nacho's recent activity

  1. Comment on The truth about AI (specifically LLM powered AI) in ~tech

    nacho
    Link Parent
    I don't think the edge of early adopters is going to be short-lived. With trivial tasks and automation, obvious use cases, sure, but not where it'll matter with time. The limiting factor is and...

    I don't think the edge of early adopters is going to be short-lived. With trivial tasks and automation, obvious use cases, sure, but not where it'll matter with time.

    The limiting factor is and will always be that to prompt AI, you need to use precise language to say unambiguously what you want it to say. In my experience, people are notoriously bad at exactly that, especially doing so in concise ways (so it doesn't take a lot of time).

    Getting that experience will let you build on the experience now to take next steps. Once ahead, you get more ahead. LLM's aren't the end all. Getting the experience to see where the train stops and their use stops first lets one build experience in that environment.

    I notice in my field (networking) that some of us are already doing the tasks of multiple colleagues, where we used to work at the same speed. The quality of work is audited after being meticulously self-controlled.

    Good LLM use is hard. Once you figure out what tasks to use it with, there are compounding effects of those who've always been the "best" at their roles getting significantly better. Others aren't getting the same increases in efficiency. The gap is widening. Especially with tasks where collaboration is difficult.

    The workplace is a competitive environment, where there are limited positions that get ahead. Being viewed as slightly better will get you that first position, that position gets you the next one in competition with others. And so the ball keeps rolling folks who've got the edge upwards.

    There are ways of thinking that are transformative.

    When a kid learns to read, suddenly a new world emerges due to the transformative nature of reading.
    When a kid learns a second language reasonably well, a new world with entirely new cultures emerge.
    When a student learns the scientific method in school, a new world with entirely new ways of knowledge emerges.
    When in high school /university, an entirely new way of seeing the world emerges after engaging with philosophy/ethics.

    The same goes for having a basic knowledge of statistics: Suddenly you can evaluate the world in new was.

    With coding, suddenly applied logic becomes a real tool for evaluating concepts.

    The whole point of this list: AI-use has some of that same transformative nature. For me, the transformation this way is how we think about the most limited resource in our lives: time. AI is all about reimaging time-management and what to spend my time on.

    That won't go away either.

    1 vote

  2. Comment on Leave the phone, take a camera in ~tech

    nacho
    Link Parent
    Hahaha this is often true. I often just nod at my camera, vaguely smile and say that I'm sorry I'm a little busy. It seems to work extra well if I'm with at least one other person. Faking...

    Hahaha this is often true.

    I often just nod at my camera, vaguely smile and say that I'm sorry I'm a little busy. It seems to work extra well if I'm with at least one other person.

    Faking confidence is the name of the game!

    2 votes

  3. Comment on Leave the phone, take a camera in ~tech

    nacho
    Link Parent
    I find modern mirrorless cameras generally do really just pointing and shooting in full auto. Take the Cannon EOS R5 mark II, for instance. You have to be a pretty good photographer to beat it's...

    I find modern mirrorless cameras generally do really just pointing and shooting in full auto. Take the Cannon EOS R5 mark II, for instance. You have to be a pretty good photographer to beat it's automatic settings after setting the camera up well. (same experience with similar Sony and Nikon models).

    All auto settings work fine, or if I just set one thing and the rest is auto, like setting just shutter speed, or just just aperture if I have something in mind, (or if it's really dark just limiting ISO beyond what I've set the limit for normally).

    It's a compromise for sure and not the experience and joy you mention (but that takes time and breaks the moment).

    1 vote

  4. Comment on Leave the phone, take a camera in ~tech

    nacho
    Link
    Great piece! I have to argue somewhat for the benefits of digital, especially for capturing those everyday memories: The magic of mirrorless lenses and powerful algorithms in the modern compact...

    Great piece!

    I have to argue somewhat for the benefits of digital, especially for capturing those everyday memories:

    • The magic of mirrorless lenses and powerful algorithms in the modern compact camera is that they capture those memories in difficult conditions exceptionally well. Like when Grandma has the light in the wrong place, or it's very dark.

