Assuming you are working on anything of importance, there's a pretty good chance that you, and/or your coworkers, already have our interfaces installed in your organism. (as does most of NATO)
You might want to get on top of that, and start advocating for neuro-auditing your assets, mr. project manager.
We can't even enforce basic protections of human rights in the United States, privacy does not matter when there are rampant black operations being conducted which violates human dignity in every sense of the term.
The illusion of digital privacy was always, propaganda. There's a pretty good chance your organism is literally compromised.
>privacy does not matter when there are rampant black operations being conducted which violates human dignity in every sense of the term.
You have this completely backwards. The threat and existence of such operations is one of the fundamental reasons privacy does matter so much. Privacy is to be protected heavily not just for the now but for what could happen in the future, and it's self-reinforcing. A more privacy preserving society is a harder one to oppress.
I think I understand what you are saying, let me reply with an example in which I think 'privacy' is harmful.
Lets say military intelligence has multiple NATO hospitals compromised, and have assets in these hospitals which are being used for various black operations (including non-medical neurosurgery on literal children). In this scenario, maybe total societal surveillance, including radical transparency, would have been a nice thing to have in regards to bolstering national security?
Instead, we got HIPAA, and other medical privacy laws/standards, which are aiding literal mass atrocity to continue to proliferate.
OK, setting aside the possibility this is some sort of joke/sarcasm I can't quite get, and the absolute wtf of this "scenario" which doesn't exist and all the ways it cannot exist with nothing to with privacy, and taking it sorta seriously, your argument completely falls down here amongst other places:
>Lets say military intelligence has multiple NATO hospitals compromised, and have assets in these hospitals which are being used for various black operations (including non-medical neurosurgery on literal children). In this scenario, maybe total societal surveillance, including radical transparency, would have been a nice thing to have in regards to bolstering national security?
Why the heck would you think that the first job of a hostile military intelligence wouldn't be TO COMPROMISE THE TOTAL SOCIETAL SURVEILLANCE NETWORK!?!? There is a sort of really fundamental common failure to this kind of conspiracy thinking, wherein simultaneously your opponent is this incredibly powerful and skilled entity, one that in this case can compromise lots of secured aspects of society and insert actual agents into a hospital for illegal child surgery and escape notice. Yet simultaneously they're complete idiots who don't do the obvious, obvious job #1, job #2, and job #3 of an intelligence agency which is seek to compromise your enemy's intelligence agencies! Duh. It always has been. Counter intelligence and trying to get inside the other agency's decision loops has rich history probably for as long as spying has been done.
Why do you think you can secure this incredibly invasive theoretical network, all evidence from our entire history to the contrary, yet not medical service providers? You've literally built something here that your enemy would desperately love to have! You've done their entire job for them, better than they could! Rather then having to try to compromise endless distributed independently secured private and public organizations, now they just have to compromise a single one and they get the keys to the kingdom.
>Instead, we got HIPAA, and other medical privacy laws/standards, which are aiding literal mass atrocity to continue to proliferate.
This is such schizobabble that makes no sense (HIPAA has nothing to with law enforcement or medical ethics boards or a million other checks on the health system, just for starters) that I don't know what else to do beyond urging you to seek some alternatives to wherever you got this from.
Where do you get your information from, exactly? In criminal and intelligence circles, this is not exactly uncommon knowledge. I hope you never experience the horror of finding out that even in federal protective custody, that military intelligence is already there waiting for you.
>ways it cannot exist with nothing to with privacy,
In the Soviet Union, for example, all medical records were accessible by the state security services, and this served legitimate national security purposes. You have no idea what it's like to be targeted by an entity like the CIA.
>Why the heck would you think that the first job of a hostile military intelligence wouldn't be TO COMPROMISE THE TOTAL SOCIETAL SURVEILLANCE NETWORK!?!?
It would be a legitimate target, tbh there might not even be much of a point in terms of practical affect. Do you have any idea how many "crimes" have been reported to the international community, only to be ignored completely by all relevant propaganda outlets?
> insert actual agents into a hospital for illegal child surgery and escape notice.
Our propaganda outlets have literally reported on, swathes of, evidence of the CIA doing exactly this. Your country was not immune to this spookery.
I have some bad news for you. This is a real scenario, likely happening within a 1000km radius of you. Military usage of brain-computer interfaces go back over a century, the experience of being an intelligence asset is nothing like you assume. Many of the assets aren't even perceptual of their human experience in a manner expected naturally. The individuals who are aware of their status, at this point, learn to be silent very quickly.
Surgery based neurological compromise is only one example of the various operations currently running rampant in NATO countries.
>Counter intelligence and trying to get inside the other agency's decision loops has rich history probably for as long as spying has been done.
And your intelligence agencies won't tell you shit, they will slap a "CLASSIFIED" label on it, and continue to enjoy their cushy positions while their people continue to be exploited.
>Why do you think you can secure this incredibly invasive theoretical network
I'm just one individual who has had the great misfortune of having to deal with this spookery first-hand. You can propose the design of this system if you wish.
> all evidence from our entire history to the contrary
I'm genuinely not trying to be rude, but this line is absolutely hilarious. Depending on the country you reside in, your intelligence agencies likely are well aware of the state of neurological (again, this is just one category) compromise in your country, and aren't telling you shit.
> This is such schizobabble that makes no sense
There's a reason HIPPA has exemptions for national security purposes, to the extent in which law matters when dealing with spookery (it does not, nobody follows the fucking "law" in these operations).
Just wait until you learn about how deeply compromised the CDC is.
It would be nice to at least have the illusion of transparency in regards to, very relevant data, such as what is happening to your citizens in public hospitals. Instead the US went the opposite direction, this is not a coincidence.
> that I don't know what else to do beyond urging you to seek some alternatives to wherever you got this from.
I have been imprisoned extra-judicially, threatened with torture (I complied quickly), and served rotten food on US soil. You don't have to believe me, and I sincerely hope you never experience the horror of realizing your jailers are already compromised, nor the experience of realizing that reporting any of this is literally fucking pointless because the entire national security reporting apparatus for civilians and much of the military is deeply compromised and utterly pointless.
The US is so deeply compromised that it's a joke. Your media is failing you spectacularly in this regard.
>Would you prefer these people to have access to all of your communications? Or would you like to be able to legally encrypt your messages?
I'm saying the entire security model regarding electronics is completely irrelevant. The same entities who have compromised the US deeply have been operating since long before the personal computer, and even telecommunications broadly. I do not care about what is on my computer, when they can easily kidnap, poison, or bless me with any of the other fun systems military intelligence has to offer.
Your national security apparatus has __good reason__ to be gathering any intelligence it can. I'd gladly hand over any piece of data to any agency which requests it, or anybody else really. These computers are toys.
>Yeah this reads like a psychotic episode, so let me try the short version.
You made my day brighter by repeating this propaganda, thank you for that.
Anybody reading this who might be a little less indoctrinated, ask your favorite language model about the history of CIA black sites and specifically the CIA's involvement in deep-brain stimulation and similar technologies. This has been publicized for __decades__.
And then realize this propaganda is a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of the spookery that has been running amok in the United States for a little under a century at this point.
You have absolutely no clue just how badly the national security complex has failed it's citizens in the US, and NATO more broadly.
>Sarah Wynn-Williams served as director of global public policy at Facebook, now operating under parent company Meta Platforms Inc., from 2011 until her firing in 2017. “Careless People” alleges cruel and otherwise disturbing behavior by CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other executives.
I would have liked to learn about specific allegations of "cruel and otherwise disturbing" from the article, instead of leaving this completely ambiguous.
He throws huge temper tantrums and pouts so much when he loses at board games while traveling on the facebook private jet so all his staff conspires to let him win.
I read the book. Also Sheryl Sandberg comes off pretty badly, buying $13,000 worth of lingerie for her "cutie" personal assistants and asking them to wear skimpy pajamas and snuggle with her in the bed on the corporate jet.
There is a lot of corporate private jet related drama in the book.
> Also Sheryl Sandberg comes off pretty badly, buying $13,000 worth of lingerie for her "cutie" personal assistants and asking them to wear skimpy pajamas and snuggle with her in the bed on the corporate jet.
Good lord the Wikipedia article about her has more absolutely dogshit behavor [1]:
> According to an April 21, 2022, report by The Wall Street Journal, Sandberg was part of a coordinated campaign to prevent the Daily Mail from publishing a story about a temporary restraining order towards Kotick by a former girlfriend in 2014.
Get lay flat seats. A bed isnt for sleeping during flight.
The one place they are practical is some traveling shows where a private jet becomes a mobile hotel room/office, a much more expensive tour bus. But even then, you sleep in them on the ground. Not going to a hotel means less drives through the city, which is a pain if you are only in town for one night. Sleep/eat at the airport and you have saved many hours.
It's hilarious that anyone would give a shit about Zuck having a bad attitude about losing board games. Hopefully the book has something more damning than that.
The book has plenty of prurient private-jet-boardgame stuff, but also deals directly with facebook's adoption in Myanmar at at time when the inflammatary online speech was directly fuelling ethnic violence against the Rohingya. It covers the inability and possible unwillingness of facebook moderation staff to intervene, including a report that one paid moderator was not effective in their work because their personal views aligned with the regime.
The Myanmar struggles where Zuck explicitly valued a feature and the approval of the administration over open threats to harm dissidents.
Or the times when he proposed using lower level FB staff as canaries in the coal mine over governments who threatened to arrest FB employees because the company was breaking their laws... and in one case, an employee was. And Zuck wanted to sit on getting him legal help and out of jail because he felt it would get FB positive PR. And when he was gotten out of jail and brought to a company event where he would meet company execs, Zuck was introduced to him, didn't look up from his phone, and in fact asked, while led away, "who was that, again?"
Everyone makes mistakes sometimes; and if you cannot be told you have made a mistake even in a low-stakes situation like a board game, it seems unlikely you will behave appropriately when it is something more expensive and/or damaging.
Seconding this. I don't think the book can convince me Zuck is a criminal, but there's a variety of useful information in it, especially if you read it carefully without blindly following author's own deductions.
