(Those 40 years also involved working in highly classified environments and a great deal of government scrutiny. Can you match that?)
No. And honestly I don't think it's relevant.
Look, you are assuming a threat you can't even verbalize.
Oh dear, sweet boy, I've spent 25 years work in tech. Big Tech. I've worked at Facebook pre-Meta, Instagram pre-Facebook acquisition, and will hold where I work currently to my vest.
I know how much data is and can be captured on individuals - I'm talking BEHAVIORAL data. Not the static data easily available and captured. Simple things from 'You may not have clicked the 'like' button on that post, but you paused your scrolling long enough for us to know you read it, clicked into the comments, etc.' - Whether you agree with the emotional 'I like this' sentiment is irrelevant. That data is for other humans on the platform. Y> ou engaged with it. More like it is going to show up in your feed next refresh.
To larger emotional and behavioral profiles that will continue to feed engagement and turn you into an easily predictable matrix of numbers. A matrix that nails your age, net worth, political affiliation, whether you have a spouse, whether you're happy in that marriage, whether your spouse just died and you're in mourning, whether your grandkids are mad at you. All from just scrolling and clicking.
I also know how much data is NOT required to be captured on individuals to infer other data about their behavior to an actionable statistical significance. This is true meta-data that I think people don't understand. Your age, location, sex, sexual preference, vices, is not meta-data (data about data) - it's the lowest level of raw data. Statistically inferred data is meta-data. From a few data points and behavior patterns, what can we confidently infer? A ton. Why? Humans are pretty similar on paper. I find a statistically significant cohort of folks who act like you, and data confidence approaches 100%.
All just to show you ads. Just Ads. And keep you on the platform for more ads.
Your data outliers become what is looked for. Here's killerspacerobot's normal hourly, daily, weekly monthly, seasonal routine. Here's an outlier. Oh. He's cheating on his wife. Not illegal. But something we know. Something that could easily be inferred through a flock camera and leveraged by a bad actor in the government, to name one trivially easy data point to raise.
Much like in the algorithmic Ad-space, I can predict your actions with 96-99% certainty. So similarly, I could statiscally 'prove' you WOULD have committed a crime, or are about to. We care about safety, so let's go ahead as the Gov and intervene before you did it. Not science fiction. Boring, dry, crunchy-ass math. All the math needs to data to throw at it to reach stat sig. Flock Cameras are a huge source of that data.
"You have nothing to fear from the government if you're a law-abiding citizen" Is a Boomer talking point who still see through the eyes of Bogart in The Maltese Falcon or the Big Sleep. To hold your view you are: 1. A Glowie. 2. Naive 3. Retarded. Pick one.
Someone you can't pick out of 350 million people. Go ahead. Pick any characteristic that narrows it down. This is so funny. The relevance of my 40 years in high security environments is learning how not to stand out and how to keep my nose clean.
I would be especially interested in what I am supposed to be interested in. And what my daily routine would be. But until you can put the proof to your claims, I will bid you farewell.
No. And honestly I don't think it's relevant.
Oh dear, sweet boy, I've spent 25 years work in tech. Big Tech. I've worked at Facebook pre-Meta, Instagram pre-Facebook acquisition, and will hold where I work currently to my vest.
I know how much data is and can be captured on individuals - I'm talking BEHAVIORAL data. Not the static data easily available and captured. Simple things from 'You may not have clicked the 'like' button on that post, but you paused your scrolling long enough for us to know you read it, clicked into the comments, etc.' - Whether you agree with the emotional 'I like this' sentiment is irrelevant. That data is for other humans on the platform. Y> ou engaged with it. More like it is going to show up in your feed next refresh.
To larger emotional and behavioral profiles that will continue to feed engagement and turn you into an easily predictable matrix of numbers. A matrix that nails your age, net worth, political affiliation, whether you have a spouse, whether you're happy in that marriage, whether your spouse just died and you're in mourning, whether your grandkids are mad at you. All from just scrolling and clicking.
I also know how much data is NOT required to be captured on individuals to infer other data about their behavior to an actionable statistical significance. This is true meta-data that I think people don't understand. Your age, location, sex, sexual preference, vices, is not meta-data (data about data) - it's the lowest level of raw data. Statistically inferred data is meta-data. From a few data points and behavior patterns, what can we confidently infer? A ton. Why? Humans are pretty similar on paper. I find a statistically significant cohort of folks who act like you, and data confidence approaches 100%.
All just to show you ads. Just Ads. And keep you on the platform for more ads.
Your data outliers become what is looked for. Here's killerspacerobot's normal hourly, daily, weekly monthly, seasonal routine. Here's an outlier. Oh. He's cheating on his wife. Not illegal. But something we know. Something that could easily be inferred through a flock camera and leveraged by a bad actor in the government, to name one trivially easy data point to raise.
Much like in the algorithmic Ad-space, I can predict your actions with 96-99% certainty. So similarly, I could statiscally 'prove' you WOULD have committed a crime, or are about to. We care about safety, so let's go ahead as the Gov and intervene before you did it. Not science fiction. Boring, dry, crunchy-ass math. All the math needs to data to throw at it to reach stat sig. Flock Cameras are a huge source of that data.
"You have nothing to fear from the government if you're a law-abiding citizen" Is a Boomer talking point who still see through the eyes of Bogart in The Maltese Falcon or the Big Sleep. To hold your view you are: 1. A Glowie. 2. Naive 3. Retarded. Pick one.
Someone you can't pick out of 350 million people. Go ahead. Pick any characteristic that narrows it down. This is so funny. The relevance of my 40 years in high security environments is learning how not to stand out and how to keep my nose clean.
I would be especially interested in what I am supposed to be interested in. And what my daily routine would be. But until you can put the proof to your claims, I will bid you farewell.