I expected some mention of Musk's comments on why he deserves more Tesla shares
> “If we build this robot army, do I have at least a strong influence over this robot army?” he told investors. “Not control, but a strong influence… I don’t feel comfortable building that robot army unless I have a strong influence.”
You can install 3 non AppStore programs without Jailbreaking onto your iPhone. If you pay $100 per year you can install as many as you want without refreshing and get notifications.
For free: connect your phone to a computer once then follow instructions online then refresh it over WiFi once per week. It does it automatically. Hacked games, Spotify premium no ads, YouTube no ads, or whatever app you decide to make on your own.
I love Cory’s writing, but this piece leans a bit too much on the metaphor lacking a bit in the mechanics. The walled gardens, DRM, and jailbreak bans long predate the last two administrations. They’re more business model problems and not new authoritarian inventions. Removing an app isn’t the same as adding a backdoor. I think we need to talk more about the real root issue - its a structural one as old as time - closed ecosystems have/will always create the potential for abuse regardless of who is in power.
Now, I'm not sure how we get 'open' ecosystems to a tipping point, but have observed the likes of Apple and Microsoft doing a pretty good job of slowly and steadily 'self-owning'... so maybe it's a waiting game?
I guess I'm not shocked but this is certainly disappointing. That being said, do you need a native app to provide most of the functionality? It seems like you could do most of this stuff through browser functionality and some kind of distributed hosting. At the very least you could capture basic reporting through simpler mediums like SMS.
Unsaid in this article is that these phones quickly become useless if governments are able to just shut off internet connectivity through cell service and perhaps targeted local outages to reduce wifi alternatives. Without some kind of mesh networking it doesn't really matter that Apple and Google already sold you out.
Especially nukes (or more generally, weapons)! Can you imagine if your government tried to use the weapons it bought from America, only to have them refuse to start because America decided they shouldn't? Or if you're within the US, imagine if the nukes refused to launch because Raytheon or whoever included a digital kill switch? That would completely defeat MAD.
There was a whole drama over exactly this in the Cold War.
Permissive Action Links were deeply unpopular with the military because they put control of the weapons with the government, rather than with the relevant commanders. Even when finally mandated, the military set the codes to all zeros.
A significant part of it was that Strategic Air Command was essentially an apocalyptic death cult in many ways and despised anything that would slow down issuance and realisation of order to murder as many civilians as possible in shortest amount of time.
Coincidentally, US Navy's PALs never required "keys".
I don't think access to equipment is a good qualifier. Nor should "vulnerable" and "protected" be conflated.
More important is whether membership in the group is based on something that harms others. Let's protect people who want to be left alone so they can pursue their passions in peaceful ways. As for those who want to be left alone so they can kidnap and bully--lets ensure they're as vulnerable as possible until they change their ways.
Who has access to tanks _and_ needs to be protected from citizen reports on their activity?
I'm not conflating the two - Google told 404 Media they were a vulnerable group, while Apple applied a guideline that has previously been used on protected classes, which it seems Migrant Insider interpreted as:
>The decision effectively treats federal immigration agents as a protected class — a novel interpretation of Apple’s hate-speech policy that shields one of the most powerful arms of government from public scrutiny.
It sounds like you're saying that they are not vulnerable. But that's just defeatist. Just because they have tanks doesn't mean they don't have vulnerabilities. When they go home from work they shop at the same grocery stores that we do, walk in the same parks, etc... There are plenty of opportunities to make them feel uncomfortable about what they're doing that we can and should be taking advantage of.
Whether they deserve legal protections from such activity is a totally orthogonal issue. I don't think they should--not in excess of any protections that the law offers anyone else. But that assessment has nothing to do with whether they drive a tank when they're at work.
I'm not sure exactly what kind of armored vehicles ICE has. I'm pretty sure some of them would qualify as tanks at least in WW1. The war to end all wars... if only.
There are actually valid reasons for BORTAC to be armed to the gills, but they're meant to point all that firepower at organized crime (cartels) in the border zone, not Americans in Chicago.
But fair argument - words matter. I was being glib with "tanks". What I really mean is that anyone backed by the power of the US government to extrajudiciously kidnap people and deport them without due process is not a vulnerable group (by definition) and should not be a protected class (in my opinion).
There is no Obama or Biden counterpart to Trump's extrajudicial killings in the Venezuelan coast. Nor Trump's coercion over private industry through his tariffs and lawsuits. Even the far-right's fictions about foreign leaders buying access to Biden through Hunter is so incredibly tame to how Trump does this stuff in public with his crypto or like when talking to that Indonesian leader the other day -- that whole weird "I am a good boy" thing from Eric Trump.
Equivocating these things is a derangement syndrome entirely of its own design.
The program was only mildly controversial at thetime. The killing not so much—it was more about the alleged presence of a Democratic campaign strategist in those coordination meetings.
There is no comparable authorization here. There is, to my knowledge, no allegation that these Venezuelans had anything to do with Al Qaida or the Sept. 11 attacks.
I expected some mention of Musk's comments on why he deserves more Tesla shares
> “If we build this robot army, do I have at least a strong influence over this robot army?” he told investors. “Not control, but a strong influence… I don’t feel comfortable building that robot army unless I have a strong influence.”
https://futurism.com/robots-and-machines/elon-musk-remarks-r...
You can install 3 non AppStore programs without Jailbreaking onto your iPhone. If you pay $100 per year you can install as many as you want without refreshing and get notifications.
For free: connect your phone to a computer once then follow instructions online then refresh it over WiFi once per week. It does it automatically. Hacked games, Spotify premium no ads, YouTube no ads, or whatever app you decide to make on your own.