    When wielding a camera, you also get to do things you can't get away with when using a phone. You get to more things around to rid the scene of mess. You can tell people to smile, you can walk crab-like from side to side, bend your knees and do all the other things that get you those good shots and memories easily.

    I have to say, more often than not, I'm also willing to lug a professional camera around because that's worth it too.

    12 votes

  5. Comment on Proposed amendments to Denmark's laws on copyright and broadcasting would see VPNs limited for common uses under changes to combat access to illegal streaming services in ~tech

    nacho
    Link Parent
    No-one is arguing the straw-man of wanting a crime-free society. I can't see anyone in this thread arguing to throw all of society's good values and systems out the window. If you're getting at...

    No-one is arguing the straw-man of wanting a crime-free society.

    I can't see anyone in this thread arguing to throw all of society's good values and systems out the window.

    If you're getting at civil disobedience, the whole idea of getting laws changed based on breaking them responsibly hinges on people willing to accept the consequences of being punished for breaking an immoral law. That's the whole idea where civil disobedience is meant as a tool for changing the system.

    If we think people are participating in good faith in this thread, that is.

    As an aside, I also don't see anyone in this thread who're against enforcing laws presenting an argument for why it's healthy for society to have unenforced or unenforceable laws.

    Why do we think those who fight crime for a living feel they need more tools? Are these law enforcement folks, politicians, organizations just lazy? Could it be that those who work on these issues every day just can't find alternatives? Unless we're lazily vilifying them, why do we think all these people believe, in good faith, that their solutions are the least bad solutions? Is everyone just stupid or evil?

    Or maybe the simplest explanation is that all these experts genuinely believe they're trying to better the world.

    1 vote

  6. Comment on Proposed amendments to Denmark's laws on copyright and broadcasting would see VPNs limited for common uses under changes to combat access to illegal streaming services in ~tech

    nacho
    Link Parent
    I'm sure you understand why I'm not going to waste my time doing this for someone who's accusing me of regurgitating talking points for a government body, rather than recognizing that others may...

    I'm sure you understand why I'm not going to waste my time doing this for someone who's accusing me of regurgitating talking points for a government body, rather than recognizing that others may not share their personal views on an issue.

    There's no reason for me to believe you're willing to engage in good faith.

    1 vote

  7. Comment on Proposed amendments to Denmark's laws on copyright and broadcasting would see VPNs limited for common uses under changes to combat access to illegal streaming services in ~tech

    nacho
    Link Parent
    My country has every single print paper published since we got a national library full text searchable and accessible online. I can explicitly "share, copy, distribute and spread this work" as...

    Fix the wanton destruction of our culture by the companies that own it, and then we can argue about the peanuts that they're trying to claw from the people who are doing the work that the companies should have been doing from the start.

    My country has every single print paper published since we got a national library full text searchable and accessible online.

    I can explicitly "share, copy, distribute and spread this work" as long as I credit the creator correctly and don't use the work commercially. The creators of print papers are compensated for this forced "private copying" that is a limitation in local copyright law.

    It's similar for novels/books. Practically all published works in the native language are required to be sent to the national library for digitization and archival.

    The issue isn't the companies. The legislators are the issue. Society needs to invest in the area. There's no reason not to require sensible archival of loads of content for posterity and making it available for all (while compensating creators for use) after a reasonable amount of time.

    1 vote

  8. Comment on Proposed amendments to Denmark's laws on copyright and broadcasting would see VPNs limited for common uses under changes to combat access to illegal streaming services in ~tech

    nacho
    Link Parent
    That's not how it works at all. There are regulations and procedures that need to be followed to block or seize a website. We're talking court orders or seizure warrants in all countries it's...

    It means that whatever government declares an illegal site gets to force every ISP, DNS provider, and web host to shutdown whatver they want without due process.

    That's not how it works at all. There are regulations and procedures that need to be followed to block or seize a website. We're talking court orders or seizure warrants in all countries it's reasonable to compare ourselves to in a Danish context (that's mostly true for a generally Western context too).

