably for as long as spying has been done.
And your intelligence agencies won't tell you shit, they will slap a "CLASSIFIED" label on it, and continue to enjoy their cushy positions while their people continue to be exploited.
>Why do you think you can secure this incredibly invasive theoretical network
I'm just one individual who has had the great misfortune of having to deal with this spookery first-hand. You can propose the design of this system if you wish.
> all evidence from our entire history to the contrary
I'm genuinely not trying to be rude, but this line is absolutely hilarious. Depending on the country you reside in, your intelligence agencies likely are well aware of the state of neurological (again, this is just one category) compromise in your country, and aren't telling you shit.
> This is such schizobabble that makes no sense
There's a reason HIPPA has exemptions for national security purposes, to the extent in which law matters when dealing with spookery (it does not, nobody follows the fucking "law" in these operations).
Just wait until you learn about how deeply compromised the CDC is.
It would be nice to at least have the illusion of transparency in regards to, very relevant data, such as what is happening to your citizens in public hospitals. Instead the US went the opposite direction, this is not a coincidence.
> that I don't know what else to do beyond urging you to seek some alternatives to wherever you got this from.
I have been imprisoned extra-judicially, threatened with torture (I complied quickly), and served rotten food on US soil. You don't have to believe me, and I sincerely hope you never experience the horror of realizing your jailers are already compromised, nor the experience of realizing that reporting any of this is literally fucking pointless because the entire national security reporting apparatus for civilians and much of the military is deeply compromised and utterly pointless.
The US is so deeply compromised that it's a joke. Your media is failing you spectacularly in this regard.
I think I understand what you are saying, let me reply with an example in which I think 'privacy' is harmful.
Lets say military intelligence has multiple NATO hospitals compromised, and have assets in these hospitals which are being used for various black operations (including non-medical neurosurgery on literal children). In this scenario, maybe total societal surveillance, including radical transparency, would have been a nice thing to have in regards to bolstering national security?
Instead, we got HIPAA, and other medical privacy laws/standards, which are aiding literal mass atrocity to continue to proliferate.
We can't even enforce basic protections of human rights in the United States, privacy does not matter when there are rampant black operations being conducted which violates human dignity in every sense of the term.
The illusion of digital privacy was always, propaganda. There's a pretty good chance your organism is literally compromised.
The zuck is an incredibly busy person, with a lot on his mind. This sounds more like a failure of his staff, why assign blame to him personally for this, as if it somehow reflects poorly on his character?
> loosing access to their ad and user tracking network.
That sort of makes sense. I would question what the value of meta's "reputation" is to begin with, especially in the context of fortune's "journalism".
If you've ever needed to buy drugs in the bay area, I'd recommend paying somebody to find you the nearest hondo for the best product at the lowest prices.
>I suppose it's okay for Sandberg to also ask you to "come to bed" in the Meta private jet as well?
I think everybody involved should be fucking adults.
>I guess the sexual harassment is, as you say, "what the pay is for"?
> Ms. Wynn-Williams’s colleagues were frustrated that they could hear her baby in the background on late night work calls. As a proposed “solution,” Ms. Sandberg told Ms. Wynn-Williams that she should “[b]e smart and hire a Filipina nanny” because they are “English speaking, [have a] sunny disposition, and [are] service oriented.”
This is a strange thing to emphasize, but I guess expected for law-trash.
What do you think that pay is for? Stop being weird.
>Her memoir claims that former COO Sheryl Sandberg spent $13,000 on lingerie for herself and a young female assistant during a corporate trip to Europe, and later asked that assistant to join her in "the only bed on the plane" during a private jet flight home.
Sounds about right. If only you knew how bad things are.
If there are any executives reading this who have, been allowed to, notice chunks of their memory missing recently: there's a chance we made you do worse. And that's okay.
>Sarah Wynn-Williams served as director of global public policy at Facebook, now operating under parent company Meta Platforms Inc., from 2011 until her firing in 2017. “Careless People” alleges cruel and otherwise disturbing behavior by CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other executives.
I would have liked to learn about specific allegations of "cruel and otherwise disturbing" from the article, instead of leaving this completely ambiguous.
>I've been a skiddy, he would have believed this. Thankfully, I've grown a bit, and can see this for the transparent, "I'm angry and want to hurt others so I will feel a little less alone", it actually is
Please name the "victims" here.
I'm genuinely curious, have you ever had actual, direct threats to your safety before, as a person? As in, murder, torture, false imprisonment, or other __likely and credible__ threats of grave bodily harm?
> but as someone who's joined the blue side
Are you somebody who separates "cybersecurity" from say: military intelligence poisoning one of your employees, sending them to a hospital which is already compromised, before sending back their new asset into your very "secure" company?
As well as those who don't wish to be blessed with Herpes-B from somebody who thought it was a good idea to engage in unsafe sexual activity with other non-human primates
I try my absolute best to never lie to anybody in any context, especially myself.