Once .gov first tasted the forbidden fruit of illegal surveillance, they never gave it up. Ever since the FIB's first illegal taps, this shit has just perpetually escalated until the point we are at now. Dragnet surveillance of practically every form of communication is the norm. The surveillance state dreams that they can use LLMs to read the firehose for them and finally make their East German wet dream real. The DoD can then use this to build CABAL from "Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun" and become a near-omniscient Murder, Inc.
Technology cannot only be used by the nefarious criminals riding herd on the monster. These tools can make them choke to death on their beloved firehose. Wiretaps will be worthless when not only can you make perfect AI reproductions of your, or anyone's voice, but you can have it spout nonsense 24 hours a day tying up multiple phone lines. Similarly, while meeting with people, you can play prerecorded nonsense, and actually communicate with pen and paper. The truly paranoid will only use synthesized voices, never allowing anyone but their family to know their speech.
One could do the same with digital appearances; a Vtuber morphing like in Michael Jackson's "Black or White" music video. The whole idea is that the only time you communicate anything in which .gov might have interest in, it could with reasonable doubt be said these are just 2 AIs spouting nonsense at each other in a loop like a "numbers station". Via use of TOTP, both parties could easily know which timespan to watch for the relevant message, with .gov powerless to know which is meaningful.
I'm sure there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth at someone who automates a system which is simply AIs calling each other and engaging in nonstop "terrorist chatter". Things on similar wavelengths to "discussing gambling on kiddie porn competitions to raise funds for self-driving IEDs to send to abortion clinics". In minecraft, mind you. While such behavior is entirely legal, I'm sure it'll raise some eyebrows over at Fort Meade.
Countermeasures such as SARs and other sanction by public-private partnershits should be expected when the feds prove less than amused by such artistry. Even phone calls will end up as heavily moderated as social media, as anyone who knows how to hit them where it hurts here will be quickly banned for life from communicating electronically. Perhaps this will finally put Ol' POTS out of its misery in favor of herding everyone onto more controlled mediums. Let's hope so.
The precedent set in the Mackey case eschews any limiting principle on how the law can be applied. Any โdisinformationโ โ that is, any untrue statement, even crude jokes, like jesting that Michelle Obama is a man, or that [insert politician] is really an alien lizard in a human skinsuit โ so long as it might deter someone from voting, is a potential crime. Even the mild suggestion that voting is irrational, a belief long held by many mainstream political scientists, could count as a criminal act under this reading of Section 241. This broadening of scope is precisely the point.I've told multiple people in my life why I consider voting to be not only irrational but immoral. I have likely posted as much multiple times upon this very site. Ever since the PATRIOT act, I knew this day would come. It's just a matter of time until libertarians and anarchists will not be tolerated by the state any longer. The edifice of lies the regime rests upon demands it.
Iโm not really sure what to do here. How do you review a book that has a glaring omission, but also its author has written an essay called Hereโs Why I Like Glaring Omissions And Think Everyone Should Have Them? Is it dishonest? Some sort of special super-meta-honesty? How many stars do you take off? Nothing in my previous history of book-reviewing has prepared me for this question.Of course he's unprepared for reality, being a "rationalist/bayesian". They deny the implications of the Frame problem, which is their core error. I should write a blog post about this; it's why racism and all the concerns discussed are straight-up spooks. You might be able to walk a mile in another mans shoes, but you can't walk with his feet.
An absolutely fascinating defense. "Someone else might not be able to commit this crime, so we should be allowed to do it" is one of the weirdest defences I have ever heard.Hey, it worked for the TBTF banks...
"At bottom, [the Internet Archiveโs] fair use defense rests on the notion that lawfully acquiring a copyrighted print book entitles the recipient to make an unauthorized copy and distribute it in place of the print book, so long as it does not simultaneously lend the print book. But no case or legal principle supports that notion. Every authority points the other direction."Oops, guess your local library needs to burn their microfiche collection! Also, emulator enthusiasts up against the wall.
In other words, you donโt have to shout slurs โ if you criticize an employeeโs performance, and the investigator thinks your criticism is unfair and that you are some flavor of bigot, thatโs enough to justify a shakedown.This is why only glad-handing empty suits can get promoted at 100+ person firms, by the way. Frank criticism and Fuhren unter Der Hand (without which a firm can't function) cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. As such the modern firm limps along as a cripple.
This means that virtually any interpersonal conflict in the workplace might cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of litigation โ and employees in protected categories have massive incentives to generate or fabricate such conflicts.
This risk is existential for small and medium-sized businesses, which is one reason that labor-intensive businesses are dominated by massive conglomerates. You have to pay to play.
Conservative commentators love to characterize HR and DEI as โdead weightโ patronage jobs, as if they were the product of bureaucratic bloat or laziness โ but DEI mandarins arenโt lying when they say they perform a business-critical function.
If you are identified as a thought-criminal with respect to any legally-protected category, and your employer fails to discipline or terminate you, then any gender creature at the office can decide that you make them Feel Unsafe, and start building a case to put their hand in the companyโs pocket.
Corporations donโt hire sprawling HR and DEI departments out of inertia, or because theyโre afraid of popular pressure: they do it because they need an internal constituency that is as crazy as their craziest employee โ that can keep the organization up to date with the latest progressive moral panic, and punish dissenting employees long before they generate a lawsuit. A DEI department is as practically necessary to the modern American corporation as Legal or Accounting.
Itโs a brilliant workaround โ it would, of course, be unconstitutional for the regular police to monitor your private communications and punish you for ideological crimes โ but the EEOC built a $30B network of internal informants and political officers (twice the size and 3X the budget of the KGB at its peak) who are not accountable to the Constitution, and got your boss to pay for it.