A Letter To The New German Chancellor – politicalbetting.com
Firstly, the impact on US demand for European products will be less severe than you expect. Why? Because there aren’t thousands of empty US factories waiting for slightly higher prices for European products.
Economics in the absence of politics? It’s an interesting idea.
It's not really economics though, as the header manages to miss the two most important reasons to do nothing. In fact, I would assume the writer has no formal training in international economics (in fairness, in common with 99% of people who post online about it).
The two best reasons not to retaliate when your exports are discriminated against are, firstly, that you raise your own cost of living and reduce the efficiency of your industries to no benefit as the tariff increases are passed on, particularly if they are expected to last a long time. Secondly, the other side may retaliate against your retaliation, especially with somebody as spiteful as Trump in charge, setting off a downward spiral.
A small change in your currency or whatever is trivial compared to those drawbacks.
I agree that Germany should be less dependent on international demand. For decades it has been dumping its deficient domestic demand on other countries, including us. This leads to instability in the financial system, as Germany accumulates assets in other countries and weakens their currencies. But Germany isn't actually that dependent on exports to the US, which is only about 2% of its GDP. And a shock to that trade is too small to make a country question its entire macroeconomic model.
"Knowing when to use AI turns out to be a form of wisdom, not just technical knowledge. Like most wisdom, it's somewhat paradoxical: AI is often most useful where we're already expert enough to spot its mistakes, yet least helpful in the deep work that made us experts in the first place. It works best for tasks we could do ourselves but shouldn't waste time on, yet can actively harm our learning when we use it to skip necessary struggles. "
FPT: I would suggest that the number of birds that die from actually contacting wind turbine blades is very small.
They are already dead by the time they make contact.
What kills birds (and onshore, bats) is the pressure wave that moves in front of the blades. That pressure wave bursts their lungs. So the colour of the blades really doesnt matter.
This sounds rather like a sop to Mr Trump's windmills brainstorm, and a stirring opportunity for the Telegrunt, tbh. Trump first got excited about wind farms and birds when someone built one in the sea next to his golf course in 2011; I assume he needed a narrative to stop them, and it became embedded.
Is the pilot study continuing to November 2029 by any chance?
(Update: I see it is a four year project. Bingo - maybe, or at least conveniently. There are going to be a lot of tactical pilots running until the end of 2029. The scheme will run for four years, and test a variety of paint jobs, including striped turbines and all-black design. )
Doesn't this ignore the purpose of retaliatory tariffs - deterrence. Most know are not economically a good thing, but once someone whacks some on you, you respond to ensure your adversary feels pain for doing so. So tariffs aren't used in future as a one way street to revenue raise. The shared pain is the point.
In the case of the EU it is not as entwined with the US, so the effect may be at the margins - but for say Canada, making sure Americans feel some pain for tariff imposition is an essential threat.
It's a case of the prisoner's dilemma, where the rational choice from an individual perspective is worse for everyone as backing down is specifically worse for you as it encourages your adversary to screw you.
Suella's comment had me searching for the Cecil Rhodes comment about being born an Englishman i.e. your nationality (until 1983 in the UK) was down to luck. However the Wikipedia page on Rhodes stated that in his will he wanted to finance a secret society for the purpose of:
To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonisation by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible, and promote the best interests of humanity.
Perhaps a bust of Rhodes for Trump for the Oval Office might be an appropriate gift for Starmer to give today.
FPT: I would suggest that the number of birds that die from actually contacting wind turbine blades is very small.
They are already dead by the time they make contact.
What kills birds (and onshore, bats) is the pressure wave that moves in front of the blades. That pressure wave bursts their lungs. So the colour of the blades really doesnt matter.
That doesn't mean there's not a value to painting them: birds are unlikely to want to fly near to fast moving things they can see.
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
"Knowing when to use AI turns out to be a form of wisdom, not just technical knowledge. Like most wisdom, it's somewhat paradoxical: AI is often most useful where we're already expert enough to spot its mistakes, yet least helpful in the deep work that made us experts in the first place. It works best for tasks we could do ourselves but shouldn't waste time on, yet can actively harm our learning when we use it to skip necessary struggles. "
It's certainly useful as a kind of intelligent robotic search assistant, but only so long as you remain sceptical about the factual accuracy of everything it says.
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
"Knowing when to use AI turns out to be a form of wisdom, not just technical knowledge. Like most wisdom, it's somewhat paradoxical: AI is often most useful where we're already expert enough to spot its mistakes, yet least helpful in the deep work that made us experts in the first place. It works best for tasks we could do ourselves but shouldn't waste time on, yet can actively harm our learning when we use it to skip necessary struggles. "
It's certainly useful as a kind of intelligent robotic search assistant, but only so long as you remain sceptical about the factual accuracy of everything it says.
That's quite some flaw. It's only useful for things that don't matter much, such as arguing on the Internet.
More from Hart's Ungovernable since everyone's favourite football pundit is back in the news. There is world-weary wisdom in the last line.
Tuesday, 7th March 2023 In the meantime, Gary Lineker tweets provocative comments about small boats (comparing Tories with Nazis) and creates a huge storm. Instead of leaving the BBC to sort it out amongst themselves, some of our people, including the increasingly voluble Sir John Hayes, weigh in making it look like it’s ‘Tories vs Football’. There will be only one winner, and it won’t be us.
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Not this time, my friend. We spent two weeks on the West Coast so flew into and out of Christchurch Airport.
As an aside, Changi Airport in Singapore has changed since my last visit in 2006 - it is stupefyingly awesome and the one thing it does which I’ve not seen elsewhere is they do the security check of the cabin luggage and passengers at the gates instead of at one central point so once you’ve checked in and done the passport check to go airside you can explore.
I know people snipe at UK border control but it’s okay - much better than the US where we spent nearly an hour in the queue to go through their immigration.
New Zealand are very quick with the passport control but they then scan all your luggage just in case you aren’t bringing in anything which will disrupt the ecosystem. You can be an illegal migrant and that’s fine but try bringing in the wrong fruit and veg and you’re about as welcome as a durian on the Singapore MRT.
I am sure on a board of fellow nerds, there will be some other aficionados of Bostrom's simulation argument (https://simulation-argument.com/).
Whilst indulging in a gentle lament that I no longer have enough free hours in my life to play Civilization, it struck me that, when I did have time to play, I would sometimes build my civilisation up to a peak of performance, such that all different avenues of winning were open to me (winning the space race, diplomatic victory etc) and then, just for the fun of it, go on a relentless military rampage, combined with burning all my diplomatic bridges at once, just to see if my civilisation could wipe out all the others before anyone else build their space ship to Alpha Centauri.
Is there not extremely compelling circumstantial evidence that we are currently within a simulation in which our future-human player has decided to see whether USA can replicate my rather destructive whims?
I'm not sure whether this adds to my evening's melancholy or dissipates it. But I have a glass of Lagavulin next to me so all is not quite lost yet.
As a true nerd the only Bostrom I have heard of is Arthur Bostrom who played the ‘Good Moaning’ PC in Allo Allo.
Nick Bostrom makes a reasonably convincing argument that it is statistically far more likely that our world is a computer simulation being run by future humans with rather more computing power than us, rather than the real thing.
It's quite comforting at times such as this.
Isn't there a major flaw there....how did those future humans get there to run a simulation when all their ancestors were part of a computer simulation?
There is of course one 'real' path. But the argument goes that once a civilisation is sufficiently advanced they are likely to have the computing power to run world-realistic simulations in the way that we run computer games i.e. billions of scenarios as a hobby. These scenarios will feel life-like to those within them.
So whilst the future humans' ancestors will have been in the real world, statistically it is far more likely that we are one of the billions of scenarios run for entertainment, rather than the one real path.
ETA @foxy I just saw your comment. As for why they'd bother - same reason we (well, some of us) played Theme Hospital back in the day. Imagine being able to run your hospital/world just the way you want to and be able to answer that age old question from the history books...what would have happened if President Harris had lost to that orange-buffoon who went to prison so soon after the election?
