memfree

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 month ago

Water/sewer systems

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Scratch that comment. Vote Harris! :-)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Wow, that's a long read, and IMO, it misses a key point. Namely: similar to plastic industries spending tons of money to convince us that recycling is an individual problem and responsibility (despite the fact that most plastic can't be effectively recycled), this article mostly frames Climate Change as an individual responsibility to stop eating meat and dairy. Thankfully, at the very end, it gets to a better solution, which is to stop spending our tax dollars on subsidies to harmful agro-businesses.

The start-point, however, is that Big Farming has co-opted natural conservation groups by giving them cash to join 'mitigation' groups that are "Greenwashing" the subject such that no one talks about real solutions (such as making meat more expensive). Have a bunch of quotes:

So the meat industry did what other industries have done under similar pressure in the past: demonstrate that it could change just enough to avoid being forced to change even more by the government.

In fact, that inaugural conference in 2010 was officially titled the World Wildlife Fund Global Conference on Sustainable Beef. (WWF has helped to found similar industry roundtables for poultry and soy — most of which is fed to farmed animals — and a certification program for seafood.)

For its collaboration, McDonald’s makes sure WWF is well compensated; from 2015 to 2022, the company donated $4.5 to $9 million to WWF-US.

WWF is hardly alone. Two of the other largest US environmental organizations — the Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) — also closely collaborate with large meat and dairy companies, ranchers, and trade groups on a range of initiatives. But outside observers, along with some former and current employees at EDF and WWF, argue that those initiatives often do more to improve the companies’ image than the environment.

Last year, Tyson Foods — America’s largest meat processor — began selling beef marketed as “climate-friendly.” The company claims that by getting some of its suppliers to graze their cattle and grow the animals’ feed crops in a more sustainable manner, it’s reduced the carbon footprint of some of its beef by 10 percent.

But Tyson has repeatedly declined to share data with Vox and other news outlets that could prove its claim.

Beef is the worst food for the climate. Got it. Sadly, plant-based meat substitutes are losing market share (see graph p. 36 of Good Food Institute PDF). Personally, I like fake meat and it happens that tonight we're having Beyond Burgers for dinner (sorry for the product plug, but they work for me -- though I know some people prefer Impossible or other brands, and some people don't like any of them).

Using global averages, beef’s carbon footprint per 100 grams of protein is about 7 times that of pork, 9 times that of poultry, 25 times that of tofu and plant-based meat, and more than 60 times that of beans and lentils.

I was interested in the benefits of regenerative farming being very questionable, and any stats should be viewed suspiciously unless/until we have a verifiable measuring standard AND see data over the span of years per given acreage -- because any increase in carbon capture is likely to fall off over time.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has made it clear that the world needs negative emissions technologies — approaches that can pull carbon out of the atmosphere, as regenerative agriculture supposedly does — to avoid catastrophic global warming. But the research doesn’t bear out the claims many of regenerative agriculture’s proponents make, as there’s still significant doubt and uncertainty around the potential for farmland to store a lot of carbon.

“The science is clear that, while some mitigation can be achieved by improving meat and dairy production, climate-neutral or zero-emissions meat and dairy is not a possibility in the foreseeable future,” said Hayek, the New York University environmental studies professor, speaking about net-zero claims in animal agriculture broadly, not the WWF report specifically.

EDF and the Nature Conservancy are also founding members of the Food and Agriculture Climate Alliance, a coalition of meat, dairy, and agricultural trade groups, many of which lobby aggressively to block environmental policy. But the alliance is a vehicle for their other goal on Capitol Hill: ramping up subsidies for regenerative agriculture and technological solutions. It’s similar to how the fossil fuel industry lobbies to both block climate regulations and subsidize carbon capture.

Money shuts up the World Wildlife Foundation, Sierra Club, and so on.

“If you can’t get the Sierra Club to [support a methane tax], how the fuck are you going to get anyone else in society to do that?”

Some politicians paint calls to stop pollution from factory farms and eat more plant-based meals as anti-farmer, a potent charge given both farming’s close association with America’s national mythos and the disproportionate political power that rural states hold.

If we can’t change ourselves in the environmental community, then how would we expect to change the general population?”

Many environmentalists have come to criticize individual action as ineffectual and naive. The burden to mitigate climate change and pollution falls on politicians and corporations, they argue, not the average person.

