gibwell

41 ms·

151.
by gibwell 13y ago
A good reason to find deliberate deception ok.
152.
by gibwell 13y ago
In this case it's not the theoretical maximum. It isn't available to regular apps because the OS and CPU don't allow it, for good reason - to conserve power. The reason benchmarking apps can do it is that Samsung added code
153.
by gibwell 13y ago
Perhaps the analyst's report is inaccurate.
154.
by gibwell 13y ago
The problem is that most correspondents don't know what their email is being reviewed by Google.
155.
by gibwell 13y ago
I'm not a gmail user, so no, I didn't agree to their TOS, and I don't know which of my emails are intercepted by google because I don't know who redirects their email there. Also, the judge has already decided that even
156.
by gibwell 13y ago
Part of the argument is that the assistant doesn't actually have the consent to use the contents of the email to show the recipient ads.
157.
by gibwell 13y ago
We're comparing actual scenarios that are happening today. You seem to be arguing that it's ok for Google wiretap people, but not ok for the government to do so, because the government has killed people whereas Google has not.
158.
by gibwell 13y ago
You say this, but it's not actually true in law.
159.
by gibwell 13y ago
The decisions are based on the purpose for which the interception was done. Using the contents of people's email to support an arbitrary business model is too broad according to the judge. If we allow advertising as a legitimate reason
160.
by gibwell 13y ago
Where do you get the idea that intent is irrelevant? That's certainly not a general legal principle.
161.
by gibwell 13y ago
This argument has already been rejected by the judge. Wiretappimg doesn't suddenly become permissible just because it permits an arbitrary business model that happens to pay for the service. If we say analyzing your communication is o
162.
by gibwell 13y ago
Consider how it would be if the NSA passed our email through a system that uses machine learning to generate a list of suspects, but no human analyst read the body text of any message. Somehow I don't think we'd say that they have
163.
by gibwell 13y ago
So as long as they don't kill people, whatever they do is ok?
164.
by gibwell 13y ago
They do that only for the purpose of delivering the mail safely. Not to further their own arbitrary business interests.
165.
by gibwell 13y ago
Most of the messages that pass through Gmail do not originate there.
166.
by gibwell 13y ago
Those vendors aren't using the content of your email to further their own interests other than the expected function of delivering the mail reliably.
167.
by gibwell 13y ago
The judge has rejected the argument that the receiver has given permission in general even for their own messages to be intercepted.
168.
by gibwell 13y ago
I'd suggest: build more apps (or other software) that you want to see in the world, and make sure to finish some projects to your own satisfaction.
169.
by gibwell 13y ago
I think he has a point, although it's more about the semantics of the term 'information' density. Shannon information is always measured relative to a receiving context in which it the symbols are understood, and information