"Knowing when to use AI turns out to be a form of wisdom, not just technical knowledge. Like most wisdom, it's somewhat paradoxical: AI is often most useful where we're already expert enough to spot its mistakes, yet least helpful in the deep work that made us experts in the first place. It works best for tasks we could do ourselves but shouldn't waste time on, yet can actively harm our learning when we use it to skip necessary struggles. "
It's certainly useful as a kind of intelligent robotic search assistant, but only so long as you remain sceptical about the factual accuracy of everything it says.
Indeed: if you have enough knowledge to criticize AI output, you will be aware of the frequent factual and deductive errors.
Unfortunately, credulity about AI output is quite common.
I have a partner who insists on sending me AI generated "analyses" of companies and economies: in vain have I pointed that these read like the work of an earnest error-prone 16 year old swot....
...who has read ALL the available material, yet produced a "synthesis" which fails to get below the surface froth and to boot makes a series of asinine errors.
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
"Knowing when to use AI turns out to be a form of wisdom, not just technical knowledge. Like most wisdom, it's somewhat paradoxical: AI is often most useful where we're already expert enough to spot its mistakes, yet least helpful in the deep work that made us experts in the first place. It works best for tasks we could do ourselves but shouldn't waste time on, yet can actively harm our learning when we use it to skip necessary struggles. "
It's certainly useful as a kind of intelligent robotic search assistant, but only so long as you remain sceptical about the factual accuracy of everything it says.
That's quite some flaw. It's only useful for things that don't matter much, such as arguing on the Internet.
This is a good and up-to-date video on the strengths of current AI machines, including Elon's Grok and Google's co-scientist, and a warning from Microsoft:- AI Gets Rapidly Smarter, And Makes Some Of Us Dumber (Sabine Hossenfelder) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipLA7E-X7Lk
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
Indeed. As a fucking idiot put it -
“The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia,”
Further, the original demands to Apple had no territorial limits. They wanted universal access to *all* Apple customers data, worldwide.
Apple responded by ending end-to-end encryption (which they can’t provide access to) in the U.K.
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
Good morning, everyone.
Yes, the UK Government's approach is ridiculous and, once again, betrays the political class' almost total ignorance of basic tech matters. Sunak in some ways was rather better at this, recognising the importance of AI.
The age of voters being even a teeny bit grateful to politicians seems to have passed. Try not to enrage them and hope your opponents fcuk up even more seems to be the way.
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
Not this time, my friend. We spent two weeks on the West Coast so flew into and out of Christchurch Airport.
As an aside, Changi Airport in Singapore has changed since my last visit in 2006 - it is stupefyingly awesome and the one thing it does which I’ve not seen elsewhere is they do the security check of the cabin luggage and passengers at the gates instead of at one central point so once you’ve checked in and done the passport check to go airside you can explore.
I know people snipe at UK border control but it’s okay - much better than the US where we spent nearly an hour in the queue to go through their immigration.
New Zealand are very quick with the passport control but they then scan all your luggage just in case you aren’t bringing in anything which will disrupt the ecosystem. You can be an illegal migrant and that’s fine but try bringing in the wrong fruit and veg and you’re about as welcome as a durian on the Singapore MRT.
Went through Gatwick last week and was pleasantly surprised that you can now leave laptops and liquids in bags. Much easier. (Still 100ml limit on liquids though).
"Knowing when to use AI turns out to be a form of wisdom, not just technical knowledge. Like most wisdom, it's somewhat paradoxical: AI is often most useful where we're already expert enough to spot its mistakes, yet least helpful in the deep work that made us experts in the first place. It works best for tasks we could do ourselves but shouldn't waste time on, yet can actively harm our learning when we use it to skip necessary struggles. "
It's certainly useful as a kind of intelligent robotic search assistant, but only so long as you remain sceptical about the factual accuracy of everything it says.
That's quite some flaw. It's only useful for things that don't matter much, such as arguing on the Internet.
Here's an example I got just recently, trying to use AI to get some veterinary advice on a complex matter, where AI got the basics 100% wrong and consequently fed me a load of terrible advice. I know it's just a search engine and not actually thinking (hence the error), but the way if you challenge it, it fesses up straight away, is just weird. I have been meaning to try and tell it it's wrong on a factual matter where it's actually correct, to see what happens....
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
That is a choice that Apple has made and a marketing position they take.
Adding a back door does not mean something is not effectively encrypted. It means that it works in 99.999999999999% of situations
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
1) Strong encryption is, essentially, un-bannable. I have a T-Shirt, back from when the US government was trying to declare all strong encryption a munition. It has a 4 line Perl script that implements unlimited key length RSA.
2) strong encryption protects our world. Not just your money, the ownership records of your property….. If you build in back doors, mathematically, this is a common vulnerability. That’s trying to make Die Hard 4 actually - imagine the fun if Russian hackers got into such a back door? And turned off all the infrastructure?
3) So what is going on? In past times, the police and security services tapped into unencrypted communications. Not exactly legal and it wasn’t used in court. That door is closing.
What has really changed is the incorporation of high quality encryption (written about in books etc since before computers) into everyday apps.
You are using it right now - https in your browser.
As the PB rules established by @rcs1000 hinself insist that this is a real image, then it implies the PB "image budget" is a lot larger than we realise
For a start you've got the basic, recent location shoot in Berlin, of the Reichsbank, next to the famous enormous Marksmacht coin-printing machine, from 1908, with its half mile high steampunks cogs etc. Sure, that's easy enough to photograph, once you're in Berlin. Ditto the curious but majestic "Grossreichsletter" - the German method of propulgating laws by turning them into six kilometre long gold scrolls and suspending them over government buildings. Again, easy enough to shoot, IF you get the right moment - especially as at that moment the Germans always send out huge trucks and planes delivering news of the law to outlying parts of the Bundesrepublik - that lends the image a natural drama, ably captured here...
But, if you look top left, you can see the tell tale traces of Elon Musk's Starlink satellites. How did Rob arrange that? Surely only by paying Elon Musk several millions. So though the image looks natural enough at first glance, almost a boring stock shot of Berlin, in reality it must have cost the PB Team squillions and I for one will bear this in mind the next time they ask for donations
On computing generally, we might also question the wisdom of the government putting uploading all its data to American clouds. It's bad for security and it is bad for the British economy.
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
That is a choice that Apple has made and a marketing position they take.
Adding a back door does not mean something is not effectively encrypted. It means that it works in 99.999999999999% of situations
Add in a back door makes everything with the back door vulnerable.
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Doesn't this ignore the purpose of retaliatory tariffs - deterrence. Most know are not economically a good thing, but once someone whacks some on you, you respond to ensure your adversary feels pain for doing so. So tariffs aren't used in future as a one way street to revenue raise. The shared pain is the point.
In the case of the EU it is not as entwined with the US, so the effect may be at the margins - but for say Canada, making sure Americans feel some pain for tariff imposition is an essential threat.
It's a case of the prisoner's dilemma, where the rational choice from an individual perspective is worse for everyone as backing down is specifically worse for you as it encourages your adversary to screw you.
Agreed completely.
Tariffs are game theory. If you give others a free option to impose tariffs on you with no response, then you are also saying they can increase them further with no response. It also gives you no leverage to get them to remove them in future. The rational play on their part is to keep the new status quo.
Now the response could be something other than wide ranging tariffs. Let's say, a 25% internet services sales tax on a narrowly defined set of companies. Or targeting red state exports only with 50% or 100% tariffs.
It you do that, the rational play for both parties is to, perhaps after a couple more rounds of escalation, negotiate to return to something that looks a lot more like the status quo ante. Perhaps with some moderate shifts (e.g. Germany introducing policies to increase demand, buying more US oil etc).
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Trump has just told us to go fuck ourselves with the new Online Safety Act, because it will impinge on US tech giants
Result? We are yielding
"UK willing to renegotiate online harm laws to avoid Trump tariffs
Starmer may be prepared to alter social media safety Act to accommodate US president and his ‘tech bros’ to secure favourable trade deal"
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
That is a choice that Apple has made and a marketing position they take.
Adding a back door does not mean something is not effectively encrypted. It means that it works in 99.999999999999% of situations
Add in a back door makes everything with the back door vulnerable.
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Apple has withdrawn the facility in question from the British market.
