4 ms·

I’m as anti-monopoly as the next guy, but I don’t think the following are necessary good examples: > Apple has repeatedly refused to allow law enforcement to a

I’m as anti-monopoly as the next guy, but I don’t think the following are necessary good examples: > Apple has repeatedly refused to allow law enforcement to access criminals’ devices Creating a backdoor for government device access enables turnkey oppression against individuals and marginalized groups, from enemies both foreign and domestic. I can see why this rhetoric would be mildly convincing to a senator, but as for me I want my device to be as protected as the contents of my brain. > Google abandoned a contract to deliver the Pentagon drone AI technology I absolutely do not want AI in drones, I barely even want drones to exist at all. The US is flying these around the world attempting to dispassionately assassinate people, and they often get it wrong. AI, best case, just makes this more palatable than it already is. > Microsoft has maintained “strategic partner” status with a Chinese drone and imaging technology firm Oh really? I thought we liked AI in drones. > Facebook enables and profits from the harassment of victims of horrific shootings and other violent crimes This absolutely sucks, but like what do you expect them to do? Is this an argument that FB can’t handle moderation at scale, or are they realistically expected by the author to prevent all harassment (or just this specific arbitrary type)?

reinman 4y ago
Yeah this article takes some strange positions
josephcsible 4y ago
> Oh really? I thought we liked AI in drones. I want the US to have good drone technology. I do not want China to.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  why tho. you got about a zero percent chance of being drone bomb assassinated by either. both are definitely going to drone bomb assassinate people they shouldn't. what do you even see as the moral difference seriously.
  - porknubbins 4y ago
    The moral difference is that a human drone operator might not be a bloodthirsty psycho and there is a chance they would regret and even suffer from mistaken killing and attempt to avoid it, or make a policy change in the future. With an AI drone everyone can escape responsibility.
    - giraffe_lady 4y ago
      Sorry I probably should have been more clear, I didn't mean what's the difference between different kinds of drone weapon technology. The person I was responding to seemed to be saying they were ok with it in the US's hands but not China's, which does not seem consistent to me at all.
      - dylan604 4y ago
        $10 gets you $20 the person you were responding to was an US citizen. Doesn't really seem hard to see why "Murica! Fuck Yeah!" would think it is okay for the US but not for China.
    - svnt 4y ago
      I see your point but given the way the military already operates it seems a pretty minor distinction. A colleagues’ son flies military drones. To hear him tell it drone operators are basically tech support that murders people. If he has issues with it there is no shortage of fresh operators.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    > why tho. you got about a zero percent chance of being drone bomb assassinated by either. Indeed, I'm personally not in any real danger from China having drones. But I care about the rest of the world and not just myself, and the rest of the world is in way more danger from China having drones than from the US having them. Even if you don't think China would do something directly, remember that they're allied with, e.g., Russia and the Taliban, and are likely to give/sell/let them borrow them.
Barrin92 4y ago
>I want my device to be as protected as the contents of my brain No offense but that's not really relevant to the question at hand. The article debates whether the American tech sector is conducive to American national security, not whether your phone is sufficiently libertarian. the points raised are perfectly valid. The tech sector is out of alignment with law enforcement, out of alignment with the American military sector, potentially more in alignment with foreign governments, and social media companies may be destabilizing society at a cultural level. So in short the American tech sector is a competing power center that sidelines the interests of the state and the nation. Funnily enough China which is mentioned multiple times ,despite popular perception in the US, actually does have the same problem. Which is why they did exactly what the article demanded, which is pursue anti-trust measures and bring the hammer down on big tech.
- post_below 4y ago
  I generally agree that tech monopolies are potentially bad for, not just national security, but general human wellbeing. > The tech sector is out of alignment with law enforcement In this particular case, I'd say that's a good thing. Law enforcement, and certain three letter agencies, have a terrible track record here. If big tech is making it a little harder for them to bypass basic privacy rights, I'm ok with that.
- malwrar 4y ago
  > No offense but that's not really relevant to the question at hand A backdoor that can be used by law enforcement is one that can potentially (probably) be misused by law enforcement, privileged parties, foreign governments, parties with leverage over the implementer or intermediate agents, plain old hackers, etc. My concern is unauthorized, inappropriate, or overzealous use of a backdoor by any one of these, which I believe to be a threat to national security. Perhaps some random citizen being compromised isn’t necessarily a national security threat, but large groups being compromised or particular key individuals (industrial leaders, government officials, etc) certainly could be. I agree this sidelines law enforcement to some extent, but then again by design so do many rights US citizens possess. Thus my explicit use of “foreign and domestic”.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

