Pilot: "Nearing fire, ready to drop flame retardant. I can see a small pilotless drone ahead. What are my orders?"
Commander: "Pilotless drone? I don't wish to be responsible or liable for any outcome, including the worst thing I can imagine. Why are you asking me what to do, when I can't see it?"
Pilot: "I am not accepting responsibility for any outcome you can imagine."
Commander: "I'm not taking the fall for it. Ordering you to get out of there. We will blame the other drone commander, and assign liability to him"
Pilot: Roger that. Jettisoning flame retardant. Record this - 'See? See? See what you made me do??'"
Commander: Recording. 'Seeing, Seeing, Seeing what he made you do.' Liability transferred.
Now I wasn't there, so the above dialogue is just speculation, but from my years in the public sector, imagined liability relayed to outside command is rather dronelike and occurs pretty often. "making an example" out of someone follows.
This has been troubling me for over a year. Last winter I twice got ads for something I picked up at a retailer, never having searched it online, causing me to look up and find these articles.
Admittedly I've lived in very small villages before where there was no privacy, and I can relate to those who say that the idea of privacy is a fairly modern thing. But never in a village was there such a preponderous difference in power between villagers than there exists between individuals and the corporations who can now track our every move.
Here is a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There are others but these stitch together the use of facial recognition in existing retail security systems (2011) and the later meetings (Walmart, Facebook) to establish "rules of conduct" for retail implementation, a video showing how it's done. It's certainly proven to be possible and tested, I suppose my experience finding an ad for a Sony AX6000 which I'd looked at for 3-4 minutes and put down, leaving a store without buying anything, could not be construed as proof. Or the ad for the HP Laser printer.
Dead 404 link in the Summary, but found article on CNN
First, the charge is "conspiracy" so that kind of covers all kinds of free speech if the intent is to help someone do something bad. It's not "speech violation" to keep your mouth shut and allow someone from ISIS to hide in your garage, but it's nevertheless conspiracy. Similarly it's not the bitcoin instruction, it's the conspiracy to help something bad happen with it. Second, if he and his attorney wanted to argue that twitter is free speech, they should not have pled guilty.
FTFOA "Niknejad was also charged with conspiring to provide material support to terrorists, conspiring to provide material support to ISIS and conspiring to kill and injure people abroad in the Eastern District Court of Virginia on Wednesday."
A CONS is an object which cares. -- Bernie Greenberg.