Yeah it is crazy isn't.Fife wrote:0_oGrumpyCatFace wrote:I don't think so. He used those 3 examples for a reason - they're the only legally-protected private conversations.
+Americans should no longer expect that their private conversations will remain private, the head of the FBI said on Wednesday.
FBI Director James Comey told a conference on cybersecurity that there is no longer any such thing as 'absolute privacy' in the era of WikiLeaks, social media, and hyper-interconnection, according to CNN.
'There is no such thing as absolute privacy in America; there is no place outside of judicial reach,' Comey told the conference at Boston College.
'Even our communications with our spouses, with our clergy members, with our attorneys are not absolutely private in America,' Comey said.
In appropriate circumstances, a judge can compel any one of us to testify in court about those very private communications.'
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... ne/517563/The tool, called Perspective, learned from the best: It analyzed the Times moderators’ decisions as they triaged reader comments, and used that data to train itself to identify harmful speech. The training materials also included hundreds of thousands of comments on Wikipedia, evaluated by thousands of different moderators.
Perspective’s current focus is on “toxicity,” defined by the likelihood that a comment will drive other participants to leave a conversation, most likely because it’s rude or disrespectful. Developers that adopt the platform can use it as they choose: It can automatically suppress toxic comments outright, or group them to help human moderators choose what to do with them.
All this using of algorithms, and computer programs, merely means we are substituting the judgment of whoever created them in the first place. Sure, if done right, they are useful, but they are not magic sauce that can be used in place of people's brains.Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote:Whelp...
+Americans should no longer expect that their private conversations will remain private, the head of the FBI said on Wednesday.
FBI Director James Comey told a conference on cybersecurity that there is no longer any such thing as 'absolute privacy' in the era of WikiLeaks, social media, and hyper-interconnection, according to CNN.
'There is no such thing as absolute privacy in America; there is no place outside of judicial reach,' Comey told the conference at Boston College.
'Even our communications with our spouses, with our clergy members, with our attorneys are not absolutely private in America,' Comey said.
In appropriate circumstances, a judge can compel any one of us to testify in court about those very private communications.'
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... ne/517563/The tool, called Perspective, learned from the best: It analyzed the Times moderators’ decisions as they triaged reader comments, and used that data to train itself to identify harmful speech. The training materials also included hundreds of thousands of comments on Wikipedia, evaluated by thousands of different moderators.
Perspective’s current focus is on “toxicity,” defined by the likelihood that a comment will drive other participants to leave a conversation, most likely because it’s rude or disrespectful. Developers that adopt the platform can use it as they choose: It can automatically suppress toxic comments outright, or group them to help human moderators choose what to do with them.
+
=
Having a polite time will soon be mandatory.
Great... so not only can it watch me everywhere, find me anywhere, and be automated to tag my 'toxic' opinions; but it is also based on the arbitrary judgment of a human creator?jbird4049 wrote:
All this using of algorithms, and computer programs, merely means we are substituting the judgment of whoever created them in the first place. Sure, if done right, they are useful, but they are not magic sauce that can be used in place of people's brains.
Welcome the future for it has arrived!Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote:Great... so not only can it watch me everywhere, find me anywhere, and be automated to tag my 'toxic' opinions; but it is also based on the arbitrary judgment of a human creator?jbird4049 wrote:
All this using of algorithms, and computer programs, merely means we are substituting the judgment of whoever created them in the first place. Sure, if done right, they are useful, but they are not magic sauce that can be used in place of people's brains.
That is not comforting at all.
I just never expected Skynet to be so banal, bureaucratic, and oddly paranoid.jbird4049 wrote:Welcome the future for it has arrived!Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote:Great... so not only can it watch me everywhere, find me anywhere, and be automated to tag my 'toxic' opinions; but it is also based on the arbitrary judgment of a human creator?jbird4049 wrote:
All this using of algorithms, and computer programs, merely means we are substituting the judgment of whoever created them in the first place. Sure, if done right, they are useful, but they are not magic sauce that can be used in place of people's brains.
That is not comforting at all.
And I think it's fracked.
Bringing people to court is so much work though. Can't we all just give up our rights so that he has an easier job? It'll save them so much time and there are so many important terrorists they're chasing.de officiis wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ivacy.htmlAmericans should no longer expect that their private conversations will remain private, the head of the FBI said on Wednesday.
FBI Director James Comey told a conference on cybersecurity that there is no longer any such thing as 'absolute privacy' in the era of WikiLeaks, social media, and hyper-interconnection, according to CNN.
'There is no such thing as absolute privacy in America; there is no place outside of judicial reach,' Comey told the conference at Boston College.
'Even our communications with our spouses, with our clergy members, with our attorneys are not absolutely private in America,' Comey said.
In appropriate circumstances, a judge can compel any one of us to testify in court about those very private communications.'
How's that for a fucking sleight-of-hand, when we're talking about the CIA's development of privacy-obliterating spying tools that are about as far away from in-court testimony that one can imagine. Shill.
Not sure if you guys are disagreeing or not. But I'm pretty sure it means that they're allowed to bug anything.jbird4049 wrote:Yeah it is crazy isn't.Fife wrote:0_oGrumpyCatFace wrote:I don't think so. He used those 3 examples for a reason - they're the only legally-protected private conversations.
But isn't there supposed to be a line whereby an informant becomes a de facto government employee?
Absolution Style by Premium phpBB Styles