reinman 4y ago

Yeah this article takes some strange positions

josephcsible 4y ago

> Oh really? I thought we liked AI in drones. I want the US to have good drone technology. I do not want China to.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
why tho. you got about a zero percent chance of being drone bomb assassinated by either. both are definitely going to drone bomb assassinate people they shouldn't. what do you even see as the moral difference seriously.
- porknubbins 4y ago
  The moral difference is that a human drone operator might not be a bloodthirsty psycho and there is a chance they would regret and even suffer from mistaken killing and attempt to avoid it, or make a policy change in the future. With an AI drone everyone can escape responsibility.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    Sorry I probably should have been more clear, I didn't mean what's the difference between different kinds of drone weapon technology. The person I was responding to seemed to be saying they were ok with it in the US's hands but not China's, which does not seem consistent to me at all.
    - dylan604 4y ago
      $10 gets you $20 the person you were responding to was an US citizen. Doesn't really seem hard to see why "Murica! Fuck Yeah!" would think it is okay for the US but not for China.
  - svnt 4y ago
    I see your point but given the way the military already operates it seems a pretty minor distinction. A colleagues’ son flies military drones. To hear him tell it drone operators are basically tech support that murders people. If he has issues with it there is no shortage of fresh operators.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > why tho. you got about a zero percent chance of being drone bomb assassinated by either. Indeed, I'm personally not in any real danger from China having drones. But I care about the rest of the world and not just myself, and the rest of the world is in way more danger from China having drones than from the US having them. Even if you don't think China would do something directly, remember that they're allied with, e.g., Russia and the Taliban, and are likely to give/sell/let them borrow them.

Barrin92 4y ago

>I want my device to be as protected as the contents of my brain No offense but that's not really relevant to the question at hand. The article debates whether the American tech sector is conducive to American national security, not whether your phone is sufficiently libertarian. the points raised are perfectly valid. The tech sector is out of alignment with law enforcement, out of alignment with the American military sector, potentially more in alignment with foreign governments, and social media companies may be destabilizing society at a cultural level. So in short the American tech sector is a competing power center that sidelines the interests of the state and the nation. Funnily enough China which is mentioned multiple times ,despite popular perception in the US, actually does have the same problem. Which is why they did exactly what the article demanded, which is pursue anti-trust measures and bring the hammer down on big tech.

post_below 4y ago
I generally agree that tech monopolies are potentially bad for, not just national security, but general human wellbeing. > The tech sector is out of alignment with law enforcement In this particular case, I'd say that's a good thing. Law enforcement, and certain three letter agencies, have a terrible track record here. If big tech is making it a little harder for them to bypass basic privacy rights, I'm ok with that.
malwrar 4y ago
> No offense but that's not really relevant to the question at hand A backdoor that can be used by law enforcement is one that can potentially (probably) be misused by law enforcement, privileged parties, foreign governments, parties with leverage over the implementer or intermediate agents, plain old hackers, etc. My concern is unauthorized, inappropriate, or overzealous use of a backdoor by any one of these, which I believe to be a threat to national security. Perhaps some random citizen being compromised isn’t necessarily a national security threat, but large groups being compromised or particular key individuals (industrial leaders, government officials, etc) certainly could be. I agree this sidelines law enforcement to some extent, but then again by design so do many rights US citizens possess. Thus my explicit use of “foreign and domestic”.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]