Doesn't this ignore the purpose of retaliatory tariffs - deterrence. Most know are not economically a good thing, but once someone whacks some on you, you respond to ensure your adversary feels pain for doing so. So tariffs aren't used in future as a one way street to revenue raise. The shared pain is the point.
In the case of the EU it is not as entwined with the US, so the effect may be at the margins - but for say Canada, making sure Americans feel some pain for tariff imposition is an essential threat.
It's a case of the prisoner's dilemma, where the rational choice from an individual perspective is worse for everyone as backing down is specifically worse for you as it encourages your adversary to screw you.
Agreed completely.
Tariffs are game theory. If you give others a free option to impose tariffs on you with no response, then you are also saying they can increase them further with no response. It also gives you no leverage to get them to remove them in future. The rational play on their part is to keep the new status quo.
Now the response could be something other than wide ranging tariffs. Let's say, a 25% internet services sales tax on a narrowly defined set of companies. Or targeting red state exports only with 50% or 100% tariffs.
It you do that, the rational play for both parties is to, perhaps after a couple more rounds of escalation, negotiate to return to something that looks a lot more like the status quo ante. Perhaps with some moderate shifts (e.g. Germany introducing policies to increase demand, buying more US oil etc).
Some really juicy regulation of social media platforms would be nice.
A single-fibre computer enables textile networks and distributed inference
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08568-6 Despite advancements in wearable technologies1,2, barriers remain in achieving distributed computation located persistently on the human body. Here a textile fibre computer that monolithically combines analogue sensing, digital memory, processing and communication in a mass of less than 5 g is presented. Enabled by a foldable interposer, the two-dimensional pad architectures of microdevices were mapped to three-dimensional cylindrical layouts conforming to fibre geometry. Through connection with helical copper microwires, eight microdevices were thermally drawn into a machine-washable elastic fibre capable of more than 60% stretch. This programmable fibre, which incorporates a 32-bit floating-point microcontroller, independently performs edge computing tasks even when braided, woven, knitted or seam-sewn into garments. The universality of the assembly process allows for the integration of additional functions with simple modifications, including a rechargeable fibre power source that operates the computer for nearly 6 h. Finally, we surmount the perennial limitation of rigid interconnects by implementing two wireless communication schemes involving woven optical links and seam-inserted radio-frequency communications. To demonstrate its utility, we show that garments equipped with four fibre computers, one per limb, operating individually trained neural networks achieve, on average, 67% accuracy in classifying physical activity. However, when networked, inference accuracy increases to 95% using simple weighted voting...
I am sure on a board of fellow nerds, there will be some other aficionados of Bostrom's simulation argument (https://simulation-argument.com/).
Whilst indulging in a gentle lament that I no longer have enough free hours in my life to play Civilization, it struck me that, when I did have time to play, I would sometimes build my civilisation up to a peak of performance, such that all different avenues of winning were open to me (winning the space race, diplomatic victory etc) and then, just for the fun of it, go on a relentless military rampage, combined with burning all my diplomatic bridges at once, just to see if my civilisation could wipe out all the others before anyone else build their space ship to Alpha Centauri.
Is there not extremely compelling circumstantial evidence that we are currently within a simulation in which our future-human player has decided to see whether USA can replicate my rather destructive whims?
I'm not sure whether this adds to my evening's melancholy or dissipates it. But I have a glass of Lagavulin next to me so all is not quite lost yet.
As a true nerd the only Bostrom I have heard of is Arthur Bostrom who played the ‘Good Moaning’ PC in Allo Allo.
Nick Bostrom makes a reasonably convincing argument that it is statistically far more likely that our world is a computer simulation being run by future humans with rather more computing power than us, rather than the real thing.
It's quite comforting at times such as this.
Isn't there a major flaw there....how did those future humans get there to run a simulation when all their ancestors were part of a computer simulation?
There is of course one 'real' path. But the argument goes that once a civilisation is sufficiently advanced they are likely to have the computing power to run world-realistic simulations in the way that we run computer games i.e. billions of scenarios as a hobby. These scenarios will feel life-like to those within them.
So whilst the future humans' ancestors will have been in the real world, statistically it is far more likely that we are one of the billions of scenarios run for entertainment, rather than the one real path.
ETA @foxy I just saw your comment. As for why they'd bother - same reason we (well, some of us) played Theme Hospital back in the day. Imagine being able to run your hospital/world just the way you want to and be able to answer that age old question from the history books...what would have happened if President Harris had lost to that orange-buffoon who went to prison so soon after the election?
At the risk of an unexpected lightening bolt out of the clear blue sky in Edinburgh today can i suggest the person playing this particular simulation isn't very good at the game?
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Trump has just told us to go fuck ourselves with the new Online Safety Act, because it will impinge on US tech giants
Result? We are yielding
"UK willing to renegotiate online harm laws to avoid Trump tariffs
Starmer may be prepared to alter social media safety Act to accommodate US president and his ‘tech bros’ to secure favourable trade deal"
We are in a new era of power politics, that's "what's wrong with that"
Because whatever our starting point he’s going to ask for something.
We operate our country in the way that is right for our country.
We stand up to Russia. We stand up to China. We should stand up to Trump, no matter how uncomfortable it might be for a few years.
And, to be clear, if Apple wants to operate in the UK it must abide by UK law. It is up to us if we want to amend our laws under pressure from the US but Apple has to abide by the final result.
"Knowing when to use AI turns out to be a form of wisdom, not just technical knowledge. Like most wisdom, it's somewhat paradoxical: AI is often most useful where we're already expert enough to spot its mistakes, yet least helpful in the deep work that made us experts in the first place. It works best for tasks we could do ourselves but shouldn't waste time on, yet can actively harm our learning when we use it to skip necessary struggles. "
The author, Ethan Mollick, is an AI prof at Wharton. He's generally very reliable on matters AI - and that's a good article
However, he is certainly no skeptic. He often expresses wonderment and bafflement, and openly speculates if/when AI will be conscious and sentient. And he thinks proper AGI is close, and will likely transform the world
" Yes, an unwillingness to price in even the possibility of AGI, even a weak sort-of AGI that dominates a few key industries, is weird.
(And no, markets do not perfectly account for disruptive effects of new technologies, historically, especially when the effects are unclear)"
"Knowing when to use AI turns out to be a form of wisdom, not just technical knowledge. Like most wisdom, it's somewhat paradoxical: AI is often most useful where we're already expert enough to spot its mistakes, yet least helpful in the deep work that made us experts in the first place. It works best for tasks we could do ourselves but shouldn't waste time on, yet can actively harm our learning when we use it to skip necessary struggles. "
It's certainly useful as a kind of intelligent robotic search assistant, but only so long as you remain sceptical about the factual accuracy of everything it says.
That's quite some flaw. It's only useful for things that don't matter much, such as arguing on the Internet.
Here's an example I got just recently, trying to use AI to get some veterinary advice on a complex matter, where AI got the basics 100% wrong and consequently fed me a load of terrible advice. I know it's just a search engine and not actually thinking (hence the error), but the way if you challenge it, it fesses up straight away, is just weird. I have been meaning to try and tell it it's wrong on a factual matter where it's actually correct, to see what happens....
You can challenge a true response & it will probably ”fess up” in the same way & agree with your challenge. These public LLMs have all been RLHF tuned to be very agreeable to their human conversation partner & to pretty much go along with whatever they say. You can counter this to some extent with a decent prompt, but not completely.
The confidence the text they generate projects regardless of whether they’re right or wrong is a real problem. I don’t think anyone has managed to solve it yet, although the “thinking” variants might do a better job: What happens if you give the same problem to Deepseek R1, or Claude with thinking turned on?
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Apple has withdrawn the facility in question from the British market.
I understand. The interesting question is what happens if a UK citizen in the US uses the facility and the UK courts request the data.
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Trump has just told us to go fuck ourselves with the new Online Safety Act, because it will impinge on US tech giants
Result? We are yielding
"UK willing to renegotiate online harm laws to avoid Trump tariffs
Starmer may be prepared to alter social media safety Act to accommodate US president and his ‘tech bros’ to secure favourable trade deal"
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Apple has withdrawn the facility in question from the British market.