    Is the Great Firewall of China a good thing? Becuase that is, in essence, what you are arguing.

    Where have I stated that I'm for totalitarian states and dictatorships having free reign to manipulate and suppress their populations?

    Is that ever a reasonable view to ascribe to someone on tildes without that user explicitly stating they're pro-dictators?

    What my argument in actuality means is that governments, following due process, need to have the ability to disallow access to a website and ban services that allow circumvention of those bans, then yes that's precisely what I'm arguing is paramount to have in well-regulated democracies.

    I'm not prescribing that to be the standard to be followed in non-democracies. Is this something that should be the case in Turkey or Egypt? Probably not, if you're forcing me to draw a line somewhere.

    What's the implication of governments not being able in practicality to stop people from accessing the most terrible stuff online?

    What're the consequences of not banning access to the very worst humanity can display online?

    I urge everyone who doesn't think they share my views on this issue to think long and well on those issues. Think terrorism, making poisons, guides to defrauding others, revenge porn, child porn,, think rigged online gambling sites, think phishing sites, sites pretending to be real services, fake company websites and other IP and copyright infringement, think all the way down to the for-pay services that sell access to illegal content (streaming, entertainment, live sports, book sand on and on).

    I understand there are many that have knee-jerk reactions against a regulated internet. They're wrong. Every person I've ever talked to about this topic in person has had to acknowledge that they actually want their government to be able to ban access to online things.

    The only real issue at hand is where they want to draw the line. I'm all for the courts being able to ban illegal services and circumvention tools in line with the rest of all the sensible laws that are on the books.

    Again, what's the workable alternative in real life? Why can no-one ever present this alternative if there is one? (hint: there isn't one, even in theory).

    1 vote

  9. Comment on Proposed amendments to Denmark's laws on copyright and broadcasting would see VPNs limited for common uses under changes to combat access to illegal streaming services in ~tech

    nacho
    Link Parent
    Through sheer luck and the cooperation of one person, international police got 1100 serious criminals using a simple, industrial scale communication service. How's that not the perfect example for...

    Through sheer luck and the cooperation of one person, international police got 1100 serious criminals using a simple, industrial scale communication service.

    How's that not the perfect example for why we can't have to resort to random dumb luck to catch these huge networks? What of all the other apps and platforms were this random dumb luck doesn't happen?

    Who even knows if that one event is an extreme data point, or there are many such operating networks right now?

    I want to reiterate: There's still no workable solution in this thread to mass surveillance of digital communication. That's not something to forget. I also want to remind everyone that all these law enforcement agencies all over the world, serious human rights organizations, all sorts of groups we should listen to are saying it's the only way.

    On the other side we have, well the folks arguing on the principle of anonymity and privacy who have no solutions and no alternatives. That's still the situation we're in.

    Now to the question:

    Circumstantial evidence is real evidence used to prove crimes have taken place without reasonable doubt, where other explanations objectively cannot be true and the credibility of actors is put under so much question a reasonable court can exclude those supposed pieces of evidence.

    Encrypted communication without content but with metadata is more than enough to link criminals together, when and where they've communicated with whom. That's a necessary start for all sorts of warrants and other investigation steps.

    VPNs and other systems to obfuscate where digital trails are made, disallowing device fingerprinting etc. seriously limits what data is used and can be used. Sometimes crimes aren't discovered until much later. Being allowed to store metadata has serious use, even though that encroaches on privacy.

    The sheer volume of digital footprints we leave are what together is the evidence presented in court. We're talking fluctuations in power usage with digital power meters that identify when there is or isn't activity (say someone says they're cooking dinner using an electric stove, but no activity).

    Even with encryption, requests need to be made to share the data to the end user at some point with whoever's showing them content. Those services/companies can be compelled to store this infomration.

