If you’re needing to implement this I’d highly suggest your code could be restructured to eliminate the issues. This is a code smell.
I’ve been using errors.Is since day one and have never once needed to implement anything like you described. I define sentinel errors in my root “business logic and types” package, and my child packages use those special errors in their own error Is() methods.
Nowadays cable TV targets ads too. If your diabetic grandma connects to your cable provided wifi router, you will get ads for glucose monitors and insulin pumps. Targeted advertising should be illegal.
We really need these things to be Closed Circuit by law. Want the data? Get a warrant and seize the device physically. Centralized databases of surveillance information needs to be outlawed criminally.
When "choice" effectively limits societal options or generates massive externalities and/or long-term unpredictable impacts, all parties upon whom the "choice" impacts are not given voice, or choice.
Often commonweal is a better guiding light than "choice".
It's the user's choice to use a cloud-hosted security system. They can weigh the trade-offs and risks for themselves, same as with any other system.
Whether that data is accessible by law enforcement is a completely separate issue. A proper solution would be limiting this access and requiring consent and transparency, not removing infrastructure options because you think you know better than everyone else about what's best for them.
The issue, by virtue of legally allowed warrantless access, is inextricably conjoined, and the impacts of that choice accrue to not only the decisionmaker, but to countless others. Your premises are false.
Your proposed (and grossly insufficient) remedy is one form of legal mandate.
I'd strongly commend Shoshana Zuboff, Hanna Arendt, and Paul Baran, amongst numerous others:
"On the Engineer's Responsibility in Protecting Privacy", Paul Baran, 1968:
Another view was expressed by AI pioneer and Nobel Laureate (economics) Herbert Simon:
"The privacy issue has been raised most insistently with respect to the creation and maintenance of longitudinal data files that assemble information about persons from a multitude of sources. Files of this kind would be highly valueable for many kinds of economic and social research, but they are bought at too high a price if they endanger human freedom or seriously enhance the opportunities of blackmailers. While such dangers should not be ignored, it should be noted that the lack of comprehensive data files has never been the limiting barrier to the suppression of human freedom. The Watergate criminals made extensive, if unskillful, use of electronics, but no computer played a role in their conspiracy. The Nazis operated with horrifying effectiveness and thoroughness without the benefits of any kind of mechanized data processing."
There is, of course, one slight problem with Simon's argument: The Nazis did make heavy use of mechanised data processing, provided and supported by IBM. Edwin Black documents this meticulously in his book IBM and the Holocaust:
That's a wildly unreasonable stretch and limiting freedom for the claim of security leads to far worse results.
Infrastructure and third-party vendors need to be managed against risk. This is no different than using Gmail vs your own hosted email box. Same with a million other services. Are you claiming that they should all be shutdown now?
Legal issues need to be fixed by legal solutions, not by disallowing the service from existing.
Isn't the whole reason people buy those is because they back up to the cloud and they can view the feed from anywhere? CC security cameras are nothing new
Warrants are extremely easy to get, basically rubber stamped. It's so bad that LE will put in things they know are outright unconstitutional, knowing the magistrate won't really read it or care about citizen's rights.
Even an extremely easy to get warrant takes both time and effort, by multiple people, to get. It's incomparable to an automatic feed to all the Ring cameras in a neighbourhood.
It's the difference between surveillance and mass surveillance. The latter is the bigger problem and warrants will solve it.
It's long past time to regulate social media like a phone company, natural monopoly, or common carrier. The DOJ needs to break them up for violating the public trust, then limit their ability to refuse service to law abiding citizens moving into the future. Government has every right to force companies to be neutral platforms through regulation. It's time to revoke/enforce section 230, especially the "good faith" clause.
Anyone who says that "Twitter is a private company that can refuse anyone" has never ran an actual company. There are plenty of rules against companies discriminating. That argument is the same argument used by Democrats against the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 which a Republican majority congress passed (82% of republicans voted yes).
Remember when this forum was up in arms about NET NEUTRALITY? Remember when the big bad ISP was going to censor you? Remember when all the sites went black because thats what the ISPs would do? Now the sites that went black are all committing the censoring. All the sites that went black track every movement you make online. Who needs DNS when you have outgoing link tracking and like buttons on every page.
Social media is about to be regulated. Its about time.
You can have a monopoly and not abuse your power, or you can have your monopoly broken up. The Sherman Antitrust act still exists. Law still exists. There are already multiple anti-trust investigations underway by the states, and the DOJ.
There is bipartisan support to break them up. Ask Warren.
Section 230 lets providers like social media companies publish user-generated content without having to review the content first. For example, if you libel someone on Twitter, that is your problem, not Twitter's problem. If you take away Section 230 protections, social media as we know it probably dies. Instead of a real-time pulse on what people are thinking, you'll just get what looks like the letters to the editor section of a newspaper. People who are already celebrities will not be censored, but you will be because you're too small to be worth the risk of being liable for. That means any grassroots political movement, no matter what side of the ideology spectrum it falls on, has no place to start. Be careful what you wish for.
I'll also point out that if Section 230 protections are removed, Donald Trump loses more than anyone. Nobody is going to carry his messages if they can be sued for their content. He'll have to make his own Twitter. His press conferences won't be broadcast live because the liability is too high. It is hilarious to me that Donald Trump is probably the largest beneficiary of Section 230 and he's the one that wants to remove it.
Section 230 is what lets the little guy exercise his or her right to free expression. It gives them a platform where they have an opportunity to let their opinion rise to the top. It saves them from having to buy their own printing press and build their own audience. Nobody is going to buy you a printing press if they're liable for everything you say. So what happens is you don't get to talk anymore.
Yes the timing is good, the Artemis program is heating up and needs to disperse grants for the 2024 moon missions. You will have a much better supply of labor to choose from than our previous unemployment rate. Capital is cheap right now and banks are still lending. Aerospace is a long-term investment and you'll deliver a product when the economy is back.
> gaping hole where United States leadership should be
I've seen this exact wording a lot recently. Is this the new propaganda line everyone parrots? I must have missed the previous administration's strong stance on ANYTHING AT ALL dealing with international relations, besides killing people from the sky. When did the previous administration lead on anything and not just bow down (literally bowing) to international leaders.
Sorry, the gaping hole in leadership was filled with someone who cares about the USA.
> the gaping hole in leadership was filled with someone who cares about the USA
[citation needed], I wouldn't trust the guy with international business interests to actually have America's best interests at heart over his own if the two don't align.
No real dispute with your criticism of the previous leadership though.
You must build a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) to ensure these special interfaces don't hit an infinite loop.
To stop the infinite loop cycles, and actually implement a DAG, I marked visited nodes and returned `false` if the nodes were already marked.