I agree with the last bit, but realize that at least a third of the U.S. will remove any politician painted as 'anti-meat'. That is, a politician might try to argue that our tax dollars shouldn't give hand-outs to Tyson or the like, but the attack ads against will say, "He wants you to stop eating meat, so he's working to bankrupt our ranchers."

The idea that environmentalists shouldn’t try to influence how people eat “is a win for industry … It’s their script,” said Jacquet, the University of Miami professor. Environmentalists who repeat this, she added, have “become sock puppets for industry, and they don’t even mean to be.”

Well, the public IS hearing that message from various places despite the fact that it's a message too many people are unwilling to hear. I don't require Environmental groups to be in-your-face about it. Let the data speak for itself.

A 2023 analysis published in the journal One Earth found that, from 2014 to 2020, the US meat industry received about 800 times more government funding than did meat and dairy alternatives.

A lot can be done to tip the scale in the other direction, and in ways unlikely to spur political backlash.

I didn't find the examples they list to be very encouraging, but they do exist. They describe how Denmark is doing some neat stuff.

“It needs to be a political liability to choose false solutions over effective climate policies,” said Jennifer Molidor, a senior food campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity.

That's the hard part! :-) Near the end there are some examples of where stuff is working and suggests a public awareness campaign would help. No more pictures of happy cows on green grass, but instead images of the barren land of holding pens stretching out in all directions. Show people the reality instead of the mythos and ask them to make it an issue with their local politicians.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Could you fix a mistake I made? Near the bottom I inadvertently typed ‘Munich’ instead of the correct ‘Berlin’ games for when the Nazi salute was allowed. Source is Wikipedia and you can see there it clearly say 'Berlin'. I was just reading too many Olympic details and didn't even notice I typed the wrong city/game.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago

Thank you for posting this! I was sad and frustrated to hear he was arrested, but I didn't think there was anything I could do about it. Maybe signing a petition isn't much, but it is a start, and it feels probable that people with the means to do so might get organized to show up in person to offer support. If I was richer and younger, I'd love to take a pro-environmental vacation to Greenland.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Thank you both. You are both very considerate. I stumbled on one detail and then went down a rabbit hole of different aspects about that Olympic moment and wanted to share. I'm glad to see people are as interested as I was.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Thank you for cross posting :-)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

I'm also not an expert, but that was my thought, too.

More than that, even if a tail is undamaged, including it is not giving useful imformation because tail size can vary out of proportion to the main body and is pretty standard for other animals as well. For example, no one is measuring a horse to include the tail length, nor a dog, cat, and generally not a bird, either.

That said, I expect an news story about alligators on the golf course or catching invasive snakes to measure the whole body for the NEWS story and let the experts worry about the booper2pooper length in their own space.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Honestly, I would rather she flip on this issue than have her replace Lina Khan as the Chair of the Federal Trade Commission.

Why is Harris flipping? To pick up swing voters. Senator Fetterman (D-PA) did the same thing to get elected in that important swing state. I remember seeing his debate against a carpetbagging Dr. Oz and despite being barely coherent after his stroke, Fetterman made the point repeatedly that he supported fracking. And he won.

As of 2021, the last time a major poll was conducted, not only did a majority of Pennsylvanians want to see more regulation of the fracking industry, but a majority actually wanted to “end” fracking in the state (25 percent wanted it done “as soon as possible,” and 30 percent favored a gradual transition).

So why is Harris reversing her position on fracking if Pennsylvanians want it gone? One reason may be that many of the voters who oppose fracking (for example: the 79 percent of Democrats who want fracking to end) will vote for her either way. The people the party is anxious about winning, on the other hand, might be the ones who’d be turned off by a proposed ban. For example, 43 percent of independents in the 2021 poll said fracking should not end or be phased out.

I think there's more to it than that. Republicans are going to run ads saying she's against it so her team will want to say those ads are lies, so they can't be trusted on anything. That is: flipping position on one issue lets her discount multi-vector attacks on many things.

More than that, she's better be using this as a way to get money for her campaign. It would almost be a shame if she didn't at least get support from Big Oil for flipping.

