Could be true, sure. I know only a bit about cryptography in tech.

My skepticism is fueled by a lack of trust.

...as all skepticism is, I suppose.

I'm certainly no expert in the math.. thats for sure.

Lack of trust?

In government and corporations.

Have you considered a career in Cybersecurity?

😃

Hahahaha

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/facial-recognition-elite-super-recognizers/

and what is scotland yard using them for? tracking down mean people on twitter

well its a 2 year old article

Yep.. Thats my point

The tech can so easily be used nefariously

usually they do work with ctv

I'm a 100% Free Market Capitalist, therefore I support the average working guy, the small business owner, the freelance Web designer... NOT Google, Wall Street, or the Beltway. So, when I hear about things like "tracking" and "facial recognition", I fear there may be some truth behind it.

Governments are going to use tech to oppress and control. It's what governments do.

Governments gotta government...

Government's natural direction is to grow state power. Freedom limits growth, therefore freedom must be limited.

basicly looking through vast quantitys of convicted criminal photos and comparing them with cvt footage that corrisponds with reported crimes and then compare other ctv with other reported crimes

like i asked earlier, at what point is catching a murder no longer important?

when the murderer is you?

no, but if they have the tools to catch him, they have to tools to find you

@Grenade123 I suppose, in the eyes of the government, it would depend on who the victim is.

i'm not asking about the government

i'm asking about YOU

They managed to solve crimes before mass surveillance...

mass surveillance just makes it industrial.

at what point is the ability to catch a murder not worth it for your own personal privacy

If it's better for 100 guilty people to go free less 1 innocent go to jail... Surely the same should apply to privacy?

@LOLTRON more cameras, means more chances to catch a murder right as it happens, means less likely for there to be mass murders.

in theory, anyway

I would say catching a murderer is important, but we were catching killers before mass Internet surveillance and if you can show me data PROVING this rate of arrest has been improved for the better, I'll believe it. Still, even then I'd have to weigh it against the validity of sacrificing freedoms of everyone to catch about 1% of criminals, which I generally would not do.

^ the evidence suggests that isnt the case

most murders are crimes of passion, not premeditated.

mass murders

True

correction

Mass Murders are statistically 0

mass murderers

True; mass murders are generally premeditated...

not mass murders

sorry

but usually, they want noteriety.. they are looking for the fame..

(infamy)

True

several murders committed by the same person over a long period of time

Mass shootings/murders make up a fraction of homicides per year.

Serial murder?

even rarer than mass murder

yet what are people more afraid of?

Media hyperbole.

nazi's

media hyperbole? please, these types of fear existed before media companies

The MSM MAKES these things scary. They are scary, but the odds of being the victim of a mass homicide event in the US is slimmer than being in a plane crash or getting hit by a train.

the boogieman has been scaring people since the start of humanity

Well...

Fear sells papers, so to speak.

I would say it depends on your interpretation of MSM.

Fear clicks links.

fear sells everything

it sells guns too

Sex sells things better.

actually it doesn't

people forget what products are in sexy ads

I could say, the 15th Century equivalent of the MSM would be the church scaring people about Satan.

the issue is seclusion,

People listen to the media and the media sells them fear 24/7
People don't go outside and talk to their neighbors, or go to the park and see people just doing people things

chat's so fast... hahaha

unless your logo is a hot naked chick

they remember that

So they get a warped view of reality

we survale the population because we dont trust witness testimony as much as we use to. in the past witness testimony was our method of servalence. "you saw a crime, who was the perp?" servalence is basicly an effert to keep a witness bias out of the case though doesent do anything about the bias of those witnessing the servailence. basicly though theres never been a community on earth where your identity was not tracked by someone and if your identity was a problem to someone and they reported you to the arbitrator of the local mob then that arbitrator would make the choice of what happens to you based on the servalience given to them

you people dont realize technology doesent actually do much new in society, it simply replaces people

^

Yet even in an age of surveillance, personal bias is still a factor.

(And we are back to automation)

as i said

doesent make it any more previlent though

if you dont have servalience you have witnesses

Well,

camera's are just more witnesses

that don't sleep

don't forget

and are always in 240p 😄

True, but does that make it okay?

It's a philosophical point, isn't it?

At what point does it become okay to be invasive in favor of security? At which point does said security begin to violate the 4th Amendment as well?

i actually dont avocate for ctvs to be put everywhere, im simply arguing that it doesent actually give the government as much power as you think

relitive to what they actually have always had

Orwell ~might~ would disagree with that.,

orwell didint grow up in salem

like i asked, at what point is catching a murderer no longer that important to you? At what point, as a business owner, is it not worth it to catch a thief and get back stolen goods?

