It’s really funny how big states today have solved the problem of public outrage at wholesale censorship and surveillance, simply by introducing it 10 times slower than all those goosestepping predecessors.
Definitely. Just take one tiny step at a time. No one will notice and it all just seems normal: “It’s always been like that.” No, it hasn’t always been like that. The tiny steps got you to the same place, it just took longer.
I’ve talked to some people of the “relative of a bureaucrat\politician” kind. If it makes this emotionally easier for you, they know that they are the bad people.
They just think they are smarter and stronger and thus deserve to screw people.
That's the same method politicians have done to get controversial bills passed. Because they know they can't pass something like "ANNEX AMERICAN PRIVACY ACT" right there out in the open. It'll get shot down. Political suicide just to get it on the docket.
But if they do just enough bills that pass to make people think things are going okay, when we least expect it, they'll lump it in the next big budget bill and it'll become law. Then we'll all go "Huh, wha?" before we know it.
Yet, despite an overseas focus, Americans won’t be able to avoid the proposal’s requirements, which covers CDNs, virtual private servers, proxies, and domain name resolution services, among others.
… and …
The premise is relatively simple. By having a more rigorous sign-up procedure for platforms such as Amazon’s AWS, for example, the risk of malicious actors using U.S. cloud services to attack U.S. critical infrastructure, or undermine national security in other ways, can be reduced.
No need to assume, you can see this on all of their comment history. They are claiming ownership of their words, or in the context, ownership of how they’ve arranged others words
I was thinking of using this comment to train my for-profit LLM, but now that I see the licensing agreement, I know I will never be able weather the prolonged court battles.
I was thinking of using this comment to train my for-profit LLM, but now that I see the licensing agreement,
Honestly at this point it’s more about just reading the replies from people who get bent out of shape about seeing that link, than actually protecting myself from bots. It’s almost like a strange Internet Rorschach test. It’s honestly kind of weird how many people respond back negatively to that link.
Having said that, primarily it’s an attempt to get AI companies that use bots to not use my comments to train their models, or at least give citation of my name if they do, which I’ve never seen any company do at this point for anything that they use to train any their models.
I know I will never be able weather the prolonged court battles.
It’s a momentary copy and paste, a ‘low hanging fruit’ thing I can do to try to limit interaction with bots. If it works, it’s a bonus.
Also, I’m retired, I have time on my hands. You never know. 🤷
“Security by obscurity” is very much an end user “i don’t need to harden my server/accounts because nobody would bother hacking me” attitude and is really is “dumb as fuck”
But KYC is just expanded due diligence before providing services, thats why I thought it as privacy issue as to why someone would be against it as opposed to it security wise.
I still don’t see how you’ve gotten from that to “nationally enforced security by obscurity” though
I think we fundamentally disagree on these ideas, and that’s ok.
“Implementing systems that are not vulnerable to attack” is an impossible task. And passing KYC legislation doesn’t preclude anyone from hardening their system and I didn’t read any signs that the government plans to leave any of its systems unhardened.
Add comment