I agree, the applet which google plageurized through its Gemini tool saves you money. Why keep the middle man though? At this point, just pirate a copy.
I don't think it's plagiarized, nor would I pirate a copy. The workflow through the Gemini made app is way better (it's customized exactly for our inputs) and totally different than how the CAD program did it. So I wouldn't pirate a copy not even because our business runs above board, but also because the CAD version is actually also worse for our use. This is also pretty fringe stuff, cnc machine files from the 80's/90's.
Part of the magic of LLMs is getting the exact bespoke tools you need, tailored specifically to your individual needs.
Of course it's plagiarized. Perhaps not directly from the CAD software in question, but when you use an LLM, you are by definition plagiarizing by way of the data it was trained on.
> > or the CCP route (clip the wings of the Icaruses who fly too high).
> This seems like a great way for the monied interests from WITHIN the party to just take full control.
They already do in the US, so this is a non-response.
> > Go with either the FDR route (94% tax rate)
> The reason why this worked is because FDR oversaw the US during a period of incredible change and after the Great Depression. It's not like the tax rate was responsible for his successes.
Once again, this is a vacuous response. If the claim was “high taxes caused the change during FDR’s time,” “There was change” is not an alternative explanation to that claim. If we took the counter-factual claim, do you think the period would have been as transformative if the tax rates weren’t high?
> I do know, however, that if you take private data from your employer and leak it (or sell it) you’re not going to be on the right side of the law. I have a hard time buying this article’s point that it was just “violating company policy”
If I were to copy the files on my work device and distribute them, I would be in violation of NDAs which could be pursued as civil offenses. If I didn’t have those NDAs, my employer could try and pursue something in court, along with firing me, but it wouldn’t be a straightforward suit.
None of these are (or at least, should be) criminal situations.
What's the charge for the arrest? I thought legally intellectual property wasn't "real property." If it actually was a trade secret, it might make more sense.
Just because a user has privileges to access files doesn’t mean doing so is permitted for any purpose. Accessing them for this unauthorized purpose is likely computer fraud, at least under California law as I understand it.
>I thought legally intellectual property wasn't "real property."
if you break into your boss's house and copy his latest recordings (your boss is Stevie Wonder) you are not simply guilty of violating his copyrights.
"computer fraud and abuse act", or who knows how many other laws, are focused on various aspects of "you know you are sneaking about", or even if you don't, tuff noogies.
Sure but the difference in value is also obvious. Stevie Wonder has a business interest in controlling the release of his music, as do other parties like a production company and a publisher. And an early release may do harm to the value of such a recording. But I don't expect most organizations that put up security cameras have a business interest in monetizing the footage.
you've missed the point entirely. it's NOT about the intellectual property which is a civil matter, "artist v. you", it's about unauthorized access and use of computers which is a criminal matter, "the people v. you"
There are intangible kinds of property and assets that are more valuable than “real property”. Trade secrets is an obvious one, being a special case of intellectual property. It would be absolutely irrational for legal system to classify theft of iPhone as criminal and theft of IP as civil, when the former cost $700 and monetizing the latter could finance creator’s entire life.
Depending on jurisdiction it might be theft, could be something more recently ratified that’s basically made for exactly this purpose. Could also just be a plain old federal CFAA related charge since those are pretty “malleable”.
Again, take these laws seriously and don’t do this.
Interesting. Do you have an example of where copying data like this (something with almost no commercial value, but done without authorization, whose harm is basically the disclosure of the facts of the camera's location/positioning) was charged as theft? Because it seems like in a legal sense, copying isn't theft, but the consequences of the copy becoming generally available (say a commercial interest in the data, in the Stevie Wonder example from the sibling thread) may make the damage of the copy and subsequent release obvious. I'm also curious what has recently been enacted to cover this scenario if you have a ready example?
I believe you and heed your warning. I think it's good to understand these things too though.
I worked in surveillance cameras for a long time and started my own company in the field. So, I wouldn’t be so quick to diminish the value of location/bearing.
Armed with those details, a sufficiently motivated person with an easy to obtain skill set could avoid a camera.
With airports, leaking a location for a major component of active perimeter and taxiway monitoring is a serious issue. A month before the crash, someone got into the wheel well of a plane at O’Hare in Chicago so taxiway security is not a solved problem. Leaking camera locations and bearings is dangerous.