Why would this matter less than the FTC chair? Because Harris is getting monied pressure to replace Khan and Khan is doing an amazing job and getting actual change whereas it is unlikely that an anti-fracking stance would change anything. Given the current members of Congress, they are not going to ban or limit fracking right now, so Harris isn't going to get that sort of law through. More importantly, the Supreme Court royally screwed us over last month by reversing the Chevron Doctrine so the EPA is hamstrung until/unless Chevron is restored OR congress writes new protection laws -- and that's not going to happen with this Congress, either. That means any Executive order on cleaning up fracking won't work because the enforcement agencies are now toothless.

It sucks, but I understand the decision.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I knew about the police getting access, but I missed that home insurance companies were checking properties with drones. I guess I don't mind them spending their own money to send their own drones to verify properties they insure, but I agree that using MY camera that I bought to get info or sell MY data is at least unethical and ought to be illegal. It should be required that they get my explicit consent to that sort of thing for each instance of data collection or sale.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

IMO, all voting should be on paper so that a hand recount can be done if the machines are questioned.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Myst can be a bit esoteric, especially the older versions.

Did they rewrite it in later ports? Also curious as to where you stand on Zork.

 

Their new, 23rd album =1 follows a run of chart hits including top 10 records Infinite (2017) and Whoosh! (2020), suggesting a band in late-career resurgence. Driven, perhaps, by the fact that their audience seems to consist almost entirely of horn-waving Benjamin Buttons.

“It’s very exciting,” Gillan enthuses. “About 15 years ago, something weird happened. There was a whole new generation of fans. Our audiences from about 2009 or 2010 onwards have been mainly 15- to 22-year-olds. That’s been a great input of energy in the shows.”

“In the Seventies we just broke up,” he says. “Everyone’s seen Spinal Tap and that’s pretty much what happens. Outside influences come in, too much money, ‘we’re immortal’, all that rubbish. Then you go off and you try to do things individually and realize it’s the collective effort that really made it work.

See also:

  • musicradar: Ian praises Paice, recall Yes confrontation
  • loudersound: Ian touts Black Sabbath as more influential than Purple or Zeppelin
  • short 2018 metalinjection piece with a bit more about joining Black Sabbath
 

Harris’s move to seek permission to use the hit song comes after the co-writer of a song used in Donald Trump’s rallies spoke out to reveal his disapproval.

At the Republican National Convention last week – days after surviving an assassination attempt – Trump walked on stage to the song Hold On, I’m Coming.

The co-writer of the Sam & Dave’s 1966 hit David Porter told The Independent that the 78-year-old former president had never asked for permission to use his music in his political campaign.

“I can say [that] I don’t want any of my songs used for political campaigns,” he said. “We create music for uplifting people, not separating them.”

ghost archive | cnn coverage

 

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, the long-time associate of The Black Swan author Nassim Nicholas Taleb said a severe crash is on the way and stocks could lose more than half their value, while acknowledging that his latest warning should come as no surprise.

“I think we’re on the way to something really, really bad—but of course I’d say that,” Spitznagel said.

Since Fortune is mostly citing WSJ, here's an archive of that WSJ story. From that source:

Governments have been so active tamping down any conflagration in the economy that the dry brush of debt and other hidden risks have built into the ingredients for a severe blaze.

How should mere mortals without access to tail risk hedges respond to his prediction? Probably by doing nothing, says Spitznagel.

“Cassandras make terrible investors.”

 

I just noticed this come into existence, and I don't know if it will take off, but I figure it can't hurt to let people know and give it a chance.

Here's the beehaw view: https://beehaw.org/post/15083973

P.S. I don't have an account there, but I like their "Bot Art".

 

Trump was a lying liar and Biden was a hoarse doddering old man who got lost mid sentence.

On MSNBC, Joy Reid pointed out that Americans want their president to be an avatar. They want a commander who looks strong and tough, and we saw that when the populace couldn't get behind Al Gore (who she credited as being a great mind) who acted more like a policy wank than Bush, who felt more like a (New England) cowboy.

Earlier in the week, I caught a bit of Steve Bannon's radio show where he railed about how we need to eliminate the deep state -- the Praetorian Guard -- that indicted Trump and props up Biden. At the time, I wondered who this Praetorian Guard was supposed to have assassinated, who was bribing them, and which combat actions they'd fought in. If nothing else, I think this debate proves there is no deep state/Praetorian Guard because they'd have assassinated Biden last week during his preparation rather than let him get on stage.

