No YOU don't. I asked for examples where companies failed to secure data, and you provided examples where companies handed over information they were legally required to, an great example of companies following laws and handling data correctly.
Nope, I asked him to come up with examples and he provided examples of submitting to a legal process. That isn't "failing to secure data" by any stupid stretch of the phrase.
Each of those companies have abused and failed to secure people's data many thousands of times a year
Saying it is, doesn't make it so.
Microsoft just fought and lost a years-long battle over this very thing, as Congress now mandates that those companies abuse and fail to secure our data as a matter of law.
Oh so putting yourself in a position where your data may be discovered by a legal process is bad, I get it now. In the business we call this outsourcing. I mean it's not like you get to keep this data when the feds come knocking on *your* door right?
But seriously if all you have to go on is legal compliance then I consider this an incredible positive result.
Okay step up and show examples if you think so. Show us where the GDPR violates some American rules.
As for your equation at the end. That doesn't logically compute at all. If all you can do is make rules then by not making rules that affect a certain group you by extension don't violate any existing rules affecting that same group.
But again I'll wait here patiently sitting in my chair in a part of the world where residents are deemed important enough to not have everything about them probed at all times waiting for you to come up with an example of how you are oh so affected elsewhere.
I hope you have something more concrete than ad hominem logical fallacies. Or maybe you just don't understand the word totalitarian, that is quite possible too given the context of the conversation.
I just happen to also condemn Europe's neo-imperialist attempts to impose its rules and regulations where it has no jurisdiction
Except it hasn't. Like AT ALL. And if you think it has I would invite you to read the GDPR. You'll find it violates not a single regulation of another country.
Abortion doctors are contentious, so they must be making obscene profits?
Your logical fallacy is: false cause. The only conclusion you can draw by comparing abortion to my example would be that if abortion doctors made obscene profits and targeted the poor and desperate then they would be contentious, even without the religious nuts around.
Many are happy to blame it on anyone and everyone involved in the process - the cops are scumbags, the jail guards are scumbags, bondmen are scumbags, the judge has it out for me, etc. It's ALL of those people's fault that I got busted for shoplifting, or selling crack, or whatever.
Your second logical fallacy is generalizing the argument. Just because there are more than one elements of a system broken doesn't mean we shouldn't focus on one of them. The entire PIC is the root cause of the problem, but specifically one group is preying on the weak in the current state of it. Just because the PIC exists doesn't mean that one group isn't something worth dealing with.
I think you'll find that the "contention" is that people who regularly get busted committing crimes think everything and everyone involved with dealing with their crimes are all horrible people
Just because someone committed a crime doesn't mean they should be prayed on by companies. Their criminal status is actually completely irrelevant, doubly so because at this point they are only *accused* and haven't been convicted of anything.
Wait do my eyes deceive me? Could it be? Yes I think it is! Your third logical fallacy is ad hominem attack!
Letting cars on public roads that cannot go 13 miles without safety interventions is reckless endangerment.
No, that is a risk. Not mittigating the risk is reckless endangerment. But the risk was mittigated in the same way that other companies mittigate it. i.e. standard practice, thus not neglicence.
The buck has stopped. Knowing statistics doesn't make you liable for anything. Claiming that someone knows a statistic is not the same as providing proof beyond doubt.
You are citing a lot of moral obligations, but no legal ones. Morals won't get you far in a courtroom, that's not how the law works.
People care, but no one is surprised. Especially no one who's ever ridden in an Uber (I have yet to drive in an Uber where the driver hasn't broken the law, and 99% of the times it is screwing with his mobile phone).
The company lacks the the safety culture to make the fact that the driver wasn't paying attention noteworthy.
Actually, it's kind of terrifying that all that stands between life and death is a sensitivity setting.
This has been the case since automated safety systems were first invented. It is terrifying only if you look at the cases where it goes wrong in isolation. Very few people talk about the number of times lives get saved due to a simple control system here which none the less needs a bit of tuning.
A control system would never see green as it is continuously taking action. But that's not relevant because... A human would get desensitized as the control system would spend most of its time in one mode. If you're not paying attention to the person stepping on the road and screwing with your mobile phone, a little light indicator won't help you at all.
Also the video Uber released is highly altered. I drive on that street frequently and it is very well lit.
Well lit does not mean well recorded. Poor quality recording does not mean altered, it just means a garbage recording. Now maybe they bought a poor quality camera on purpose, then we may have something here, but honestly the lighting in that video footage tells you nothing about alteration.
