ad hominem. You literally can't attack the argument and your argument is so poor to being with, that you attack the person rather than the argument.

It's okay. I'm sorry you're retarded. I really am.

Nightmare Eclipse showed us Bitlocker is a joke. It's not remotely real encryption and easily breakable .. on Win11/2025 server, NOT Win 10. This wasn't an exploit. It was a backdoor. Meanwhile Veracrypt needed a public backlash to get their dev signing keys reinstated so people could get their updated kernel drivers on Windows (and remember, TrueCrypt its predecessor mysteriously disappeared in 2012 with the former author telling people to use BitLocker instead!)

Now we have this. The answer should be obvious: there is a concerted effort to remove all real encryption, security and privacy from our software. This isn't incompetency mistaken for malice. This has to be intentional.

There is so much wrong with what you said it's hard to fathom.

> Your problem starts here. Right to privacy is a human right

Show me where in the American constitution where you have a right to privacy? The 4th amendment is against unreasonable search and seizure. It's a hard steep climb from that to privacy as a right. Now that Planned Parenthood v Cassey and Row v Wade have been repealed, it's even a harder sell.

> you cannot lose a human right

Who gives you rights? This entire concept of "human rights" is very recent. The earliest beginnings may have been the Magna Carta in the 1200s, but the entirety of Roman, Sumerian, Arcadian and other civilizations knew no such concept. Roman Citizens had certain legal standings in societies, and that citizenship could be earned, but it's a far cry to say they had a concept of "rights," in the way we've had for only the past few centuries. You can absolutely 100% lose a "human right" anytime you travel outside an area subject to the jurisdiction of a nation you hold allegiance to which has given you those rights.

Rights are bestowed by the State, often fought for by citizens, and are only enforced by collective belief. Is the Freedom of Speech a human right? Because it literally exists no where outside America. Europeans can go to prison for questioning verboten parts of history. British people can go to prison for teaching their dog to raise a paw in a German salute for a comedy bit. New Zealand has a national censor who decides when news content is illegal for people to possess. Only Japan gets even remotely close.

> regardless of what you do. It can be temporarily restricted if another thing has priority, but it cannot be removed

Distinction without a difference. You have no rights in prison. There are two legal forms of slavery in America: The military and prison ... both are voluntary when you really think about it. Your rights are totally removed. You don't get all of them back in most states. Gun ownership and voting are often restricted. Now I think that's wrong and those rights should be restored, but what you may wish for isn't realize. Sex offender lists are another one.

> Hence people like you are into violating human rights and as soon as that starts to be a general sentiment, a state/group/organization is on a very dark path. Yes, you may be able to get some statistic to look better this way. But you have lost something far more valuable.

What strawman directed bullshit. You drew all that out from my limited statement, making deep connections with my philosophy on rights, with made up arguments I never even tried to make? Going back to the original statement, do you not think we should allow these groups to pool together prisoner information using search technology to try to at least get some of them out that can turn around an contribute to society? I don't even know what argument you're making.

I think the idea is identifying people most likely to succeeded and get them out. This makes slightly more sense for LLMs, if you're just talking about reading a lot of public data for people who have no right to privacy anyway due to the harm they caused others.

16% sounds pretty low, but it's probably reasonable. There are a lot of people in prison who can't be let out. I'm sorry, you stab someone, the chance of rehabilitation is very low. If they get 20 years, they need to stay in 20 years. Maybe they'll be too old to hurt anyone then, or the time will make them realize how shit they are. Most often a lot, they'll commit a violent crime again and then won't get out ever. I think of this tragic case of a woman who befriended her mom's killer and was then murdered by him after she helped him get parole:

https://people.com/crime/ark-w...

There is a kind of suicidal empathy in wanting to help everyone on the street or in the prison system. It denies the realize that for over half the people on the street, they have literally fucked over all their friends, all their family members and anyone who could possibly help them. Their friends are now others on the street who have done the same. Some people don't get in the loop. One of my best friends is a court reporter, and despite all the awful stuff she has to record, she also sees people who come into the court room, cleaned up, their lives turned around and coming off probation. So people can turn around their lives, but they have to want it.

I'm just glad this article wasn't about trying to use AI chatbots to directly change behavior of inmates. That would just be straight up AI-psychosis talk.

You need to scan your drivers license to buy medicine for your runny nose. How long before you need to have your government ID on file to buy any video card with 32GB of ram (like the 5090 or an R9700)? That's where this is really heading. Tracking all off-cloud AI usage like it's a weapon.

It will be here next. Stop bitching about someone's sports team (aka party affiliation). Care about individual issues and support or reject arguments individually. The people in charge want you divided. They act like there are divided in Congress. They are not.

Strawman. I never said people weren't for it. We've clearly seen the British are all fucking idiots. It doesn't have to be a "conspiracy." The push for individual digital identification has been out there in the public for years.

I remember getting an e-mail for purchasing Google Glass. They were pretty expensive ($1k or $2k NZDI think?). Glad I didn't get them since they were killed off and were paperweights within a few years. There are some videos of people who have gotten some more life out of them, but all the original apps and services for it are gone.

I hope there's a growth in Invidious usage.

Social media is bad for adults. This has nothing to do with children what so ever. It has to do with pushing for more identity verification to permanent identified each and every person with every single online request they make. It's the telescreen spying on everything you do. Anyone who thinks this has anything to do with protecting youths is not realizing what's really in play here.

I wish that cancerous blight on humanity could have been avoided, but in the early days people did run Minecraft servers locally and even dead games like Star Wars Galaxies have gotten reverse engineered implementations:

https://github.com/ProjectSWGC...

So I guess that evil would be unavoidable.

Half of our recent candidates can't even get past the most basic phone screening.

"What is the difference between HTTP and HTTPS?"

"Well , I know HTTPS is the secure version."

"Well, what makes it secure?"

There is so much opportunity is this fucking basic technology question to show off what you know. You can talk about CAs, (browser and system), how websites identify themselves, how people use to pay a lot of certs but now we have LetsEncrypt, how even some of the paid cert providers now use ACME challenges LetsEncrypted pioneered, man-in-the-middle, certification revocation ... or hell, just fucking say it initiates a public/private key exchange! I'd even take "Secure Socket Layer," (even though it's TLS now) as a fucking bare minimum for our mid-level opening.

Zero clue what-so-ever. Some people can explain SQL-injection, but barely. If you're not out west, the talent pool is pretty bad out there.

> tell him

Tell It. It's an algorithm that creates predictive text that's sometimes useful. Not him, it.

I was thinking Steve Urkel. Man .. that guy's character is really creepy in retrospect. He kept obsessing over, and was even rewarded for obsessing over, a girl who was not remotely interested in him.

This goes back really far with Blizzard. I think it was 2000 or 2001 when they sent a cease and desist to an open source project called bnetd. It let you host your own Warcraft I/II and Starcraft games. It could also allow people to use pirated betas of Warcraft 3 in multiplayer mode on a local network. Back in this year, Counterstrike was still a mod and everyone hosted games locally using the free Half-Life server Valve provided (that could run on Linux).

Gamers should have turned away from games that didn't allow local hosting, but not enough did and here we are.