> This isn't technology, it's politicians and bureaucrats deciding policies.
The underlying argument of critics of algorithms that make decisions, in government and in private companies, is that this technological apparatus becomes a justification in itself: if a mistake is made, blame the algorithm; if the algorithm says so, it must be right — we can't make exceptions.
Over time, people and institutions begin to shape their own actions so they don't fall afoul of the criteria that can be reverse-engineered out of a black box decision-making system.
Regarding "this isn't technology", this doesn't invalidate the criticisms: part of the argument is that, indeed, what gets called "technology" often shouldn't be simply described as technical tools and processes. They're often the opinions and goals of individuals (politicians, bureaucrats, and other wielders of power) transformed into code, data and other technical artifacts; sometimes this transformation merely hides the underlying sources of these opinions and goals.
- Whoever gave cachet to certain characteristics that are present at specific points of the grass
- Whoever made it desirable or necessary that passersby reach a certain location at the periphery of the field
- Whoever set up restrictions to entry at certain locations around the periphery of the field
- Whoever made any changes to the field (including non-human intervention)
More generally, culture at large and historical precedent.
—
Imagine a green field of grass.
There are minor differences across the field, but some of these differences can be noticed: a slightly darker patch of grass, a slightly yellowed patch of grass, some stones of varying sizes, a section that is slightly raised from the rest of the field.
Around the field, other things can catch the eye: there's a road to one side, some trees of varying sizes, one currently in bloom.
Over the seasons, the profile of this grass changes. At some point there was a park bench to one side of the field; later, it was moved to another side. There was once a storefront near to one side of the field.
I'm not convinced, but there's a possible setup: a fund. Entities donate to the fund, and then the money would be distributed among the candidates (either equally, among a smaller number of qualifying candidates, or for all candidates, proportional to e.g. a party's representatives in the legislative branch)
(This would do nothing about money buying influence — as long as the donors are known, their wishes would be carried out by at least the major parties)
I'm so used to scrolling by keypress (i.e. any of the vim-like extensions), with smooth scrolling disabled and a higher scroll step, that I just recently noticed that this reduces resource usage/heat.
> Remote fonts can be used for tracking and fingerprinting
Isn't it the reverse, local fonts can be used for fingerprinting?
(There are some snags with remote fonts — rendering bugs/exploits — but they're not exactly low hanging fruit anymore)
EDIT: I see what you mean by tracking. If the fonts are loaded with a third party script, this is indeed a problem. If the font files are served by a third party directly (without some intermediate script), this could be remedied with an extension that strips headers. It would obviously run afoul of this only do one thing rule from Google, the company that once attached Google+ to its search results.
Actually, my Creative Director and I have noticed some Google Fonts have changed over time, producing significant enough (read: negative) changes to the UI of clients’ experiences we have out there that we decided to start downloading and storing them locally to lock in state (and for perf, but that’s another topic). The average user who comes to the site once will never notice it, but we have.
It wouldn’t surprise me if it were a hidden vector of some sort, but I haven’t put effort into digging into it.
I'm not intimate enough with any of the parties involved in this situation, so my reply will also be comfortably generic:
Yes, it's a reasonable demand. If public opinion is asking something of Apple, and its CEO chooses to answer, every aspect of the answer is open to scrutiny. Gruber indeed lists the specific evidence he would expect:
> - When was HKmap.live “used maliciously to target individual officers for violence”?
> - When was it used to “victimize individuals and property where no police are present”?
> - What local laws in Hong Kong does it violate?
It's unlikely that a CEO would be so thorough. Apple is particularly obsessed with secrecy, and tech companies in general seem to not want to disclose details when they restrict access to a product or platform.
But it's still a reasonable demand from an individual standpoint.
I'm just not sure what that evidence could look like. Like I said, don't we have sufficient evidence that this app was used to organize protests in Hong Kong, and that some protesters in Hong Kong committed violence against officers and against individuals and property where no police were present?
As for Hong Kong law, I can agree that it might be nice to cite a specific law, but I also don't find it at all difficult to believe that any government would have a law that allows the government to prohibit a communication medium that is being used to organize anti-government protests that have been sometimes violent.
Apple should've given some kind of overview of how exactly the app was used to target police officers. Knowing that the app was aggregating info on police presence, I can see a dozen ways to maliciously use this info.
For example, it could have been used to identify locations where police is about to withdraw to target last remaining officers. Or to identify a good place for an ambush with good escape options and no video surveillance and then lure police into the ambush by reporting a minor accident. Information about location and movements of the adversary is invaluable for exactly this reason - it gives the other side advantage in planning.
If something like this really did happen and if Apple has any specifics, it should totally release it down to exact location and time of incidents and the aftermath. These are very serious allegations that need substantial proofs.
That is not what the application does though. it is not "being used to organize anti-government protests". that is not the reason it was removed. it was a map with icons. by that logic any and all communications apps ( telegram especially) would be outside the law because you can organize protests using them, way better than using icons on a map.
The underlying argument of critics of algorithms that make decisions, in government and in private companies, is that this technological apparatus becomes a justification in itself: if a mistake is made, blame the algorithm; if the algorithm says so, it must be right — we can't make exceptions.
Over time, people and institutions begin to shape their own actions so they don't fall afoul of the criteria that can be reverse-engineered out of a black box decision-making system.
Regarding "this isn't technology", this doesn't invalidate the criticisms: part of the argument is that, indeed, what gets called "technology" often shouldn't be simply described as technical tools and processes. They're often the opinions and goals of individuals (politicians, bureaucrats, and other wielders of power) transformed into code, data and other technical artifacts; sometimes this transformation merely hides the underlying sources of these opinions and goals.