    I'm sure we've all heard of the "how to dispose of a corpse" google searches and so on. I've been in court where the damning piece of evidence was a cell phone tower ping that triangulated that a phone was at a specific location at a specific point in time, almost touching another phone right at the time that the owner of one phone was being murdered. The husband got sentenced for murder. The digital pieces created an undeniable puzzle.

    The connection of data points is the value. However, that's also where the big brother-esque stuff comes in. Therefore healthy regulation is paramount. Individual privacy rights and community needs for security (the most basic function of a society) need to be balanced. There's no reasonable balance where the security aspect is almost entirely disregarded for the matter of privacy.

    Society at its core is based on trust. We need to elect politicians that create a state we can trust. How much trust is enough that politicians or public workers don't abuse data too much (whatever that is). We have to have an expectation of trust in government. Otherwise we're in a failed state where it's imperative of me as a citizen to do my part in trying to rectify the core failures of the state so we can deal with lesser issues in time.

    2 votes

  10. Comment on Proposed amendments to Denmark's laws on copyright and broadcasting would see VPNs limited for common uses under changes to combat access to illegal streaming services in ~tech

    nacho
    Link Parent
    What's your workable alternative? How, specifically, is law enforcement supposed to "work through" technology like VPNs? If anyone has a solution or an idea towards a solution, if you can link to...

    What's your workable alternative?

    How, specifically, is law enforcement supposed to "work through" technology like VPNs?

    If anyone has a solution or an idea towards a solution, if you can link to someone else who has one, please share!

    No-one ever does. An appeal to an unworkable principle is not an argument.

    It might make the jobs of investigators more difficult if <bad guys> are able to use technology like VPNs, but the liberties and right to privacy and anonymity of society as a whole should not be sacrificed at the alter of making investigators' jobs easier.

    I want everyone who read this sentence to note:

    In the face of evidence of how crime works today, this is an extreme libertarian view.

    People who argue like this can never, ever show a workable alternative where we can have a functioning society with reasonably empowered law enforcement that can actually do their job and hold people accountable for serious crime.

    They'll vaguely try to twist the perception that surely we'll somehow manage to have investigators who can take the bad guys when anyone with a device that can connect to the internet can plan crimes with absolute impunity.

    How? What methods are these cops supposed to use?

    If they have no workable alternative, their views can be dismissed offhand. Their worldview is based on something they cannot articulate arguments for that can work in practice.

    Now, let's provide just one example to the contrary, showing how criminal gangs have used encrypted devices to get away with serious, serious crimes.

    Let's talk about when the FBI ran Anom, an encrypted phone company with modified Blackberries from 2018 through 2021.

    Here's a wikipedia link about Operation Trojan Shield

    I strongly, strongly recommend the book Dark Wire: The Incredible True Story of the Largest Sting Operation Ever about the operation.

    The book and the sting operation intercepted millions of actual messages between criminals using their encrypted phones to create the perfect crimes that could in no other way be identified. The lack of sophistication is extreme: the communication app literally seemed like a Get-out-of-jail-free card.

    A complete fluke led to the operation. Over 1100 arrests worldwide. 1100 members of different transnational criminal organizations (TCOs)! Operating with impunity smugling drugs (more than 40 tons found), cash (more than $50 million taken, guns, vehicles, and so on.

    That's just one such app. There's Ennetcom and EncroChat (over 60.000 subscribers) to name just a couple more.

    TCO crime is a large issue in Western, well-regulated countries with low corruption. Imagine how destabilizing it is in other countries. Now, those arguing on principle regarding privacy, must make their solutions work also in these jurisdictions. They can't even provide solutions that'll work in the most developed, easiest to regulate, small, highest trust societies in the world: The Nordic countries.

    Now do they really, really even want us to believe they're arguing in good faith that they have global, unspecified solutions they can't ever display?

    It's an insane thing to say "well, privacy would be nice and anonymity is a right, trust me that some other folks can make it work because it makes me feel creeped out".

    No, for the average person, it's hugely, hugely in their interest that organized, career criminal networks have to be monitored. That in turn requires routine and responsible monitoring of digital content at large. If there's an alternative, why is that alternative so secret, vague or never even presented?

