The two different terms you used kind of look like they apply to different things. "Privacy rapist" appears to refer to the person using the product, but "pervert glasses" appears to refer to the product itself. (Maybe you wanted to call the computer a privacy rapist, but I'm going to ass/u/me that you wanted the more mainstream usage of calling the perv who uses the computer a privacy rapist. Please complain if I got this wrong. I only bring up this pedantry, because I want to distinguish computers from their users.)

Computers can be used for lots of things. They can be used for copyright infringement, for example. But I think Slashdot would be in an uproar if we banned computers due to fact that some people use them to infringe copyrights.

But if someone wants to gargoyle up, such that their cameras are on their face instead of on their lapel or hidden in their clothing or hat, the cameras are objectionable because that user might be recording other people.

If we look at it in terms of the user's intent, instead of worrying about what the equipment is capable of doing, this looks like a pretty inconsistent policy.

That said, I'm not going all the way to saying this view is wrong. As a defender, a potential adversary's capabilities are what's important, and you can't trust anyone's intent. So if you're worried someone might record you, it might really make sense to ban all cameras, not just cameras operated by known pervs.

But why don't we have that attitude about equipment's capability to infringe copyright? Shouldn't we ban all computers, since someone might do the wrong thing with them? I guess it comes down to this: because we aren't the defenders in that situation; MPAA is. Seriously, they really did try to ban betamax due to fears that some people might use it wrong. And they bought a whole law (DMCA) to try to ban lots of uses of computers, which they thought might sometimes be precursors to copyright infringement. So maybe this is a rules-for-thee-but-not-for-me thing.

I'm seeing an attitude toward wearable cameras emerge, that policy should be oriented more toward the the innocent maidens than the drooling gargoyles recording the maidens for later fapping. Well, sure, WHEN I PUT IT LIKE THAT! But what if we describe the gargoyle more fairly? Someone at an in-person office meeting, where maybe they wanna see peoples' names with their faces like they did on Zoom. Or someone recording some cops beating a handcuffed suspect. Someone playing games like Pokemon Go. Someone following a course on a map. Or...

What I'm getting at, is that perv glasses might be useful for more than just perving. Maybe they're really great at perving too, but I can think of plenty of harmless applications for them, and I'm not even very visionary or creative.

I don't like that we're looking down on some tech, rather than its abusive users. I'm not particularly attached to wearable cameras and wouldn't ever likely be in the market for Meta's products (any of Meta products, ever) anyway, so it's easy for me to just shrug and let the fascists have their way on this particular issue.

But I sure as fuck don't want to see this toxic attitude continue to spread to other tech. Because if we allow that, then MPAA is going to ban all computers unless they're running MPAA-certified AI lawyers, always spying on us like the pervs that they are. And even that is just the tip of the iceberg on the smackdowns this attitude will unleash.

Wearable cameras aren't evil.

Now put it on a pole and call it Flock, then it's evi-- no wait, that's a problem with the camera's user too, isn't it?

This is for fun, not "production." If someone hacks up something and got to play with pretty lights for 10 minutes before getting bored and building something else, that's great. And if they learned any engineering, that's a bonus. It's ok to stack your legos however the fuck you want to. I don't fucking care if a kid in 1982 did the "wrong" thing on his TI-99/4A or VIC-20. Been there, done that, got a 40-something year long career out of it despite my youthful unorthodox amateur whims.

Use python on quasi-embedded systems all you want to. Whatever figuratively gets you off your ass, is a good thing.

You're not supposed to sell it. (Does anyone sell euros?) You're supposed to spend it. But hardly anyone takes it.

at some point most people want to sell the Bitcoin for dollars or pounds or euros

The fact that this is even significant (and it is) 15-20 years after the introduction of Bitcoin, shows that it has been a complete, miserable failure.

I think Bitcoin was a neat idea. Shame it didn't work.

Why would they need a warrant? Flock consents to their customers accessing Flock's data.

[various anticipated objections] Yes, but this is in America.

So many Hollywood scriptwriters who lazily decided, "I'll just use Nazis for the bad guys, they're universally-recognized evergreen enemies," are facepalming these days.

(I'm just speculating.) People don't need help with selling fun things; they want a 'bot that can sell the crap which humans have given up on. Anthropic doesn't want to sell widgets; they want to sell stores which sell widgets (sort of like selling pickaxes instead of getting into mining).

Maybe the problem it has been asked to solve is "I have some crap that nobody wants. Sell it."

This story (and the one in December it links to) is telling me the proper use of AI is to be abused, drawing fire away from humans.

I thought "Mommy Has Four Graphics Cards" was pretty good, but "Not Everyone Computes" did a great job of explaining why the industry is largely about remote services rather than running it locally.

This is just too fucking hilarious. If I ask Google for "European search engines" the very first link [after the "AI overview"] is literally that page.

If any Europeans are saying they have to use Google because they don't know about the European search engines, it's because they have never looked for European search engines. The very words are the key to the solution. Google it, Europeans, and then you can be free of Google! Google just one final time.

Relying on proprietary USA software or services is a national security risk for all non-USA countries. So good for Switzerland.

It's just as big of a problem for USA users too. Everyone should be minimizing their proprietary dependencies.

Sure, but if that were the motivation, then they would be banning all foreign vehicles, not just Chinese ones.

Actually, I'm wrong. If security were the reason, then what they'd really do is ban unauditable, proprietary code from all vehicles, regardless of country of origin. If Theo de Raadt says "I checked all the code in this Chinese car and it's fine" then it's probably safer than any Chevrolet.

If it's still not an open protocol, then it's really hard to be at all interested in either the client or the server. Can this new app talk to non-Sonos speakers? Can I use Sonos speakers with my own app? It's ok if either side (or even both!) is currently unimplemented, as long as there are no trade secrets or DMCA shit deliberately preventing legal implementations.

If it can't interoperate on purpose, then it makes Sonos look like just another proprietary lock-in scam, and I don't fall for that trick anymore. Save that bullshit for the 1990s.

Because it's not just a chatbot; it's Anthropic's chatbot. Your diary, on the other hand, is yours and therefore a few billion times as personal as Anthropic's computer. If you want a chatbot for confidential purposes, then you need to get a chatbot of your own, instead of using someone else's proprietary service.

If you write in Anthropic's diary, then they are allowed to read their diary and know (and share!) what you wrote in it. Same thing applies if Anthropic ever writes in your diary: you're allowed to read it, and you're allowed to tell other people what they wrote.

You have the right to be secure in your person, house, papers and effects, but you don't necessarily have the right to be secure in someone else's papers. We've made some limited exceptions for lawyers and doctors, but Anthropic doesn't claim their employees and stockholders are lawyers or doctors, and even if they did, they might have a hard time showing that their computer has successfully become a lawyer or doctor.

But imagine if they did. Suppose a judge declares Claude to be a lawyer, and therefore its communications with those whom it represents, are privileged. I think that would create a really weird situation since Anthropic employees (who aren't lawyers) would have full access to its data, ability to alter its behavior, etc. It would be like if a human lawyer were owned as a slave: could such a human slave lawyer really be trusted to keep confidentiality? It has a master, and that master ain't you.