But the footage isn't "real property" as I understand it. The only thing the theft does is deprive the company from the opportunity to sell the footage themselves, and it's not exactly like selling security camera footage is the business model of many/any(?) company.
If the harm is that the company couldn't sell the footage itself, the remedy should be giving the company the money from the sale.
It’s a common misconception that “property” relates to physical objects (chattel) or land (real property). But that’s an incorrect and limited understanding. More generally, it’s about the right to control something and exclude others from using it.
Copyright, for example, is what’s known as “intellectual property.” Its rights protect intangible things, namely, artistic expressions.
I think I did understand that, specifically contrasting real property and intellectual property, but maybe wrongfully implied that theft could only apply to real property.
However, is there any argument for security camera footage like this instance to be considered a trade secret? Isn't that the only type of intellectual property it might be? It seems like if the business wasn't planning to derive economic value from the sale of the security camera footage (which seems like a generally safe assumption) it would fail to acquire trade secret protections.
The elements of trade secret misappropriation are: 1/the existence of a trade secret, 2/ acquisition of that secret through improper means, and 3/ use or disclosure of the trade secret without consent.
I’m honestly uncertain as to whether security camera footage of an airport’s traffic area fits the definition of a trade secret. For example, 18 USC 1831 defines a trade secret as “all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if
the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and
the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by the public.”
Given that anyone in the immediate vicinity could record the incident - for example, anyone who happens to be in a nearby aircraft - it sounds absurd that to try to classify this information as a secret. These aren’t recordings of the airport’s or FAA’s own activities, and neither the airport nor the FAA derives any business value from any footage they might possess related to the incident. Both of these are public entities anyway.
I will do my best to try to reconcile "honestly uncertain" and "sounds absurd." :)
I'm sure it would be a feat of legal imagination to construct such an argument. It would probably be an interesting, if not also incredibly frustrating, read.
> When ever i see "never implement your own...", i know i want to implement it myself.
Doing stuff for learning is useful, and the intent behind this general phrase is to not ‘implement your own’ something which is both hard and critical in a production environment. I work in cryptography (for security purposes) and have implemented quite a few things myself to learn, but I still use stable, field tested, and scrutinized crypto for any actual use.
> People say that about hard things, and I only want to do hard things. Nobody wants people who can do easy things, people want people who can do hard things.
Only wanting to do hard things limits yourself quite a bit: what about things which seem easy but could be improved? I worked in a non-tech related medical manufacturing job for a bit and took time to learn the process and tools. Afterward, I implemented a few tools (using what my coworkers (who have no programming or IT experience) have available to them: Excel and the VBA on the lab computers) to help them prep inventory lists which they have been doing by hand. Doing it by hand took them 3 hours as a group (and the first shift had to do this every morning), which my tool did in 5 seconds with a single button click. They still use it to this day, about a decade later.
This wasn’t something ‘hard:’ I glued a few files together, grouped a list by a filter, sorted the groups by a column, and made a printout which was easy to read and mark on as they went about their day. However, my coworkers didn’t even know this was possible until someone came in with a different skill set, learned what they did (by doing the job well for months) and then made a solution.
You must be careful with doing only ‘hard’ things. It requires other people to identify what is hard! In addition: crackpots do only hard things and believe they find better solutions than what exists so far (without consulting or learning about what has been done). Interesting people learn about things as they are (with the humility of knowing that they are not experts in most things) and tries to improve them using the knowledge they already have.
Don’t waste your time rolling your own crypto when you could do the _actual_ hard thing and identify unaddressed space to make careful and considered improvements.
What? You’ve managed to mangle so many terms in so few words… Signatures can refer to two things: integrity checks on a file or authentication checks for a recieved file. In the integrity check situation a hash function (e.g., SHA) is often used. In the authentication check situation, we usually use a public/private keypair for asymmetric encryption; the hash function is only part of the process. The key material used to make this keypair (should) comes from some random number generator…
The ‘hash’ function is a deterministic transform, not a source of randomness.
He is technically not wrong, most signatures can be seen has a public coin interactive proof system where you prove knowledge of a private key.
They are then compiled into an non-interactive proof system via the Fiat-Shamir transform that uses a random oracle concretely instantiated using a hash function (easy to see in Schnorr signature).
So at the end you are using a Hash function to generate your random coin.