    At face value, this can sound icky. Always ask those against this: "How's your world workable? What specific alternative solution do they have? How many deaths and how much crime is your feeling of "creepy" worth?"

    2 votes

  11. Comment on Proposed amendments to Denmark's laws on copyright and broadcasting would see VPNs limited for common uses under changes to combat access to illegal streaming services in ~tech

    nacho
    Link Parent
    I'm sure we agree that it'd be great with a better system aligning much more closely to our values and so much more goes to those who create rather than moochers and other intermediary steps. It'd...

    I'm sure we agree that it'd be great with a better system aligning much more closely to our values and so much more goes to those who create rather than moochers and other intermediary steps.

    It'd be great with global standards for reporting income, for bank clearinghouses, copyright, the same electrical plugs to fit every socket, so food prices reflect production and transportation costs, not all the other intermediaries, the world would be much greater with standards in all sorts of areas.

    We've got what we've got due to the complexity of history. I don't care who's most at fault, the companies, the failures of politicians, of voters, of greedy nationalists, over-idealistic anarchists, how insanely unreasonable the lengths of copyright are in many cases, whoever or whatever we blame for each bit.

    The cause of the problem doesn't change that the problem is real and exists today.

    The reality is that we live in a world where you and I cannot meaningfully manage to sell our works globally without distributors to navigate for us. The systems we have today enable creation. A world without IP rights cannot function without us consumers losing out tremendously.

    I don't like it, but that's how it is and I have to deal with that.

    1 vote

  12. Comment on Proposed amendments to Denmark's laws on copyright and broadcasting would see VPNs limited for common uses under changes to combat access to illegal streaming services in ~tech

    nacho
    Link Parent
    Who runs the rom site? What other things do the same folks run on the same servers? Who provides the infrastructure? Who runs the physical servers? Are they stolen goods? When we're in an illegal...

    Who runs the rom site? What other things do the same folks run on the same servers? Who provides the infrastructure? Who runs the physical servers? Are they stolen goods? When we're in an illegal market, the people running things are often organized crime that has many ventures.

    Do I view add-on illegal gambling sites that use the same illegal infrastructure as "actual crimes", where people hand over their money to even more than usually rigged gambling games?

    What about the organized piracy streaming sites that have millions of subscribers?

    What about all the consumer protections we don't get like fake ads, cookies trying to steal your information, passwords or whatever because they're on an illegal site? What about all the other avoidance of how we regulate society for fair competition, consumer rights etc? Taxation?

    Corrupt countries have no future because people don't believe in the rule of law. The downstream effects can be devastating. Like in many Baltic states right now.

    Digital piracy funds other crimes in just the same ways that piracy of goods and medicine do.

    Should the law differentiate between "mom and pop fake designer bags" (who knows who's blackmailing/extorting mom and pop because what they do is illegal) and some weird definition of "industrial piracy" based on who's committing the crime?

    Society needs all of this to be illegal, and needs to enforce laws as part of the social contract. We can't have laws against shoplifting in physical stores if the police just let people go without consequence if someone's caught stealing red handed.

    See this comment for more specifics on how

    1 vote

  13. Comment on Proposed amendments to Denmark's laws on copyright and broadcasting would see VPNs limited for common uses under changes to combat access to illegal streaming services in ~tech

    nacho
    Link Parent
    All the power to the creators who choose to spend time distributing for themselves! Comics, music, sound, books, paintings, drawings, arts and crafts are easy works to create where...

    All the power to the creators who choose to spend time distributing for themselves!

    Comics, music, sound, books, paintings, drawings, arts and crafts are easy works to create where distribution/promotion is often what lets a creator live making their creations.

    For those who can make enough and show their works to the world: awesome!

    For movies, tv series, video games, complicated software, medicine, inventions etc there are often scores, hundreds of thousands of collaborators who create and maintain together.

    For practical purposes, they pretty much require distributors/rights managers/employers and collective IP rights management to be able to sell their creations and distribute income to themselves in ways they've agreed on.

