>suddenly the company app is banned from the app store seemingly without reason. At least a few such stories have appeared on HN over the years.

Which is not that unreasonable even. If a person is flagged for making scam apps, them having publishing rights in a reputable place makes taints the reputation of such place.

You should be able to appeal of course and the oauth should not be towards google in the first place, but being associated with known fraudsters and scammers is not what you want.

That seems at odds with how our society is structured. We treat employees as interchangeable cogs. If someone commits a crime they are tried but their family, friends, and coworkers are not. Guilt by association without any act having been committed seems wholly incompatible with both our principles and common practices.

It's even more nefarious when it comes to BigTech because you can be blacklisted without having committed any actual crime and without anything resembling a trial.

Individual accounts and employee accounts are conceptually distinct. Permitting anything less gives large companies free reign to run roughshod over the individual by unilaterally depriving him of his livelihood.

> If someone commits a crime they are tried but their family, friends, and coworkers are not. Guilt by association without any act having been committed seems wholly incompatible with both our principles and common practices.

This is no longer the case, see the example of Hüseyin Dogru, a journalist who faces political EU sanctions (no trial) and now cannot transact with EU citizens or travel. Authorities have now siezed the bank account of his wife and are treating her as if she is sanctioned, even though she is not, so their family is now broke and cannot even pay for food. Because they are not allowed to travel they cannot return to Switzerland.

This kind of blacklisting also comes up in non-sanctioned contexts with de-banking and political de-platforming based on government pressure. The world is headed to a very dark place.

The bank has to perform the authorization and identity checks, but the bank will not make them for you, they do them for themselves based on their own risk analysis. The scope of authorization could also be different based on who it's presented to.

The authorization is not transitive so to say.

>As an aside, I suspect that leaving it to the bank would also provide additional legal protection

If it would, they will have to pay the bank for it and the bank should also be willing to accept the liability (spoiler alert -- the will not be willing to accept the liability)

Google wants the authority of a gatekeeper without the overhead of human accountability. They automate the "no" but offer no path to a human "yes."

That's all fine, they can want their wants, but then, once the bad cop writes them strongly worded letter and they start throwing tantrums over "regulation".

> The bank has to perform the authorization and identity checks, but the bank will not make them for you

We aren't talking about authorization, only about identity verification. I'm no domain expert but it is my understanding that banks provide these sorts of services. They certainly already have all the necessary information on hand both for practical reasons (security) as well as legal (KYC and AML laws).

> If it would, they will have to pay the bank for it ...

For the identity verification? Probably, depending on how you went about it. What's the issue? This is already a paid process we're talking about here.

For the additional legal assurance that I described? No, that doesn't cost extra. Please read what I wrote more carefully. It's a transitive property due to the penalties involved in addition to the degree to which the legal system and the bank care (at least assuming my understanding of that legal environment is correct).

No parent will ever do that, because parenting fucks up brain in a special way

> quickly goes places you do not want it to go.

Which places?

What law?

The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.

https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/int...

I don’t think rules and regulations are popular nowadays

If someone puts a CSAM data center in space, I suspect you'll find quite a few rules become briefly popular.

Disbanding NASA would be one of those symbolic things thay people will associate the dusk of American empire.

You are right and I don't think it should be avoided. It's just that, a symbolic milestone of sorts. A cutoff date.

> Avoiding something [disbanding NASA] for such symbolic reasons [???] is negative cargo cult thinking.

Cargo-cult requires a rigid through-line.

What criteria would you use, to choose to avoid something in order to preemptively avoid hindsight analysis? It's a nonsensical line of thinking.

Cargo cult requires a confusion of cause and effect. Airplanes carrying cargo didn't land because there was a control tower; they landed because of prior causes that also caused the construction of a control tower.

And here, the US does not decline because of some symbolic action, but rather decline causes the action.

This confusion of cause and effect is literally a kind of magical thinking.

You're broadly right, but I think you're missing the part where perception of reality feeds back into reality, e.g. through economic effects. Demoralized Americans with less hope for the future stop caring, stop trying, and this in turn hastens that same decline.

I think that's just an untestable rationalization.

A person who wrote the prompt, the person who spawned the instance, the person who provided the access to infra, the person who launched it.

At the end of the day, there is somebody who profits from it or could have prevented it

My worry is that networks can be established on and orbiting the moon which become extremely difficult to get data from if someone decides to abuse it.

You can raid a data center if bad actors are utilizing it to break the law, but if some billionaire is using a moon relay to do bad stuff, the best you can do is de-allocate their bandwidth on the spectrum since you can't just hop over to the moon. Or to some craft in space. De-allocation would depend on international cooperation, inevitably. It would suddenly be far, far easier to break the law on networks and become effectively untraceable. This equipment will certainly be privately owned (like the prototypical versions already are) and it will be an extremely potent tool for breaking the law without consequence.

Also it looks like allocation of spectrum doesn't mandate logging, so you could in theory have data centers floating around which don't even trace who did what and how. If any country chooses to facilitate this and allows this communication to be received, and propagates it to their internet, what does the rest of the world do? Is it cause for conflict? Are there ways to stop the traffic from outside of the country?

I'm sure I'm missing tons of pertinent details here and this isn't meant as a totally impenetrable statement about the future. It's more so that I have concerns that this could actually happen based on the limited understanding I have. So feel free to tear it apart and let me know how dumb my idea is.

>You can raid a data center if bad actors are utilizing it to break the law, but if some billionaire is using a moon relay to do bad stuff, the best you can do is de-allocate their bandwidth on the spectrum since you can't just hop over to the moon.

You don't need to raid the data center, you just need to compel the flesh-bound weakling in your jurisdiction that has effective control to cede the effective control. Or hack into it by obvious means.

> If any country chooses to facilitate this and allows this communication to be received, and propagates it to their internet, what does the rest of the world do?

If a hostile country wants to do that they don't need space data centers. Case in point starts with r and end with ussia.

Even if it is in space, somebody assigns the AS numbers and provides peering. You don't have to reach the other end of the rope to cut it.

As a worst-case scenario, you just stop Internetting altogether and only allow information to flow to and from AS that are in your geopolitically aligned jurisdiction.

> if some billionaire is using a moon relay to do bad stuff, the best you can do is de-allocate their bandwidth on the spectrum

Or you arrest them, or drone strike them.

Everything about this is great.

Indeed very nice: the graphics, the colors, and of course the thoughtful texts. I like how the cards use poignant imagery without being sarcastic.

> The deck acknowledges Receptionist. It would also like to acknowledge that it last spoke with a CISO asking about a very similar matter. The cards are not judgmental. They are, however, observant, and they find the timing of the role change worth a comment.

It is a little bit sarcastic.

But only in a very dry way, not in-your-face way.

Thank you!

It's actually the French who are being normal. And the rest of European part of Indo-European language speakers.

Westernmost Eastern Europeans would do anything but use the actual script that makes sense for their language. How hard is it to just use с, ш, щ, ч and ц like civilized peoples.