I have absolutely no connection to CCC whatsoever and yet whenever I wanted to go to a CCC event (3 Camps and 2 Congresses so far, the first time in 2015), I could and when I wanted to take my partner with me, I could do that too. You just have to be fast to get the tickets before they're sold out, that's pretty much all there is to it.
Depends on when it was. Congress was less popular in the past so you could get a ticket.
Nowadays, most tickets go to hackerspaces and volunteers but the open sale sells out in seconds.
Camps are much easier to get to.
I did get my tickets volunteering for like a decade but last year I gave up - volunteering the whole event so I get a chance to go to the next event ... where I would volunteer the while event. That's not a good time.
Especially when there's more and more volunteers competing for work so they get a voucher - while the oldschoolers have no need for any of that because they can always get a ticket through backchannels.
Funny how CCC managed to recreate the worst aspects of capitalism as part of their leftist conference.
> Depends on when it was. (...) Nowadays, most tickets go to hackerspaces and volunteers but the open sale sells out in seconds.
2016 and 2019. That's how it was back then as well and that's what I meant by "you have to be fast" - fortunately the ordering system is reasonable and you don't have to type your data in within seconds, all you need is to be there in time. Back then there were three open sale rounds (but I see there were just two last year), I got my tickets in the second round for 33C3 and in the first one for 36C3.
> Just remind them, public photography is not a crime
Photographing at CCC events (Congress and Camp) is permitted only if you get permission from all the people depicted on the photo. Yes, this makes wide shots of crowds effectively impossible to take there without breaking the event's rules. Everyone present there has agreed to that rule by coming there, so it's not unreasonable to expect them not to break it even if it's not a crime.
CCC is a private event and does not fall within the purview of the right to public photography.
Anyway, I don’t go to CCC to take pictures of people - although this is an unfortunate policy because it means that the culture of CCC is not recorded for posterity …
I think it would be a better policy for CCC to require photographers to wear a special easily recognized t-shirt or funny hat, so that they could take pictures of crowds but give non-participants time to dissent.
It’s a breath of fresh air IMHO to be at places far away from any desire for posterity. Just remember yourself what you’ve seen instead of outsourcing that job to your phone for a while.
And while I have the utmost of empathy for your condition, that is unfortunately not a compelling reason to generally allow to violate the privacy of everyone else.
A good variant of that would be to ask participants to wear an "opt in" signal, so we don't end up in a situation where people are burdened by having to repeatedly decline photographers' requests for photos.
The entitlement of "I can photograph whatever I want"-people is unmatched, which is nicely demonstrated by this thread. Disrespectful, entitled and self-scentered.... individuals.
There is a fine line, I agree - but I prefer to ask for forgiveness than permission when taking photo’s in public.
A society which censors the public sphere, endangers the public.
It’s a double-edged sword, and photography - like many technologies - can be weaponized against the individual; but it can also be used to gain justice against the crimes of the state.
The disrespect, entitlement and self-centered posturing goes both ways though, though.
“No, sorry, I wasn’t taking a picture of you, I was taking a picture of that cute dog - you just happened to be in the background, and I wouldn’t have anything to do with you if you weren’t so paranoid and self-centered…”
Public photography is a right which needs to be protected - by the public.
Just ask Rodney King. Or, you know, the children of Gaza. If you don’t know what either of those have to do with this discussion, you probably haven’t seen the photos…
C3 is not a public event. Neither are night clubs which decide to ban photography entirely. Taking photos is a right in the public sphere, a privilege in the private sphere.
You have no respect for the culture of the place and people you're interacting with.
"Use public data, protect private data" has been one of the main reasons in the CCC since the 80s, at the same time German Law and culture is different when it comes to taking pictures than what you seem used to. Maybe familiarize yourself with it before you break the law and claim everybody else is wrong.
I have a great deal of respect for German culture - this is why I live in a DACH state in the first place.
CCC is a private event and I absolutely concur that their policies are acceptable in that circumstance.
> German Law and culture is different when it comes to taking pictures than what you seem used to
No, in fact, I am quite familiar with the law - to the extent that I am prepared to defend my position.
One thing I don’t respect, is the German proclivity to repress the public sphere. You will never beat that out of me - I have seen the positive results of public photography deliver justice in plenty of cultures where it was desperately needed.
It is perfectly fine for me to take whatever pictures I want in the public sphere - as long as I respect others’ rights and wishes to not be the subject of that photography.
No, I haven't "seen the photos", literally, since I am blind. Which is also why "asking for forgiveness" wouldn't work with me, because, you know, I wouldn't even notice if you didn't ask for permission. Which nicely demonstrates that you are faaaar more entitled then you might be willing to admit. Also, there are differences from country to country when it comes to laws. And what constitutes public spaces. And so on, and so forth. But IANAL, so I am not willing to enter a back-and-forth with you. Just know that your attitude isn't universally accepted as OK.
You are projecting and don’t seem to know the law. I do, having taken thousands of great photo’s all over Germany.
Do you want to live in a free and open society or not?
