Its hard to be certain, the video is rather low quality and typically cameras struggle to capture image at night. Even in the low quality video I saw on BBC's site you can see white shoes moving in the shadow which makes me suspect the person was more visible than the video would have you believe.
Perhaps more concerning - the video released of the person supposedly monitoring the car spent an awful lot of time looking down not ahead and out the window.
There is a distinct difference between using Facebooks API collecting information about visitors while following the terms they agreed to and someone with access provided for research using it to slurp up data on everyone then proceeding to sell it. If you can't understand it then it suggests you don't have a grasp of ethics.
If you care at all about privacy you should be happy about the scrutiny, these are far from the only actors collecting data.
Any time people used Facebook’s log-in button to sign on to the campaign’s website, the Obama data scientists were able to access their profile as well as their friends’ information. That allowed them to chart the closeness of people’s relationships and make estimates about which people would be most likely to influence other people in their network to vote.
There is a huge distinction between a person proactively going to a campaign website and Facebook's API providing information, and a researcher granted a level of access provided for research using that to obtain private data to sell for commercial purposes.
To be clear - in my estimation Facebook should not be providing extensive information about people, especially people who simply happen to know someone who granted access.
The researcher didn't - turns out while Facebook for some reason has been saying researcher its actually a company called Global Science Research the Guardian has a story about it https://www.theguardian.com/ne...
The interesting side note is that Facebook actually hired one of the companies founders a couple years ago.
Except that isn't what happened at all. They allowed a researcher access for research purposes and that guy violated the terms of his agreement and sold the data. What should be happening however is a massive lawsuit against that researcher (he should lose all the money he made, plus an additional punitive amount) and possibly Cambridge Analytica too if there is evidence they knew.
Personally I'm not concerned about the current leadership at major tech companies, yes they collect far too much data about individuals - however they want to use it themselves, not sell it to third parties. The tech companies you should be worried about are all the other ad networks, analytics services and plugins (e.g. gravatar, diquss) who are also slurping up just as much data and are happy to sell it to everyone.
Funny, I posted something very similar when this story was submitted and the submitter had included some bogus comment about how it was another instance of scientific experts being proven wrong:eyeroll:
The Slashdot summary also refers to the hires as developers but the article splits it out over a number of disciplines including "payment services" which I'd guess is the majority...
Its not clear that this would be considered insider knowledge to me. The normal modus operandi for short sellers is to do a significant amount of research on companies looking for flaws, wrong doing, etc. purchase a position then try to build uncertainty by hyping a press release.
Previously unknown security vulnerabilities don't seem much different than accounting fraud assuming neither has a source inside the company.
Well there were 4 other C-level executives who also traded who have not been charged. Even if they don't have a smoking gun its impossible to believe they weren't aware there were problems.
I feel like in the aftermath of Heartbleed it started to become common for researchers to try to brand their discoveries and are increasingly hyping hoping the mainstream press covers which works as an advertisement for the researcher and their org.
Slashdot Mirror
Its hard to be certain, the video is rather low quality and typically cameras struggle to capture image at night. Even in the low quality video I saw on BBC's site you can see white shoes moving in the shadow which makes me suspect the person was more visible than the video would have you believe.
Perhaps more concerning - the video released of the person supposedly monitoring the car spent an awful lot of time looking down not ahead and out the window.
There is a distinct difference between using Facebooks API collecting information about visitors while following the terms they agreed to and someone with access provided for research using it to slurp up data on everyone then proceeding to sell it. If you can't understand it then it suggests you don't have a grasp of ethics.
If you care at all about privacy you should be happy about the scrutiny, these are far from the only actors collecting data.
You realize in this instance you aren't their customer, the music industry is.
Your employer is likely continuing to sell what you worked on. What you're doing is work for hire, lots of art is also done on this basis.
Or someones bonus is tied to increasing subscriptions because it will look good on the quarterly earnings call.
Here is a better article: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Any time people used Facebook’s log-in button to sign on to the campaign’s website, the Obama data scientists were able to access their profile as well as their friends’ information. That allowed them to chart the closeness of people’s relationships and make estimates about which people would be most likely to influence other people in their network to vote.
There is a huge distinction between a person proactively going to a campaign website and Facebook's API providing information, and a researcher granted a level of access provided for research using that to obtain private data to sell for commercial purposes.
To be clear - in my estimation Facebook should not be providing extensive information about people, especially people who simply happen to know someone who granted access.
The researcher didn't - turns out while Facebook for some reason has been saying researcher its actually a company called Global Science Research the Guardian has a story about it https://www.theguardian.com/ne...
The interesting side note is that Facebook actually hired one of the companies founders a couple years ago.
Point us to the details about how Obama supposedly did this, otherwise stop trolling.
Except that isn't what happened at all. They allowed a researcher access for research purposes and that guy violated the terms of his agreement and sold the data. What should be happening however is a massive lawsuit against that researcher (he should lose all the money he made, plus an additional punitive amount) and possibly Cambridge Analytica too if there is evidence they knew.
Personally I'm not concerned about the current leadership at major tech companies, yes they collect far too much data about individuals - however they want to use it themselves, not sell it to third parties. The tech companies you should be worried about are all the other ad networks, analytics services and plugins (e.g. gravatar, diquss) who are also slurping up just as much data and are happy to sell it to everyone.
Ironically Google just lost an anti-trust case for fixing search results by removing all the trashy product searches a few years ago.
Funny, I posted something very similar when this story was submitted and the submitter had included some bogus comment about how it was another instance of scientific experts being proven wrong :eyeroll:
Yup, pretty much whenever I search for a product I'm not even looking to buy it. I am only looking to find information about the product.
One wonders what instructions the drivers are given. At what point does the human realize the car is not taking action?
With autonomy the question isn't whether the car is to blame, the question is whether a human driver would have avoided the accident.
The entire point of the system is that it accepts original cartridges - because not everyone is a pirate.
Harry McCracken is the editor of Fast Company, and as you can see all he does is submit their own articles. The technical term for that is spammer.
The Slashdot summary also refers to the hires as developers but the article splits it out over a number of disciplines including "payment services" which I'd guess is the majority...
Its not clear that this would be considered insider knowledge to me. The normal modus operandi for short sellers is to do a significant amount of research on companies looking for flaws, wrong doing, etc. purchase a position then try to build uncertainty by hyping a press release.
Previously unknown security vulnerabilities don't seem much different than accounting fraud assuming neither has a source inside the company.
One would hardly describe Tesla as pushing a massive number of parts...
I'm sorry sir you must be mistaken, Elon's farts smell like roses.
Well there were 4 other C-level executives who also traded who have not been charged. Even if they don't have a smoking gun its impossible to believe they weren't aware there were problems.
I feel like in the aftermath of Heartbleed it started to become common for researchers to try to brand their discoveries and are increasingly hyping hoping the mainstream press covers which works as an advertisement for the researcher and their org.
Yup, cars have far more dangers than cellphones and yet it was decided many years ago that we didn't need car manufacturers to nanny us.
Yea, pretty clear this is linked to idiotic spread of open offices.
Ignoring privacy for the moment, it might make sense to have IoT style lighting in a hotel suite.