Look, in any large enough group, there are going to be some incompetent people and some competent bad actors. We have to vote for the people who will admit to that and get rid of them. The U.S. is going to have to choose between a leader who tries to install good people to run the government and one who intends to install people bent on dismantling the government and giving loyalty to the leader alone. Even IN the debate, Trump asked Biden, "Who did you fire?" -- that you have to fire bad people ... but this was in reference to firing the General who claimed to have heard Trump call veterans "suckers and losers". I can't prove Trump did or didn't say that, but I do remember Trump skipping the memorial ceremony.

Trump said Charlottesville never happened. I remember it. Trump said Nancy Pelosi admitted responsibility for January 6th. She did not. Trump said the ex-governor of Virginia was not just for late term abortion, but infanticide. He is not. His lies were too numerous to count.

Biden lost track of his thoughts early on and blurted out "We finally beat Medicare." Trump said, "He did beat Medicare and he beat it to death." Biden said Trump had sex with a porn star while (uh, uhm stumble) his wife was pregnant. Trump asserted he did not. Biden called Trump a criminal. Trump said Biden would be the criminal when his term was over (not exact words).

It wasn't good in any direction. It was ugly. Through it, though, Trump maintained his TV-personality persona while Biden generally looked infirm.

Personally, I want a deep state that does things like: build roads, enforce food labeling laws so that the box accurately reflects the food inside, eventually hires enough judges to have a fast turn-around time for family court and the like. It should be really hard to fire them when they are speaking the truth as the understand it and easy to fire them if they are distorting the truth. Alas, I worry that Joy Reid is correct and the U.S. will vote for the guy they think is most like John Wayne.

 

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have said any threat from the United States and Israel will be met with Tehran’s reciprocal response, Iranian state TV reported.

“Any threat by the United States and the Zionist regime originating from any country will result in a proportional and reciprocal response from Iran towards the origin of the threat,” the Guards said in a statement.

 

cross-posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/12262087

Excerpts:

The Verbal Verdict demo drops me into an interrogation room with basic facts about the case to my left, and on the other side of a glass window are three suspects I can call one at a time for questioning. There are no prompts or briefings—I just have to start asking questions, either by typing them or speaking them into a microphone

The responses are mostly natural, and at times add just a bit more information for me to follow up on.

Mostly. Sometimes, the AI goes entirely off the rails and starts typing gibberish

There are, of course, still many limitations to this implementation of an LLM in a game. Kristelijn said that they are using a pretty “censored” model, and also adding their own restrictions, to make sure the LLM doesn’t say anything harmful. It also makes what should be a very small game much larger (the demo is more than 7GB), because it runs the model locally on your machine. Kristelijn said that running the model locally helps Savanna Developments with privacy concerns. If the LLM runs locally it doesn’t have to see or handle what players are typing. And it also is better for game preservation because if the game doesn’t need to connect to an online server it can keep running even if Savanna Developments shuts down.

it’s pretty hard to “write” different voices for them. They all kind of speak similarly. One character in the full version of the game, for example, speaks in short sentences to convey a certain attitude, but that doesn’t come close to the characterization you’d see in a game like L.A. Noire, where character dialogue is meticulously written to convey personality.

 

Excerpts:

The Verbal Verdict demo drops me into an interrogation room with basic facts about the case to my left, and on the other side of a glass window are three suspects I can call one at a time for questioning. There are no prompts or briefings—I just have to start asking questions, either by typing them or speaking them into a microphone

The responses are mostly natural, and at times add just a bit more information for me to follow up on.

Mostly. Sometimes, the AI goes entirely off the rails and starts typing gibberish

There are, of course, still many limitations to this implementation of an LLM in a game. Kristelijn said that they are using a pretty “censored” model, and also adding their own restrictions, to make sure the LLM doesn’t say anything harmful. It also makes what should be a very small game much larger (the demo is more than 7GB), because it runs the model locally on your machine. Kristelijn said that running the model locally helps Savanna Developments with privacy concerns. If the LLM runs locally it doesn’t have to see or handle what players are typing. And it also is better for game preservation because if the game doesn’t need to connect to an online server it can keep running even if Savanna Developments shuts down.

it’s pretty hard to “write” different voices for them. They all kind of speak similarly. One character in the full version of the game, for example, speaks in short sentences to convey a certain attitude, but that doesn’t come close to the characterization you’d see in a game like L.A. Noire, where character dialogue is meticulously written to convey personality.

