>i just want parity, i.e. the law should allow me to outfit my car with similar (or may be for the old time sake of being a human - with better) sensor and mechanical capabilities and to allow me to for example cut the same way in front of humans and robots like those robots do.
Human drivers kill ~40,000 people a year in the USA. The last thing we need to do is enable humans to drive even more aggressively. Soon it wont make any sense to allow humans to drive at all, just like we currently don't allow them to drive while impaired.
Dragging out a number like that is entirely useless and makes me think you are being disingenuous.
Instead go find the accidents per 100,000 miles driven. Then make sure it takes into account that the robots only drive in fair whether places like California and Phoenix.
I think you might actually be correct in your argument but the evidence you have brought for it is poor.
The Java hype was totally unprecedented and probably never repeated. The CEO of a big tech company was on network TV promoting a programming language. I heard stories on NPR in the car. My mother called me to ask me "about this Java thing." Java was everywhere and going to be in everything.
In was accompanied by a huge and successful push into universities to make it the standard didactic programming language. Even MIT switched from Scheme to Java.
I was on the crest of this wave—I actually taught myself Java and Scheme the summer before my freshman year @MIT—so I’m fairly certain that’s not quite right.
The intro CS curriculum stayed on Scheme until it switched to Python something like a decade after the Java hype cycle.
What I believe did change was the intro software engineering lab (6.170) switched from CLU (?) to Java around that time.
I started in 2003, learned C++, then did the majority of my courses in C++ with a class in Java with self-taught Python, C#, and PHP along the way for coursework.
Can someone fill me in, but is there still the derogatory "Java school"? I find that silly because most jobs in programming use some sort of managed memory programming language so teaching everyone in Java makes a lot of sense.
You have always been able to fly without ID by submitting to enhanced physical screening. John Gilmore sued the TSA over the ID requirement but lost, *edited I reread the opinion and the court found there was no 4th amendment violations, but enhanced screening was an option available to him even back in 2004 that he declined.
TSA is not required to allow people without ID to fly but they do and because suddenly a lot of people do not have acceptable ID, and not because of circumstances beyond their control, TSA is instituting the fees.
Most of the researchers outside big tech only have access to a handful of consumer GPUs at best. They are under a lot of pressure to invent efficient algorithms. The cost coming down by orders of magnitude seems like a good bet.
We have a similar law in the UK but it does depend on what you mean by public place.
In somewhere like a public toilet block, at least here in the UK, you have an expectation of privacy. If some creep in Meta glasses is filming you take a piss then they are breaking the law.
If you were on a public beach sun bathing then you probably don't have that expectation of privacy.
In most eu countries, you can record in public, but gathering identifying data ("making a database") is strictly regulated, and that includes faces from those photos. You can't even point a security camera at public areas (ie. outdoor camera recording the street infront of your house), because that's enough data to make it a "database".
The easier way of phrasing it is "you can't record in public, except in certain circumstances". Those certain circumstances just happen to encompass most things reasonable people want to do.
In Europe there is very much an expectation of privacy in public. But that expectation is not absolute, it competes with various other rights and public interests.
For example you can make street photography without blurred faces, because art trumps privacy in this instance. If you start making photos of individuals instead of areas then privacy wins out again and you need consent. A surveillance camera is not creating art, so it doesn't have that excuse going for it and needs a really good reason to be pointed at public areas (and "I fear someone's going to break into my private home" is generally not a good enough reason). And even if you can set up the surveillance camera, operating it requires complying with the GDPR, which has a lot to say on that topic
Note the "I fear" is treated differently if you e.g. have to remove graffiti hate speech from your front door on a weekly basis.
It's just about the "you better have a concrete reason to fear, pure abstract fear won't cut it", and as always, data minimization principles do apply.
There's a difference between taking a photo of eg. random people on the street (eg. trying to show someone that there's a big crowd at the bus station) and recording 24/7 the same bus station. A single photo held by a single person makes it hard to establish movement patterns etc. for those people, while a 24/7 recording can be used for creating a database of all those people coming and leaving.
There are many nuances in privacy law, not just pertaining to photo vs. 24/7 recording, but also expectation of privacy, intent, etc. Taking a photo of some random touristy area with people there is ok, singling out a person is not. Same for eg. taking a panoramic shot of a city where someone just happens to be undressing by the window in one of the buildings in the photo, vs using a telephoto lens pointed at that persons window... so, were you taking a touristy photo vs intending to violate their privacy.
Same nuances, mostly regarding intent appear in other laws too.. you can walk in public, you can stand in a public location, you can work the same shift as your coworker and walk the same path as them, since you both finished work at at the same time. But under slightly different circumstances that same "walking down a public road" or "standing in a public location" can be interpreted as eg. stalking if done with different intent.
That's why there are signs at every store entrance about video surveillance, even though it's private property, they must give info to customers who the contact person for the recording is and they need to have some kind of a retention policy defined for those recordings, and even then they cannot record in areas where people expect privacy (bathrooms, dressing rooms, etc.).
So yeah, taking a random photo of your street is not problematic, since it's "random" and done for other reasons (eg. tourism) while recording 24/7 is gathering enough data to be possibly problematic. Some streets (eg highways) are under video surveillance, but there are signs saying that when you enter the highway: https://maps.app.goo.gl/Mj3GjA7m8BLwUfs77
Short answer is its complicated and will vary from member state to member state. My parental unit had a dispute with neighbor over where his camera is pointed and filed some motion to see what he does with it ( 'not making a database' part ), but the law was mostly toothless as the enforcement of it lacked. On the other hand, the dispute part of the real estate was handed real toot sweet, because everyone and their mother cares about outcomes in those.
tldr: I wish I could tell you there is a simple tldr
There's also the UK practice of deliberately mangling French for comedic effect, as in Del Boy's cries of "Bain Marie!" and "chateuneuf-de-paper!" on 1980s TV. Saying "Toot sweet" can fit right into that bucket.
Some right to record in public may be protected by the current jurisprudence invoking the first amendment, but the first amendment itself obviously doesn't say anything about the right to record in public:
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It's a bank shot. SCOTUS has recognized that newsgathering gets some first amendment protection because "without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated" (Branzburg v Hayes).
One could argue that having a contractor of US intelligence service (Google) collecting data on every citizens all the time isn't exactly “news gathering” and ought to be prevented if one wanted to abid to the spirit of the Constitution.
Private businesses, however, can choose to refuse service for any reason as long as it’s not discriminatory. If enough businesses collaborated to create a “no camera glasses” policy, people might be less likely to buy them. This could keep the market small.
Perhaps a good approach would be to pressure businesses about this. Frankly they probably don’t want pervasive recording of their employees anyway.
I highly doubt that businesses will take a stand against these camera glasses. The kind of people that buy these smart glasses are usually a) wealthy, and b) not very frugal. What business would want to turn away the people with lots of money?
> What business would want to turn away the people with lots of money?
Plenty? Random dive bars, for example, probably don’t care how rich you are (it’s not like a millionaire is going to buy 10x more $5 beers than an average person).
reply