Dezvous
Dezvous on Hacker News
AI is only as powerful as the data its trained on. It has not, and will never exceed general human intelligence.
List a single language for web development that hasn't had a single RCE vulnerability
> There is a fundamental difference between a location tracked by a cellphone you purchased and own vs. just driving around where anyone can read your license plate
I heavily disagree with the sentiment that modern 'ALPRs' are the same as following around an individual in public. No police officer, sheriff, state trooper, etc. is able to follow an individual across the entire country and catalog their every move 24/7. They have jurisdictions they're allowed to operate in. Additionally, the level of tracking these cameras provide (via their accompanying software) is nearly on par with placing a GPS tracker on a vehicle (which requires a warrant btw), and they're tracking every vehicle that passes, not just vehicles involved in a crime. Our travel history is protected by the 4th amendment because of the intimate details it can reveal about an individual's life. That is ultimately why Chatrie v. US was decided, not because of the specific technology utilized. It's the same case for Carpenter v. US and US v. Jones; both of which were instrumental in deciding the outcome of Chatrie.
I encourage people to go read the opinions of the justices that decided these cases. For example Justice Kegan had this to say in Chatrie v. US [1]:
> The Court began its analysis by reviewing what it had said about a different way of tracking “physical location and movements”: the use of a GPS device to monitor a vehicle. In United States v. Jones, five Justices had agreed that such tracking counts as a Fourth Amendment search because “individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements.” That made sense, the Carpenter Court thought, even though the movements occurred in public. Prior to the digital age, pursuing a suspect “for any extended period of time was difficult and costly and therefore rarely undertaken.” As a result, “society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car.” A new technology should not transform what individuals had reasonably thought they could withhold from the Government.
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf
Thousands of cars scanned? Flock alone (there are other vendors doing the same thing) does more than 20 billion scans per month.
2, 3 and 4 are not illegal or probable cause for arrest. Refusing a search (5) is not even probable cause for arrest.
1 is likely probable cause for arrest, sure. Admitting to having marijuana in the vehicle (5) gives them probable cause to search the vehicle. But probable cause to search the individual's travel history over the last month? No, that requires a warrant.
It's right in the article:
> Some engage in shoplifting as a trade, while others are driven by addiction or mental illness
> Mr. Filpo said he had become accustomed to escorting people out of the deli who are shoplifting, many of them homeless. Cleaning items like laundry detergent, priced from about $8 to $11, are the items that are stolen most often, he said.
> Shoplifting is a crime of poverty, said Arielle Reid, supervising attorney of the Decarceration Project at the Legal Aid Society, New York’s largest provider of criminal and civil services for indigent clients. It can’t be solved by a continued reliance on “the heavy hand of law enforcement,” she said.
We need to solve the root of why crimes happen in the first place to make any difference, not just arrest people for committing crimes.
I'm pretty sure the D270 is meant to be a competitor to the RTX Pro 6000, which also has 1.79TB/s memory bandwidth like the RTX 5090. And it will potentially be a competitor (depending on what the MSRP is) to Nvidia GB10 based systems for 'small' scale AI development. It's not meant to run frontier-size models at the speed you'd expect from something like a cluster of H200 cards.
D270:
1.5TB/s memory bandwidth, 480GB memory capacity, 350W power draw
RTX Pro 6000:
1.79TB/s memory bandwidth, 96GB memory capacity, 600W power draw
Slightly less memory bandwidth, but 5x memory capacity and nearly half the power draw.
> I cannot ultimately prevent the buying and selling behind the scenes. We cannot realistically prevent collection of everything possible.
Yeah, but you can very easily _limit_ what is collected and sold behind the scenes just buy switching browsers, changing browser settings, or using a couple privacy extensions. A little goes a long way.
Any company that would hypothetically acquire them would need to be able to fully - and indefinitely - subsidize their unsustainable operational costs. I don't see how that's realistic even for a company like Microsoft.
They would go public if they were doing well.
If they're physically here on US soil on a visa, they're paying the same taxes as any other US citizen. Sales tax, property tax, Social Security, Medicaid, etc..
Those phrases are true and they helped by making a patch, which Google will most likely end up merging. So what's your point? Should GrapheneOS blogs treat Google as if they're an individual with feelings having a bad day? The same Google that routinely and deliberately hampers the development of GrapheneOS and other similar projects?
Google pushed out bugged code ostensibly breaking millions of phones, mine included. They have the means to fix it in a short amount of time like GrapheneOS devs did, but they won't do it, so GrapheneOS took the initiative.
>Just zip it, be professional, focus on what you are doing and not on others.
How do you propose they "focus on what [they're] doing and not on others" when their entire project is dependent on other's (Google's) work that directly impacts their own users? There's nothing about this blog post that is unprofessional. GrapheneOS released a patch for a rather severe performance bug, which is outside the scope of their normal work, so they provided context into why they made the decision to do so.
I loathe Elon for probably the same reasons as yourself, but I can't deny Tesla's home battery systems are pretty well built.
Flock claims they perform greater than 20 billion plate reads per month and allegedly are used in solving a few thousand cases per year. Their actual usefulness in those solved cases is not quantified. A customer could have used the cameras for a search that returned nothing or produced no additional leads, but Flock could still say they were used in the investigation. So the ROI is not great.
A warrant required for the searches should already be the bare minimum. If the constitution were being upheld it would have been a requirement from day 1. So, I suppose I would be 'okay' with this in a sense. What really irks me is the fact that Flock, Axon, etc. are acting almost exclusively as a proxy for the government to conduct mass surveillance that would otherwise be unconstitutional. If the government were directly doing the indiscriminate tracking these companies are, it would be unconstitutional even before a traditional "search" (query) of the data took place, so instead they pay a proxy (i.e. Flock, Axon, etc.) to perform the tracking for them and offer the searches as a subscription service.
Oh yes, I'm aware of this. And Flock - in the past - listed other things they were already tracking outside of vehicles.
They aren't just tracking license plates though. They're tracking people - let me explain. Their 'ALPR' cameras (purposefully misleading to call them ALPR btw) capture the footage and send it off to their servers where it's retained - building a long-term historical location history on every vehicle. Advanced analysis is performed on the data to provide features to their customers such as the ability to search for vehicles based on a description of its characteristics (no plate needed), real-time route prediction, location heatmaps, and identifying vehicles that travel together (convoy search). Here's the important part - data is also ingested into another service they run called 'Nova', which is essentially a people search tool that connects the vehicles they capture directly to people and their PII. Access to their platforms (Flock OS, Nova, etc.) is sold via a subscription to law enforcement where they can perform searches for individuals or vehicle whereabouts for any reason, without a warrant, and practically no oversight or regulations.
Deflect all you want - nothing I said was incorrect or nonsensical. Flock only provides auditing tools because they're required to for compliance reasons. Then they use the tools as PR to essentially say 'look we're catching bad cops' which is not the case. As I said from the beginning - the responsibility for catching abusers is passed on to the customers and citizens doing FOIA requests. Flock is not 'exposing' the abuse at all, they're facilitating it and passing the moderation responsibilities down. Their CEO is a compulsive liar and sucks at PR.
Show me an example of Flock (i.e. a Flock employee or official company record) exposing a cop for abusing their systems. Providing auditing tools to the customers to discover abuse is not exposing the abuse. If they were exposing the abuse they would be publishing publicly when officers submitted searches that violated a search policy, which they could do with their 'transparency' portals. But they'll never do that.
Flock isn't even finding the abuse or exposing the abuse. Sometimes it's their customers (police) discovering the abuse - if they actually perform audits like they should, but usually it's citizens submitting FOIA requests for data and discovering the abuses.
There's a difference between thinking those thoughts, and posting about them publicly to your following while simultaneously advocating for violence against trans individuals.
>"just because he thinks men shouldn't use women's bathrooms and spaces"
You're telling on yourself with this one, transphobe.
Lineham is an anti-trans activist. There's quite literally a whole section on his Wikipedia page dedicated to it, in fact it's the longest section on there. He's practically dedicated his life to the cause.
If they're really bothered by temporary noise that much, they should just invest in some ear plugs or noise cancelling headphones.
To each their own. Enjoy your boring life.