So you want it to be done locally against photos that are stored in the cloud?

This only happens for photos that you upload to onedrive. Why or how would it happen “locally”?

You said “a bunch of asshole corporations databases” - who are the “bunch of corporations”? Microsoft is only 1 corporation.

The don’t have to justify themselves to me, they have to figure out how to handle only changing it 3 times a year.

I’m trying to understand any reasons why someone would turn it on/off more than once. Not asking people to “justify”, just curious because it’s not something that makes sense to turn on and off multiple times.

The attacker had to already be logged in to the machine for this exploit.

What part of letting me name people in my uploaded photos so I can easily find all of the photos of them is somehow anti-freedom?

Does google photos have this feature in Germany like it does where I am?

I feel like people are misunderstanding what this actually is. When you upload photos, it detects faces and lets you tag those faces with a name, and then you can just click on that person and it will show you all the photos you have of that person. That’s it. It’s not sharing them with anyone. Why on earth would that be not allowed?

I would assume that the “arbitrary limit” is actually based on something like the amount of processing power that it could take to go through every single photo/file that is uploaded.

Anyway, even if it is arbitrary - what reason would anyone have to turn it on and off more than 3x a year? It’s something you’d decide you either want or you don’t.

Do you?

I don’t want my fucking face going out to a bunch of asshole corporations databases

What about this topic makes you think anything like this is happening?

If we had a fair distribution of wealth I wouldn’t care about either of these really.

A “fair distribution of wealth” isn’t really a thing though. What you likely consider “fair” is most likely “not fair” to high income earners, correct?

Well in this case there’ s no question - OpenAI benefit the “little guy” more.

It’s not unreasonable to demand AI companies to play by the same rules as everyone else.

But when you hate those very rules, shouldn’t you be cheering on the people that are seemingly ignoring them and are likely to try and challenge them in court/lobby to be changed/removed? Right? “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” and all that?

Oh, but not when those people are evil capitalist companies that make AI product lol.

It’s not?

Irrelevant. Why would anyone need to turn it on or off 3 times in a year?

So your argument now is just that it should be disabled by default?

You know you can make throwaway meta accounts, don’t you? You don’t have to give it your real details and add all your friends.

No, just that that’s got nothing to do with the topic or conversation at hand.

Why? Going to trial for not having a license when you don’t have a license makes no sense. It would be a waste of time and money for everyone involved as the outcome is known from the get go.

But it is self driving, and it needs to be supervised like the name says.

OP - this was how things were done back in the day. This hasn’t been done this way for a long time now.

This is fixed, and the attacker required physical access to the hardware.

Fixed and required physical access to the machine. If someone malicious has physical access to your machine you’re already done.