Keep in mind, "as much power as you think" is subjective and immeasurable. Government will seek power where it can get it.

This is proven by history.

The moment catching a murderer requires the impinging of civil liberties, including privacy, its a bridge too far.

There are compromises to make, but we shoudl always err on the side of privacy

You lot are conflating a lot of each others ground here and crafting an "all or nothing" scenario here,

surveilance should be done outside private property (unless authorised)

problem solved?

Yep. It's just like the Patriot Act, which is fundamentally unconstitutional.

It's not an "all or nothing" scenario so much as it is attempting to curtail a growth of state power before it can become totalitarian.

If you approach such ideas with a shrug "this time", it eventually snowballs.

we're a bit past that point alraedy, about 20 years?

I would agree with that, sure.

just live in a mafia run part of a town, no longer need to worry about the government

...and why is that?

I'm actively trying to avoid those. I'm rational enough to know there is legitimate call for some metadata retention.. And noone is really saying that tracking down a murderer can't be done with metadata... But My point remains is the bias should be toward the protection of liberty and privacy. not the increased power of the states surveillance machine.

Could it be that government is corruptible and very, very bias?

Its because people stopped caring,
They get the 3 emotional fixes in life,

Entertainment, Food, Social contact

As long as you give the people those 3, they'll give you power

@Timcast I hope you saw the video I posted yesterday. I left a SuperChat yesterday about a news story that I've been working on.

@Starscream92 (ChefLeopard) could you repost?

OK. Hold up.

tyvm

Also mass surveilence doesn't work

I think that would very from case-to-case

@ikillomega This is the video of an interview that four of us did on the Hard Bastard YouTube channel last month. @Canucklehead and I have been working on the story as YouTubers, and we had two Bernie delegate witnesses join from San Diego. @Timcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdynfibjB9o

Whether or not something works is entirely dependent on implementation and execution.

Thank you @Starscream92 (ChefLeopard)

Also, Hard Bastard is awesome.

@ikillomega yeah i write 4 his webpage.

I have 3 articles on this topic on it.

Oh good deal. You guys do good work.

The only way mass surveilence can work, is if you allow the authorities to presume guilt,
Which means you have to strip the "innocent until proven guilty" from society

I can't tell you how many times i've seen news reports on like european terrorists for example

where the police chief says "Yeah, we've had our eye on this person for a while"

or "The terrorist was known to police for former activities"

So you knew he was up to something, but you didn't do anything, because he didn't do anything chargable yet

@ikillomega if u can please watch the video and repost it here later, bc otherwise it gets lost in the chat and never seen.

I'm watching now at work between tasks. I will re-post if I remember too, hahaha. If it gets busy and I have to pause and return a lot, I may forget, but I'll try to make it a point share again. Thanks for the good work!

ctv survalience is probably a very useful system consitering how many businesses adopted it before it even became manditory security in the uk

you mean cctv?

yeah sorry, people say the cc so fast it sounds just like a c to me

thats private use, not public

ctv sound like som tv channel

its private use until the government requests it because you cant refuse the government any evidence for a crime if they have a warent

@Arch-Fiend reminds me of this classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL89ooZwesQ

"weve been tracking a suspect and have reason to believe he was here and may have been picked up by your cameras please give us the footage between _ and _"

its still private surveilance, businesses can't just set up cameras outside their property

it annoys me that discord doesetn know the difference between _ and -

__it doesnt?__

oh wait it does, then why does 2 _ act the same way as 2 -?

--are you sure?--

-word- _word_

oh

the difference is that the store is using it to keep track of their assets, and find someone afterward

the government uses it with the goal of finding someone to prevent BEFOREHAND.

And you can't really do that cuz you're either bound by the law, or gotta presume guilt

so i think were talking about the patriot act now?

because before we were talking about different forms of survalience

I dunno i joined in when we were talking about public surveilance

this entire conversation (ironicly we should have gone to <#463068752725016579>) was about biometric identification and how it can be used to track people more if you just went and required people to use their id for more things but my argument was that requiring id for more things is the part of biometrics which acts as tracking not the method of identification, then it became a debate whether its the governements job to have an identification system which i argued yes because it cant effectively track its border if it doesent know its own citizinery and it cant prevent identity theft if it has no confermation system to give its citizines the ability to say they are who they say they are any more than someone else claiming to be them.