    Just like companies often need specialized legal expertise for every jurisdiction they want to sell their product/services in, you need people to navigate scores of IP regulations, systems, requirements and ways of getting paid, often from national copyright management organizations.

    For these groups of creators behind individual works, IP rights systems are designed not to extract value, but to enable mass groups to create together. Otherwise these projects wouldn't ever work. For example, a lot of crowdfunding failures show this in practice. Management and companization are powerful technologies that enable innovations, deep individual specialization for individuals, and enable creations that wouldn't otherwise be possible.

    1 vote

  14. Comment on Proposed amendments to Denmark's laws on copyright and broadcasting would see VPNs limited for common uses under changes to combat access to illegal streaming services in ~tech

    nacho
    Link Parent
    The illegal streaming sites (like illegal restreams of sporting events etc.) are often run by organized crime. We're talking heavy duty subscription models etc. Here's a couple of short overview...

    The illegal streaming sites (like illegal restreams of sporting events etc.) are often run by organized crime. We're talking heavy duty subscription models etc.

    Here's a couple of short overview Interpol pieces: 1 , 2 on the matter.

    Here's an EU/ Europol page that links to much more on the topic.

    Here's a RAND report from 2008 on the issue, although the claims here seem somewhat overstated from that time. The world has gone much more in the direction that they seem to state the world was in at that point.

    Here's an EU bust from November where they took down 47 million in crypto disrupting around 70 piracy services, all professionally run.

    This is a huge industry. Paid torrent trackers are the same.

    Because of the lack of digital oversight, it's extremely hard to prove that mafia-like groups are connected to various online crimes, and what online crimes.

    Just like it's extremely hard to prove what state actor steals cryptocurrencies, performs online sabotage, perpetrate ransomware crimes, hack and steal personal information and so on.

    And also how it's often very hard to prove who're the traffickers, smuglers, organizers etc. behind organized crime, with anything from avocado-related crime to providing embargoed countries with weapons.

    2 votes

  15. Comment on Proposed amendments to Denmark's laws on copyright and broadcasting would see VPNs limited for common uses under changes to combat access to illegal streaming services in ~tech

    nacho
    Link Parent
    I've tried to understand where this sentiment comes from: Why do I have a right to force people to provide their services to me? One of the most important rights in intellectual property is the...

    I've tried to understand where this sentiment comes from: Why do I have a right to force people to provide their services to me?

    One of the most important rights in intellectual property is the right not to be compelled to have my "moral rights as the creator" of a work be impinged.

    That's why Trump can't just use music at his rallies when the artists don't want. That's why I don't have to make my entertainment accessible in North Korea keeping the circus part of the proverbial bread and circus well stocked.

    I can choose (and do choose) not to provide my services be used to support genocide, authoritarian regimes and so on.

    Why is it that there's some form of right to have foreign companies license their content so I get to use/consume it?

    If I only want to provide my content dubbed, or forced with Ancient Egyptian subtitles or whatever else I choose, that's my right as the one who owns the IP.

    Yes, licensing should have global standards. Maybe the UN could actually be of some use, but I don't see that happening. A ton of standardization and international regulation would greatly benefit humanity, progress and all these big words.

    However, the lack thereof doesn't mean I should be forced to have my work abused or replicated in ways where I don't get the compensation I'm owed for creating my work.

    1 vote

  16. Comment on Proposed amendments to Denmark's laws on copyright and broadcasting would see VPNs limited for common uses under changes to combat access to illegal streaming services in ~tech

    nacho
    Link Parent
    We do not live in a pre-internet society. The world is connected in ways impossible by phone or letter. This also means that serious criminal activity is organized in other, much more powerful,...

    We do not live in a pre-internet society. The world is connected in ways impossible by phone or letter. This also means that serious criminal activity is organized in other, much more powerful, encrypted, instantaneous ways.

    Computers and automatic programs can perform these criminal attempts billions of times an hour, virtually knocking on the doors of hundreds of thousands of houses and businesses and their internals as accessible by the internet.

