4 ms·

Buying commercially available location records from data brokers would be far less concerning without the capability to, per Anthropic’s CEO words, assemble fro

Buying commercially available location records from data brokers would be far less concerning without the capability to, per Anthropic’s CEO words, assemble from that data “a comprehensive picture of any person's life—automatically and at massive scale”. It’s a world of difference between when you have to work hard to construct (and keep up-to-date) such a picture for a single individual, and when someone can do it for an entire city with no effort.

ra 7mo ago
Exactly this. I don't that believe most people can grasp the scale, speed and complexity at which this is has become our reality.
- stingraycharles 7mo ago
  And, unfortunately, this is likely a major (potential) revenue source for AI companies that are all struggling for cash.
samrus 7mo ago
Sure but the possession itself of that data without a warrant violates the spirit of the 4th ammendment. So its time that loophole was closed so its not a an issue anyway I actually would be fine with the authorities having the ability to process this data to solve crime and stuff, but only as long as there were checks and balances and it was happening according to the constitution, which it is not right now
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > possession itself of that data without a warrant violates the spirit of the 4th ammendment Does it? An 18th-century tavern owner could keep tabs on the comings and goings of their customers. It would have just prompted pushback when they started sharing that list. Possession isn’t the problem. Sharing is.
  - hackable_sand 7mo ago
    Really?
  - dekken_ 7mo ago
    No, the bar owner has a right know who's in his bar. The local or federal government do not have the right, or need to know the whereabouts of the average law abiding citizen. There is no "free" information, all information has a cost, whether it be acquisition or storage. Currently the people are taxed to oppress themselves. There is no choice not to be taxed, there is no consent.
    - Propelloni 7mo ago
      [flagged]
      - dekken_ 7mo ago
        You don't understand consent, lots of people don't vote. And even if they do, they don't automatically consent to all actions performed in their name.
      - devin 7mo ago
        What an incredibly misinformed comment. You need to educate yourself. What you wrote is downright anti-American.
      - ashtonshears 7mo ago
        Silence demon!
      - mothballed 7mo ago
        USA has worldwide, actually interplanetary taxation of its citizens. You are within the bounds of 'tax-enforcing' no matter where you go.
    - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
      You've said shat I meant to say more eloquently. That's my point. The bar owner can possess the information about their own bar without problem. The issue is when they share it with others, voluntarily or under coercion.

ra 7mo ago

Exactly this. I don't that believe most people can grasp the scale, speed and complexity at which this is has become our reality.

stingraycharles 7mo ago
And, unfortunately, this is likely a major (potential) revenue source for AI companies that are all struggling for cash.

samrus 7mo ago

Sure but the possession itself of that data without a warrant violates the spirit of the 4th ammendment. So its time that loophole was closed so its not a an issue anyway I actually would be fine with the authorities having the ability to process this data to solve crime and stuff, but only as long as there were checks and balances and it was happening according to the constitution, which it is not right now

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
> possession itself of that data without a warrant violates the spirit of the 4th ammendment Does it? An 18th-century tavern owner could keep tabs on the comings and goings of their customers. It would have just prompted pushback when they started sharing that list. Possession isn’t the problem. Sharing is.
- hackable_sand 7mo ago
  Really?
- dekken_ 7mo ago
  No, the bar owner has a right know who's in his bar. The local or federal government do not have the right, or need to know the whereabouts of the average law abiding citizen. There is no "free" information, all information has a cost, whether it be acquisition or storage. Currently the people are taxed to oppress themselves. There is no choice not to be taxed, there is no consent.
  - Propelloni 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - dekken_ 7mo ago
      You don't understand consent, lots of people don't vote. And even if they do, they don't automatically consent to all actions performed in their name.
    - devin 7mo ago
      What an incredibly misinformed comment. You need to educate yourself. What you wrote is downright anti-American.
    - ashtonshears 7mo ago
      Silence demon!
    - mothballed 7mo ago
      USA has worldwide, actually interplanetary taxation of its citizens. You are within the bounds of 'tax-enforcing' no matter where you go.
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    You've said shat I meant to say more eloquently. That's my point. The bar owner can possess the information about their own bar without problem. The issue is when they share it with others, voluntarily or under coercion.