i think the united states government basicly having a tap on every phone in the united states and many abroad is a bit of a different form of survalience that has no justification in my opinion and i agree it basicly doesent solve anything

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-Yly94A7Xc

“ Legal experts say Mueller team likely gained access to NRA tax filing: report “ by Avery Anapol on The Hill

Mueller brings another red herring to the Trump Russia investigation. The truth is unimportant. This is propaganda set to attack the NRA and Trump in one blow.

http://archive.today/LzTb0

Just shows they have NOTHING on him,

else they wouldn't have to do this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9eVJ37EOoI

The NRA disclosed in April that it received about $2,500 in contributions from 23 Russia-linked individuals since 2015. McClatchy reported earlier this year that the FBI was looking into whether one of those donors, Alexander Torshin, used the NRA to funnel money to the Trump campaign.
Torshin is a Russian politician and deputy of the country's central bank.

So they want people to believe that $2500 given to the NRA by a Russian in 2015 was passed onto Trump in 2016 and was the decisive factor in swinging the election?

Are they sure that money wasn't just used to pay for one of the bazillion other things the NRA did in 2015? All the activism and public awareness work they do?

At least it's more credible than the Taxi medallion schtick.

I don't even think you have to be a citizen to donate to the NRA.

Seems like a tall order to make that case given $2.5k covers maybe a portion of their water bill.

2,500...thats it? Russia-linked? aka their neighbors are russian and they said hi?

I'm sorry I keep having to repost this, but people's discussions keep burying my video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdynfibjB9o

This is the video of an interview that four of us did on the Hard Bastard YouTube channel last month. @Canucklehead and I have been working on the story as YouTubers, and we had two Bernie delegate witnesses join from San Diego. @Timcast.

I just finished watching it in pieces here. Good interview.

Because liberals get the bullet too

The FBI is literally investigating every imagined conspiracy theory the lefty media can invent.

@RanStairs who are those people?

its cuz they're too far with the lie, they have to stick with it now and desperately try to find ANYTHING to dent Trump,
Not realising (or perhaps willfully ignoring) the fact that with every grasp, they solidify his core base, and only push the center further away because they'll get tired of this endless nothingness

Trump knows this i think tahts why he's letting them, because when the end of the investigation comes, he'll bring the hammer down on them for wasting all this time. And with every grasp the left media made, the hammer will increase in size

not just time, money too

@ikillomega share it. we're tryna get the story out.

whats this MattesFile?

What do you guys think about this plea deal, and the “ conspiracy theories “
http://archive.today/700xn

he pled guilty,

conspiracy theories are in the eye of the beholder

Molymeme did a completely exhaustive examination of all the sketchy crap that family was involved in. I doubt it had anything to do with the 2016 election.

Just regular corruption.

Old boomer politicians who don't understand tech paying a slimey used car salesman to do their network admin work and getting taken to the cleaners.

Harvard Business Review via Twitter: Breakthrough research shows that diverse teams make better investments. https://hbr.org/2018/07/the-other-diversity-dividend (Archive: http://archive.fo/cqQIj )

I think Marvel wants a word with the writers

@Deleted User Some antifags

From what i gather from that article, their biggest claim to "diversity works" is that since the 50's, Americas Economy went up, and this coincided with the fact more non-whites and wamen joined the workforce.

Bigger workforce increases economic growth, who knew?

and in the end it starts promoting gender bias training etc

few people will tell you this, but financial performance goes up when the number of employees you have increases faster than their labor appreciation relitive to consumption of production

I find it amusing that the local grocery co-op, a cooperative, put in massive self serve checkouts and got rid of a pile of staff. Co-op 😮

https://twitter.com/KalebPrime/status/1013926947511029760

i'm pretty sure this article actually supported a meritocracy

"To accomplish that, companies need not explicitly favor a particular race or gender when hiring. Sometimes simple adjustments in the selection process can increase diversity. In one study led by the behavioral economist Iris Bohnet, of Harvard Kennedy School, students were assigned the role of an employer asked to select an employee who would do well on a future math or verbal task. Even though gender was not predictive of performance, “employers” evaluating individual candidates were likely to be swayed by stereotypes, exhibiting a preference for women on verbal tasks and men on math tasks. But when they assessed two candidates side by side, gender suddenly became irrelevant. Evaluators instead focused on past performance—an actual indicator of future success."