I understand. The interesting question is what happens if a UK citizen in the US uses the facility and the UK courts request the data.
If British courts request the data, and American courts do not intervene, then Apple cannot provide the data because it is encrypted in such a way that Apple cannot decrypt it. That is a key point. What Britain is demanding is that it should not have been strongly encrypted in the first place. (This also might be taken as meaning Britain is telling American companies to weaken security for Americans, because it cannot tell whether a customer is American or British in America.)
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Trump has just told us to go fuck ourselves with the new Online Safety Act, because it will impinge on US tech giants
Result? We are yielding
"UK willing to renegotiate online harm laws to avoid Trump tariffs
Starmer may be prepared to alter social media safety Act to accommodate US president and his ‘tech bros’ to secure favourable trade deal"
We are in a new era of power politics, that's "what's wrong with that"
Because whatever our starting point he’s going to ask for something.
We operate our country in the way that is right for our country.
We stand up to Russia. We stand up to China. We should stand up to Trump, no matter how uncomfortable it might be for a few years.
And, to be clear, if Apple wants to operate in the UK it must abide by UK law. It is up to us if we want to amend our laws under pressure from the US but Apple has to abide by the final result.
But that isn't true, is it? We are so economically, politically and militarily dependent on the USA - and now ALSO technologically subjugated - we have no option but to jump yay high when asked
eg Let's say Apple responded to a wild new UK lawby saying "We will withdraw all apple products from the UK and they shall cease to function in five weeks, unless you change this law", meaning all owners of iPhones, Apple watches, macs, etc, are fucked
Apple could afford to do this, quite easily, it is so big - it might be painful but Britain is not a huge market for them, it is not China or the EU. And it would be an impressive show of strength pour encourager les autres
Such would be the outcry from voters any UK government would fold and seek a humiliating compromise, or maybe we could ask the UN or the Hague or the government of Mauritius to step in and help us tell those Americans a thing or two?
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
1) Strong encryption is, essentially, un-bannable. I have a T-Shirt, back from when the US government was trying to declare all strong encryption a munition. It has a 4 line Perl script that implements unlimited key length RSA.
It’s been shortened to 3 lines,
(deleted, as the characters mess with blockquotes)
That’s the whole game, right there.
2) strong encryption protects our world. Not just your money, the ownership records of your property….. If you build in back doors, mathematically, this is a common vulnerability. That’s trying to make Die Hard 4 actually - imagine the fun if Russian hackers got into such a back door? And turned off all the infrastructure?
3) So what is going on? In past times, the police and security services tapped into unencrypted communications. Not exactly legal and it wasn’t used in court. That door is closing.
What has really changed is the incorporation of high quality encryption (written about in books etc since before computers) into everyday apps.
You are using it right now - https in your browser.
Well, they could comply. But only at the cost of removing effective encryption, which would be absurd. Government doesn't seem to understand that there's no real way to give only government privileged access.
As an aside, both Apple and Samsung have already tested new hardware encryption systems, in anticipation of quantum cracking of RSA, should it ever happen.
On topic, on the economics I agree with Robert. The cure to the lack of growth in Germany is to increase their domestic demand, not run up ever larger surpluses. Economically, it will be easy to offset the effect of the tariffs and then some by doing that very unGerman thing of running deficits. The real risk to their economy is the challenges Merz faces in overcoming debt limits so he can do that.
Politically, its a different story. The pressure of the EU as a whole to respond will be immense, not least from some countries such as France, that already run trade deficits. The EU also has an overinflated view of its own importance. There is also the risk of becoming a punch bag for Trump who is an arrogant bully. Responding threatens further retaliation but so does not responding if he finds, as Robert suggests, that the effect is minimal. Having had a free hit he will try something else confident that the recipient will once again just take it like the victim of a school yard bully.
The more important response, as Merz has already said, will be to reduce the links between the US and Europe in defence, the supply of strategic services (such as in IT) and in political terms. They are no longer a reliable friend. All of Europe, including us, must act accordingly.
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Trump has just told us to go fuck ourselves with the new Online Safety Act, because it will impinge on US tech giants
Result? We are yielding
"UK willing to renegotiate online harm laws to avoid Trump tariffs
Starmer may be prepared to alter social media safety Act to accommodate US president and his ‘tech bros’ to secure favourable trade deal"
We are in a new era of power politics, that's "what's wrong with that"
Because whatever our starting point he’s going to ask for something.
We operate our country in the way that is right for our country.
We stand up to Russia. We stand up to China. We should stand up to Trump, no matter how uncomfortable it might be for a few years.
And, to be clear, if Apple wants to operate in the UK it must abide by UK law. It is up to us if we want to amend our laws under pressure from the US but Apple has to abide by the final result.
But that isn't true, is it? We are so economically, politically and militarily dependent on the USA - and now ALSO technologically subjugated - we have no option but to jump yay high when asked
eg Let's say Apple responded to a wild new UK lawby saying "We will withdraw all apple products from the UK and they shall cease to function in five weeks, unless you change this law", meaning all owners of iPhones, Apple watches, macs, etc, are fucked
Apple could afford to do this, quite easily, it is so big - it might be painful but Britain is not a huge market for them, it is not China or the EU. And it would be an impressive show of strength pour encourager les autres
Such would be the outcry from voters any UK government would fold and seek a humiliating compromise, or maybe we could ask the UN or the Hague or the government of Mauritius to step in and help us tell those Americans a thing or two?
Apple couldn't afford to do it as nobody anywhere in the world would buy an iPhone again. Apart from that a flawless argument
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Trump has just told us to go fuck ourselves with the new Online Safety Act, because it will impinge on US tech giants
Result? We are yielding
"UK willing to renegotiate online harm laws to avoid Trump tariffs
Starmer may be prepared to alter social media safety Act to accommodate US president and his ‘tech bros’ to secure favourable trade deal"
We are in a new era of power politics, that's "what's wrong with that"
Because whatever our starting point he’s going to ask for something.
We operate our country in the way that is right for our country.
We stand up to Russia. We stand up to China. We should stand up to Trump, no matter how uncomfortable it might be for a few years.
And, to be clear, if Apple wants to operate in the UK it must abide by UK law. It is up to us if we want to amend our laws under pressure from the US but Apple has to abide by the final result.
But that isn't true, is it? We are so economically, politically and militarily dependent on the USA - and now ALSO technologically subjugated - we have no option but to jump yay high when asked
eg Let's say Apple responded to a wild new UK lawby saying "We will withdraw all apple products from the UK and they shall cease to function in five weeks, unless you change this law", meaning all owners of iPhones, Apple watches, macs, etc, are fucked
Apple could afford to do this, quite easily, it is so big - it might be painful but Britain is not a huge market for them, it is not China or the EU. And it would be an impressive show of strength pour encourager les autres
Such would be the outcry from voters any UK government would fold and seek a humiliating compromise, or maybe we could ask the UN or the Hague or the government of Mauritius to step in and help us tell those Americans a thing or two?
Welcome to the realisation that there's no such thing as absolute sovereignty.
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Trump has just told us to go fuck ourselves with the new Online Safety Act, because it will impinge on US tech giants
Result? We are yielding
"UK willing to renegotiate online harm laws to avoid Trump tariffs
Starmer may be prepared to alter social media safety Act to accommodate US president and his ‘tech bros’ to secure favourable trade deal"
We are in a new era of power politics, that's "what's wrong with that"
Because whatever our starting point he’s going to ask for something.
We operate our country in the way that is right for our country.
We stand up to Russia. We stand up to China. We should stand up to Trump, no matter how uncomfortable it might be for a few years.
And, to be clear, if Apple wants to operate in the UK it must abide by UK law. It is up to us if we want to amend our laws under pressure from the US but Apple has to abide by the final result.
But that isn't true, is it? We are so economically, politically and militarily dependent on the USA - and now ALSO technologically subjugated - we have no option but to jump yay high when asked
eg Let's say Apple responded to a wild new UK lawby saying "We will withdraw all apple products from the UK and they shall cease to function in five weeks, unless you change this law", meaning all owners of iPhones, Apple watches, macs, etc, are fucked
Apple could afford to do this, quite easily, it is so big - it might be painful but Britain is not a huge market for them, it is not China or the EU. And it would be an impressive show of strength pour encourager les autres
Such would be the outcry from voters any UK government would fold and seek a humiliating compromise, or maybe we could ask the UN or the Hague or the government of Mauritius to step in and help us tell those Americans a thing or two?
