“Chinese authorities have far-reaching access rights to personal data within the sphere of influence of Chinese companies,” she added.
And that’s different to American companies how? None of this climate of data harvesting is currently good for us.
That’s uh…what she said?
A general strike is your only hand. So start prepping for that.
They’d just ‘devide’ up their businesses into a chain of symbiotic entities defined by paygrade. Then the executive level can enrich itself insulated from us front line grunts.
Devide
verb
Obsolete form of divide.
deleted by creator
I could swear I heard that whole ACER laptop angle a couple of months ago on someone else’s podcast. I don’t want to say verbatim but I was having severe dejayvu. It wasn’t a Doctorow podcast that much I’m sure.
This is a bit of context from the Dec 6th edition of Private Eye.
Statistics can help decern impact. But I think there’s always going this be some measure of subjectivity no matter which way you try to call it.
Intensity isn’t a specific enough criteria. It has to be impact.
There needs to be a reasonable degree to which interference with an election should be weathered (not ignored but the process to continue). Elections are very costly and disruptive. It would be insane to redo an entire election because you found that one person voted twice. The point at which you do redo it needs to be cognizant of the degree of disruption caused.
Conclusion The CCR’s decision is a last resort attempt to prevent a further decline in the rule of law in Romania. Yet, its modalities, timing and face value are such as to shoot Romanian democracy in the foot. The gravity of the interference in Romania’s elections surely implied a need to intervene quickly, and to do something to protect democracy. The Court’s intervention however may more easily be seen as counter-productive in the long run. Once again, Romanian democracy stands on a shaky ground.
Not sure I entirely agree with this conclusion.
Their argument boils down to propriety. If the interference was spotted over both elections then both should be rerun not just the one in which the interference had material effect. This dissonance is amplified, they argue, when the election that is to be rerun is the one in which the incumbent (pro-EU) government was losing.
If we look first at the decision to rerun just the election that was effected we can easily understand it in terms of efficiency and momentum.
For an analogy let’s look at soccer: If a striker is bearing down on goal, in the penalty box, and he is cynically fouled the game is stopped, the offender sent off, a penalty awarded, then the game resumes.
However, if in the same scenario, a midfielder is fouled off the ball the play continues to allow the striker the opportunity to score. Once the ball is out of play the ref can return to the foul and dispense justice.
The penalty kick is a rerun of play, or the election in this analogy. It’s only necessary when the result of the game is heavily effected. If we stopped the game whilst a striker has a very good chance to score a goal when someone off the ball is fouled then it would incentivise bad faith teams fouling random players any time there was a clearcut chance.
This decision making takes into account the difficulty of creating a clear cut chance on goal in a game of football and doesn’t allow play to be disrupted. Foreign interference in elections has a wide range of desired outcomes but generally throwing a spanner into the engine of healthy democracies is what they are about. So if possible allow the play to continue. If play has been materially compromised then rerun.
The second aspect is the public perception. To which we can look to the US and see countless examples of the democrats hamstringing themselves by obsessing with playing by the rules and the republicans ignoring rules and precedent when it suits them. This happens because they don’t have a free press they have a bought press. I don’t know the makeup of media ownership in Romania but a democratic government has to be able to navigate a path to getting things done under the constant flack of belligerent entities. Sometimes it needs to have the metal to weather reputational trolling.
Not everyone’s cup of tea. Actually becoming aware of the amount of corruption and injustice in the UK can be accutely depressing.
Their online offering is a tiny fraction of what is covered in the hardcopy.
Not sure if the future tense ‘will’ is appropriate here
𝕴𝖙 𝖎𝖘 𝖙𝖎𝖒𝖊 𝖋𝖔𝖗 𝖞𝖔𝖚 𝖙𝖔 𝖗𝖊𝖙𝖚𝖗𝖓 𝖙𝖔 𝖗𝖊𝖉𝖉𝖎𝖙!
There’s a bit of a difference in sentencing between premeditated murder and manslaughter
Nobody asking if the bag belonged to Baggenstos? Nominative determinism win?
They’ve still got a good reputation for news. So good that after a few combative interviews with Tory MPs (back when they were in power a few years ago) the Culture Secretary wanted to sell the channel off.
Don’t get me wrong they can still produce the occasional good comedy or documentary but they used to do so consistently.
Which gives superficial comfort as it gives scant protection from how aggregate data is used to upend democracy.