    That is reality. We need to have laws that deal with the possibilities of today.

    If anyone can provide a practically enforceable way of not giving serious criminals free reign online without reasonably regulated mass surveillance, they'll win every prize and award available to humankind.

    There is no such solution today. There is no practical way of having a right to online privacy. It cannot exist without letting criminals and literal rogue countries systematically trying empty banks of their deposits electronically do and run whatever they like.

    This is the age we live in. I can't envision " specific, targeted measures with probable cause and legal oversight" that can handle today's situation. This is an analogy to appeals to past principles unless someone out there has figured out how it'd work in practice.

    Are we talking a Stasi-like manual information gathering state that'd be trivial to circumvent with a burner phone? I don't even know where to start envisioning what law enforcement without digital access to content.

    I'm regularly in court to witness regarding to digital evidence. Serious crimes. Insurance claims worth astronomical sums as one can't even find the perpetrators to hold them accountable.

    In relation to Chat Control, DSA, Data act, the ePrivacy Directive, NIS2 Directive, CRA, eIDAS, Cybersecurity act, DORA, PLD, EMFA, Mica and so on:

    The EU is trying. The legislators are attempting to legislate. They need to start somewhere. Jurisprudence is a process that takes time. Many critics just say no, rather than suggesting alternatives way of sensible regulation.

    I'd happily, happily live in a digital Europe than any other place on Earth. Yes, the EU is at least a couple decades behind, but other countries are way, way worse.

    (See my other previous comment in relation to why piracy and illegally accessing content, the use of VPNs is directly linked to serious, serious crime.)

    3 votes

  17. Comment on Proposed amendments to Denmark's laws on copyright and broadcasting would see VPNs limited for common uses under changes to combat access to illegal streaming services in ~tech

    nacho
    Link Parent
    No, that's precisely what it isn't. This is about hardcore organized crime and them financing their activities. I too would like free stuff if it didn't fund literal guns for hire, smuglers, human...

    No, that's precisely what it isn't.

    This is about hardcore organized crime and them financing their activities.

    I too would like free stuff if it didn't fund literal guns for hire, smuglers, human traffickers, rogue states like North Korea and so on.

    However, we know that's who this supports. The argument is not "think of the children". It's evidence-based, 2025 knowledge of who runs the world's pirating empires.

    2 votes

  18. Comment on Proposed amendments to Denmark's laws on copyright and broadcasting would see VPNs limited for common uses under changes to combat access to illegal streaming services in ~tech

    nacho
    Link Parent
    I've read the draft law. I speak Danish. I know the context the law comes in, both politically and in terms of today's regulatory situation. This new law goes way beyond VPNs. This law actually...

    I've read the draft law. I speak Danish. I know the context the law comes in, both politically and in terms of today's regulatory situation. This new law goes way beyond VPNs.

    • This law actually and substantially criminalizes gaining access to any content-service where access is limited by "technical solutions or systems" (indholdet fra enhver anden indholdstjeneste, hvor adgangen er begrænset af tekniske foranstaltninger eller ordninger) .

    • For example this criminalizes access to "illegal web pages" at large to access content one has no legal right to access as it's not freely available. ("omgå blokering af ulovlige hjemmesider")

    There are a number of sensible changes relating to intellectual property directly too:

    • The primary aim of the law is making the regulation platform neutral, to account for future technologies. That's the goal. VPNs are listed as an example.

    • The law will demand that disputes don't go to court (As the big companies want), but to Ophavsretslicensnævnet (a civil dispute board) to resolve issues regarding whether or not terms and conditions in license agreements are "reasonable" and therefore legal. Also what appropriate economic compensation is. This board can unilaterally change the terms and conditions when they are unreasonable (a consumer benefit) that the company must then challenge in court. Then it's not me as a private person vs. giant corporation, but government vs. giant corporation in court.

    • Online piracy is rightly presented as a threat to all content producers, including news. These are essential for a country. Especially one with a small a population (and language group) as Denmark. This is a legitimate threat to democracy, functioning public discourse and so on.

