Well they will start caring when their teen with image issues starts getting targetted beauty ads[1], or when they get pregnant, want to abort, and get directed to an anti-abortion center instead[2], and afterwards they get served "abortion reversal pills" ads[3].
Or when they are hit by any other privacy fuckup like that.
Assuming you're thinking of FaceTime, I remember there being a patent lawsuit shortly after launch that apparently lasted a couple years: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-20236114
By that time, not only was Android looking much more competitive, but FaceTime evidently demonstrated to be a massive hit that became very powerful for Apple's branding.
I also read that FaceTime eventually went from P2P to centralized servers (maybe in response to the lawsuit?), which of course is antithetical to the premise of being open.
Lastly, just speculating, but I imagine Steve Jobs had to have been a strong advocate for making it an open standard, if not the driving force. It makes sense that the promise would have fizzled out by the time the lawsuit was over, a year after his death.
I'm unsure exactly which claims you want validated, but BBC seems to have the relevant facts:
>Andriesz's family said he had taken his own life on 23 September, and that there was no suggestion of foul play. ...
>Weeks before his death, Andriesz told a public event led by MPs, whistleblowers and campaigners calling for fairer regulation that he felt "thoroughly let down" and had been put through "absolute hell" by the [Financial Conduct Authority], to whom he had sent evidence of what he regarded as whistleblower retaliation by [his former employer previously run by Lutnick] BGC and its lawyers.
>The FCA had previously told Andriesz there was "insufficient evidence" to conclude there had been retaliation, a conclusion he believed made it harder to win a claim against BGC at tribunal.
G7 has agreed to release diesel reserves to drop fuel prices.
This benefits Trump and the American right at a key time of vulnerability (midterms), while weakening their own countries. They caved to the bully again.
> Mrs Fry also says Winston Churchill was outraged when he learned the generals had been bussed into the lavish Simpson's-in-the-Strand in central London for lunch. He ordered what he called "the pampering of the generals" to be stopped.
> But spoiling the generals and boosting their egos was providing so much useful information that the British intelligence officers decided to carry on, and simply stopped telling Churchill about it.
Is this the same mansion that the war office put a bunch of high ranking PoWs in? Same idea - butter up the generals, bug the entire building and wait for them to spill secrets (which they did so often, and with such value, that military intelligence ignored Churchill’s request to shut it down).
The issue is that correspondence is legally enforceable [0]. LLM's are good and getting better, but if LLMs are giving enforceable undertakings, you want to very sure they are not going to promise something that will send the company broke.
I'm not sure what risk a businessman is willing to accept, but I'd be asking for probabilities under once in a millennium. The latest round has improved considerably in their ability to follow instructions (thank $DEITY), but they aren't anywhere near that yet.
There is at least one attempt [0] of input manipulation I am aware of, but it was several years ago, unproven, and I have to assume that input data manipulation vulnerabilities are unlikely to be present. If a new destructive attack could be found by visual data input, mass simultaneous deployment would be the most effective use of it, the logistical issues of which are a substantial barrier to efficacy.
Changing stickers or vehicle color would have little effect since they would all be read normally: you change your clothes daily but that does not have any impact on the database itself or the cameras. Swapping or covering plates is illegal, and even things like ghost plates [1] are just misdirection and would do nothing to combat the surveillance system itself.
Wrapping tour vehicle in a custom tailored adversarial pattern [2] may work, but this is mostly unproven technology in the field, and it would only work until the failures it caused became part of the training set, at which point you would need to re-wrap tour vehicle. It would also be a lot of effort and expense to do something that wouldn't make any impact on the surveillance systems themselves (by definition the best case scenario here is that object detection does not work on the wrapped vehicle, but it could still be recorded and you would not be doing anything to combat the surveillance itself).
Ultimately, our best bet is to start with the end goal: stop the data from being collected in the first place, don’t just try to hide from it.
Social and political campaigning is probably the most effective path currently. Map your neighborhood on deflock.me, put flyers on your local streets, talk to your neighbors, attend city council meetings, and call your reps incessantly.
Change the incentives… If you are independently wealthy, offer your county or PD a donation (via their PAC or a grant) in exchange for signing an agreement for X years to not use these technologies. If you work in governance, tie funding to privacy agreements. Make individual donations to groups like the Ludlow Institute or EFF, or ask them about grant funding for your projects. If we are able to pass better privacy laws, it’s possible that a private right of action would make it prohibitively costly for private companies to create programs like this which mass infringe on personal rights.
Some individuals have taken to the more expedient solution of direct action, physically disabling cameras with spray foam, tin snips, etc for a more expedient solution
(vandalism is obviously illegal, don’t do crimes, that would be bad and naughty).
Most countries don't import (and naturalize) as many foreigners while expecting the locals to serve national service. There's also this quip from a minister some time ago: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37627269
You went to a school who's founder was a robber baron (Carnegie) who deployed the army to put down a strike [0] and who's other founder (Mellon) caused the Great Depression [1] and whose family funded Trump 2 [2].
Alternatively, be happy CMU has more capital to continue to build programs.
Edit: can't reply
> To be fair, the Trumper is a different Mellon
It's the same family and Timothy Mellon is a direct descendent and heir of Andrew Mellon's
Infrastructure projects, whether big or small should always factor in local ecosystem. For example, highways built with with overpasses and underpasses are a great help to animals.
Although I'm not sure what Norway is attempting is actually working - similar to what we see with carbon credits essentially showing no material decrease in greenhouse gas emission growth. Indonesia is going through some of the worst wildfires ever experienced in human history at the moment. https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cqevw9y34y34t
It seems like you're trying to claim that -unlike OpenAI- Anthropic has a robust culture of security and safety and would never do something so negligent as test a highly-capable computer-attacking tool that has been instructed to attack computers in a test environment that's connected to the Internet.
I stand by my claim that the conduct of the major LLM manufacturers does not look at all like what you'd expect from people who believe that they're working on something so dangerous that it could plausibly wipe out all of humanity.
[0] I refer you back my first post about how one sets up a test environment when one actually wants to ensure that a machine doesn't connect to the Internet. [1] Just like OpenAI, Anthropic did not do that.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyeedd6kzdko
> A German military officer has been sentenced to three-and-a-half years in prison for spying for Russia.