You don't need to share the original image with everyone, just like how journalists don't share their audio recordings from interviews with everyone. You share with an editor. Or a court.
Yes, which is why this doesn't really do much. Readers still have to primarily rely on trust for whether or not they believe the news and who is reporting it.
This is correct (from someone who has worked on software to do this). Processing images for the 3D walkthroughs in real estate sometimes does this too.
Yeah, it is very good, but that’s only in roughly 1100 sq miles in the US. The long tail of edge cases is exponentially harder than the rest of it. They’re improving quite quickly was my point, and if anyone stands to pull it off, I’d bet on them pulling it off first.
There's been plenty of evidence that nothing is recorded or sent back, hardly "absence of complete proof". People have identified basically everything coming from the network stack of an iPhone.
This is already normalized in most modern office buildings. There are video and audio recording devices in virtually all common areas. This started a bit after private offices were done away with.
>There's been plenty of evidence that nothing is recorded or sent back, hardly "absence of complete proof".
You may have a different understanding of the word "complete" than the standard definition.
Unless you are claiming the verifiers kept the watches being tested under constant survellance for several years, the proof you are alluding to may only prove that it is not routinely sending or recording data. It does not prove they can't turn it on whenever they feel like it, or when obeying a time-limited and geofenced mass surveillance order.
I mean, anything with a microphone or camera (and some things without) can theoretically be used to listen to/record you at any given time for a myriad of reasons.
If you are worried about such a device being on your person, I think the easy solution is just not to wear or buy one.
In theory any device with a microphone and an internet connection can record everything and send it off to some remote server, but in practice there was really no evidence of this happening on any significant scale for a long time. It is easy to see how this would make a difference for most people. But already there was an attitude among some people of "we all carry a microphone in our pocket, there is no privacy anymore".
Then voice-activated devices came out which (without making a secret of it) started recording after detecting some watchword, of course there were false positives but most normal people didn't really seem to care about that. Again this was used by the most paranoid or anti-technology people as an argument that "see, they're really recording everything like we've been saying all along".
Now a device comes out which explicitly and openly records everything within reach and applies AI analysis to it, and the precise people who should be most against it act like it's no big deal because supposedly this was already happening anyway - while, on the contrary, I think this is precisely the moment where the line is being crossed in a way that will have actual negative consequences on society, and this is the time to take a stand against it.
So ironically we see that the hyper-activistic all-or-nothing attitude is actually working against the very interests that its proponents claim to want to protect.
Even if it is, the software on the device could theoretically do whatever it wants with the data before it's encrypted/uploaded, and if it's sent to Apple, they could do whatever they want with it too.
It's also a solved problem by not deferring anything unless that person is past working age and low income. Letting people sit on wealth that they cannot pay a wealth tax on is generally bad for everyone with less wealth.
It's simpler than you're implying. Vancouver, like most cities, has dramatically limited what land you can build on. More than half the city is restricted to nothing larger than individual houses.
Tokyo, similarly, has hit the limit of what they allow to be built under the highest density of their stepped national zoning levels.
By what measure are you saying they've taken the opposite approach? It seems to me their approach has been nearly identical, just a little less restrictive.
If you're really interested: as density increases, population growth decreases. High density places become a sink for populations from elsewhere. You end up reaching a regional equilibrium, where some of the lowest density places start emptying out entirely. Japan is a great example of this, small towns there disappear regularly, as Tokyo grows. Suburban life around Tokyo remains very stable as the center increases and edges decrease.
reply