I love Cory’s writing, but this piece leans a bit too much on the metaphor lacking a bit in the mechanics. The walled gardens, DRM, and jailbreak bans long predate the last two administrations. They’re more business model problems and not new authoritarian inventions. Removing an app isn’t the same as adding a backdoor. I think we need to talk more about the real root issue - its a structural one as old as time - closed ecosystems have/will always create the potential for abuse regardless of who is in power.
Now, I'm not sure how we get 'open' ecosystems to a tipping point, but have observed the likes of Apple and Microsoft doing a pretty good job of slowly and steadily 'self-owning'... so maybe it's a waiting game?
> I love Cory’s writing, but this piece leans a bit too much on the metaphor lacking a bit in the mechanics
I was a regular on the BoingBoing BBS for many years. Doctorow has gotten kind of click baity and loose with facts the past ~10 years or so.
I guess I'm not shocked but this is certainly disappointing. That being said, do you need a native app to provide most of the functionality? It seems like you could do most of this stuff through browser functionality and some kind of distributed hosting. At the very least you could capture basic reporting through simpler mediums like SMS.
Unsaid in this article is that these phones quickly become useless if governments are able to just shut off internet connectivity through cell service and perhaps targeted local outages to reduce wifi alternatives. Without some kind of mesh networking it doesn't really matter that Apple and Google already sold you out.
> Every device and every service should be designed so that the people who use them have the final say over how they work.
Hmm. Even nukes?
Especially nukes (or more generally, weapons)! Can you imagine if your government tried to use the weapons it bought from America, only to have them refuse to start because America decided they shouldn't? Or if you're within the US, imagine if the nukes refused to launch because Raytheon or whoever included a digital kill switch? That would completely defeat MAD.
There was a whole drama over exactly this in the Cold War.
Permissive Action Links were deeply unpopular with the military because they put control of the weapons with the government, rather than with the relevant commanders. Even when finally mandated, the military set the codes to all zeros.
A significant part of it was that Strategic Air Command was essentially an apocalyptic death cult in many ways and despised anything that would slow down issuance and realisation of order to murder as many civilians as possible in shortest amount of time.
Coincidentally, US Navy's PALs never required "keys".
The people who use them kinda do have that say.
Declaring ICE a "protected class" or a "vulnerable group" is absolutely disgusting. Nobody who has tanks is a vulnerable group.
I don't think access to equipment is a good qualifier. Nor should "vulnerable" and "protected" be conflated.
More important is whether membership in the group is based on something that harms others. Let's protect people who want to be left alone so they can pursue their passions in peaceful ways. As for those who want to be left alone so they can kidnap and bully--lets ensure they're as vulnerable as possible until they change their ways.
Who has access to tanks _and_ needs to be protected from citizen reports on their activity?
I'm not conflating the two - Google told 404 Media they were a vulnerable group, while Apple applied a guideline that has previously been used on protected classes, which it seems Migrant Insider interpreted as:
>The decision effectively treats federal immigration agents as a protected class — a novel interpretation of Apple’s hate-speech policy that shields one of the most powerful arms of government from public scrutiny.
Google:
https://www.404media.co/google-calls-ice-agents-a-vulnerable...
Apple:
https://migrantinsider.com/p/scoop-apple-quietly-made-ice-ag...
though that link seems dead so archive.org to the rescue:
https://web.archive.org/web/20251010134146/https://migrantin...
It sounds like you're saying that they are not vulnerable. But that's just defeatist. Just because they have tanks doesn't mean they don't have vulnerabilities. When they go home from work they shop at the same grocery stores that we do, walk in the same parks, etc... There are plenty of opportunities to make them feel uncomfortable about what they're doing that we can and should be taking advantage of.
Whether they deserve legal protections from such activity is a totally orthogonal issue. I don't think they should--not in excess of any protections that the law offers anyone else. But that assessment has nothing to do with whether they drive a tank when they're at work.
The ICE has tanks - can you provide a link? Words have meaning. Maybe some armored cars, but tanks?
I'm not sure exactly what kind of armored vehicles ICE has. I'm pretty sure some of them would qualify as tanks at least in WW1. The war to end all wars... if only.
There are actually valid reasons for BORTAC to be armed to the gills, but they're meant to point all that firepower at organized crime (cartels) in the border zone, not Americans in Chicago.
But fair argument - words matter. I was being glib with "tanks". What I really mean is that anyone backed by the power of the US government to extrajudiciously kidnap people and deport them without due process is not a vulnerable group (by definition) and should not be a protected class (in my opinion).
>Tim Cook (a man who never found a boot he wouldn't lick)
I can't imagine Jobs (for all his many flaws) rolling over so easily.
Swapped one mad king for another.
250 years of democracy isn't a bad run.
Not even remotely.
There is no Obama or Biden counterpart to Trump's extrajudicial killings in the Venezuelan coast. Nor Trump's coercion over private industry through his tariffs and lawsuits. Even the far-right's fictions about foreign leaders buying access to Biden through Hunter is so incredibly tame to how Trump does this stuff in public with his crypto or like when talking to that Indonesian leader the other day -- that whole weird "I am a good boy" thing from Eric Trump.
Equivocating these things is a derangement syndrome entirely of its own design.
I agree, but I wasn't referring to a previous US President.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_III
> There is no Obama or Biden counterpart to Trump's extrajudicial killings in the Venezuelan coast.
Sadly, this isn't really true. The Obama administration had their Terror Tuesdays:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120530104348/https://www.nytim...
The program was only mildly controversial at thetime. The killing not so much—it was more about the alleged presence of a Democratic campaign strategist in those coordination meetings.
That was very bad, but it was plausibly authorized by Congress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...).
There is no comparable authorization here. There is, to my knowledge, no allegation that these Venezuelans had anything to do with Al Qaida or the Sept. 11 attacks.