Tag: Legal

Aïe! Missing the Point

Yet again, some seem to not understand what they’re talking about when it comes to transparency in AI…
Like, here. Worse, this person seems to be a rapporteur to the European Economic and Social Comittee advising the European Committee. If that sounds vague – yes it does even for Europeans.

For the ‘worse’ part: The umpteenth Error, to consider that the secrecy of algorithms is the only thing that would need to change to get transparency about the fuctioning of a complete system.
1. The algorithm is just a part of the system, and the behaviour of the system is not determined in anything close to any majority part by the algorithm – the data fed to it, and the intransparent patterns learned by it, are. The transparency needs to be about the algorithm but much more about the eventual parameters as learned throughout the training time and the training/tuning after that. [Update before press release: There seems to be an erroneous assumption by some way too deep into EC affairs that the parameters are part of the ‘algorithm’ which is Newspeak at its worst, and counterproductive certainly here, and hence dangerous.]
2. The algorithm can just be printed out … If anyone would need that. One can just as easily run an AI code analyser (how good would that be? They exist already, exponentially increasing their quality, savvyness) over the source- or decompiled code.
3. The eventual parameters … not so much; they’re just there in a live system; unsure how well they are written out into any file or so (should be, for backup purposes – when not if AI systems will get legal personhood eventually (excepting the latter-day hoaxes re that), will a power switch-off be the same as attempted murder, and/or what would the status of a backup AI ‘person’ be ..?).
4. Bias, etc. will be in the parameters. The algorithms, mostly-almost-exclusively will be blank slates. No-one yet knows how to tackle that sufficiently robustly since even if the system is programmed (algorithm..!) to cough up parameters, the cleverer systems will know (?) how to produce innocent-looking parameters instead of the possibly culpable actual ones. Leads into this trickery by AI systems, have been demonstrated to develop (unintentionally) in actual tests.
5. How to trick AI pattern recognition systems … the newest of class breaks have just been demonstrated in practice – their theoretical viability had been proven long before – e.g., in this here piece as pointed out only yesterday [qua release; scheduled last week ;-]. Class break = systemically unrepairable … [ ? | ! ].

Let’s hope the EC could get irrelevant just that little less quickly by providing it with sound advice. Not the bumbling litlle boys’ and girls’ type of happythepreppy too-dim-wits. [Pejorative, yes, but not degrading: should, maybe not could, have known better ..!]

Oh, and:
[Already at a slight distance, it gets hazy what goes on there; from the Cathédrale]

Small Mob Rule

Dat is dus grote onzin: De @telegraaf zit er (weer) dik naast, in dit stuk. “DOKKUM – Er gaapt een reusachtige kloof tussen de provincie en de Randstad. Thema’s als genderneutrale toiletten, de nadruk op ’diversiteit’ en vooral het debat over de kleur van Zwarte Piet worden door een kleine culturele elite in met name Amsterdam aan de rest van Nederland opgedrongen, terwijl de meeste burgers in de regio’s hier helemaal niet op zitten te wachten.”
Nee Telegraaf, dit is volslagen onzin, over de rand van leugen.
Want het is slechts een miniem klein-handjevol (inderdaad) bewoners van de Randstad – die oh zo sosialisties nog een tweede huis op het platteland hebben omdat ze alles en iedereen zo lang hebben getreiterd dat ze nauwelijks belasting betalen ‐ die de landelijke stemming bepaalt. Terwijl de andere 99,995% van de Randstedelingen ‘ook’ gewoon normaal is, hoor.

Dus stop ff die terreur van het klootjesvolk i.e. T-“journalisten” quod non, die inkt verspillen met zulke grove onzinkoppen. Of, om hen in hun eigen moreel vermogen aan te spreken: Bek houwe.

[Geen plaatje vandaag. Té boos over zulke idiotie.]

Stop dads

When you read too much (ahead) into it…
By means of this court ruling. Where a father was forbidden to post pics of his (was it 2- or 3-yr old) son on Facebook or any other socmed platform, by request of the kid’s mom, since even when the father posted in quite tightly closed circles, Fubbuck has in its terms and conditions that it might use the pics for commercial purposes. Since the latter can not be ruled out and in the interest of protecting the child’s interests, the court ruled such, advising the dad to show the pics to friends op his home compu if he’d really want to.
[What need would the father have to do that? one can ask. Benign or perverted?]

From which we learn, if – very very big if – that indeed we should consider the need and purpose of posting on socmed in the first place. If it is content that one wants the world to see, it’s OK. If some part of that content, or the purpose of the post, would not be OK → get out. If the purpose of the post would be to show off (e.g., one’s cool-dadness – pityful! but see how the other 99.999% of posts anywhere are for that purpose and that alone…), really nothing may cure you (sic).