There is little doubt that the Uber CEO, Dara Khosrowshahi, was criminally negligent and aware that this kind of accident was not only possible but likely.
Way to go picking the person who is likely least aware and would most easily be able to prove reasonable doubt that this failure mode was a possibility. And we are talking about a specific failure mode, because generic stats don't get people arrested for negligence. Specific actions causing specific outcomes do.
Before you can make that claim you need to show where they said they investigated any of the false positives, as opposed to: "Huh? Nah that's not him! Keep moving."
Or (and I'm going out on a limb here) you're getting data from two different sources which haven't been normalised for time, duration, or public relations content.
Oh right. Forgot. Because you can have your "smart" phone linked to your car so you can fiddle with apps instead of concentrating on the road.
Most of the value added features that link to your smart phone have zero to do with anything while you're on the road. And why would they, WTF do you need a smartphone when you have a far smarter and more capable computer in your car dashboard.
If that were the case you'll find it wouldn't be contentious. It's like saying payday loan companies don't make outrageous profits. Yes there are a few good actors, but for the most part money lending of any kind that targets either the poor or desperate invariably turns into a cesspool.
There is no way anyone is crazy enough to write those lines in all seriousness.
So as a matter of interest, why? Can you show a deliberate act where those 3 parties have abused or failed to secure your data? From the big three data leaks have ultimately resulted from users misconfiguring the services and nothing more. In the mean time there are Fortune 500 companies lining up to put secret and critical data on these services, and by that I mean shareprice moving data.
It is inevitable that as computers get more capable, these cloud services will become less attractive.
What leap of logic led you to that conclusion? Computers are far more than capable to do the things we currently rely on the cloud for, and have been for MANY years.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you don't.
No YOU don't. I asked for examples where companies failed to secure data, and you provided examples where companies handed over information they were legally required to, an great example of companies following laws and handling data correctly.
Nope, I asked him to come up with examples and he provided examples of submitting to a legal process. That isn't "failing to secure data" by any stupid stretch of the phrase.
Each of those companies have abused and failed to secure people's data many thousands of times a year
Saying it is, doesn't make it so.
Microsoft just fought and lost a years-long battle over this very thing, as Congress now mandates that those companies abuse and fail to secure our data as a matter of law.
Oh so putting yourself in a position where your data may be discovered by a legal process is bad, I get it now. In the business we call this outsourcing. I mean it's not like you get to keep this data when the feds come knocking on *your* door right?
But seriously if all you have to go on is legal compliance then I consider this an incredible positive result.
Okay step up and show examples if you think so. Show us where the GDPR violates some American rules.
As for your equation at the end. That doesn't logically compute at all. If all you can do is make rules then by not making rules that affect a certain group you by extension don't violate any existing rules affecting that same group.
But again I'll wait here patiently sitting in my chair in a part of the world where residents are deemed important enough to not have everything about them probed at all times waiting for you to come up with an example of how you are oh so affected elsewhere.
I hope you have something more concrete than ad hominem logical fallacies. Or maybe you just don't understand the word totalitarian, that is quite possible too given the context of the conversation.
A one day old obligatory XKCD. That's gotta be some kind of record.
LOL.
I just happen to also condemn Europe's neo-imperialist attempts to impose its rules and regulations where it has no jurisdiction
Except it hasn't. Like AT ALL. And if you think it has I would invite you to read the GDPR. You'll find it violates not a single regulation of another country.
Abortion doctors are contentious, so they must be making obscene profits?
Your logical fallacy is: false cause. The only conclusion you can draw by comparing abortion to my example would be that if abortion doctors made obscene profits and targeted the poor and desperate then they would be contentious, even without the religious nuts around.
Many are happy to blame it on anyone and everyone involved in the process - the cops are scumbags, the jail guards are scumbags, bondmen are scumbags, the judge has it out for me, etc. It's ALL of those people's fault that I got busted for shoplifting, or selling crack, or whatever.
Your second logical fallacy is generalizing the argument. Just because there are more than one elements of a system broken doesn't mean we shouldn't focus on one of them. The entire PIC is the root cause of the problem, but specifically one group is preying on the weak in the current state of it. Just because the PIC exists doesn't mean that one group isn't something worth dealing with.