that snipped would imply that diversity is actually irrelevant, and as its put itself, from only 1 study

exactly

hence supporting meritocracy

so that would disprove the claim that diversity is beneficial, which is the headline

well, in an earlier part in that article it also "assumed" all skills

are equal

its trying to spin things

saying "look, when you are actually basing things on merit, you will get a diverse staff"

so then its not diversity that is beneficial, but meritocracy

but you see, you are looking for a cause, not an effect. logic doesn't apply here, only bias

nah im looking on what the article claims, and if it supports it, which it doesnt, it contradicts itself

(ironic, given that the article states people get angry when confronted with their own bias... maybe explains the anger of the left?)

oh, it contradicts itself

its leftist in nature

by default it would

they also tried to us Samantha Bee as an example and they were like "oh wow, look, after our selection process which, to us, was not bias, we ended up with 50-50 male-female applicant rate for the second round"

i find this highly suspect

if it's evenly 50-50 you screwed up

in other news: germany is going to catch illegal immigrants within 20 miles from the border and send them to the eu country they came from (first applied for asylum), austria is probably going to do the same because that is where the immigrants will get sent. I really don't think you will see any more boats being allowed to enter italian ports...

"This is not to say, of course, that it’s impossible to improve diversity in an established company. Standardized processes, such as blinding résumés during hiring and using objective metrics during performance reviews (as long as they’re constantly refined through iterative development), can have a big impact in organizations looking to ameliorate bias. But when the teams developing and refining those processes are themselves unrepresentative of the broader universe of candidates, they must take special care to ensure that they aren’t institutionalizing their individual biases."

while i would suspect what a leftists would find as "objective metrics", this once again sounds like a support of meritocracy. Look at what they do and how well they do at it, not who they are.

(although ability to work with the team is kinda a biggy)

"We’ve seen similar results in blind evaluations of prospective hires. Most of us have heard that auditioning musicians behind screens has dramatically increased the percentage of women who make the cut for symphony orchestras. Here’s an example from another industry: When the political satire show Full Frontal with Samantha Bee was gearing up to hire writers, then-showrunner Jo Miller combined other shows’ evaluation processes, making minor tweaks consistent with her goals. In a first-round call for script submissions, detailed formatting instructions were included so that superficial indicators of experience would not overshadow talent, taste, and potential. Those scripts were evaluated blindly, and an unusually large number of applicants made it to a second round, in which previous work and other factors, including gender and ethnicity, were considered. The result was a strikingly diverse team for late-night comedy: 50% women and 30% people of color."

the blind resumes were tested and lead to fewer women being called in for interviews.

germany is becoming nationalist again?

oh this will end well

lmao

I wounder if the main american news outlets know Canada has chain fenced detention areas for illegal immigrants too 😮 they are just not as big and part of the year really freekin cold.

if we elect an austrian as chancellor - run 😄

oh, i forgot... there might be detention camps on the german border...

i mean, they are pretty socialist right now, aren't they?

who?

germany

depends on what you mean

there are social services and things like that... but no germany is not a socialist country

okay, so maybe things are okay

little nationalism didn't hurt too much.... unless they want socialism.

i'm not a fan of nationalism even though there are policies i support that would fall under that

@Timcast are americans allowed in venezuala? its probably an incredibly dangerous place to go but that place has certainly been somewhere that has had a constant story to tell for the last 3 years. maybe one of the neighbering countrys where people are migrating out of might have more reliable sources though as i assume if you were even allowed in venesuala the state would give you the NK treatment of "heres all the things and people we prepared so you know our country is doing fine"

I would avoid at all costs

I have one guy from Venezuela in ahother discord

I can ask him for you

i dont even know if mainstream journalists with body guards go into venesuela

i guarantee you that tim is not going to venezuela.

100% not gonna happen

Tim is not because they told him next time he goes there its jail time for him

he went there before?

when he was mainstream, yes

and damn thats crazy

i think with vice if i remember correctly

didn't someone tweet out he was there and was like a spy or something?>

yeah i get why you wouldent wanna go in there.

which then resulted in him getting.... well the NK treatment lmao

i would suggest like trying to do some information trolling in columbia finding people leaving venesuala but might not be worth it, i dont even know if columbia is a friendly place to go

i have a question about the lefts derangement of Trump

south america is scary

He went there and some retard grassed him to authorities as imperialist agent

Which resulted in him hidding and running the fuck away

well lets focus away from south america then 😅

(((tim))) ?

Its only Venezuela

Other sa countries are probably ok

im not sure if mexico is a place for a story, surly the border is kinda but its mostly just the same story thats been heard in the us for 50 years. i remember being in highschool watching documenterys on illegal immigration and the local opinions in texas

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/03/mediterranean-migrants-drown-three-days-libya-italy