The man at CHMR who would have been doing the target analysis of the girl's school (former Senior Advisor for CHMR & the Civil Environment Lead to QA/QC) has thoughts on this matter, for anyone who cares.

Good point. It's something that really should be addressed. But the Constitution was designed as a limit solely on the government's powers, and it's up to the government as described in the Constitution to write laws that restrict what private entities can do, within the bounds of their enforcement powers as provided by the Constitution.

This isn't a new problem. After Snowden, the US realized they could pretty much just outsource the NSA's spying. And they have.

And the other thing is: none of this is really relevant. There's nothing unconstitutional about sitting in a public space and recording the license plate of every car that passes. There's nothing unconstitutional about building a network of people doing that and storing it in a giant database. It was just infeasible to have a bunch of people doing that. Now it can be automated.

There's nothing unconstitutional about compiling data about people that people agree to hand over as part of the license agreement for using a thing. Once that information is owned by a private entity, there's nothing unconstitutional about the government buying it from that private entity. It's just the government receiving data that was either generated in a public setting or that was willing given in a private setting. (At least, legally. I doubt most people realize how much data on their lives companies collect, and I doubt most people realize they agreed to hand it over.)

Maybe handing over data collected in this fashion should be against the law. Maybe there should be privacy laws preventing it from being gathered in the first place. But there aren't, and neither party is interested in changing that. Which leaves us with the reality that nothing Flock was doing is illegal, and that the replacement systems localities are using aren't illegal either.

I really wish more people understood this. The Constitution only protects you from the government. It does nothing to protect you from private companies collecting your information, and do they ever. As electronics get more advanced, the amount of information private companies are collecting is ever increasing. TVs listen in on every conversation. VR headsets map out your house. And cameras installed on street lights record every vehicle they see.

Which brings me to the second very important point about Flock cameras people forget: pretty much every town that is canceling contracts with Flock isn't getting rid of license plate scanning cameras. They're just replacing them with cameras from other companies that do the same thing. Companies that people haven't heard of and that therefore haven't raised the same complaints.

Use-once and throw away.

Hell, if they get in your way, throw them off the boat, we'll go to Costco in the morning.

And some as far as ruining businesses, eh, you gotta break some eggs. (No, I don't talk about the price of eggs.) This is about habituating the populace to domestic military presence, not something trivial like people's livelihoods.

It is exactly the same mechanism as special interest group politics: concentrated interest, diffuse harm.

You think that because the fanbois flock to Blue Angel celebrations. What you don't see is all the people cursing at them everywhere else.

They are pushing to have antitrust regulations against the various labs dropped so they can "collude" on slowing down. This will of course require banning open models and disallowing access elsewhere.

Captive market, increasingly captive citizens, unconstrained capital openly colluding with government.

Where have I seen this story before...

If you make deals with fascists, you're a suicidal sucker.

It demonstrates weakness, is interpreted as submission, and Stumpy be back with more demands. If you grow a pair you might have a fight, but probably not - he's a fucking coward, but more relevantly, he's desperate to avoid people publicly standing up to him.

The answer is "Eat shit you goofy fuckup, give us the money you're illegally withholding."

There are a few pressures that interact to lead to this.

First, you have bureaucratic imperatives, like all large orgs. The iron law of a bureaucracy is the bureaucracy fights to maintain the staus quo. This includes the existence of the bureaucracy, the continuation of which is the highest priority. The number of organizations that have voluntarily disbanded without outside pressure is not zero, but close enough to demonstrate the rule.

Second, you have leadership, which can't really do anything of their own volition that would materially change things. Between parents, politicians, unions, and the reality of budgets[1] and students' situations, it is extremely rare that they have a realistic way to improve things, even assuming they'd otherwise be capable of doing so.

Third, you have parents, or more specifically parent pressure groups. They can make an administrator or teacher's life miserable and there's no good way to counter it, so they tend to get what they want. The good news is they only tend to flare up once in a while, like the "Moms for Liberty" who were deeply concerned withsexual deviance.

Forth, you have both the state and federal bureaucracies, with their own complicated imperatives. State variation is high, ranging from neglect to micromanaging and well-meaning (if frequently clueless) through antagonistic (and frequently clueless). In any case, these tend combine onerous ongoing reporting requirements that costs labor on bullshit with random big mandates that scramble everything you're trying to do.

Fifth, you have teacher's unions. They're doing what they're supposed to - fighting for their members' interests. Those interests run from generally good ideas to self-serving ones. How one feels about that is obviously heavily political in the US; personally, I look at how little money they make for their education requirements and all the shit they have to put up with and marvel that anyone wants to do it.

So now in walks Google or OpenAI with more money than god and an invisible study buddy for each of your kids. Depending where you are, politicians are leaning on you to get with the program, hoping they can downsize away teacher's unions/"win the future"/some of them probably sincerely think this is good.

And then you get the bandwagon effect. Some other school district publishes dodgy, rosy numbers, the robot sales guy sends that article to your supervisor, and suddenly even when everyone knows how this is going to end, the pressure to do it is overwhelming.

A generation later, a new version of the robot sales guy comes knocking...

[1] People frequently point out how much we spend on public education to claim this isn't a problem, but it is. The issue is not absolute numbers, but distribution. We throw a lot of money at some schools and not enough at others. A drive through the rural South looking at the state of school buildings should be enough to tell you there's (more than one) thing wrong with allocation.

If the robots make it quick, I might take extinction if it means never having to hear about what Zuckerbook said ever again.

A number of countries have accelerated their clean energy transition. Unless you're a coal magnate, delusional or a Xitter troll, that is excellent news.

It also is accelerating the move away from the dollar as the world reserve currency. This is not good news for Usians, is neutral for some, and very positive for some others, so one's outlook on this may vary.

Basically, if you can get Stumpy McDipshit to believe his ego is wrapped up in something, there's a very good chance you can get him to kill it, like everything else he touches.

In this case, he's touching the petroleum industry like it was an ingénue shopping at Bergdorf Goodman.

"The Trump administration's Department of Energy wants to create 'campuses' in several states to store waste,"

Given the high standards this administration sets for contractors, I'm sure there's no reason to ask more questions.

I think the infographic they put out said that the "always listening" features were not available in the EU and China. Although honestly I don't see how anyone can trust the hardware when the "always recording conversations" features are part of the SIP.

I can't wait to see how many places ban this Apple Watch entirely. First, there's no way this is legal in two-party consent states, and I don't care how Apple tries to re-define "record."

Secondly, I don't think anyone really cares how secure Apple says "Private Cloud Compute" is, no one is going to trust that a device that's designed to "listen" (but not "record") every conversation in the vicinity isn't "recording" especially when it can produce an AI summary of a conversation.

There's no way this Apple Watch will be allowed in government buildings or anywhere else that people may not want to be recorded, no matter Apple's privacy claims. I expect to see "No Apple Watch Allowed" signs start appearing all over the place once this releases.

"Our secret sauce isn't secret, please regulate our competitors away."

I think they may be playing a game with the fight they picked with the math folks over the Navier Stokes finding, too. To normal folks that looks greedy and shortsighted. To a wannabe dictator, that looks like a magic mirror.

They degraded it in their homeland almost a decade ago.