Tag: people

The Sixties, rehashed ..?

Quo vadis; society ..? This now has an answer: We’ll have a rehash of the 19-30s and -60s (/-70s) in one.
When the 1%ers slash Military-Industrial Complex slash totalitarians claim to want unfettered market economies for all even when they pursue an absolute, complete Big Government / monopoly society, even pushing IoT for the purpose of providing Big Brother with total surveillance capabilities under the guise of ‘citizen’-supporting ambient intelligence Oxford, and pushing VR as a tool for mind control (sucking everyone (?) into the blue pill illusions of the Matrix),
And on the opposite end we have a continued strive for the Commons-Arcadia of small businesses (not much beyond mom-and-pop freelance gigs) everywhere on a level playing (sic) field where Experiencing Nature in te Great Outdoors (soon trampled by the masses, and not too wild and Unknown), with IoT as tool for healthy slash sustainable living for all and VR as just a small-scope tool,
The Sixties / Ealy-Seventies are back. Much more transparent (also qua disruptors’ identities, whereabouts, and culpability vv the Law…), much more (yes indeed) ground to cover, to loosen up societies’ structures much more extensively — due to backlog, backfire and backlash since the last Aquarius rush (80s-10s). Even in business, seeing a return away from totalitarian-bureaucratics towards enterpreneurial freedom (“actual” leadership contra übernacissistic CEOs).
The Thirties are back. With the income distribution being more skewed than ever (!) in history, so with more argument pro (…) Revolution … [Despite the latter having proven throughout history to fail or rather, in the end to not work out the way it was intended!] But also the Junker that babble alternative facts (US) and pretend to rule (Europe) but have no clue about their overly apparent airheadedness, leading duces to be able to grab power.
Noting that in some conglomerate of nominally independent states, the division or even separation between the Poor in the middle and the Elites on either coast, is more clear (worse) than in the Thirties now.

Pendulum swings everywhere. And throw in China and Russia, plus some India into the mix…
What have we learned from the past; can we deal with extremes in a better way now ..?

Plus:
[Absolute rulers, Nature in the back; Salzburg again]

Customers, users, they aren’t the same

Yet another recent article in an otherwise wise mag tripped over the not even remotely subtle distinction between customers and users, when it comes to bragging rights of social media platforms.
User, users everywhere … But even by the billions they aren’t providing any subscription income… Because they’re just the product. Would mr Musk brag about how many Model S3X cars can run off his new factory’s assembly lines [errr…, yes he may], or would he be happier when there’s some out there that actually pay for the products? [that’s why he may]
At least, here we can still (sic) speak of actual products and clients. Where already clients and (‘all’) users are not the same thing. Buried in the above-linked article is passing reference to skew in ad revenue. Yes indeed. With the end kicker being the achievement of so-and-so-many billions of users again, to bury the fact that ad revenue points at what Facebook is all about: Lift, shift and retention of ad (selling) companies that are the actual users-customer-clients that bring in the dough.

So, wouldn’t it be better business reporting to stratify the users by ad generation ..? Wouldn’t it be better to point out all developments in revenues per ‘active’ user? Wouldn’t it be honest to report how little per user the ultimately advertising company makes in additional renevue by sales of (near-)physical products ..?

I’ll leave you with:
[The Salz’ worth going all the way up there, the ‘user’ down below made to feel on top of it…]

Tall(e)y facts

Yes, the Quote of the Day. Typically, one that had some ageing but has bettered, qua relevance, for it but may have better had some extra attention half a year ago: Since the masses are always eager to believe something, for their benefit nothing is so easy to arrange as facts.

By Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, you know, of 1754-1838 stock. Which may or may not remind you of some current or, at time of publication of this post, past [one can hope, can’t one?] Chief of the Bookkeeping — as the position was intended and crafted at time of creation… Oh how devolved it has become, true-ing all fears that De Tocqueville may have had about it but that’s for another post.
One need not go further than to remind you old Talley of the Périgord-that-produces-some-decent-wines-today, lived through the French revolution (read Thomas Paine for a alternative-facts (sic) report on that) and the Napoléontic period(s) [what a bleeder they were. sorry pun had to be made] — apparently he had mastered the survival game.

Good for him, maybe. And:
[Hidden gem, tucked away in the bustle of today’s action, deserves much more attention; National Museum of the American Indian NY]

No legalese please, we’re in business

Which translates to: A DPO better be an IT expert who has learnt [for clear thinking, UK English is preferred by far; ed.] the legalese of the GDPR, than a legal expert who has learnt some tidbits of IT. Despite the usual suspects exceptions, you do recognise the former and latter types in practice. And exceptions those are.
And debunking the myth that a legally schooled ‘GRC’ operative might pick up sufficient IT skills in a couple of courses or a bit of privacy practice, needn’t be necessary or you have done zero investigation re this. What a sorcerer’s apprentice of the pastiche kind do they portray. Because the mindset is inappropriate; the mindset of accidentally finding an interesting problem and for once not being dazed by those in the know, studying it extensively, how interesting this all, and then       hardly anything. Certainly (sic) no actual solution to the problem…
The IT side, so often and so extensively underestimated in its intricacies throughout the vast wide scope of it in particular qua privacy concerns even in the GDPR itself that core document around which so many circle, on the other hand is qua background focused on (actively going out and) finding problems and then creating and implementing a solution.
And at the same time, recognising that the legal stuff is not as hard as it is sometimes portrayed (instigated) to be and does not require more than a trade diploma level of intellectual development, if even that.

