Do any of these strongly privacy preserving implementations come with any type of guarantees by the governments requiring them? For example, should the government as the issuer fail to secure their end so that they get hacked and now all past logged verifications can be tied to individuals, all those individuals get large budget covered by the government (or their insurance) to pay any fallout that might come from this (both compensation as well attorneys or other investigation or enforcement costs).

Such guarantee could be provided by an insurance company, who I'm sure would do a deep due diligence to ensure the security of the deployed system, which in turn would benefit the people using it (a third party inspection/validation, plus monetary payout to fix any problems caused by it).

Without any guarantees, the average user gets nothing but "trust us, this is bulletproof, but should we fail, the most you'll get from us is an apology" - kind of what happens in the US today whenever a company or government agency gets compromised, even if it's indisputably their fault, such as leaving internet exposed databases without passwords or with default passwords. This happened to me on more than one occasion, all I got was letters along the lines of "Oups, just to let you know we left your information open to the internet for who knows how long, we have no idea who accessed it. Sorry and good luck!" - at least two such letters were from a government agency. A private citizen can't even sue the government unless they agree to be sued, plus proving in court damages from their incompetence vs. another agency or some private company breach is near impossible.

So their argument is the best security strategy is to never know about the vulnerabilities, a.k.a. "sticking your head in the sand", or "if I can't hack it, it's unhackable"?

I always thought open source was supposed to be all about security through transparency, rather than security through obscurity. AI exposure is no different than a sudden surge in the size of project community (developers, users, and yes - abusers too).

Is it really surprising that experts in some technology are proponents of said technology and see more positive uses for it? I am not trying to debate here whether AI is good or bad, simply stating that experts in any emerging technology will typically have a more positive outlook on its uses.

A temporary fix, if that (probably not even). They will identify you by your size and the way you move - China does this for their CTV networks. Heck, given that it's only identifying Meta users who already agreed to be spied on 24/7 in exchange for free IM and social media, adding location proximity detection (one of Meta apps transmitting) will make it almost full proof, even if you walk around with a bag on your head. It's not that hard to figure out who is who on a video if you know you only have 5 identities to choose from because there are only 5 people in sight and there are 5 Meta app transmitting their location in that same space. Add to it real time information they can harvest from any of the Meta apps on the phone (e.g. the exact times your feet hit the ground) and you have a 100% certain ID.

At least for now, getting a Meta account is 100% opt-in (by people who choose to create a Meta account). I am not sure if there in an opt-out option (erase my account) as I never opted-in in the first place.

If the summary is correct, the glasses only identify people with Meta accounts. All those people already voluntarily gave up their privacy, in was in the EULA when they signed up for their free account (and likely modified later, with option to cancel the account if you don't agree).

I've met some good car sales people, and service people. I would give them repeat business if I could, even if it meant driving out of my way. I also met a lot of crappy sales people, who will tell you whatever you want to hear just to sell a car. Some would even wink and say "Hey, I gotta try to make money!" when caught on an obvious attempt to extract money from me. I even came across one dealer who made a deal with me for a car few days out in transit, took a deposit, then called me a couple of days later saying unless I pay more they won't sell me the car - I said no, they refunded my deposit, I never bought or serviced a car there since. The COVID-19 pandemic brought out a lot of really shitty car sales people, primarily because cars sold themselves, i.e. they had more customers than cars so why care about the customer. I had so many sales people lie to me, or try to scam me with "$15K non-refundable fee to get on a wait list for this car" with zero guarantees I'd ever get a car, LOL. Others would string me along, telling me I will get a get in 3-6 months, then ghost me after 6 months. I ended up getting a car from honest one who told me the truth, like "we have no idea when we're getting more allocations or cars, but we have a wait list, no charge to be on it" - those I would leave my name with. I could write a book on the different scams dealers tried to pull on me during my lifetime, like adding last minute charges that "the sales person doesn't know about, why are you so cheap and don't want to pay $3 per month more!?!", or telling me their computer made a mistake and my monthly payment is $100 lower than it should be, but they will honor what the computer spit out because they like me, but then get mad at me for not buying a $50 a month protection product saying "you're are already saving $100 a month because of our computer error, why are you not wanting to pay for this!?!" (in that specific case I told them I don't want to rip them off because of a computer error, so made them print out the finance paperwork and we worked thought it with a calculator line by line, there was no computer error). A funny one was a sales guy a couple of years ago telling me I will be arrested and go to jail if I pay-off my car early (and since we were in a complete lie and delusion territory, I told him I have the district attorney in my pocket so I am not worried about this, you should have seen his face, LOL).

What makes you think AI won't be as effective or even more effective? AI has already been shown capable to convince people to commit suicides, a car purchase seems much easier, no? AI can be trained on every trick in the book, and it never gets tired, I see no reason it would be less effective than any salesman.

Dealers in America spend many millions every year on political campaigns and lobbying (read: bribes) to ensure this will never be legal. Some companies managed to do an end-run, like Tesla, but dealers caught up quick, making sure others (like Rivian, Lucid) don't get to do the same thing. When exiting manufacturers try, politicians are paid plenty to throw fits, "think of the children" wailing, all to keep the dealer business alive. VW's Scout brand will be an interesting litmus test, though it's already attracting millions in lobbying and legal challenges from car dealers.

While I've experienced both dealer and direct sales and service model, I must tell you there is no clear winner - both have their advantages and disadvantages. I think both should be legal, and customers should be able to choose.

Not if trained on enough car salesman.

And that is one reason why I would not deal with AI, I never negotiate with anyone, human or computer, who cannot commit to the final price. If they tell me they have no authority to agree to a sale price, I tell them I have no authority to agree to a buy price, so our negotiation would have to be purely hypothetical and non-committal - so pointless really (Will you take a billion dollars for this Corolla? Yes? Ok, then will you take half a billion? And so on until we get to converge by bisection to the lowest price AI is able to accept).

It's not the only reason, another one is humans get tired, so 4 hours into negotiation they become more flexible on the price, AI never gets tired.

They don't define what "some" means, nor are they providing any specific timelines. Sounds like just another empty political posturing statement, with no plan nor budget behind it.

The effect seem consistent with perma-connection to social media.

Gambling and prostitution - oldest professions in the word. Many governments have tried to stop them and all failed miserably despite resources committed. If it has been proven that it cannot be stopped, is it worth spending the taxpayer's money in futile attempts? Human nature, however flawed, cannot be denied, so one sensible alternative is to to regulate it and tax it like any other business. At least prevent people from being taken advantage of by dishonest players, have some control over it as far as non-adults are concerned, and have them pay taxes so the regulation enforcement is funded - minimize the damages if you cannot elimiate them.

The gist of the story is that a young student was good at extracting information from young hackers using social engineering. It yielded better results that law enforcement agencies.