Apple couldn't afford to do it as nobody anywhere in the world would buy an iPhone again. Apart from that a flawless argument
You think if Apple withdrew from the UK market because of some obscure legal dispute between Apple and His Majesty's Government, then everyone else in the world would throw their iPhones in the bin and never buy a new Apple poduct ever, such is the infuence of UK soft power?
I submit that you are on ketamine, but other than that, a flawless argument
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Trump has just told us to go fuck ourselves with the new Online Safety Act, because it will impinge on US tech giants
Result? We are yielding
"UK willing to renegotiate online harm laws to avoid Trump tariffs
Starmer may be prepared to alter social media safety Act to accommodate US president and his ‘tech bros’ to secure favourable trade deal"
We are in a new era of power politics, that's "what's wrong with that"
Because whatever our starting point he’s going to ask for something.
We operate our country in the way that is right for our country.
We stand up to Russia. We stand up to China. We should stand up to Trump, no matter how uncomfortable it might be for a few years.
And, to be clear, if Apple wants to operate in the UK it must abide by UK law. It is up to us if we want to amend our laws under pressure from the US but Apple has to abide by the final result.
But that isn't true, is it? We are so economically, politically and militarily dependent on the USA - and now ALSO technologically subjugated - we have no option but to jump yay high when asked
eg Let's say Apple responded to a wild new UK lawby saying "We will withdraw all apple products from the UK and they shall cease to function in five weeks, unless you change this law", meaning all owners of iPhones, Apple watches, macs, etc, are fucked
Apple could afford to do this, quite easily, it is so big - it might be painful but Britain is not a huge market for them, it is not China or the EU. And it would be an impressive show of strength pour encourager les autres
Such would be the outcry from voters any UK government would fold and seek a humiliating compromise, or maybe we could ask the UN or the Hague or the government of Mauritius to step in and help us tell those Americans a thing or two?
They could do that, but they wouldn’t as it wouldn’t be value maximising - it would undermine all sales in other markets.
But don’t you think there is a fundamental problem in society where privately owned company are more powerful than governments?
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Apple has withdrawn the facility in question from the British market.
I understand. The interesting question is what happens if a UK citizen in the US uses the facility and the UK courts request the data.
If British courts request the data, and American courts do not intervene, then Apple cannot provide the data because it is encrypted in such a way that Apple cannot decrypt it. That is a key point. What Britain is demanding is that it should not have been strongly encrypted in the first place. (This also might be taken as meaning Britain is telling American companies to weaken security for Americans, because it cannot tell whether a customer is American or British in America.)
IANAL but I don’t believe that “I can’t” is a sufficient defence against a court order especially as Apple has demonstrated in advance by withdrawing the product from the UK market that it is not willing to comply with the law.
On topic, on the economics I agree with Robert. The cure to the lack of growth in Germany is to increase their domestic demand, not run up ever larger surpluses. Economically, it will be easy to offset the effect of the tariffs and then some by doing that very unGerman thing of running deficits. The real risk to their economy is the challenges Merz faces in overcoming debt limits so he can do that.
Politically, its a different story. The pressure of the EU as a whole to respond will be immense, not least from some countries such as France, that already run trade deficits. The EU also has an overinflated view of its own importance. There is also the risk of becoming a punch bag for Trump who is an arrogant bully. Responding threatens further retaliation but so does not responding if he finds, as Robert suggests, that the effect is minimal. Having had a free hit he will try something else confident that the recipient will once again just take it like the victim of a school yard bully.
The more important response, as Merz has already said, will be to reduce the links between the US and Europe in defence, the supply of strategic services (such as in IT) and in political terms. They are no longer a reliable friend. All of Europe, including us, must act accordingly.
Agreed.
Europe - and the UK - need to come to the same realisation that's just occurred to Leon. Without technological near parity with either/both China and/or the US, then our options to determine our own futures are quite heavily constrained.
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
1) Strong encryption is, essentially, un-bannable. I have a T-Shirt, back from when the US government was trying to declare all strong encryption a munition. It has a 4 line Perl script that implements unlimited key length RSA.
2) strong encryption protects our world. Not just your money, the ownership records of your property….. If you build in back doors, mathematically, this is a common vulnerability. That’s trying to make Die Hard 4 actually - imagine the fun if Russian hackers got into such a back door? And turned off all the infrastructure?
3) So what is going on? In past times, the police and security services tapped into unencrypted communications. Not exactly legal and it wasn’t used in court. That door is closing.
What has really changed is the incorporation of high quality encryption (written about in books etc since before computers) into everyday apps.
You are using it right now - https in your browser.
As an aside, RSA public key cryptography was invented in Britain but made an official secret because espionage (which was probably fed back to Moscow anyway) was deemed more important than squillions of pounds of ecommerce (and then the Americans RSA re-discovered, patented and announced it and now we can buy stuff off Amazon 24x7).
FPT: I would suggest that the number of birds that die from actually contacting wind turbine blades is very small.
They are already dead by the time they make contact.
What kills birds (and onshore, bats) is the pressure wave that moves in front of the blades. That pressure wave bursts their lungs. So the colour of the blades really doesnt matter.
That doesn't mean there's not a value to painting them: birds are unlikely to want to fly near to fast moving things they can see.
In which case you paint them neon orange. With silhouettes in black of raptors on them. But I doubt birds don't see them, once they are moving. All birds are attuned to movement, as it is a natural defence against predators.
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Trump has just told us to go fuck ourselves with the new Online Safety Act, because it will impinge on US tech giants
Result? We are yielding
"UK willing to renegotiate online harm laws to avoid Trump tariffs
Starmer may be prepared to alter social media safety Act to accommodate US president and his ‘tech bros’ to secure favourable trade deal"
We are in a new era of power politics, that's "what's wrong with that"
Because whatever our starting point he’s going to ask for something.
We operate our country in the way that is right for our country.
We stand up to Russia. We stand up to China. We should stand up to Trump, no matter how uncomfortable it might be for a few years.
And, to be clear, if Apple wants to operate in the UK it must abide by UK law. It is up to us if we want to amend our laws under pressure from the US but Apple has to abide by the final result.
But that isn't true, is it? We are so economically, politically and militarily dependent on the USA - and now ALSO technologically subjugated - we have no option but to jump yay high when asked
eg Let's say Apple responded to a wild new UK lawby saying "We will withdraw all apple products from the UK and they shall cease to function in five weeks, unless you change this law", meaning all owners of iPhones, Apple watches, macs, etc, are fucked
Apple could afford to do this, quite easily, it is so big - it might be painful but Britain is not a huge market for them, it is not China or the EU. And it would be an impressive show of strength pour encourager les autres
Such would be the outcry from voters any UK government would fold and seek a humiliating compromise, or maybe we could ask the UN or the Hague or the government of Mauritius to step in and help us tell those Americans a thing or two?
They could do that, but they wouldn’t as it wouldn’t be value maximising - it would undermine all sales in other markets.
But don’t you think there is a fundamental problem in society where privately owned company are more powerful than governments?
Apple did it to Russia in 2022. Apple seems to have survived this near-total withdrawal from the Russian market
Of course this is an extreme example, but I am testing an extreme hypothesis, showing that the tech giants will cut off entire markets if suitably provoked. But of course it would never get that far, voter pressure on the UK government (which Putin does not have to worry about) would mean London would seek a compromise with Cupertino, probably quite a humiliating compromise for a sovereign nation cowed by a mere corporation
We can still, however, order our own flu vaccines...
The FDA vaccine committee meeting on how to update next season's flu vaccine was abruptly cancelled today with no explanation, CBS confirms via Dr Paul Offitt https://x.com/margbrennan/status/1894893405609541707
I think Rolls Royce is the most impressive British corporate turnaround story of all time. I can't remember anything that comes close, good for shareholders who got in during COVID too, I'm sitting at 9x now 👌
The header is at least arguably reasonable from an economic viewpoint, but unwise from a political viewpoint. The US needs to feel that further sanctions would be uncomfortable.