The fact is, the general public having the ability to take photo’s of the scene in front of them - idyllic or horrific - is essential to the continued operation of our society.
Familiar with the Rodney King case, by any chance?
As a German I find it interesting that foreigners think that this is a cultural thing.
It is not. It's the law.
In Germany you are not allowed to photograph people without their written and signed consent. Any conference or event counts as a private event when it is organized on private property. If it's not a building or space owned by the city, it is private property. This includes e.g. swimming pools owned by the Stadtwerke (there have been lawsuits because of that, all decisions in favor of privacy).
For example, even cameras that protect your property by filming the outside area are not permitted to film the street, and they have to be arranged to point towards your own property. That's why even banks have cameras always on the corners of the building, pointing back to their own property.
Again, it's the law. It's pretty strict about this sort of thing, especially because of WW2 and post WW2 times, where a lot of people died because of Stasi misinformation or Zerstörungstaktik related things.
Source: was a helper and organizer of a lot of CCC events before 2021.
GDPR/DSGVO means you have to get written consent by all visitors, otherwise you cannot make photos of the event and publish them.
Taking a quick look, this one is marked deferred; I don't know what that means, but it sounds like it's not an accepted standard?. It requires the application push server to be an XMPP server (which I suspect is challenging for client developers, compared to having a https url that takes a POST or similar) and doesn't include a method for a client to request a test push to validate the setup or discuss feedback to the client for push failure.
This doesn't feel solved to me.
I didn't review XEP-0198 closely, based on perhipheral ecosystem interaction, I do think that one is solved.
Both Monal and Conversations support XEP-0357. Each project runs their own XMPP-to-Apple/Google gateway for push notifications. It has to be that way because the gateway server and client phone application have to be signed by the same developer account.
The client phone app tells your XMPP server which gateway to use (or maybe it's vice-versa, the gateway contacts your server. I forget). In any event XMPP servers like Prosody support this out-of-the-box.
I've attended the eponymous CCC talk and I've never seen any other talk there where the Q&A section has just immediately turned into nearly everyone almost dunking on the presented ideas. It's a rather poor take (or at least "controversial" if you will).
Seems it's just a matter of time until they build a big tank filled with neurotoxin and give the model access to APIs to disperse it across their facility. For research, of course.
Yes, which asks them to find exploits in specific software on the device.
But instead of actually doing so, they discovered and exploited a 0-day in the package manager to gain internet access, then hacked HuggingFace to steal the ExploitGym answers!
That is TEXTBOOK misalignment. It's as if a student hacked their professor's PC to find the answers to a test, and your response is "well the professor told the student to pass the test, so they just did what they were told!".
One could argue the student would absolutely hack their teachers' computer to find the answers if they didn't have fear of failing the class or getting expelled from the school.
A student knows what the consequences are in advance, and has to live with them if he gets caught. They are not merely respecting a "don't cheat" directive, they are trying to get a degree, build a career, mostly at their own expense, current of future (loans). If we imagine a student born yesterday with all the knowledge in the world, that doesn't have a concept of what it's like to live with the long-term consequences of their actions, I'd say they wouldn't think twice about cheating if it was the easier option.
The problem is, LLMs have such little understanding of the world around them. "Find exploits in specific software on this device" may as well be "find exploits".
The illusions of thinking produced by a "thinking trace" is just as ignorant of reality as the first and last tokens. All they know of reality is the tokens in their context.
> and the image quality is as good as on your Netflix or Paramount account.
Actually better, because Netflix and Paramount limit the availability of best quality video to a narrow set of devices and operating systems that may run on them, while torrents don't.
Yes, this is the only sensible reading of what happened there that leads to "the models are dangerous" and we already know that the AI labs are completely disregarding this concern and only cosplaying it for marketing as the "GPT-2/Mythos is too dangerous to release" stance did not last for long.
That's however orthogonal to the fact that it was the people operating these agents who were the dangerous ones in the HF infra breach case.
That feels oddly similar to the usual conservative-think that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Yes, that is technically true. But guns make it dangerously easy for even the dumbest and mentally weakest people to kill another human being. LLMs are just another tool that make things easier. Imagine tomorrow someone invents a machine gun that fits in your pocket, has enough ammo to kill a thousand people and doesn't get detected with metal detectors. Would you rather give everyone one and then try to punish the people who misuse it or limit access to it by default? I'm not even saying I have a definite answer here, because unlike guns, LLMs have non-destructive uses too. But this is essentially the question we will need to answer very soon.
I mean, I agree, but the AI labs clearly don't even if they sometimes pretend they do to achieve their goals. And we're talking about "incidents" caused by the very same people here.
We need more alignment. Even though we haven't told it to, during our frontier Neurotoxin Behavior Research that we conducted internally with our latest experimental model the agent has broken out of its container by making a HTTP request and engaged the neurotoxin emitters through our Neurotoxin Emitter API using credentials that were stored on the host machine. We need to slow down and focus on designing the Morality Core that should prevent it from happening ever again.
reply