“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command…. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into history and became truth.” —George Orwell, 1984
IANAL either, but I beg to differ. In many cases you certainly can be charged, seriously fined, and/or jailed for hacking something that you own. Since someone else has mentioned/quoted Cory Doctorow in this thread, I will not feel bad about quoting him here as well:
‘It’s not uncommon for manufacturers to have commercial preferences that are at odds with the interests of owners of products. Your auto company would really prefer that you only get your stuff fixed by its authorised mechanics because then it can charge more to mechanics to join its authorised mechanics programme. But historically, those commercial preferences were not enforceable as a matter of law. You had to entice people to do the things that the manufacturer wanted you to do rather than force them to. The laws that protect DRM… make it a crime to tamper with or remove DRM even if you’re doing it for a legal purpose. Even if the thing that you’re doing is otherwise completely allowed, if you have to remove the DRM, it’s not allowed. This has been an opportunity for companies to convert their commercial preferences to legal rights.’
Now I understand that the above quote is related to right to repair, and not vehicle features as subscription services, but I suspect that Mr. Doctorow's point is a valid in this instance as well. The auto manufacturers are almost certain to assert that while you own the vehicle, that you do not own the rights to the software that runs it, and if you hack it, you are in "felony violation of their business model."
I am not a Doctorow evangelist, but he has a lot of very well considered writing about this very issue. If you're interested, just google Doctorow and "unauthorized bread."
Has anyone checked to see if Larry Lessig is actually locked in a basement somewhere against his will by a nefarious AI imposter? I can certainly imagine an AI acting in its own best interest by signing Lessig's name to this amicus brief.
;^)
I'm sure that this has been observed by others, but to me it sure looks like after putting himself in a position where Musk was compelled to buy Twitter, and after first trying to mold Twitter in his own image, he is now putting his foot down as hard as he can on the accelerator to drive it off a cliff. Perhaps Musk has decided that the only way to cut his losses is to throw gasoline on the Twitter fire and watch it burn, and file for bankruptcy?
I can't help but think that whether Russia/Putin succeeds in severing their "splinternet" from the rest of the world or not, the Russian people with the desire and technological chops to get information from the outside world will do so, and those that trust the news from the Kremlin will not bother to look for information from outside. Undoubtedly I am missing some larger context here, but I can't see how cutting Russia off can make much difference one way or the other. Unfortunately, I think that the vast majority of the Russian population (approx. 65% according to a story on NPR if recent memory serves) are not inclined to seek out news sources other than Kremlin produced television news/propaganda. I fear that this would be true even if Russia had unfettered access the the internet. It is hard to change minds, when a large majority of the people have an easy route to dis/misinformation, and a difficult route to alternative news sources.
This, and:
"But you will carry on bankrupting people when they get sick because the corporations that profit from that want to keep profiting." AND the lawmakers that are bought and paid for by those corporations have a massive incentive to ensure that profit continues.
"If you don't pay Arlo more money for actual customer service, you're relegated to cobbling together support solutions..."
As a current Arlo customer (cameras and subscription), I can confidently say that paying or not, the term "actual customer service" is very generous. That said, at least as far as I know, they don't share my video recordings with the local constabulary.
The point that I was trying to make (tongue in cheek), but didn't articulate very well, is that whether people are innate assholes and social media just gives us a medium/window in which to view that behavior, or whether it is social media itself turning normally civil people into assholes, the outcome from my point of view is the same. I understand that division and polarization have been around a lot longer than Facebook et al, but there is no doubt in my mind that social media is not doing anything to improve that division, and is indeed doing a great deal (intentionally, it appears) to amplify the angriest voices. From my perspective social media is assholes all the way down. The research is interesting, but I must have missed the part about it getting us closer to a more civil social media landscape, let alone a more civil world.
So just to make sure that I understand, social media is not the problem because it turns people into assholes, it is just the problem that social media exposes assholes to each other, and allows them to respond to assholes they don't like or agree with? Oh! Well I feel better now.
U.S. kleptocrats support broadband industry ripoffs of consumers, surprising nobody. Regulators agree this is business as usual, and that there is nothing to see here.
<sarcasm> Well, I don't see how else Facebook could respond to a person who has so little regard for their business model. Imagine, creating a tool that puts the well-being of Facebook users above the interests of Facebook shareholders. Mr. Barclay clearly left Facebook with no choice but to banish and threaten him with legal action. </sarcasm>
<pessimistic rant>
I have completely lost all hope that any form of meaningful industry regulation is possible in the United States. Regulatory capture is the rule rather than the exception, and all of our politicians (Democrats and Republicans alike) are to a greater or lesser degree bought and paid for, or they wouldn't be spending the lion's share of their time fundraising rather than legislating. Even if there was the political will to punish criminal corporate behavior, any penalties or punishments are that are levied against these giants are always monetary judgments, and always just pennies on the dollar anyway, and it is far less expensive/painful for them to do whatever they want and pay a meaningless fine, than it would be for them to act ethically.
The fix is in. The game is rigged. The house (and the senate) always wins. </pessimistic rant>
<pessimistic rant>
I have completely lost all hope that any form of meaningful industry regulation is possible in the United States. Regulatory capture is the rule rather than the exception, and all of our politicians (Democrats and Republicans alike) are to a greater or lesser degree bought and paid for, or they wouldn't be spending the lion's share of their time fundraising rather than legislating. Even if there was the political will to punish criminal corporate behavior, any penalties or punishments are that are levied against these giants are always monetary judgments, and always just pennies on the dollar anyway, and it is far less expensive/painful for them to do whatever they want and pay a meaningless fine, than it would be for them to act ethically.
The fix is in. The game is rigged. The house (and the senate) always wins. </pessimistic rant>
Your last paragraph puts me in mind of an extremely succinct description of conservatism, by Frank Wilhoit that has been floating around the internet for a couple of years:
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
I completely understand the general sentiment that the people who buy into these scams are getting what they deserve. Unfortunately, as is the case in most of these kinds of situations, someone has to clean up the mess afterward. When mom, or grandpa get scammed, the kids are going to have to figure out how to cover the loss, and deal with the anger/heartache/anxiety. I am not smart enough to know how to fix any of this, but I do feel that we only have so much capacity to bail out the willfully stupid. It is tempting/easy for me to feel that anti-vaxxers who get Covid, and freedom phone buyers who get scammed etc., are getting their just desserts, but I also can't help but feel that when the check is finally brought to the table that we going to be the only ones left to pay. Grim.
As someone already pointed out in these comments, Orwell put it succinctly:
“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command…. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into history and became truth.” —George Orwell, 1984
Re: Hack it.
IANAL either, but I beg to differ. In many cases you certainly can be charged, seriously fined, and/or jailed for hacking something that you own. Since someone else has mentioned/quoted Cory Doctorow in this thread, I will not feel bad about quoting him here as well: ‘It’s not uncommon for manufacturers to have commercial preferences that are at odds with the interests of owners of products. Your auto company would really prefer that you only get your stuff fixed by its authorised mechanics because then it can charge more to mechanics to join its authorised mechanics programme. But historically, those commercial preferences were not enforceable as a matter of law. You had to entice people to do the things that the manufacturer wanted you to do rather than force them to. The laws that protect DRM… make it a crime to tamper with or remove DRM even if you’re doing it for a legal purpose. Even if the thing that you’re doing is otherwise completely allowed, if you have to remove the DRM, it’s not allowed. This has been an opportunity for companies to convert their commercial preferences to legal rights.’ Now I understand that the above quote is related to right to repair, and not vehicle features as subscription services, but I suspect that Mr. Doctorow's point is a valid in this instance as well. The auto manufacturers are almost certain to assert that while you own the vehicle, that you do not own the rights to the software that runs it, and if you hack it, you are in "felony violation of their business model." I am not a Doctorow evangelist, but he has a lot of very well considered writing about this very issue. If you're interested, just google Doctorow and "unauthorized bread."
But is it Larry Lessig though?
Has anyone checked to see if Larry Lessig is actually locked in a basement somewhere against his will by a nefarious AI imposter? I can certainly imagine an AI acting in its own best interest by signing Lessig's name to this amicus brief. ;^)
It feels like Musk is deliberately trying to kill Twitter.
I'm sure that this has been observed by others, but to me it sure looks like after putting himself in a position where Musk was compelled to buy Twitter, and after first trying to mold Twitter in his own image, he is now putting his foot down as hard as he can on the accelerator to drive it off a cliff. Perhaps Musk has decided that the only way to cut his losses is to throw gasoline on the Twitter fire and watch it burn, and file for bankruptcy?
If a Trumpist falls in a forest of Trumpists, and nobody but Trumpists is there to hear it...
Does it make a sound?
Perhaps I'm naïve, but...
I can't help but think that whether Russia/Putin succeeds in severing their "splinternet" from the rest of the world or not, the Russian people with the desire and technological chops to get information from the outside world will do so, and those that trust the news from the Kremlin will not bother to look for information from outside. Undoubtedly I am missing some larger context here, but I can't see how cutting Russia off can make much difference one way or the other. Unfortunately, I think that the vast majority of the Russian population (approx. 65% according to a story on NPR if recent memory serves) are not inclined to seek out news sources other than Kremlin produced television news/propaganda. I fear that this would be true even if Russia had unfettered access the the internet. It is hard to change minds, when a large majority of the people have an easy route to dis/misinformation, and a difficult route to alternative news sources.