 

politico archive: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/PS7WH

see also: https://thehill.com/homenews/ap/ap-politics/ap-supreme-court-moving-quickly-will-decide-if-trump-can-be-prosecuted-in-election-interference-case/ | thehill archive: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/W6bFe

Excerpts (politico):

In Wednesday’s order, the Supreme Court granted Trump’s emergency request to maintain that pause while the justices hear Trump’s immunity appeal.

But the court’s decision to keep the pretrial proceedings frozen is a blow to special counsel Jack Smith’s effort to bring Trump to trial this year. Smith has charged Trump with four felonies stemming from his bid to subvert the 2020 presidential election.

If they deny the immunity bid by the end of their term in June, it may still be possible for the trial judge overseeing the case, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, to schedule a trial to begin in late summer or fall.

The timing of the justices’ eventual ruling could be critical since Chutkan has vowed to give Trump roughly three additional months to prepare for trial if the case is returned to her courtroom.

That hypothetical schedule would guarantee that much of Trump’s general election calendar is consumed by his mandatory presence in the courtroom, perhaps overlapping with the Republican National Convention or even Election Day itself.

Chutkan had originally intended to begin the election-subversion trial on March 4, but she nixed that start date due to the delays caused by Trump’s immunity claim. The trial, if it happens, is expected to last several months.

Excerpts (thehill):

That timetable is much faster than usual, but assuming the justices deny Trump’s immunity bid, it’s not clear whether a trial can be scheduled and concluded before the November election. Early voting in some states will begin in September.

In the end, the timing of a possible trial could come down to how quickly the justices rule. They have shown they can act fast, issuing a decision in the Watergate tapes case in 1974 just 16 days after hearing arguments. The decision in Bush v. Gore came the day after arguments in December 2000.

By taking up the legally untested question now, the justices have created a scenario of uncertainty that special counsel Jack Smith had sought to avoid when he first asked the high court in December to immediately intervene. In his latest court filing, Smith had suggested arguments a full month earlier than the late April timeframe.

Though their Supreme Court filing did not explicitly mention the upcoming November election or Trump’s status as the Republican primary front-runner, prosecutors described the case as having “unique national importance” and said that “delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict.”

 

Archive: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/XuAaf | Excerpts:

According to the Ancient Greek philosopher Pythagoras, 'consonance'—a pleasant-sounding combination of notes—is produced by special relationships between simple numbers such as 3 and 4. More recently, scholars have tried to find psychological explanations, but these 'integer ratios' are still credited with making a chord sound beautiful, and deviation from them is thought to make music 'dissonant,' unpleasant sounding.

But researchers from the University of Cambridge, Princeton and the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, have now discovered two key ways in which Pythagoras was wrong.

First: "We prefer slight amounts of deviation. We like a little imperfection because this gives life to the sounds, and that is attractive to us."

Second:

"Western research has focused so much on familiar orchestral instruments, but other musical cultures use instruments that, because of their shape and physics, are what we would call 'inharmonic.'"

"Our findings suggest that if you use different instruments, you can unlock a whole new harmonic language that people intuitively appreciate, they don't need to study it to appreciate it. A lot of experimental music in the last 100 years of Western classical music has been quite hard for listeners because it involves highly abstract structures that are hard to enjoy. In contrast, psychological findings like ours can help stimulate new music that listeners intuitively enjoy."

 

Excerpts below. Article states that it is. "Adapted from Means of Control: How the Hidden Alliance of Tech and Government Is Creating a New American Surveillance State, by Byron Tau" Archive: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/5bsWU

2019:

Working with Grindr data, Yeagley began drawing geofences—creating virtual boundaries in geographical data sets—around buildings belonging to government agencies that do national security work. That allowed Yeagley to see what phones were in certain buildings at certain times, and where they went afterwards.

Then he started looking at the movement of those phones through the Grindr data. When they weren’t at their offices, where did they go? A small number of them had lingered at highway rest stops in the DC area at the same time and in proximity to other Grindr users—sometimes during the workday and sometimes while in transit between government facilities. For other Grindr users, he could infer where they lived, see where they traveled, even guess at whom they were dating.

