Sure, go ahead, make and sell a convenient, locally contained, home surveillance solution, that is incapable of being externally networked.

Realistically it would probably have to be externally networked to have a comparable level of convenience, but that could be done with encrypted open protocols and software.

You seem to think this is a technical problem, an engineering problem, a business problem.

It is not.

It is political, legal, educational and sociological problem.

The former is not irrelevant to the latter. The whole reason encryption itself hasn’t been widely banned by now is its deep integration in a wide range of technology and its relevance to business. Whether people actually use a technology is directly relevant; they can call something criminal and ban it, but that costs political capital proportionally to the required disruption and how many people are affected. You don’t need a “total solution” to increase that cost for them, such a one and done measure is probably impossible anyway. Do you even have an idea there, or do you think it’s just hopeless and everyone might as well give up?

A central problem is that people are using these products, and the best available solution absolutely involves paying attention to why they use them and what weaknesses they have. Check out spaces such as r/homeautomation, people mostly don’t care about privacy but that doesn’t mean there isn’t any room to displace these things, they suck in a lot of ways some of which are inherent to proprietary services.

fwiw my own camera is a waterproof usb one fed through the wall and plugged into a raspberry pi. I’m sure it can be made easier for people than that.

Not the kind of problem that can be solved by individual consumer preference choices.

I’m not sure you’re right about that. People might choose more private solutions if they were as easy to use. There’s other disadvantages too like proprietary IOT devices accumulating a reputation for spontaneously becoming ewaste. It might not be a total solution but I think the level of accessibility of self managed (or at least end to end encrypted) security cameras matters and is everyone’s problem.

The problem is that also means the rest of us get centrally surveilled, and those people don’t necessarily have to care

the bigger issue is that it’s being used in a GPL3 project which kind of isn’t allowed

I followed the links and I think the original argument being referenced has been twisted around a bit game-of-telephone style, GPL prohibiting inclusion of LLM generated code isn’t what it’s claiming, it’s more that they think AI trained on GPL code violates it when it happens to reproduce it exactly:

it is readily apparent that GitHub Copilot is capable of returning, verbatim, already extant code (although it does attempt to synthesise novel code based on its training data). This immediately raises the issue, what happens when that code (such as the previous example) is licensed under a copyleft license such as the GPL or AGPL? How is the matter of copyright in this instance resolved?

https://github.com/ZDoom/gzdoom/issues/3395

https://www.fsf.org/licensing/copilot/on-the-nature-of-ai-code-copilots#5. What About Copyright?

It might also be the case that the GPL prohibits LLM generated code somehow, I don’t actually know, just want to point out that no one has made an argument for that.

Mythologized history to serve their racist worldview:

Right, ancient Greece and Rome were actually quite diverse and the concept of “whiteness” didn’t have much meaning thousands of years ago. Race, as we know it, is a fairly recent category. But the far-right relies on this construct of Western civilization, which for them means white civilization and culture. So they craft a narrative that begins with Greece and Rome and then continues into the medieval period up through the emergence of modern Europe.

I wonder if the new app signature verification stuff will end up being roped into this to actually effectively prevent mobile users from circumventing ID checks

The site lets visitors compile a mass email warning about the bill and send it to national government officials, members of the European Parliament and others with ease

Why are they talking about this as if it’s a strange thing to happen and disruptive? I’ve seen lots of websites about a political issue that help people send emails to their representatives, isn’t that just a normal part of democracy?

But we’re talking about a federal agency here, not local law enforcement. It’s been confirmed that systems they tried to keep secret exist for them to have direct access to traffic going through ISPs, so why wouldn’t they have set up something similar for wireless networks, that would eliminate the need to go through any corporate bureaucracy? To me it seems reasonable to assume that such programs exist without being divulged because it would be basically similar to what else has been confirmed to exist, and there’s a really obvious incentive.

Is there really any chance they don’t have direct access to data from the cell towers and actually need to do tracking by other means? I figured this was just a parallel construction type of thing.

That’s fucked up, they should not do that. Even if they do it in a way that users are actually secure (maybe generating the password in the browser, nothing serverside?), it isn’t good to train people to trust a website for this.

iirc phones supplement satellite GPS with other indicators to be more accurate and reliable, maybe distance from cell towers is one of those

Well why not just have recording off by default, and let people decide for themselves whether to break the law?

If it’s your phone it makes sense you should be able to record calls on it.

But the question is, what would be a reasonable legal principle for preventing such laws generally? Mississippi is going to pass bullshit laws, but it shouldn’t be possible for the jurisdiction of any state to be anything on the entire internet.