So now, what about this post …? And:
[Since it’s no longer the site banner: Rightfully and intentionally out in the open; Barça]

Loss of memory

Recently, was reminded (huh) that our memories are … maybe still better than we think, compared to the systems of record that we keep outside of our heads. Maybe not in ‘integrity’ of them, but in ‘availability’ terms. Oh, there, too, some unclarity whether availability regards the quick recall, the notice-shortness of ‘at short notice’ or the long-run thing, where the recall is ‘eventually’ – under multivariate optimisation of ‘integrity’ again. How ‘accurate’ is your memory? Have ‘we’ in information management / infosec done enough definition-savvy work to drop the inaccurately (huh) and multi- interpreted ‘integrity’ in favour of ‘accuracy’ which is a thing we actually can achieve with technical means whereas the other intention oft given of data being exactly what was intended at the outset (compare ‘correct and complete’), or do I need to finish this line that has run on for far too long now …?
Or have I used waaay too many ””s ..?

Anyway, part II of the above is the realisation that integrity is a personal thing, towards one’s web of allegiances as per this and in infosec we really need to switch to accuracy, and Part I is this XKCD:

Culpably deaf

All that work for a private sector organisation who take (wrong) decisions based on false information – or, essentially, dismiss accurate, helpful information that would have steered to other decision alternative(s) – will be fired when the truth of the bad decision comes out.
Which would be helpful if applied to sectors where people’s money is so abjectly abused, too. E.g., like this one. Or this one (in English, some info here, and the whole idea of usefulness of having more and more data is debunked endlessly everywhere (you search)). Or this one, completely debunked here. The list is endless.

All of which points to a serious problem. The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt (Bertrand Russell) AND the stupid (to which, ‘immensely’) seem to be masters at picking the wrong advice. Once ‘immensely’ is indeed added, one recognises the ‘politician’. Playing the role of the Fool (not the Jester), unsurpassibly perfectly.

But how now can we get those stupidestest ideas go to die, sooner rather than later ..?

The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible (BR again). That’s completely true; moreover, it’s Maverisk’s motto.

Oh, and:

[To defend the Truth; Châteauneuf not the -du-‘ish or so]

Trust ⊻ Verify

You get that. Since Verify → ¬Trust. When you verify, you engender the loss of trust. And since Trust is a two-way street (either both sides trust each other, or one will loose initial trust and both will end up in distrust), verification leads to distrust all around – linked to individualism and experience [we’re on the slope to less-than-formal-logic semantics here] this will result in fear all around. And Michael Porter’s two books, not to mention Ulrich Beck in his important one. So, if you’d still come across any type that hoots ‘Trust, but verify’, you know you’ve met him.

Since the above is so dense I’ll lighten up a bit with:
Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly. (George Raft)

Which is exactly the sort of response we need against the totalitarian bureaucracy (i.e., complete dehumanisation of totalitarian control – which approaches a pleonasm) that the world is sliding into. Where previously, humanity had escapes, like emigrating to lands far far away, but that option is no more. Hopefully, ASI will come in time to not be coopted by the One Superpower but then, two avenues remain: a. ASI itself is worse, and undoes humanity for its stubborn stupidity and malevolence (the latter two being a fact); b. ASI will bring the eternal Elyseum.
Why would it b. ..?
And if it doesn’t arrive in time, a. will prevail since the inner circle will shrink asymptotically which is unsustainable biologically.

Anyway, on this bleak note I’ll leave you with:

[Escape from the bureacrats; you-know-where]

Pro tip: Bankers are your doormats

At least, that’s what the Quartz article comes down to, too. At least, if you don’t want to go down with the oh so often recurring banks/bankers’ demise. Indeed all that recognise Yeshua as having had at least something valid to contribute to the world, see/heard/read that the swiping the Temple clean of the money changers, was a demonstration of the ethically very worst being thrown out of civilised society. When, as a family, one would want to stay in touch with one’s rightful place (geographically; name one family that made its fortune in a fully legal and ethical way ..?) in good style, one may better not depend on bankers…
Oh well why am I complaining – we learn from history a. that we don’t learn from history b. that, with the demise of the Afterlife, those left behind (e.g., economically) in their mortal life, have no vindication in the After. Those that do allsorts of things considered (cardinal) sins, are not punished there/then… It may all be a ploy to keep the meek in check. [Pun not even intended; ed.]

