this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023
444 points (96.6% liked)

Technology

59092 readers
6622 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

She stopped responding to him, she said, even though he texted and called her hundreds of times.

Ms. Dowdall, 59, started occasionally seeing a strange new message on the display in her Mercedes, about a location-based service called “mbrace.” The second time it happened, she took a photograph and searched for the name online.

“I realized, oh my God, that’s him tracking me,” Ms. Dowdall said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world 55 points 10 months ago (4 children)

I love that the focus of this article is privacy and not the fact that an individual trusted to be working for the nation at a federal fucking level did some abusive, manipulative shit.

Is it really that hard to filter out scum from the application process or is it just that nobody cares because they follow orders (as long as it serves their interests)

[–] paultimate14@lemmy.world 42 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This happens again and again and again. At every level, public and private.

The answer is not "filter these people out of these jobs" because very often they have no prior records. Or sometimes someone gets phished. The answer is to stop enabling this in the first place.

[–] stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Can you speak more to what you mean by enabling? And who’s enabling who?

[–] asbestos@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Can you read the article first?

[–] stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

I was asking the commenter to clarify their statement/opinion, not the fucking article but thanks for the rude ass comment dude:

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)

He may have been hired while he was still “the charming man [the abused woman] had fallen in love with.” I bet it’s very difficult to catch an employee who’s (slowly?) gone bad, and perhaps only in a certain context - perhaps he was always a great employee but became a terrible husband.

Note he died by suicide, so I expect some part of the situation caused him intolerable distress. Sad situation.

Like Paultimate said, we do have to fix the car privacy problem. But I’m sure more can be done to continually re-evaluate clearanced employees too.

[–] stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

I agree about privacy, don’t get me wrong. But I think the bigger problem isn’t the tech (gun) they’re using it’s the people themselves. If this guy wanted to he could go online and find a billion different types of trackers which would work just the same.

I don’t see a point in chasing down shoplifters when there’s obviously a factory churning out more of them down the street.

[–] Lath@kbin.social 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No one is allowed to give a fuck or they're out of a job. Corporations love AI development because it will give them the obedient machines they need to do whatever they want without pesky human morality or emotions getting in the way.

[–] stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Don’t forget the military!

[–] sour@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

and company doesnt care about domestic abuse

[–] psud@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Courts should order car companies to revoke all access to the vehicle for the person losing the car, and grant all to the one gaining exclusive use of it when they order a car to one person

I would have my lawyer ask for such orders were I to become divorced again, whichever of us got the car