One could easily remain on the subject but without much gain. We retire, having made sufficient argument why DPOs have no legal basis need in their functional requirement.

Oh, and:
[Feel free to pose and shine – with pretense of superiority through some legal jargon most probably devoid of meaning; NY]

Take me out of the loop, (as I) please

Considering that there is this thing with privacy — where people are getting more and more aware that yes, they do have a legal right to not opt in to any scam’ish spam and Shallows-ing of their filter bubble [where the latter sounds soft and pleasant, pink, instead of crushingly dusty and petrifying your mind, the one thing that so far keeps you human].
Considering, too, that there is a push to have at least a human in the loop of math destruction. Which will fail if it’s a click-yes-or-be-fired job. Which it will, in the current setting and developments, be. Unless the human, and all of hes [her/his; LGBTQ-neutral] superiors all the way up to and including in particular, the Board members individually fully accountable, remain accountable for all that the click-yes leads to. They should be are or else they have to legal title to any income of any kind. But since the legal side is all set but the 0.1% is above the law, this isn’t happening.

At least then, we should aim for something similar to the cookie directive [so villified because it was such a glorious and simple idea it could work. could have.]; I propose:
The right to be left out of (statistical or other) profiling. Since the profiling follows from matching patterns that are different things from the data I provided – most probably to some party other than the one doing the profile extraction out of statistical masses – fitting me to the profile is a direct form of de-anonymisation to identification to which you have no legal right and a legal duty not to. Check your brain to see whether it is capable of the most basic functioning, which is sufficient to understand articles 11 and 12 of the Universal Declarations of Human Rights. Name one set of principles that applies more widely, globally, than that. Doing away not only with the nuisance but also with the filter bubble et al. including the atrocious downsides of false positives as per the link above.

Maybe the online ad markets would crash. Report has it that they already do; imploding under their own emptiness. There is no inherent reason any market should exist per se. The world would a. continue to prosper, so infinitely more so than before when ad markets would crumble; b. be a better place and who could be against that?

So after this bombshell of an idea, I leave you with:
[Peace of mind; at a borgho just North of Siena]

Obviously for tomorrow: a rerun of Elk, Moose, Reindeer, Wapiti, Caribou, Deer

As an intermission: Would you know which is which, of the above/below …?
And then, there’s continental differences …
First up, the Elk:
elk-06
Servus Canadensis, the wapiti indeed. Next up, the Elk:
130673480_moose_463656c
know as such in Eurasia including those tinny pebbles off the coast called the British Isles. Looks suspiciously like the Alces Alces that is the Canadian (oh well, and US, yes, whiners) Moose, doesn’t it?
Because it is…! But you moose’ent confuse the two with each other nor with the reindeer a.k.a. caribou:
reindeeris5
Rangifer Tarandus, since this one’s for Saami and Santa.

Are you feeling elky now ..? Or move to the Caribouan; you’ll never have problems with the above there … Oh deer we’re in seriousness-trouble here…

Your unbody double

So, there now is a thing being Artificially Intelligent 3-D Avatars. As per here. How nice.
And then you realise time travel may be possible once you don’t have the physical duplication problem anymore. Though we still would have the other problems; bummer.

But still, one of the problems has been solved. The others, actually … may need re-study. Because, there may now be differences in travelling forward (possibility approaching, when ‘time’ in your physical life needs to stay synchronised in some form or another with others, and your AI3DAvatar can speed up ..?) but then, returning to Now might (creation of possibility here) be equivalent or the same [which aren’t] to travelling back in time. Duh. Too bad it’s still so hard to reason (positive-)logically and consistently about this.

And, it will make the ‘need’ to have dirty, planet-soiling flesh-and-blood humans around, much less. There’s no such thing required anymore as people being trapped in The Matrix and then wanting blue or red pills, but rather it’s the attachment of AI3DAvatars to the Singularity Machine; their subsumption into it (removing duplicate or false/inconsistent memories – that will be there IF the AI3DAvatar’s anything like you) leading to their disappearance — all they ever (in the future) were, had already been included (thought out on its own) by the SingMach.

