They figure once they have a captive audience, anything short of killing the hostage is fair game.

In the US there is a “right of publicity” that is based on state law, typically for commercial uses. There are also some laws depending on locality criminalizing deepfakes for revenge porn. Some countries use copyright law to the same end.

The “doppelganger problem” is really why this is not an easy issue to answer. If someone gets exclusive rights to a specific face, who is to say another person naturally having a similar face isn’t being wronged? How close is too close? What about similar names? And should that really be protected after death (which copyright and trademark and some publicity laws allow)?

I’m hoping we hit “peak stupid” with these nonsense metrics soon, but the C-suite MBAs who get all their AI-related information solely from vendor demos, Sam Altman and Elon Musk keep surprising me.

I’ve been playing Puzzle Quest on my original PSP every so often and it’s really such a nice change of pace. No enshittification, subscriptions, forced updates, distractions…

I know it’s just a game system, but it feels like it’s helping repair my attention span and reminding me why I enjoyed technology a decade or two ago.

Yeah, totally. I notice it, didn’t seem like you were shaming.

I mean, to each his own and everyone is allowed to post what they like, but I’d guess 95% of these types of memes are the same one or two people. I can spot a meme by this poster without looking at the name at this point.

I mean, I agree we don’t want spying, but: a foreign government absolutely can use your data against you. Whether its creating a profile on you that could later be used against you when you enter that country, using it for statistical or targeted data for influence campaigns…there are a lot of ways.

China in particular has repeatedly deployed extra-territorial “police service stations” in at least the UK, Canada and the US to punish or harass those it’s identified as “Chinese” dissidents or sympathizers in other countries.

It’s more a trademark issue, which requires continued use (but that may still be legally satisfied even with a low active user base). If there is an active maintainer/owner, they probably could file a trademark suit.

Copyright in anything like code or content will outlive us all in Berne Convention countries. That protection is automatic, so the notice like you see there is not necessary, but it also indicates dates that begin the copyright clock, not the ending of it.

It’s probably a Goldilocks zone thing where too few prevents it from working, and too many will inevitably be overrun by bots and scanners.

This reply is offensive. We both went to all that work and you didn’t even have the decency to say “What Nintendidn’tyetbecausethatDSadisalotmorerecentandidon’trememberNintendoutselfhavinganythingquitethatrisqueinthe’90s.”

You have society’s permission to be ashoud, under threat of being pramed.

I think your response is deadpan, but just to be clear, there’s no way that’s real. I can be convinced by someone creating a properly faked Photoshop of it in a real magazine, however.

Or, I guess, Sega did what Nintendalsodid.

Also, when most of the new technology is corporate-fellating AI, surveillance and ad technology, it’s also the technology that’s the problem.

What’s really just depressing is that these companies are more profitable and worth more than ever before. They don’t need to do this. They are essentially tightening their grip on civilization’s throat to see how hard they can squeeze before we all die, for the love of the game.

It’s also weird because they are opening themselves up to being out-competed by a company that isn’t (as) evil. Being not evil is the most valuable market differentiator right now. Companies like Valve that seem to just be sticking with “we have enough money” are like water in the desert.

“Your honor, the defendant clearly intended for me to illegally arrest her!”

Uh oh, someone tell the Android devs that is isn’t Newthink compliant.

Thanks. I think that’s enough to see where you’re going. It’s on me to find better evidence, so I looked and it looks like a 2020 NIST report suggests masks increase the failure rate in 89 tested algorithms from 0.3% to 5-50%.

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2020/07/nist-launches-studies-masks-effect-face-recognition-software

That failure rate is enough to give plausible deniability and reasonable doubt in a court, I’d wager. But I’m sure ICE sees a higher failure rate a feature since it likely gives them more pretexts to arrest. At least we know the technology isn’t reliable enough to support it.

Do you have a reliable link to show this? I’m asking not to challenge or sealion, but because I’d like to know the limits of what you’re referring to for my own safety and privacy.

This is a pretty misleading headline. There’s no reporting in the article here about a staff protest, just the same information reporting the change as the rest of news sources, with the Register’s more editorial writing style.