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Apple has withdrawn the facility in question from the British market.
I understand. The interesting question is what happens if a UK citizen in the US uses the facility and the UK courts request the data.
If British courts request the data, and American courts do not intervene, then Apple cannot provide the data because it is encrypted in such a way that Apple cannot decrypt it. That is a key point. What Britain is demanding is that it should not have been strongly encrypted in the first place. (This also might be taken as meaning Britain is telling American companies to weaken security for Americans, because it cannot tell whether a customer is American or British in America.)
IANAL but I don’t believe that “I can’t” is a sufficient defence against a court order especially as Apple has demonstrated in advance by withdrawing the product from the UK market that it is not willing to comply with the law.
What is your point? It is mathematically impossible and if you think a British court can overpower the government of the United States (and mathematics) then I've got a bridge to sell you. And that is betting without American courts nixing any warrant served on Apple.
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Trump has just told us to go fuck ourselves with the new Online Safety Act, because it will impinge on US tech giants
Result? We are yielding
"UK willing to renegotiate online harm laws to avoid Trump tariffs
Starmer may be prepared to alter social media safety Act to accommodate US president and his ‘tech bros’ to secure favourable trade deal"
We are in a new era of power politics, that's "what's wrong with that"
Because whatever our starting point he’s going to ask for something.
We operate our country in the way that is right for our country.
We stand up to Russia. We stand up to China. We should stand up to Trump, no matter how uncomfortable it might be for a few years.
And, to be clear, if Apple wants to operate in the UK it must abide by UK law. It is up to us if we want to amend our laws under pressure from the US but Apple has to abide by the final result.
But that isn't true, is it? We are so economically, politically and militarily dependent on the USA - and now ALSO technologically subjugated - we have no option but to jump yay high when asked
eg Let's say Apple responded to a wild new UK lawby saying "We will withdraw all apple products from the UK and they shall cease to function in five weeks, unless you change this law", meaning all owners of iPhones, Apple watches, macs, etc, are fucked
Apple could afford to do this, quite easily, it is so big - it might be painful but Britain is not a huge market for them, it is not China or the EU. And it would be an impressive show of strength pour encourager les autres
Such would be the outcry from voters any UK government would fold and seek a humiliating compromise, or maybe we could ask the UN or the Hague or the government of Mauritius to step in and help us tell those Americans a thing or two?
Apple couldn't afford to do it as nobody anywhere in the world would buy an iPhone again. Apart from that a flawless argument
The header is at least arguably reasonable from an economic viewpoint, but unwise from a political viewpoint. The US needs to feel that further sanctions would be uncomfortable.
Trouble is, things are complicated by the fact President Trump thinks that he is the one retaliating because he wrongly believes VAT is a tariff on American goods.
On topic, on the economics I agree with Robert. The cure to the lack of growth in Germany is to increase their domestic demand, not run up ever larger surpluses. Economically, it will be easy to offset the effect of the tariffs and then some by doing that very unGerman thing of running deficits. The real risk to their economy is the challenges Merz faces in overcoming debt limits so he can do that.
Politically, its a different story. The pressure of the EU as a whole to respond will be immense, not least from some countries such as France, that already run trade deficits. The EU also has an overinflated view of its own importance. There is also the risk of becoming a punch bag for Trump who is an arrogant bully. Responding threatens further retaliation but so does not responding if he finds, as Robert suggests, that the effect is minimal. Having had a free hit he will try something else confident that the recipient will once again just take it like the victim of a school yard bully.
The more important response, as Merz has already said, will be to reduce the links between the US and Europe in defence, the supply of strategic services (such as in IT) and in political terms. They are no longer a reliable friend. All of Europe, including us, must act accordingly.
Agreed.
Europe - and the UK - need to come to the same realisation that's just occurred to Leon. Without technological near parity with either/both China and/or the US, then our options to determine our own futures are quite heavily constrained.
It is possibly too late for the EU/UK to reach tech parity with the US or China
One of the big two - probably both? - will go FOOM soon and then they will be so far out of reach the attempt to catch up will be futile
That said, once the robots are really ruling the world, they might turn Beijing and Washington into gloop, just for the lolz, so it won't matter. Such are the unique properties of an Event Horizon
On topic, on the economics I agree with Robert. The cure to the lack of growth in Germany is to increase their domestic demand, not run up ever larger surpluses. Economically, it will be easy to offset the effect of the tariffs and then some by doing that very unGerman thing of running deficits. The real risk to their economy is the challenges Merz faces in overcoming debt limits so he can do that.
Politically, its a different story. The pressure of the EU as a whole to respond will be immense, not least from some countries such as France, that already run trade deficits. The EU also has an overinflated view of its own importance. There is also the risk of becoming a punch bag for Trump who is an arrogant bully. Responding threatens further retaliation but so does not responding if he finds, as Robert suggests, that the effect is minimal. Having had a free hit he will try something else confident that the recipient will once again just take it like the victim of a school yard bully.
The more important response, as Merz has already said, will be to reduce the links between the US and Europe in defence, the supply of strategic services (such as in IT) and in political terms. They are no longer a reliable friend. All of Europe, including us, must act accordingly.
Agreed.
Europe - and the UK - need to come to the same realisation that's just occurred to Leon. Without technological near parity with either/both China and/or the US, then our options to determine our own futures are quite heavily constrained.
We had parity before the single market was created. Paradoxically it has made the European economy weaker instead of stronger.
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
That is a choice that Apple has made and a marketing position they take.
Adding a back door does not mean something is not effectively encrypted. It means that it works in 99.999999999999% of situations
Add in a back door makes everything with the back door vulnerable.
That’s unlimited key length encryption. Right there.
Putting a back door in everything will make the whole world vulnerable.
And here’s a fun one. The politicians are addicted to WhatsApp. With a back door open to law enforcement under a sealed warrant…. Do you think Trump would hold back?
This sounds rather like a sop to Mr Trump's windmills brainstorm, and a stirring opportunity for the Telegrunt, tbh. Trump first got excited about wind farms and birds when someone built one in the sea next to his golf course in 2011; I assume he needed a narrative to stop them, and it became embedded.
Is the pilot study continuing to November 2029 by any chance?
(Update: I see it is a four year project. Bingo - maybe, or at least conveniently. There are going to be a lot of tactical pilots running until the end of 2029. The scheme will run for four years, and test a variety of paint jobs, including striped turbines and all-black design. )
Not sure why they need a pilot study. The Norwegians (not for the first time) have been well ahead of us on this and have found that painting one blade on each turbine black reduces bird strikes by around 70%
A single-fibre computer enables textile networks and distributed inference
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08568-6 Despite advancements in wearable technologies1,2, barriers remain in achieving distributed computation located persistently on the human body. Here a textile fibre computer that monolithically combines analogue sensing, digital memory, processing and communication in a mass of less than 5 g is presented. Enabled by a foldable interposer, the two-dimensional pad architectures of microdevices were mapped to three-dimensional cylindrical layouts conforming to fibre geometry. Through connection with helical copper microwires, eight microdevices were thermally drawn into a machine-washable elastic fibre capable of more than 60% stretch. This programmable fibre, which incorporates a 32-bit floating-point microcontroller, independently performs edge computing tasks even when braided, woven, knitted or seam-sewn into garments. The universality of the assembly process allows for the integration of additional functions with simple modifications, including a rechargeable fibre power source that operates the computer for nearly 6 h. Finally, we surmount the perennial limitation of rigid interconnects by implementing two wireless communication schemes involving woven optical links and seam-inserted radio-frequency communications. To demonstrate its utility, we show that garments equipped with four fibre computers, one per limb, operating individually trained neural networks achieve, on average, 67% accuracy in classifying physical activity. However, when networked, inference accuracy increases to 95% using simple weighted voting...
"Knowing when to use AI turns out to be a form of wisdom, not just technical knowledge. Like most wisdom, it's somewhat paradoxical: AI is often most useful where we're already expert enough to spot its mistakes, yet least helpful in the deep work that made us experts in the first place. It works best for tasks we could do ourselves but shouldn't waste time on, yet can actively harm our learning when we use it to skip necessary struggles. "
This seems very sensible.