For now, we’re still here; individually. And:
[“Tape”copies of the views from up there, will be loaded to your AI3dAvatar in a millisec; no need for that either; CNN Tower, Toronto]

FOMO as FOYA gone bad

The enslavement to socmed seems to be a generation- … less thing: Unfortunately, all too many seem to need to be connected — mistakenly, just liking things will not lead to a true connection; how many are there that actually grow into such? Only on apps that are specifically aimed to that –swipe-left– otherwise, not so much. Or hardly. Most socmed like-affiliations are a. for sheeple attaching themselves to some brand(s), indicating their lack of self-esteem by submitting themselves as consumer-onlies, b. for lack of dare to actually do something for a Good Cause but wanting to be associated with Successful-in-life people [i.e., actual do-somethings] nevertheless. No c. to think of, qua ‘most’.

What remains, is a hard to miss impression of the truth, being that socmed attachments (mostly to the worst-on-ethics corp behemoths rather than anything) are panicked FOMO symptoms to the world, signalling a much deeper problematic psyche, being the Fear Of Youself As-is; FOYA.
That’s right. Individualism having gone so far as to drive all those that subconsciously cling to group belonging much more than is societally acceptable ( or so it seems!), i.e., the vast majority (of Like-serfs), to seek ways to still attach to something that can slurp up their feeling of insecurity (on their own) and return a pat on the back for group support.

You get it. Can ramble on, but have little time. And:
[An affiliation choice!; Amsterdam]

Leaking profiles

Got an attention raiser during an off-the-cuff discussion on data leakage. Qua, like, not getting the first thing about what privacy has been since Warren&Brandeis’ eloquent definition, and subsequent codification in pretty hard-core, straightforward laws.
The problem being, that no theory of firm (incl public) allows subsumption of employees into slavery, of mind or otherwise. Think Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 12. Hence, tracking and tracing every keystroke of employees, i.e., treating them as suspect of e.g., data leakage before one has any a priori clue about everyone individually actually doing anything wrong, not having been granted any rights of surveillance in this jurisdiction, is a crime in itself.
And no, the comparison with street cameras that bother no-one and make everyone safer, is a lie on two counts. And, in many countries (the civilised ones; a criterion in reverse), such (total or partial) surveillance isn’t outlawed without reason.
So, your data leakage prevention by tracing everyone is an illegal act. Don’t.

No, your security concerns are not valid. Not the slightest, compared to the means you want to deploy. Stego to files of all kinds, when all are aware of its implementation, may help much better. And supplies you with the trace you want; not to your employee that you (but no-one else) suggest is rogue – (s)he knows about the traceabilitry so will be self-censored (ugch) into compliance – but to the third party that spilled the beans. Since stego-cleansing tools may exist, your mileage may vary. Encryption then, the destruction of content accessibility for those not authorised (through holding a password/token/~), will fail when anything you send out, might have to be read off a screen; the PrtScn disabling being undone by good ol’ cameras as present in your good ol’ S8 or P900 (though this at 0:50+ is probably the typical TLA stakeout vid/result).

Conclusion: Excepting very, very rare occasions, your data leakage prevention by employee surveillance will land you in prison. Other methods, might be legal but fail. Your thoughts now on outbound traffic keyword monitoring. [Extra credit when including European ‘human in the loop’ initiatives.]

And:
[No privacy in your prayers, or ..?? Baltimore Cathedral]

Explicitation of Risk — scaring yourself into victimhood

As may be clear, Sloterdijk’s explicitation ideas don’t hold on metaphysics levels of abstraction alone.
It works for all the mundane stuff like ‘risk management’ [disclaimer for the contradictio], too.

And, by making explicit what previously was ‘there’ already, but implicitly and hence not in any beholders’ eyes, in this case all one gains is not understanding (per se) but especially, systemic, existential scare.
Because the Unknown is identified, explicitised into existence. The Unknown that is, by (now) definition, the primordial Chaos contra the Order of Zeus and Apollo in his wake. In turn turning your existence into some degree of insecurity. [In a practical sense, not in the Schäume/Über-sphere sense of Peter Big-S]
And then, ‘risk management’ is the continuation through treatment of that Uncertainty with the addition of other means. [Italics mine, to correct towards the Original quote.] Because, you see, ‘managing’ the risks, even if for the moment we purely hypothetically consider that to be the case in any above-absolute-zero factual degree even for the most trivial, operational form, means having to acknowledge the fundamental impossibility of it. The harder ‘modelling’ types throw their weight [ah, yes, a very-big-if assumption, Pinocchio/Calimero’an again] against the uncertainties, the bigger the resistance is; the harder the chaos-theoretical unpredictability of the future bounces back. The further pushed, the more the full weight of the Universe pushes back.

You get that drift.

Well, then. What remains in nearby sight is the loss of naïvety that would give room for human growth. No guts, no glory! Where the guts are taken out of the picture, when they once were the area where gut feelings pro and contra any action or inaction were properly weighed, now only stupidly-crippled-rationality weighted.
But on the other hand; believing in the efficacy of ‘risk management’ in principle, will lull to sleep in a most blue pill sense.

Just don’t force all to take that colour; some actually want to succeed in Life.
And:
[Aim for clarity, deal with reality; Amsterdam (Lights Festival tour)]

Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord