4 ms·
I'm curious about why you're bringing Google into this. Is there some reason you think they'd totally be running a loosely targeted mass assassination program,
by jsnell 2y ago
I'm curious about why you're bringing Google into this. Is there some reason you think they'd totally be running a loosely targeted mass assassination program, except that they just can't plan ahead far enough?
That is such an out of the left field thing to lead with that I thought the article must have brought up this possibility somehow. But that doesn't seem to be the case either.
- h2odragon 2y agoWell I didn't wanna say "Oracle" cuz it aint healthy to piss them folks off
- jsnell 2y agoI guess I'd just then have asked the same question about Oracle. Why would you expect them to be compromising supply chains to kill people, except for their supposed limited planning horizon? It seems like an equally odd point to make of any company. We don't actually live in a cyberpunkish dystopia of sovereign corporations. While it's reasonable to expect large companies to have their own intelligence operations - they are huge targets, after all - I find it hard to believe that any of them would run any kind of spook field operation in general, and definitely not anything this offensive.
- h2odragon 2y agoand yet: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/01/ebay-hit-with-3m-fine-admits-to-terrorizing-innocent-people/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/01/ebay-hit-with-3m... others have made the point; we're not in a different world than we were a few months ago. the perception of the world we are, and have been in; may have changed for some. i don't have a specific reason to name a particular company as more likely than any other to be ready to deploy direct violence in pursuit of shareholder value. I speak with cynical observation that if a capability exists, someone will find a use for it.