The U2 album was odd, but not bad in the same league. Apple didn’t advertise for you to purchase U2’s music. As an end user, what made it annoying was how the U2 album was part of your library (thus, would show up in shuffle, etc.) and removing it was a whole ordeal.
This wallet notification was silly. Prior to this, I believed that their wallet app would give notifications much like how settings app would: rarely and without commercial intent.
> Judges were using injunctions to avoid putting their name behind a ruling.
What? That makes no sense. You can lookup which court and judge (or panel of judges) issued the injunctions. I do not understand why this non-existent anonymity would motivate a judge to issue an injunction.
> They can still strike down a law or executive branch policy.
Federal courts will only look at cases if there is a party with standing who engages in a lawsuit. If someone is being deported without due process, it will be hard for them to bring suit.
> This forces judges to actually do their job., instead of a nationwide injunction while they decide if they want to do their job later.
In general there are two reasons why these temporary restraining orders which have been issued. The first being that not doing so would cause irrevocable (or ridiculously difficult to revoke) harm (e.g., deporting people to a foreign jail). The second is that the TRO is used to stop something which seems illegal on its face (e.g. deporting people to countries from which they have never been).
> It doesn’t actually alter some fabric of our democracy or checks and balances, because the judges had already gone beyond what the constitution and congress prescribed.
It does alter the power dynamic of our democracy. Now, the executive branch can repeatedly perform illegal acts and only needs to stop its behavior in cases which have been decided. This checks and balances isn’t about stopping each other branch in a vacuum, the intent is to stop the government from overreaching on its citizenry. By crippling all of the lower courts, the Supreme Court has created a bureaucratic bottleneck for itself, allowing the executive branch to effectively DDoS the judicial system with case after case.
> The disruptive aspect of this - with concern to the birthright case that hasnt been ruled on yet - is just another example of this. Judges not doing their job.
No, it was the judge telling the executive branch that the executive branch must recognize the citizenship of children born on US soil. Instead of actually appealing the TRO on grounds of the legality of their actions, the executive branch has decided to complain about the legality of a court telling the executive branch to stop.
Who is supposed to tell the executive branch to stop doing something illegal, congress? Part of the point of the executive branch was to allow for some expedience, congress is slow. A judge is in a perfect position to tell the executive branch to stop, they don’t need to wait on committee and are not beholden to the president. Without the ability, the executive branch can quite literally do whatever the president wants.
The first two major points they pose against email can be summed up as ‘people don’t use security unless it is by default, and because it wasn’t built-in to email we shouldn’t try.’ To which I respond with: perfect is the enemy of progress. Clearly, email is sticky (many other things have tried to replace it), and it has grown to do more than just send plaintext messages. People use it for document transfer, agreements, as a way to send commands over the internet, etc. Email encryption and authentication is simply an attempt to add some cryptographic tooling to a tool we already use for so many things. Thus, these points feel vacuous to me.
The last two points are less to do with email and more to do with encryption in general, and it is probably the most defeatist implication of the fact that there is no ‘permanent encryption.’ It is an argument against encryption as a whole, and paints the picture for me that the author would find other reasons to dislike email encryption because they already dislike encryption. These last two points are an extension of wanting an ideal solution and refusing to settle for anything less.
Nuance is not always a good thing. This type of nuance doesn’t forward the discussion in any way and, in this case, muddies the waters and leads to some odd implications.
Sure, we can say there is no objective source of truth and chastise the author for using that word, but the term objective in this case has meaning that the author is trying to articulate… most likely that there is some overtly unbiased information source, in opposition to the information sourced from the company which has obvious incentives.
Additionally, by stating that the CSB provides an ‘alternative source’ of truth, as a correction to an originally described objective one, you are (possibly inadvertently) claiming that the company is also providing a different source of truth, rhetorically raising the value of the information the company provides while lowering the value of the CSB information.
Don’t be the person who adds nuance for the sake of nuance.
> Sure, we can say there is no objective source of truth and chastise the author for using that word
I regret my imprecise use of language which has taken us down this tiresome metaphysical subthread. I should have merely emphasized that the CSB presents an alternative point of view to that of the company. It was not essential to my point that the CSB be unassailable.
Ah, I was being a bit sarcastic in my response to monkeyelite, I believe I understood what you wrote and was trying to get at the vacuity of their response to you.
I derailed this conversation to make a meta point, and it wasn’t your fault at all.