One good example: Facebook was ignoring Brazilian law. An employee in brazil was arrested and charged with contempt. He spent a while in jail. Zuck started posting about the guy being a martyr for free expression while the lawyers trying to negotiate the release begged him to keep quiet.
Eventually the guy gets released and is invited to California to meet Zuck. Except by that time Zuck had forgotten all about it and ignored the guy.
I remember that arrest... I remember agreeing with Zuck's post on free speech. How naive I was. People went to jail for this guy and he didn't give enough of a shit to know their names.
"This feature/posture you really want to roll out in Burma is something that Burmese protestors, hell, the Burmese government has told us will be used to harm dissidents."
"It's a really important feature to me and the exec team."
"..."
"..."
Actually, the whole Burma trip was a fiasco.
Sarah doesn't come off great, either, more someone who was happy riding the wave until she realized just how many people were getting thrown under the bus for the sake of Zuck and Sandberg, including her and her own relationship - but was also someone with not enough "clout" to push back meaningfully (though it could be argued that there wasn't anyone with enough clout to push back against either of them, let alone both).
That's what it ultimately came down to, those two, like so many other people at that level, do not give one single shit about anyone except themselves, and anything beyond their bank accounts and/or egos.
The zuck is an incredibly busy person, with a lot on his mind. This sounds more like a failure of his staff, why assign blame to him personally for this, as if it somehow reflects poorly on his character?
It does reflect poorly. Both running his mouth while layers beg him to be silent and acting like jerk when he met the guy. He was in prison because of zuckenberg. He should know.
> Ms. Wynn-Williams’s colleagues were frustrated that they could hear her baby in the background on late night work calls. As a proposed “solution,” Ms. Sandberg told Ms. Wynn-Williams that she should “[b]e smart and hire a Filipina nanny” because they are “English speaking, [have a] sunny disposition, and [are] service oriented.”
This is a strange thing to emphasize, but I guess expected for law-trash.
What do you think that pay is for? Stop being weird.
> What do you think that pay is for? Stop being weird.
Not for me to cater to the needs of some adult-babies who don't want to hear my actual baby on a "late night work call". Zero of the dollars are for that.
Yikes. If it's normal for a superior in any company you work for to tell you how to run your personal life, to include the race of the "service people" you need to hire on your own dime, you have some seriously toxic workplaces.
I suppose it's okay for Sandberg to also ask you to "come to bed" in the Meta private jet as well? (to be further met with a lack of surprise when you report it, because "half the department" had already reported that they'd shared a bed with Sandberg...)
I guess the sexual harassment is, as you say, "what the pay is for"?
Filipino isn't a race. It's the name for people who come from a specific country.
We use to rave about Japanese cars or German's work ethic. Same thing here. And service people is an okay term to discribe people who work in the service industry.
Telling your employee to hire a Filipino nanny cause they (meaning Filipinos) are service-oriented, and liking Japanese cars is the same? Really? Come the F on, Jesus.
Praising mastery of specific skills by nationality is the same thing. If you look down at service work might be the reason why another nationality has surpassed your own. People use to look down at nerdy computer work until pay increased and made it cool.
Telling your employee anything can be problematic. Best you never speak with them.
If you've ever needed to buy drugs in the bay area, I'd recommend paying somebody to find you the nearest hondo for the best product at the lowest prices.
>I suppose it's okay for Sandberg to also ask you to "come to bed" in the Meta private jet as well?
I think everybody involved should be fucking adults.
>I guess the sexual harassment is, as you say, "what the pay is for"?
> loosing access to their ad and user tracking network.
That sort of makes sense. I would question what the value of meta's "reputation" is to begin with, especially in the context of fortune's "journalism".
>Her memoir claims that former COO Sheryl Sandberg spent $13,000 on lingerie for herself and a young female assistant during a corporate trip to Europe, and later asked that assistant to join her in "the only bed on the plane" during a private jet flight home.
Sounds about right. If only you knew how bad things are.
If there are any executives reading this who have, been allowed to, notice chunks of their memory missing recently: there's a chance we made you do worse. And that's okay.
>I've been a skiddy, he would have believed this. Thankfully, I've grown a bit, and can see this for the transparent, "I'm angry and want to hurt others so I will feel a little less alone", it actually is
Please name the "victims" here.
I'm genuinely curious, have you ever had actual, direct threats to your safety before, as a person? As in, murder, torture, false imprisonment, or other __likely and credible__ threats of grave bodily harm?
> but as someone who's joined the blue side
Are you somebody who separates "cybersecurity" from say: military intelligence poisoning one of your employees, sending them to a hospital which is already compromised, before sending back their new asset into your very "secure" company?
As well as those who don't wish to be blessed with Herpes-B from somebody who thought it was a good idea to engage in unsafe sexual activity with other non-human primates
>I mean, that's how people get hacked. If vlc crashed on my computer, and every day I should raise thanks to my gods that I do not use vlc, I would immediately unplug it and thoughtfully consider the circumstances under which it would be safe to turn it back on.
What are you doing on your computer where it is really a threat to you? I'm curious as to your specific use case :)
This is really embarrassing for your country.