No disciplinary actions were taken against any employee of the federal government based on Yeagley’s presentation. His aim was to show that buried in the seemingly innocuous technical data that comes off every cell phone in the world is a rich story—one that people might prefer to keep quiet.


Our real-world movement is highly specific and personal to all of us. For many years, I lived in a small 13-unit walk-up in Washington, DC. I was the only person waking up every morning at that address and going to The Wall Street Journal’s offices. Even if I was just an anonymized number, my behavior was as unique as a fingerprint even in a sea of hundreds of millions of others. There was no way to anonymize my identity in a data set like geolocation. Where a phone spends most of its evenings is a good proxy for where its owner lives. Advertisers know this.

Governments know this too. And Yeagley was part of a team that would try to find out how they could exploit it.


PlanetRisk hired Yeagley in 2016 as vice president of global defense—essentially a sales and business development job. The aim was for him to develop his adtech technology inside the contractor, which might try to sell it to various government agencies. Yeagley brought with him some government funding from his relationships around town in the defense and intelligence research communities.

PlanetRisk’s earliest sales demo was about Syria: quantifying the crush of refugees flowing out of Syria after years of civil war and the advancing ISIS forces. From a commercial data broker called UberMedia, PlanetRisk had obtained location data on Aleppo—the besieged Syrian city that had been at the center of some of the fiercest fighting between government forces and US-backed rebels. It was an experiment in understanding what was possible. Could you even obtain location information on mobile phones in Syria? Surely a war zone was no hot spot for mobile advertising.

But to the company’s surprise, the answer was yes. There were 168,786 mobile devices present in the city of Aleppo in UberMedia’s data set, which measured mobile phone movements during the month of December 2015. And from that data, they could see the movement of refugees around the world.

The discovery that there was extensive data in Syria was a watershed. No longer was advertising merely a way to sell products; it was a way to peer into the habits and routines of billions. “Mobile devices are the lifeline for everyone, even refugees,” Yeagley said.


They realized they could track world leaders through Locomotive, too. After acquiring a data set on Russia, the team realized they could track phones in the Russian president Vladimir Putin’s entourage. The phones moved everywhere that Putin did. They concluded the devices in question did not actually belong to Putin himself; Russian state security and counterintelligence were better than that. Instead, they believed the devices belonged to the drivers, the security personnel, the political aides, and other support staff around the Russian president; those people’s phones were trackable in the advertising data. As a result, PlanetRisk knew where Putin was going and who was in his entourage.

Locomotive, the first version of which was coded in 2016, blew away Pentagon brass. One government official demanded midway through the demo that the rest of it be conducted inside a SCIF, a secure government facility where classified information could be discussed. The official didn’t understand how or what PlanetRisk was doing but assumed it must be a secret. A PlanetRisk employee at the briefing was mystified. “We were like, well, this is just stuff we’ve seen commercially,” they recall. “We just licensed the data.” After all, how could marketing data be classified?

Locomotive was renamed VISR, which stood for Virtual Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance. It would be used as part of an interagency program and would be shared widely inside the US intelligence community as a tool to generate leads.

But VISR, by now, is only one product among others that sell adtech data to intelligence agencies. The Department of Homeland Security has been a particularly enthusiastic adopter of this kind of data. Three of its components—US Customs and Border Protection, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the US Secret Service —have bought more than 200 licenses from commercial ad tech vendors since 2019. They would use this data for finding border tunnels, tracking down unauthorized immigrants, and trying to solve domestic crimes. In 2023, a government inspector general chastised DHS over the use of adtech, saying that the department did not have adequate privacy safeguards in place and recommending that the data stop being used until policies were drawn. The DHS told the inspector general that they would continue to use the data. Adtech “is an important mission contributor to the ICE investigative process as, in combination with other information and investigative methods, it can fill knowledge gaps and produce investigative leads that might otherwise remain hidden,” the agency wrote in response.


We all have a vague sense that our cell phone carriers have this data about us. But law enforcement generally needs to go get a court order to get that. And it takes evidence of a crime to get such an order. This is a different kind of privacy nightmare.

 

Short answer: it helped keep you warm.

-- but it is an interesting piece of cultural history and the article has nice images of such beds.

view more: ‹ prev next ›