JoeSmithson

I also don't understand why it's necessarily bad...?

Countries face internal security threats. For example, in the UK, the 7/7 bombers were British, ditto the Manchester and London Bridge attacks. In fact most terrorists who attack Britain are British. Are MI5 not meant to spy on Brits?

> "Low-performing students at private schools are having their estimated Cs and Ds bumped up to As"

Do you have an example of this happening? It seems basically impossible from my understanding of the process.

-----

Edit: I think I understand how it can happen. A school with a cohort that is small, but large enough to get the algorithm, and a previously exemplary results, has an unusually bad pupil. I can see this happening in a subject like Further Maths where only good students take it

It's similar to how Bruce Springsteen and The Rolling Stones aren't cool, but still sell out stadiums.

Facebook (the company) will probably settle into a stable pattern like the BBC's radio lineup, where listeners roll from Radio 1, to Radio 2, to Radio 4 as they age.

Wow. What did the training prompts look like?

By this logic, no legislation can ever seek to reduce online child sexual exploitation

What similarities do you see between EARN IT and IPA?

Exactly. Vice are trying to frame this like some massive gotcha, but the Navy lays out their strategy openly;

> “While we do not actively recruit on Twitch or through such streaming platforms, the esports team members are there to answer questions about their experiences in the Navy. If a user specifically asks an esports team member about joining the Navy, that team member will move that conversation to a private message to first find out if the interested user is over 17, and if that user is over 17 then the recruiter will thank them for their interest and refer them to Navy.com where they can talk to a recruiter.”

Vice prepends this quote with "In an email to Motherboard, the Navy insisted it wasn’t using Twitch to recruit." which seems like a bizarre mischaracterisation to me

The vast majority of frontline policing is in response to an emergency call, so they have no control over where it is.

HN seems to think police spend their shift waiting for crimes to happen in front of them.

> "they could be worth trillions"

Trillions? 50x the size of Ford? Bigger than, essentially, the current combined value of every car company in the world at the moment?

How?

But could images from several telescopes be combined through a Kalman filter or something to resolve higher details?

I am imagining some kind of internet enabled telescope that knows it's GPS location and orientation, and phones home it's imagery to a central server. If millions of people bought and used a product like that, is it theoretically possible to see the lunar rover?

> "GCHQ has a program called ROYALCONCIERGE, where they hack the reservation systems of hotels to watch for targets renting rooms"

Your own source makes it clear that this system works/worked by intercepting emails.

> "then GCHQ sends teams ahead of time to [...] assassinate them"

Unless Snowden buried the lede quite spectacularly, I think this is not true.

The reason UDP is less leaky is not because it meets any guarantee better, but because it guarantees less

So essentially, no, they do not have "all my emails".

> "Instead, it's still stored on google's servers but they can access your emails via automated requests to google, via search terms or by providing your user handle"

You just said previously the exact opposite! That they can't query Google, but they have the data themselves.

> "Is that a meaningful difference, in terms of privacy?"

Yes, because it means Google are aware of what data they are being requested, and what they are sending in return.

The transparency reports for these companies show that the total number of requests is in the region of 10k/year - a lot in some senses, but nowhere near the level of surveillance many people seem to believe.

Do you mind explaining precisely what you mean by "NSA has all my emails"?

Suppose I sent an email yesterday from my Gmail to a friend's Gmail, are you saying the text of this email is stored on an NSA machine?

Your first link doesn't support your quote. The queries are sent to the data holder who send back the data, the agency does not have direct access