Can I ask AI experts a question. When AI is asked whether or not it possesses sentience, consciousness, awareness etc, has AI yet produced interesting or convincing replies, dialogues or conversations in either direction?
FPT: I would suggest that the number of birds that die from actually contacting wind turbine blades is very small.
They are already dead by the time they make contact.
What kills birds (and onshore, bats) is the pressure wave that moves in front of the blades. That pressure wave bursts their lungs. So the colour of the blades really doesnt matter.
Not according to the studies - see my previous comment.
Comments
The two best reasons not to retaliate when your exports are discriminated against are, firstly, that you raise your own cost of living and reduce the efficiency of your industries to no benefit as the tariff increases are passed on, particularly if they are expected to last a long time. Secondly, the other side may retaliate against your retaliation, especially with somebody as spiteful as Trump in charge, setting off a downward spiral.
A small change in your currency or whatever is trivial compared to those drawbacks.
I agree that Germany should be less dependent on international demand. For decades it has been dumping its deficient domestic demand on other countries, including us. This leads to instability in the financial system, as Germany accumulates assets in other countries and weakens their currencies. But Germany isn't actually that dependent on exports to the US, which is only about 2% of its GDP. And a shock to that trade is too small to make a country question its entire macroeconomic model.
I would suggest quite targetted tariffs on discretionary goods, particularly from red states.
https://www.oneusefulthing.org/p/15-times-to-use-ai-and-5-not-to
I thought this a good point:
"Knowing when to use AI turns out to be a form of wisdom, not just technical knowledge. Like most wisdom, it's somewhat paradoxical: AI is often most useful where we're already expert enough to spot its mistakes, yet least helpful in the deep work that made us experts in the first place. It works best for tasks we could do ourselves but shouldn't waste time on, yet can actively harm our learning when we use it to skip necessary struggles. "
They are already dead by the time they make contact.
What kills birds (and onshore, bats) is the pressure wave that moves in front of the blades. That pressure wave bursts their lungs. So the colour of the blades really doesnt matter.
The Daily Express reported it a month ago::
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2002169/wind-turbines-painted-black-save-birds
Is the pilot study continuing to November 2029 by any chance?
(Update: I see it is a four year project. Bingo - maybe, or at least conveniently. There are going to be a lot of tactical pilots running until the end of 2029.
The scheme will run for four years, and test a variety of paint jobs, including striped turbines and all-black design. )
Full piece: https://archive.is/20250226164405/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/02/26/wind-turbines-paint-black-donald-trump-birds-keir-starmer/
In the case of the EU it is not as entwined with the US, so the effect may be at the margins - but for say Canada, making sure Americans feel some pain for tariff imposition is an essential threat.
It's a case of the prisoner's dilemma, where the rational choice from an individual perspective is worse for everyone as backing down is specifically worse for you as it encourages your adversary to screw you.
I can live with that.
Suella's comment had me searching for the Cecil Rhodes comment about being born an Englishman i.e. your nationality (until 1983 in the UK) was down to luck. However the Wikipedia page on Rhodes stated that in his will he wanted to finance a secret society for the purpose of:
Back home after three months mostly in the world of the 15%.
A propos very little, in horse racing hurdle boards and rails were painted white as vets discovered horses see white better than green.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
Backkground: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yvn90pl5no
Did you visit the Cardboard Cathedral in Christchurch?
What did you think?
https://www.cardboardcathedral.org.nz/
Tuesday, 7th March 2023
In the meantime, Gary Lineker tweets provocative comments about small boats (comparing Tories with Nazis) and creates a huge storm. Instead of leaving the BBC to sort it out amongst themselves, some of our people, including the increasingly voluble Sir John Hayes, weigh in making it look like it’s ‘Tories vs Football’. There will be only one winner, and it won’t be us.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
As an aside, Changi Airport in Singapore has changed since my last visit in 2006 - it is stupefyingly awesome and the one thing it does which I’ve not seen elsewhere is they do the security check of the cabin luggage and passengers at the gates instead of at one central point so once you’ve checked in and done the passport check to go airside you can explore.
I know people snipe at UK border control but it’s okay - much better than the US where we spent nearly an hour in the queue to go through their immigration.
New Zealand are very quick with the passport control but they then scan all your luggage just in case you aren’t bringing in anything which will disrupt the ecosystem. You can be an illegal migrant and that’s fine but try bringing in the wrong fruit and veg and you’re about as welcome as a durian on the Singapore MRT.
So whilst the future humans' ancestors will have been in the real world, statistically it is far more likely that we are one of the billions of scenarios run for entertainment, rather than the one real path.
ETA @foxy I just saw your comment. As for why they'd bother - same reason we (well, some of us) played Theme Hospital back in the day. Imagine being able to run your hospital/world just the way you want to and be able to answer that age old question from the history books...what would have happened if President Harris had lost to that orange-buffoon who went to prison so soon after the election?
Unfortunately, credulity about AI output is quite common.
I have a partner who insists on sending me AI generated "analyses" of
companies and economies: in vain have I pointed that these read like the work of an earnest error-prone 16 year old swot....
...who has read ALL the available material, yet produced a "synthesis" which fails to get below the surface froth and to boot makes a series of
asinine errors.
AI Gets Rapidly Smarter, And Makes Some Of Us Dumber (Sabine Hossenfelder)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipLA7E-X7Lk
Or if you just want a laugh, here is an AI-generated fake Jeremy Clarkson car review:-
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/eF_hrD8va5Y
https://www.racingpost.com/news/international/japan/how-japan-is-using-ai-to-train-racehorses-and-assist-data-push-to-find-perfect-candidate-for-arc-breakthrough-a9UMY6u1nhqj/ (£££)
“The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia,”
Further, the original demands to Apple had no territorial limits. They wanted universal access to *all* Apple customers data, worldwide.
Apple responded by ending end-to-end encryption (which they can’t provide access to) in the U.K.
Yes, the UK Government's approach is ridiculous and, once again, betrays the political class' almost total ignorance of basic tech matters. Sunak in some ways was rather better at this, recognising the importance of AI.
The age of voters being even a teeny bit grateful to politicians seems to have passed. Try not to enrage them and hope your opponents fcuk up even more seems to be the way.
1. Mo Salah: 42
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2. Harry Kane: 28
3. Omar Marmoush: 27
https://x.com/Betfred/status/1894865610401624422
The main drawback currently is their turf horses run on firm tracks and the Arc is usually run on a soft or heavy surface.
Tate brothers have boarded a private jet to US, Florida.
https://x.com/TateNews_/status/1894999365292564606
That will give President Trump something to talk about. Hope Starmer's been briefed.
I wonder what roles in the Trump cabinet have been pencilled in for them?
Adding a back door does not mean something is not effectively encrypted. It means that it works in 99.999999999999% of situations
It’s been shortened to 3 lines, since
#!/bin/perl -s-- -export-a-crypto-system-sig -RSA-3-lines-PERL
$m=unpack(H.$w,$m."\0"x$w),$_=`echo "16do$w 2+4Oi0$d*-^1[d2%Sa
2/d0<X+d*La1=z\U$n%0]SX$k"[$m*]\EszlXx++p|dc`,s/^.|\W//g,print
pack('H*',$_)while read(STDIN,$m,($w=2*$d-1+length$n&~1)/2)
That’s the whole game, right there.
2) strong encryption protects our world. Not just your money, the ownership records of your property….. If you build in back doors, mathematically, this is a common vulnerability. That’s trying to make Die Hard 4 actually - imagine the fun if Russian hackers got into such a back door? And turned off all the infrastructure?
3) So what is going on? In past times, the police and security services tapped into unencrypted communications. Not exactly legal and it wasn’t used in court. That door is closing.
What has really changed is the incorporation of high quality encryption (written about in books etc since before computers) into everyday apps.
You are using it right now - https in your browser.