    • Piracy in small countries can hinder investment in the arts and all content creation. Those who follow the law end up paying for all the pirate passengers, which is unreasonable to them. Unenforced laws are not something society benefits from.

    These piracy conglomerates are often run by organized crime or rouge states (like North Korea). They funnel money to other criminality, abuse/violence and online services for criminal activities.

    These sites are grossly over-represented in tampering with users' hardware and information.

    We know this. Law enforcement knows this. It's time the law acknowledges this. Every other country should do the same.

    4 votes

  19. Comment on Proposed amendments to Denmark's laws on copyright and broadcasting would see VPNs limited for common uses under changes to combat access to illegal streaming services in ~tech

    nacho
    Link Parent
    Bullshit laws like fighting the scourge of human trafficking, organized crime, child exploitation and (digital) abuse, theft of state secrets, sabotage of government and company platforms,...

    Bullshit laws like fighting the scourge of human trafficking, organized crime, child exploitation and (digital) abuse, theft of state secrets, sabotage of government and company platforms, destabilization/manipulation of countries' public discourse, tax evasion, fraud and so on?

    I understand that on a surface level, some people's knee-jerk reaction is that being able to track people online is bad.

    (I want to acknowledge separately, the loosely connected, yet extremely serious issue of kids and teens being ruined by predatory algorithms. Being able to lock people out of legal online services is a legitimate need for a well-regulated modern society in the tik-tok age.)

    I work in networking. A large part of my job consists of fixing all the innumerable events that occur that would be impossible to stop without being able to identify people online is strictly necessary for society to function.

    The internet needs to be regulated. This means identifying people. The government knowing what you do online is not an issue for most people.

    VPNs are your enemy. The free ones are connected to a bunch of unwanted events, giving your information to other countries who can then use said information for a host of nefarious things (directed at countries and companies, not individuals).

    Paid VPNs are points of failure that can get all your information leaked. It's much, much better to trust your internet service providers as they are actually properly regulated to ensure that your data is responsibly protected in accordance with local laws and global standards.

    It amazes me that tech-savvy areas online want to go back to internet with perceived anonymity. It's like those people have completely forgotten all the literal murders, child sex rings etc. that enabled.

    I expect this is the worst intersection of technology-related professions and groups and insane libertarianism.

    Wanting internet anonymity is an extreme view that has dire complications for society at large. Yes, Chat control and other laws aren't perfect, what first-pass regulation of completely new parts of society are? We're in desperate need for regulating the internet sensibly. We have to start somewhere and refine laws as the regulatory area matures.

    4 votes

  20. Comment on How to get into camping/hiking again? in ~hobbies

    nacho
    Link
    I regularly hike alone, also on work trips/travelling. For me, the interest depends a lot on my surroundings. Is this a cityscape? Time to bring my camera. Is there something special about the...

    I regularly hike alone, also on work trips/travelling.

    For me, the interest depends a lot on my surroundings. Is this a cityscape? Time to bring my camera. Is there something special about the nature nearby?

    When at home, I have two options I vary between:

    • Just walking straight out the door and up one of the local mountains or down one of the valleys
    • Going for a (usually short) drive to go hiking new places, often by map outside trails, or one of my favorites depending on weather/direction of wind

    For me, a lot of the joy of hiking comes from not listening to anything. No music, no podcast just me and my thoughts. I have friends who are exactly the opposite: hiking while listening is what brings them joy.

    Hiking with others gives you a different type of conversation and just being in the moment that don't get with the same people sitting down, over a meal or similar. I have friends who've had success easing their friends out by first going diskgolfing and then gradually being able to drop the disks and suddenly they're going hiking together.

    I used to love camping. Now that's just not for me. I have all the fancy stuff, the inflatable kayak, the super lightweight tent, a great mattress. Now I can't remember my last overnight, even just to be able to take a longer trek on a weekend.

    Going to enjoy others' tips on that front in this thread.

    6 votes