I think you'll find that the "contention" is that people who regularly get busted committing crimes think everything and everyone involved with dealing with their crimes are all horrible people
Just because someone committed a crime doesn't mean they should be prayed on by companies. Their criminal status is actually completely irrelevant, doubly so because at this point they are only *accused* and haven't been convicted of anything.
Wait do my eyes deceive me?
Could it be?
Yes I think it is!
Your third logical fallacy is ad hominem attack!
Fucking trifecta!
Letting cars on public roads that cannot go 13 miles without safety interventions is reckless endangerment.
No, that is a risk. Not mittigating the risk is reckless endangerment. But the risk was mittigated in the same way that other companies mittigate it. i.e. standard practice, thus not neglicence.
The buck has stopped. Knowing statistics doesn't make you liable for anything. Claiming that someone knows a statistic is not the same as providing proof beyond doubt.
You are citing a lot of moral obligations, but no legal ones. Morals won't get you far in a courtroom, that's not how the law works.
People care, but no one is surprised. Especially no one who's ever ridden in an Uber (I have yet to drive in an Uber where the driver hasn't broken the law, and 99% of the times it is screwing with his mobile phone).
The company lacks the the safety culture to make the fact that the driver wasn't paying attention noteworthy.
Actually, it's kind of terrifying that all that stands between life and death is a sensitivity setting.
This has been the case since automated safety systems were first invented. It is terrifying only if you look at the cases where it goes wrong in isolation. Very few people talk about the number of times lives get saved due to a simple control system here which none the less needs a bit of tuning.
A control system would never see green as it is continuously taking action. But that's not relevant because ...
A human would get desensitized as the control system would spend most of its time in one mode. If you're not paying attention to the person stepping on the road and screwing with your mobile phone, a little light indicator won't help you at all.
Also the video Uber released is highly altered. I drive on that street frequently and it is very well lit.
Well lit does not mean well recorded. Poor quality recording does not mean altered, it just means a garbage recording. Now maybe they bought a poor quality camera on purpose, then we may have something here, but honestly the lighting in that video footage tells you nothing about alteration.
There is little doubt that the Uber CEO, Dara Khosrowshahi, was criminally negligent and aware that this kind of accident was not only possible but likely.
Way to go picking the person who is likely least aware and would most easily be able to prove reasonable doubt that this failure mode was a possibility. And we are talking about a specific failure mode, because generic stats don't get people arrested for negligence. Specific actions causing specific outcomes do.
Before you can make that claim you need to show where they said they investigated any of the false positives, as opposed to: "Huh? Nah that's not him! Keep moving."
Or (and I'm going out on a limb here) you're getting data from two different sources which haven't been normalised for time, duration, or public relations content.
Is there anything a new car owner can do to ensure that no private information (such as location) is leaked to the previous owner?
More often than not these major disasters are solved with nothing more than a phone call.
Why stop there? Why not puncture the tires while we're in the process of ruining something we just bought?
Oh right. Forgot. Because you can have your "smart" phone linked to your car so you can fiddle with apps instead of concentrating on the road.
Most of the value added features that link to your smart phone have zero to do with anything while you're on the road. And why would they, WTF do you need a smartphone when you have a far smarter and more capable computer in your car dashboard.
Scissors. Antenna cable. Problem solved.
Or just .. make a phone call. There's no need to go destroying data for what ultimately as the article describes is a procedural error.
The bondsman isn't making some outrageous profit.
If that were the case you'll find it wouldn't be contentious. It's like saying payday loan companies don't make outrageous profits. Yes there are a few good actors, but for the most part money lending of any kind that targets either the poor or desperate invariably turns into a cesspool.
America could fix the problem themselves by not making it a game to see who can lock up the most citizens for pointless reasons.
On the other hand, companies that don't have a business presence in the EU
Don't sell to EU customers rendering your entire point moot.
There is no way anyone is crazy enough to write those lines in all seriousness.
So as a matter of interest, why? Can you show a deliberate act where those 3 parties have abused or failed to secure your data? From the big three data leaks have ultimately resulted from users misconfiguring the services and nothing more. In the mean time there are Fortune 500 companies lining up to put secret and critical data on these services, and by that I mean shareprice moving data.
What makes your toaster so important?
It is inevitable that as computers get more capable, these cloud services will become less attractive.
What leap of logic led you to that conclusion? Computers are far more than capable to do the things we currently rely on the cloud for, and have been for MANY years.
Congratulations on adding to the rounding error.