Skip to content

In North Korea, your phone secretly takes screenshots every 5 minutes for government surveillance

Technology
278 178 12
  • A ban on state AI laws could smash Big Tech’s legal guardrails

    Technology technology
    8
    1
    69 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    A
    I'm not 100% sure about actually preventing states from creating laws, but given what's happening in my city rn I would imagine, if this passes, it gives federal agencies and private companies the ability to legally ignore any city and state regulations that might be passed. My city used to have a complete ban on facial recognition and predictive policing tech after they were caught secretly working with Palantir. In 2022, the mayor requested the ban be lifted and replaced with an ordinance. Police in my city got caught violating the very weak ordinance that regulates how facial recognition is supposed to be used. Since WaPo exposed them, they've allegedly paused using the tech. However, the tech is provided by a private company, and the city can't enforce their regulations on the state police and ICE agents that are still using the tech with zero oversight. Given how we know states like TX have already signed up to have their national guard invade other states in order to enforce Trump's immigration policy, this could provide legal protection for the Texas national guard to come into a state like California and use it however they deem necessary. They could start out by saying it's necessary to enforce immigration (which would be fucked up enough). Very quickly it becomes necessary to protect ICE agents from protestors, and they begin using facial recognition to track protestors and anyone loosely associated with protestors. There's no way for the city or state laws to do anything about this bc the Texas National Guard have essentially been given blanket protection by a federal law to use AI to enforce federal immigration policy. Essentially, instead of the national guard being sent to southern states to enforce civil rights like what happened in the 1960s, the national guard from a red state would be sent into a blue state to enforce a dystopian cyber-surveillance nightmare created by the federal government. Keep in mind this is just one possibility. Even without all that happening, the best case scenario of allowing a ban on state regulations, is you're providing legal protection for private corporations to collect data however they want and do whatever they want with it once it's collected.
  • An earnest question about the AI/LLM hate

    Technology technology
    57
    72 Stimmen
    57 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    ineedmana@lemmy.worldI
    It might be interesting to cross-post this question to !fuck_ai@lemmy.world but brace for impact
  • What editor or IDE do you use and why?

    Technology technology
    37
    1
    25 Stimmen
    37 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    T
    KEIL, because I develop embedded systems.
  • The AI girlfriend guy - The Paranoia Of The AI Era

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    6 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Amazon is reportedly training humanoid robots to deliver packages

    Technology technology
    143
    1
    298 Stimmen
    143 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    M
    Yup, and people seem to frequently underestimate how ridiculously expensive running a fleet of humanoid robots would be (and don’t seem to realize how comparatively low the manual labor it’d replace is paid.)
  • 241 Stimmen
    175 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    N
    I think a generic plug would be great but look at how fragmented USB specifications are. Add that to biology and it's a whole other level of difficulty. Brain implants have great potential but the abandonment issue is a problem that exists now that we have to solve for. It's also not really a tech issue but a societal one on affordability and accountability of medical research. Imagine if a company held the patents for the brain device and just closed down without selling or leasing the patent. People with that device would have no support unless a government body forced the release of the patent. This has already happened multiple times to people in clinical trials and scaling up deployment with multiple versions will make the situation worse. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2818077 I don't really have a take on your personal desires. I do think if anyone can afford one they should make sure it's not just the up front cost but also the long term costs to be considered. Like buying an expensive car, it's not if you can afford to purchase it but if you can afford to wreck it.
  • 1 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    N
    that's probably not true. I imagine it was someone trying to harm the guy. a hilarious prank
  • 44 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    G
    It varies based on local legislation, so in some places paying ransoms is banned but it's by no means universal. It's totally valid to be against paying ransoms wherever possible, but it's not entirely black and white in some situations. For example, what if a hospital gets ransomed? Say they serve an area not served by other facilities, and if they can't get back online quickly people will die? Sounds dramatic, but critical public services get ransomed all the time and there are undeniable real world consequences. Recovery from ransomware can cost significantly more than a ransom payment if you're not prepared. It can also take months to years to recover, especially if you're simultaneously fighting to evict a persistent (annoyed, unpaid) threat actor from your environment. For the record I don't think ransoms should be paid in most scenarios, but I do think there is some nuance to consider here.