For a start you've got the basic, recent location shoot in Berlin, of the Reichsbank, next to the famous enormous Marksmacht coin-printing machine, from 1908, with its half mile high steampunks cogs etc. Sure, that's easy enough to photograph, once you're in Berlin. Ditto the curious but majestic "Grossreichsletter" - the German method of propulgating laws by turning them into six kilometre long gold scrolls and suspending them over government buildings. Again, easy enough to shoot, IF you get the right moment - especially as at that moment the Germans always send out huge trucks and planes delivering news of the law to outlying parts of the Bundesrepublik - that lends the image a natural drama, ably captured here...
But, if you look top left, you can see the tell tale traces of Elon Musk's Starlink satellites. How did Rob arrange that? Surely only by paying Elon Musk several millions. So though the image looks natural enough at first glance, almost a boring stock shot of Berlin, in reality it must have cost the PB Team squillions and I for one will bear this in mind the next time they ask for donations
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2025/02/an-icloud-backdoor-would-make-our-phones-less-safe.html
Note the story of Greek telephone system.
Tariffs are game theory. If you give others a free option to impose tariffs on you with no response, then you are also saying they can increase them further with no response. It also gives you no leverage to get them to remove them in future. The rational play on their part is to keep the new status quo.
Now the response could be something other than wide ranging tariffs. Let's say, a 25% internet services sales tax on a narrowly defined set of companies. Or targeting red state exports only with 50% or 100% tariffs.
It you do that, the rational play for both parties is to, perhaps after a couple more rounds of escalation, negotiate to return to something that looks a lot more like the status quo ante. Perhaps with some moderate shifts (e.g. Germany introducing policies to increase demand, buying more US oil etc).
Result? We are yielding
"UK willing to renegotiate online harm laws to avoid Trump tariffs
Starmer may be prepared to alter social media safety Act to accommodate US president and his ‘tech bros’ to secure favourable trade deal"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2025/02/09/uk-willing-rework-online-harms-bill-avoid-trump-tariffs/
We are in a new era of power politics, that's "what's wrong with that"
But it’s a trade off between that and giving bad actors a completely private communication channel.
A single-fibre computer enables textile networks and distributed inference
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08568-6
Despite advancements in wearable technologies1,2, barriers remain in achieving distributed computation located persistently on the human body. Here a textile fibre computer that monolithically combines analogue sensing, digital memory, processing and communication in a mass of less than 5 g is presented. Enabled by a foldable interposer, the two-dimensional pad architectures of microdevices were mapped to three-dimensional cylindrical layouts conforming to fibre geometry. Through connection with helical copper microwires, eight microdevices were thermally drawn into a machine-washable elastic fibre capable of more than 60% stretch. This programmable fibre, which incorporates a 32-bit floating-point microcontroller, independently performs edge computing tasks even when braided, woven, knitted or seam-sewn into garments. The universality of the assembly process allows for the integration of additional functions with simple modifications, including a rechargeable fibre power source that operates the computer for nearly 6 h. Finally, we surmount the perennial limitation of rigid interconnects by implementing two wireless communication schemes involving woven optical links and seam-inserted radio-frequency communications. To demonstrate its utility, we show that garments equipped with four fibre computers, one per limb, operating individually trained neural networks achieve, on average, 67% accuracy in classifying physical activity. However, when networked, inference accuracy increases to 95% using simple weighted voting...
We operate our country in the way that is right for our country.
We stand up to Russia. We stand up to China. We should stand up to Trump, no matter how uncomfortable it might be for a few years.
And, to be clear, if Apple wants to operate in the UK it must abide by UK law. It is up to us if we want to amend our laws under pressure from the US but Apple has to abide by the final result.
However, he is certainly no skeptic. He often expresses wonderment and bafflement, and openly speculates if/when AI will be conscious and sentient. And he thinks proper AGI is close, and will likely transform the world
" Yes, an unwillingness to price in even the possibility of AGI, even a weak sort-of AGI that dominates a few key industries, is weird.
(And no, markets do not perfectly account for disruptive effects of new technologies, historically, especially when the effects are unclear)"
https://x.com/emollick/status/1885942656158564585
The confidence the text they generate projects regardless of whether they’re right or wrong is a real problem. I don’t think anyone has managed to solve it yet, although the “thinking” variants might do a better job: What happens if you give the same problem to Deepseek R1, or Claude with thinking turned on?
eg Let's say Apple responded to a wild new UK lawby saying "We will withdraw all apple products from the UK and they shall cease to function in five weeks, unless you change this law", meaning all owners of iPhones, Apple watches, macs, etc, are fucked
Apple could afford to do this, quite easily, it is so big - it might be painful but Britain is not a huge market for them, it is not China or the EU. And it would be an impressive show of strength pour encourager les autres
Such would be the outcry from voters any UK government would fold and seek a humiliating compromise, or maybe we could ask the UN or the Hague or the government of Mauritius to step in and help us tell those Americans a thing or two?
Government doesn't seem to understand that there's no real way to give only government privileged access.
As an aside, both Apple and Samsung have already tested new hardware encryption systems, in anticipation of quantum cracking of RSA, should it ever happen.
Politically, its a different story. The pressure of the EU as a whole to respond will be immense, not least from some countries such as France, that already run trade deficits. The EU also has an overinflated view of its own importance. There is also the risk of becoming a punch bag for Trump who is an arrogant bully. Responding threatens further retaliation but so does not responding if he finds, as Robert suggests, that the effect is minimal. Having had a free hit he will try something else confident that the recipient will once again just take it like the victim of a school yard bully.
The more important response, as Merz has already said, will be to reduce the links between the US and Europe in defence, the supply of strategic services (such as in IT) and in political terms. They are no longer a reliable friend. All of Europe, including us, must act accordingly.
I submit that you are on ketamine, but other than that, a flawless argument
But don’t you think there is a fundamental problem in society where privately owned company are more powerful than governments?
Europe - and the UK - need to come to the same realisation that's just occurred to Leon.
Without technological near parity with either/both China and/or the US, then our options to determine our own futures are quite heavily constrained.
More on the subject here:
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/wind/wind-turbines-kill-too-many-birds-and-bats-how-can-we-make-them-safer
Of course this is an extreme example, but I am testing an extreme hypothesis, showing that the tech giants will cut off entire markets if suitably provoked. But of course it would never get that far, voter pressure on the UK government (which Putin does not have to worry about) would mean London would seek a compromise with Cupertino, probably quite a humiliating compromise for a sovereign nation cowed by a mere corporation
The FDA vaccine committee meeting on how to update next season's flu vaccine was abruptly cancelled today with no explanation, CBS confirms via Dr Paul Offitt
https://x.com/margbrennan/status/1894893405609541707
One of the big two - probably both? - will go FOOM soon and then they will be so far out of reach the attempt to catch up will be futile
That said, once the robots are really ruling the world, they might turn Beijing and Washington into gloop, just for the lolz, so it won't matter. Such are the unique properties of an Event Horizon
Edit - though once again the Telegraph should sack their writers -or reprogramme their AI.
"Hollywood star best known for his role in Bonnie and Clyde ..."
I mean really??
The French Connection, Unforgiven, Mississippi Burning, Superman, The Royal Tenenbaums?
And they say his best known role was Bonnie and Clyde?
#!/bin/perl -s-- -export-a-crypto-system-sig -RSA-3-lines-PERL
$m=unpack(H.$w,$m."\0"x$w),$_=`echo "16do$w 2+4Oi0$d*-^1[d2%Sa
2/d0<X+d*La1=z\U$n%0]SX$k"[$m*]\EszlXx++p|dc`,s/^.|\W//g,print
pack('H*',$_)while read(STDIN,$m,($w=2*$d-1+length$n&~1)/2)
That’s unlimited key length encryption. Right there.
Putting a back door in everything will make the whole world vulnerable.
And here’s a fun one. The politicians are addicted to WhatsApp. With a back door open to law enforcement under a sealed warrant…. Do you think Trump would hold back?
Andrew Tate has left Romania for US by private jet, reports say
https://x.com/thedailybeast/status/1895032468605915429
https://wildlife.org/painting-a-single-turbine-blade-saves-birds-lives/
Good morning, everybody.
Can I ask AI experts a question. When AI is asked whether or not it possesses sentience, consciousness, awareness etc, has AI yet produced interesting or convincing replies, dialogues or conversations in either direction?