I would agree that the DA has a conflict of interest when it comes to prosecuting cops. The right solution would be to pass a law requiring a special prosecutor for cases of that nature.
Long before we have true strong AI there will be weak AI expert systems deployed just about everywhere. I suspect that the first true self-aware AI is more likely to be emergent than designed in a lab and that will have interesting consequences.
Actually I wasn't commenting on the chance of an AI being genocidal, but in your belief that it won't be able to do anything due to solid network security. I have yet to see an environment that was truly secure and most places I would describe their setup as being about as safe as swiss cheese.
I don't think the utility is really the strongest argument against it, I personally think it's unethical in all but the most unusual of cases and that's grounds enough. That said, I think you need to take the report produced with a grain of salt, it's not like the Democrats would come out in the current political environment and say "yeah, they did everything right and were completely justified, wow that Bush guy really knew what he was doing". (I didn't like or vote for Bush and don't really think he was a very good president but even if he was they wouldn't admit it)
I've worked at places where the culture got out of whack and they tried what you're describing. The problem is often embedded in the processes and many times the new people fall into the same errors. I would argue a better model would be to split them up into several different agencies with more narrowly focused missions.
There is plenty of blame for the CIA here but I think you're forgetting the whole idea of proportional response. In fact, one of my main arguments against their program is that the size of the threat didn't justify the methods used.
There are most certainly groups that employ random violence intended to create fear and provoke political change. What definition of terrorism are you using?
They are more dangerous to us than any threat they claim to protect us from.
I'm not happy with their behavior but to suggest there aren't serious threats in the world that require intelligence gathering and covert operations is just foolish.
That would depend on your system of ethics. For me, I would argue that in cases involving possible mega-deaths (nuclear strike, bio weapons, etc.) then yes, it might be justified but would require extremely high levels of justification and oversight. The majority of cases have not met those criteria.
Just when will the CIA get off its high horse of believing that this program, in its former form, or any newer form, produces value for the American citizen or state as a whole?
Why would they do that when it did produce value? The question isn't whether it produces value but whether it's ethical, if the problems it causes outweigh the benefits, and why hasn't there been proper oversight? Oh, and why aren't the people who exceeded their authorization going to prison?
It's not useless, but it is limited. For example if you have two subjects who you suspect both have information about a certain subject you can separate them and ask them questions then torture them when their answers don't match. Since in most cases they won't have a pre-arranged story eventually they'll capitulate and tell the only thing they know the other one can confirm. Still horrible, still not ethical in most cases but not useless.
That's the big one. Unless you start seeing daily ICE raids on massive abusers like poultry processing, agricultural workers and construction sites then not much will change.
There is a big difference between documentation necessary for the current staff to efficiently administer the system and the amount necessary for a completely unfamiliar group to come in and take over. Few companies require the second level of documentation because it's quite time consuming and thus expensive.
Why not have everyone who works overtime (defined as work done after 40 hours for a given week) be paid time and a half, regardless of their profession/job?
I believe this is the correct answer. Any employee, up to and including the CEO, who works more than 40 hours should make time and a half for overtime. That may mean many employees have their base salary adjusted to match the new expectations but overall it would be better for society and the economy.
Slashdot Mirror
I would agree that the DA has a conflict of interest when it comes to prosecuting cops. The right solution would be to pass a law requiring a special prosecutor for cases of that nature.
Right, but is it RFC 2324 compliant?
So you're trading biodegradable coffee waste for persistent plastic waste that takes more net energy to produce, how is that a win?
Long before we have true strong AI there will be weak AI expert systems deployed just about everywhere. I suspect that the first true self-aware AI is more likely to be emergent than designed in a lab and that will have interesting consequences.
Actually I wasn't commenting on the chance of an AI being genocidal, but in your belief that it won't be able to do anything due to solid network security. I have yet to see an environment that was truly secure and most places I would describe their setup as being about as safe as swiss cheese.
Your faith in computer security is disturbing.
Yes, because software never has bugs, edge cases or unintended consequences.
I don't think the utility is really the strongest argument against it, I personally think it's unethical in all but the most unusual of cases and that's grounds enough. That said, I think you need to take the report produced with a grain of salt, it's not like the Democrats would come out in the current political environment and say "yeah, they did everything right and were completely justified, wow that Bush guy really knew what he was doing". (I didn't like or vote for Bush and don't really think he was a very good president but even if he was they wouldn't admit it)
I've worked at places where the culture got out of whack and they tried what you're describing. The problem is often embedded in the processes and many times the new people fall into the same errors. I would argue a better model would be to split them up into several different agencies with more narrowly focused missions.
I claimed that they the CIA and NSA are bigger threats than anything they protect us from.
Suppose for a moment that is true, you still have a need for intelligence gathering and covert operations, what's your solution?
There is plenty of blame for the CIA here but I think you're forgetting the whole idea of proportional response. In fact, one of my main arguments against their program is that the size of the threat didn't justify the methods used.
There is no such thing as a terrorist.
There are most certainly groups that employ random violence intended to create fear and provoke political change. What definition of terrorism are you using?
"Countless lives have been saved" that count is zero.
To be fair, it's very hard to measure avoided outcomes.
They are more dangerous to us than any threat they claim to protect us from.
I'm not happy with their behavior but to suggest there aren't serious threats in the world that require intelligence gathering and covert operations is just foolish.
That would depend on your system of ethics. For me, I would argue that in cases involving possible mega-deaths (nuclear strike, bio weapons, etc.) then yes, it might be justified but would require extremely high levels of justification and oversight. The majority of cases have not met those criteria.
Just when will the CIA get off its high horse of believing that this program, in its former form, or any newer form, produces value for the American citizen or state as a whole?
Why would they do that when it did produce value? The question isn't whether it produces value but whether it's ethical, if the problems it causes outweigh the benefits, and why hasn't there been proper oversight? Oh, and why aren't the people who exceeded their authorization going to prison?
Certainly not. Anarchy would imply there aren't any rules. We have rules, it's just most of them only apply to little people.
It's not useless, but it is limited. For example if you have two subjects who you suspect both have information about a certain subject you can separate them and ask them questions then torture them when their answers don't match. Since in most cases they won't have a pre-arranged story eventually they'll capitulate and tell the only thing they know the other one can confirm. Still horrible, still not ethical in most cases but not useless.
Heh, you think you can't be tortured without leaving marks? How quaint and 12th century of you.
2. Devote more resources to policing employers.
That's the big one. Unless you start seeing daily ICE raids on massive abusers like poultry processing, agricultural workers and construction sites then not much will change.
*Does not apply to voluntary contracts with private organizations
There is a big difference between documentation necessary for the current staff to efficiently administer the system and the amount necessary for a completely unfamiliar group to come in and take over. Few companies require the second level of documentation because it's quite time consuming and thus expensive.
Well if there is no money of course you don't sign, which is why they offer money in the first place.
So changing the work environment regulations doesn't count as negotiations?
Why not have everyone who works overtime (defined as work done after 40 hours for a given week) be paid time and a half, regardless of their profession/job?
I believe this is the correct answer. Any employee, up to and including the CEO, who works more than 40 hours should make time and a half for overtime. That may mean many employees have their base salary adjusted to match the new expectations but overall it would be better for society and the economy.