Oh well part two:
[We learn from this chap that what the … is he doing on the floor of a Catholic cathedral..!?; Siena]

OM als tooltje

Wat ik me bij deze link nou afvraag:

  • Het genoemde risico van concurrentie-pesten / uitschakelen (het Internet vergeet niets, en daar kan heel de rijksoverheid of wie dan ook geheel niets aan doen) is levensgroot, ondanks de minieme en volledig transparante schaamlap van eigen beslissing die bij de betaaldiensten wordt gelegd – die zullen zich zeker (ontkenning diskwalificeert van handelingsbekwaamheid) verschuilen achter het OM. Wat gaat het OM daartegen doen?
  • Zoals in het commentaar bij bovenstaande link; de ‘bewijslast’ is een aanfluiting en treft de kleinere webwinkels veel zwaarder dan de grotere die veel meer middelen hebben om hun ‘onschuld’ (juist daar: quod non!) te ‘bewijzen’ afgezien van hun marktmacht richting betaaldiensten. Drie klachten voor de grotere, drieduizend voor de kleinere wellicht ..?;
  • Als het OM informatie doorgeeft waarvan volslagen duidelijk is dat doorgifte disproportioneel is (hoeveel aangiftes van véél kwalijker zaken werden/worden ook alweer geseponeerd omdat dozijnen ambtenaren gewoon geen zin hebben om hun werk te doen?), zijn zij mede aansprakelijk voor de gevolgen. Gemiste omzet, gederfde levensvreugde (juist bij de kleinere webshops die door de groten aan de kant zullen worden geschoven – dát zijn pas onoirbare praktijken, maar ja die groten hebben de willoze lendepop het OM in hun zak – zal een blokkering wegens de minste aantijging van ongeoorloofd gedrag, hoe onterecht later ook zal blijken, al snel tot volledige sluiting leiden, met alle faillisementskosten en afwikkeling op privévermogens van dien – het leven van de eigenaar zal nooit meer hetzelfde zijn. De aanzet die eerst blokkeren, dan uitzoeken inhoudt, is een regelrechte omkering van de bewijslast, en treft zéér onevenredig veel onschuldigen (valselijk beschuldigd, onevenredige en onherstelbare schade) terwijl de schuldigen gewoon verder zullen shoppen; die hebben de plan-B betaaldiensten allang opgelijnd.
  • Het OM legt dit betreffend onderdeel van haar taak naast zich neer, derhalve dient het evenredig te worden gekort op het budget. Ad infinitsimum. Het OM laat zich willens en wetens als ‘conduit’ misbruiken door de grotere webshops, en verspeelt daarmee haar gezag en rechtsgrond van optreden. Sluiten die tent dus ..?

Het is duidelijk: Als dit wordt doorgezet, failleert het OM zichzelf. Toch ..?
[Van bastion tot ruïne; Cardona]

Arms / race coming to an end ..?

When this is still necessary and (counter)x-measures will continu to be developed, for sure, how will this little nugget of WP29 change things?
Because it has power. That may lead to a throwback. For how long? The harder the throwback, the longer to recover. But the more powerful will be that rebound ..? We’ll see. For now, canvas blockers are still the way forward, so implement them, right?

This post was brought to you as a public service announcement from the sanity of browsing for information security and privacy blog you’re reading.
But seriously, why is there so little analysis of the WP29-on-Profiling stuff ..!? And:

It doesn’t matter

A great many before me have discussed the merits pro and contra using contractors instead of perm contracted staff.
I will still give it one more go. Since lately, there has been some back and forth again about motivational issues and how certain is one in one legal contract situation compared to the other hence how motivated can one be and why the need to cater to so different audiences as ‘manager’.
The thing is
It doesn’t matter:

When investigating the differential motivators, one invariably ends up with the same motivators, and much the same demotivators (nicely depicted here of course still going strong, since tout a continué).
This, coupled with:

  • Financially, you’ll have to pay for income taxes (buy side yes), holidays, sick days, etc.etc. (welcome to Europe!) and all of the administration surrounding that when you hire someone on a perm contract. If you hire a contractor, not so much; all costs are for the contractor
  • You’ll also have to pay for continued education and a company car for perm contracters. For contractors, not so much; all costs are for the contractor
  • Add in a ton for pension contributions (we’re still in Europe). For contractors: Nope.
  • How about severance packages? (Oh, shouldn’t differ much…)
  • Going through the calculation motions, it is little wonder that fully loaded costwise, a perm contractor will cost you 2,5-to-3,5 times per hour what a contractor bills you
  • And your perm contractor is scientific reasearch confirmed actually productive for four (upper bound) to two (lower bound) of any eight-hour working day. Your contractor can only bill you for two hours slippage per day, at most
  • You can even expect to pay more for the above motivators when dealing with perm staff. Contractors behave more mature and don’t need as much of everything

clearly leads in one direction. Isn’t there a catch ..? No, only if you’re Mr Tax Man; then, you’re the one losing out. Otherwise, you as an employer can gain seriously even when paying out ‘huge’ hourly rates to contractors.

Remember that.

Your comments, please.

Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord