sjy

No counterparts worldwide? Here in Australia, all significant case law has been published on AustLII, which is freely accessible and searchable, since about 2000. I think CanLII and NZLII are equally comprehensive. Government law publishers provide free and authoritative access to all statutes. Lexis and Westlaw still make money by publishing commentary and summaries, but paywalled primary sources are an American problem.

“Chat Control” is a pejorative name used by the law’s opponents. Its official name is the Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse.

I'd complain to Google about this, maybe through a lawyer if needed to get them to take it seriously. They won't accept full responsibility, and in general people need to be aware of the risk of spoofed email, but Google should be able to stop fake emails from google.com from appearing in a Gmail inbox. You'd think they would also have the ability to recover an email deleted immediately after an account takeover, or at least work out how the spoofed email was delivered from other internal logs. Google should investigate whether their negligence contributed to the success of this attack.

The article says an email including Goldberg’s signature block was copied and pasted into a text message from Hughes.

That's partly because the dominant platform for electronic conveyancing, PEXA, has a monopoly. Only licensed professionals who pay subscription fees can access PEXA. This removes competitive pressure on conveyancing fees because self-represented buyers must use a slower, riskier, non-standard paper process.

https://www.afr.com/companies/financial-services/nsw-product...

https://www.productivity.nsw.gov.au/market-study-on-econveya...

I’d say a small law firm. They don’t have a security team, they’re routinely targeted by phishers, and their data is easier to convert into money than the huge mass of (mostly completely uninteresting) data fed into ChatGPT.

That's fine if you control the endpoint and want to expose ssh on it, but WireGuard endpoints are also commonly available from VPN providers who don't provide shell access.

That generally doesn’t happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_criminality

> that is insane that the average american lives in a home that they own by the time they're 35. That is so far and wide not the case here in Australia.

The stats seem pretty similar here – 50% of 30-34 year olds owned their own home in 2021: https://www.housingdata.gov.au/visualisation/home-ownership/...

This is addressed in the linked source, although that wouldn’t be obvious if you’re not familiar with Australian work health and safety law:

> the re-emergence of silicosis in engineered stone workers is also due to a failure of compliance with existing WHS laws … PCBUs [persons conducting a business or undertaking, who are subject to WHS laws] have not done all that is reasonably practicable to eliminate or minimise those risks, and workers have not taken reasonable care for their own health and safety and that of others [which is a criminal offence]. Finally, there has been insufficient compliance and enforcement actions by WHS regulators to drive behaviour change in the sector … A lower silica content engineered stone is not expected to result in improvements in compliance. The features of the sector that have contributed to the current levels of non-compliance remain – the sector is comprised of mostly small businesses with few barriers to entry and a lower understanding of WHS obligations.

> So, does the defense get to subpoena the logs, and depose a programmer to explain why some random request returned a 502?

In theory yes, but you can get some idea of how it worked in practice from the transcript of the trial of Seema Misra [1]. This was one of the few cases where the postmaster pleaded not guilty and expert evidence was presented to the jury. The defence complained throughout the trial that their expert did not have adequate access to the underlying computer records. New documents were identified during the course of the trial, and the defence applied unsuccessfully for the trial to be stayed at the close of the prosecution case.

[1]: https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/2217/2151

The US Code is divided into numbered titles, sections, paragraphs and subparagraphs which can link to and incorporate each other by reference. This tree structure is reflected in typographic conventions which visually distinguish operative provisions from headings, indices and editorial notes. Isn't this the same kind of "structured format" as a code repository made up of libraries, modules, source files and functions?

Goodwill refers to the part of the price that is based on "looking at the current annual income and projecting growth over a few years." It's the value over and above what you would get if you emptied the company bank accounts and sold all its other property in a fire sale. It's a perfectly sensible concept, even if the process of quantifying it by coming up with a price "based on" current income and anticipated growth (or other advantages like eliminating competition) is contestable.

The UK telecommunications regulator, Ofcom, publishes some useful annual research on this topic [1]. According to the media use and attitudes report 2023 [2]:

> Smartphone ownership shifts markedly in [the children aged 8-11] group, which correlates with the children’s transition to secondary school … As reported by parents, more than half of 8-11-year-olds (55%) owned a mobile phone, a significant increase on children aged 3-4 and 5-7 (both at 20%).

[1]: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/media-literacy-re...

[2]: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/255852/...

What about a ransomware, phishing or data breach victim? Cybercrimes are often committed by organised criminals and investigating them seems like the most obvious reason for the DOJ to issue a subpoena to PyPI.

An excellent source of information on the motives of UK legislators for passing this legislation, other than the incompetence and malice hypothesised in the other comments, is this parliamentary research briefing from 2022 [1], which summarises the previous five years of consultation and links to a heap of previous white papers and critical responses.

The "news" is that on 17 April 2023, the heads of WhatsApp, Signal and other companies published an open letter questioning "the Government's stated intention to protect end-to-end encryption and respect the human right to privacy" [2], and on 27 April 2023, a member of the House of Lords said that "services such as WhatsApp will potentially leave the UK" [3] if the Bill is passed. The debate is actually pretty informed and a refreshing antidote to the cynicism about democracy expressed elsewhere, until you recall that the House of Lords is not that democratic.

[1]: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...

[2]: https://blog.whatsapp.com/an-open-letter

[3]: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-04-27/debates/AC7C7...

If the terrorists and child sexual abusers move to Telegram or some other more underground app, the Online Safety Bill will have partly achieved its purpose: to make social media safer for normal people using mainstream social networks. Currently we rely on the content policy and moderation staff of big tech companies to censor the surprising amount of illegal content that is constantly posted on social media, and keep us from seeing it most of the time. The UK government wants to assume more control over this process with new powers that are legally restricted to what is “necessary and proportionate.” They don't expect this to inconvenience the rest of the electorate, they expect to reduce the incidence of crime and other kinds of online abuse which they have been hearing evidence about from relevant experts.

Fine-tuning requires you to train the model with a set of prompts and desired completions. Building a suitable dataset is not trivial and it's not clear what it would mean to use a book for fine-tuning anyway – masking sentences and paragraphs and training the model to complete them in the book's style?

These restrictions go away once you get 200 reputation on any Stack Exchange site. https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/141648/what-is-the-...

Run text-generation-webui with llama.cpp: https://github.com/oobabooga/text-generation-webui

It’s common – you accept a reduced salary in exchange for the fringe benefit. It works particularly well for FBT-exempt employers like charities and state health departments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary_packaging

In 2021-22, fuel tax raised $18.2 billion, of which $6.89 billion (38%) was returned as fuel tax credits. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_depart...

Rather than assuming bad faith, I think it makes more sense to treat these documents like the codebase for a large open source software project. Perhaps there are reasons, not apparent to someone who hasn’t spent months working on the code and the systems it integrates with, for what appears to be unnecessary complexity. And perhaps it’s reasonable for people to advocate for or against using the project without having read and understood every line of code themselves.

> If the insured sues the insurance company, the company can bring their engineers as witnesses to explain how the denial logic has been coded.

Sometimes I wonder how useful this option is in practice. The British Post Office scandal [1] is a rare example where engineers actually were called as witnesses to explain the logic of a complex enterprise software system with legally significant consequences. The cost of just getting to the 313-page judgment addressing the technical issues [2] was astronomical. Some of the hundreds of wrongfully convicted small business people had gone to trial and tried, but failed, to discredit the prosecution's expert evidence that the software was reliable. If the decisions had come out of an inscrutable LLM, it might have saved a lot of trouble.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal

[2]: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/bates-v-...

It was not really a tactic, they didn’t believe the federal government had the legislative power to effect prohibition without it: https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/1201/what-were-t...

> The legislation contains what critics have called “a spy clause.” It requires companies to remove child sexual exploitation and abuse (CSEA) material or terrorist content from online platforms “whether communicated publicly or privately.” As applied to encrypted messaging, that means either encryption must be removed to allow content scanning or scanning must occur prior to encryption.

This is not accurate. The “spy clause” (section 110) allows Ofcom to issue notices, if it is “necessary and proportionate” to do so, which could have that effect. In deciding what is “necessary and proportionate” Ofcom is specifically required to consider things like “the kind of service it is,” “the extent to which the use of the specified technology would or might result in interference with users' right to freedom of expression” and “whether the use of any less intrusive measures than the specified technology would be likely to achieve a significant reduction in the amount of relevant content” (section 112). This decision can be legally challenged.

The difference is important. Every country has a system that allows police to legally break into your home and search it – if a legal authority decides that it is necessary and appropriate. Whether such powers are abused depends not only on the text of the law, which is often as vague and open to interpretation as the Fourth Amendment, but also on the prevailing culture of the government and its judicial and law enforcement bodies. That’s why Signal’s president acknowledges that they are responding to a hypothetical.

While she won’t speculate on the probabilities, there are precedents which inform us about the probability that a democratic government would use these powers to break a popular secure messaging system over the reasoned objection of its users and developers. This law could achieve its goal of increasing public control over Big Tech’s content moderation policies without being used in that perverse way. Such perverse outcomes have not yet arisen under the controversial Australian laws which generated similar comments from Signal [1] and HN users [2] in 2018.

[1]: https://signal.org/blog/setback-in-the-outback/

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18636076

> a constitution or charter that is extraordinarily difficult to modify, and a court system whose decisions can’t be overturned by the elected government

Remember Brexit? It took them almost four years to achieve after the referendum, in part due to decisions by the constitutional court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_Secretary_of_Stat...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Ministe...

Source shows the opposite: although Australia is declining in the rankings, it remains in the top 10% of least corrupt countries.

The trustee has to prove that the transferee lacked good faith, which includes “when the information the transferee learned would have caused a reasonable person in the transferee’s position to investigate the matter further.” The companies which were required to repay Madoff money had “uncovered facts suggesting that [Madoff] was engaged in fraudulent activity” as part of their due diligence. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca2-20-01333/pd...

Interesting question. https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHR/comments/h9vavc/doesnt_griggs...