> there is some overtly unbiased information source, in opposition to the information sourced from the company which has obvious incentives.
Yes I don’t believe in unbiased sources. I believe in multiple perspectives revealing aspects of the truth.
> you are (possibly inadvertently) claiming that the company is also providing a different source of truth
Correct. And I don’t buy the dichotomy you are framing of biased companies vs unbiased government.
> Don’t be the person who adds nuance for the sake of nuance.
The term “objective truth” was just thrown around. Might as well just say it’s an “absolutely good”. The level of discourse in these threads is science = good, agency with science in name = science. Cuts against agency = bad.
What are the costs and benefits to this organization? It appears some sub threads have identified a possible overlap with other agency’s responsibility. It would be interesting to know the extent that is true.
> Yes I don’t believe in unbiased sources. I believe in multiple perspectives revealing aspects of the truth.
Sure, I agree with what you’ve stated here.
> Correct. And I don’t buy the dichotomy you are framing of biased companies vs unbiased government.
I reread what I wrote and still don’t see that I framed the conversation in this way. What I did frame was the motivation of the company (which I implied to be profit) versus the motive of the government (that of public interest). These are both biased and the effect of the bias could be anticipated: companies would slant their published information with a focus on the effects of profits, whereas the government’s overt bias would slant its information output towards safety (in the case of the CSB) without much concern for profit.
> The term “objective truth” was just thrown around. Might as well just say it’s an “absolutely good”. The level of discourse in these threads is science = good, agency with science in name = science. Cuts against agency = bad.
Sure, we both agree the author is biased towards the government, but you’ve missed the thrust of what I wrote entirely: your nuance added absolutely no value to the discussion, it didn’t make a point or refute anything the author said.
You believe in multiple sources to verify truth. Then why are you arguing against one of these sources? Why are you (effectively) saying that we should just trust a single source of truth - the companies who have explicit financial incentives to deceive?
> Yes I don’t believe in unbiased sources. I believe in multiple perspectives revealing aspects of the truth.
It is just metaphysics. I like it also, but it is impractical. I find it useful to train my mind to see things from different angles, but it is useless to talk about concrete things.
Can you find examples of a biased reports on CSB's youtube channel? If not, it is a good example of uselessness of metaphysics. If you are declaring all their reports biased, while being unable to show the bias, it is just empty words.
I would call it having a baseline understanding of organizations and media.
> Can you find examples of a biased reports on CSB's youtube channel?
Yes? Can you not?
The top video in this thread, “safety pays off“ highlights their successes and does not discuss their failures or costs. So yes that video was designed to make their organization appear in the best light possible.
No. If I heard a proposal to remove them I would want to hear the reasons why or why not rather than assuming that they are an absolute good for society.
> The top video in this thread, “safety pays off“ highlights their successes and does not discuss their failures or costs. So yes that video was designed to make their organization appear in the best light possible.
Oh, yes, you are right, it is a bias. But this bias tells us nothing about objectivity of CSB investigations and recommendations. It tells us nothing about the objectivity you had objected to.
So you would prefer that only one agency speak with one voice on a subject? Sounds very counter to the "multiple perspectives revealing aspects of the truth" principle you espoused. In practice, government agencies often have disagreements in areas of overlap and hash it out before making a public recommendation, or settling on a course of action.
> So you would prefer that only one agency speak with one voice on a subject?
It’s generally better to know what each groups bias is and compensate than to pretend there are unbiased groups. That rhetorical move tends to be the most malicious and deceiving.
> Yes I don’t believe in unbiased sources. I believe in multiple perspectives revealing aspects of the truth.
Do you believe in priors? Or do you evaluate each perspective at its face value?
> Correct. And I don’t buy the dichotomy you are framing of biased companies vs unbiased government.
That's not the dichotomy here. It's a biased government acting on behalf of biased companies.
> The term “objective truth” was just thrown around. Might as well just say it’s an “absolutely good”. The level of discourse in these threads is science = good, agency with science in name = science. Cuts against agency = bad.
The only discourse you personally have contributed is "both sides."
> What are the costs and benefits to this organization? It appears some sub threads have identified a possible overlap with other agency’s responsibility. It would be interesting to know the extent that is true.
Sounds like you are intentionally giving benefit of doubt to well-known bad faith actors. This makes you incredibly naive at best, or biased sealioner at worst.