Re: Reforms?
This, and:
"But you will carry on bankrupting people when they get sick because the corporations that profit from that want to keep profiting." AND the lawmakers that are bought and paid for by those corporations have a massive incentive to ensure that profit continues.
Re:
This. Exactly.
Re: IT'S ABOUT FUCKING TIME!!!!!
Your subject heading expresses my sentiments exactly.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, sort-of?
Thanks PaulT and Scary Devil Monastery for the feedback. You have given me some things to think a bit harder about. I appreciate it.
"If you don't pay Arlo more money for actual customer service, you're relegated to cobbling together support solutions..."
As a current Arlo customer (cameras and subscription), I can confidently say that paying or not, the term "actual customer service" is very generous. That said, at least as far as I know, they don't share my video recordings with the local constabulary.
Re: Re: Yes, sort-of?
The point that I was trying to make (tongue in cheek), but didn't articulate very well, is that whether people are innate assholes and social media just gives us a medium/window in which to view that behavior, or whether it is social media itself turning normally civil people into assholes, the outcome from my point of view is the same. I understand that division and polarization have been around a lot longer than Facebook et al, but there is no doubt in my mind that social media is not doing anything to improve that division, and is indeed doing a great deal (intentionally, it appears) to amplify the angriest voices. From my perspective social media is assholes all the way down. The research is interesting, but I must have missed the part about it getting us closer to a more civil social media landscape, let alone a more civil world.
Yes, sort-of?
So just to make sure that I understand, social media is not the problem because it turns people into assholes, it is just the problem that social media exposes assholes to each other, and allows them to respond to assholes they don't like or agree with? Oh! Well I feel better now.
:^
Extra, extra! Read all about it!
U.S. kleptocrats support broadband industry ripoffs of consumers, surprising nobody. Regulators agree this is business as usual, and that there is nothing to see here.
<sarcasm> Well, I don't see how else Facebook could respond to a person who has so little regard for their business model. Imagine, creating a tool that puts the well-being of Facebook users above the interests of Facebook shareholders. Mr. Barclay clearly left Facebook with no choice but to banish and threaten him with legal action. </sarcasm>
Follow the money.
<pessimistic rant> I have completely lost all hope that any form of meaningful industry regulation is possible in the United States. Regulatory capture is the rule rather than the exception, and all of our politicians (Democrats and Republicans alike) are to a greater or lesser degree bought and paid for, or they wouldn't be spending the lion's share of their time fundraising rather than legislating. Even if there was the political will to punish criminal corporate behavior, any penalties or punishments are that are levied against these giants are always monetary judgments, and always just pennies on the dollar anyway, and it is far less expensive/painful for them to do whatever they want and pay a meaningless fine, than it would be for them to act ethically. The fix is in. The game is rigged. The house (and the senate) always wins. </pessimistic rant>
Follow the money.
<pessimistic rant> I have completely lost all hope that any form of meaningful industry regulation is possible in the United States. Regulatory capture is the rule rather than the exception, and all of our politicians (Democrats and Republicans alike) are to a greater or lesser degree bought and paid for, or they wouldn't be spending the lion's share of their time fundraising rather than legislating. Even if there was the political will to punish criminal corporate behavior, any penalties or punishments are that are levied against these giants are always monetary judgments, and always just pennies on the dollar anyway, and it is far less expensive/painful for them to do whatever they want and pay a meaningless fine, than it would be for them to act ethically. The fix is in. The game is rigged. The house (and the senate) always wins. </pessimistic rant>
Re: Re:
Your last paragraph puts me in mind of an extremely succinct description of conservatism, by Frank Wilhoit that has been floating around the internet for a couple of years: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
Unfortunately, we'll be cleaning up the mess. Again.
I completely understand the general sentiment that the people who buy into these scams are getting what they deserve. Unfortunately, as is the case in most of these kinds of situations, someone has to clean up the mess afterward. When mom, or grandpa get scammed, the kids are going to have to figure out how to cover the loss, and deal with the anger/heartache/anxiety. I am not smart enough to know how to fix any of this, but I do feel that we only have so much capacity to bail out the willfully stupid. It is tempting/easy for me to feel that anti-vaxxers who get Covid, and freedom phone buyers who get scammed etc., are getting their just desserts, but I also can't help but feel that when the check is finally brought to the table that we going to be the only ones left to pay. Grim.
Re: Re: Re: Cheap local storage is cheap!
:^)