Be skeptical. Learn how to identify AI-generated images, and look for inconsistencies. And, always identify who benefits from your attention on these posts.
The parallels to current events are not hard to see.
“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it” – George Santayana
To some in this world today, that quote isn’t a warning, but a playbook.
This is a good time for all of us to reconsider how we share data, who we share it with, and the process of cleaning up after data has been transferred. MoveIT is not the only data transfer service, they’re just the one who got breached this month. Next month it could be the one we use. Take steps now to limit the damage that could be done.
Imagine, if you will an identity thief caught in the act by law enforcement. As part of the evidence collection, they find a mobile device with a whole bunch of stolen credit cards, driver’s licenses, and other data that was in the process of being used by said thief, to steal the identities of dozens of people.
That evidence sits in the property room until such a time as the law says it’s safe for the law enforcement agency to get rid of it, at which time the device is put up for auction.
You would think that before auctioning off these devices with illegally-gotten and dangerous information on them, the various agencies would have wiped them clean, no?
According to the University of Maryland, you’d be completely wrong.
Proving your identity and your age eliminates the ability for anyone to remain anonymous. You might argue that is a good thing, but I’ll take the opposite side. There are plenty of reasons for someone to remain anonymous online, and why we’d be worse off eliminating that. Whistleblowers, political dissidents of fascist governments, victims of childhood and spousal abuse, people dealing with mental health issues, women, the LGBTQ community, and many others have legitimate reasons to fear being identified. Do we want to eliminate them all from the public space?
Everything that brings us the most happiness and spreads that happiness across society gets set aside because we are supposed to identify ourselves based on our jobs.
So yeah, maybe the French won’t necessarily still get to retire with a pension at 62. (though Nathan does a good job of explaining why that isn’t impossible, this was a choice made to protect the wealthy from being taxed, after all.) I still think many of us could learn something from the French, and Europe in general, about where our jobs fit into the fuller picture of our lives. If you aren’t making time to “live,” what’s the point of all that time spent at our jobs?