No no, gunning someone down on the spot after you broke into their house in the middle of the night and they're disoriented from being woken up is totally reasonable so long as you say 'police' and 'warrant', I mean can you imagine criminals ever doing something like that or police ever shooting an innocent person?
Clearly not, which means that if someone armed breaks into your house yelling about how they're cops they have a right to be there, and so long as you're innocent you have absolutely no reason to be worried or feel the need to defend yourself or even protest in the slightest.
Honestly, did anyone read the whole article? It's REALLY long.
With ease because it really isn't.
If you can't summarize your points and make a persuasive argument, do you think making a LONGER argument makes you more credible?
The bill threatens encryption which hundreds of millions in the US alone depend on by making having it a liability and will not only not combat CSAM it will make it worse by incentivizing platforms not to look and giving guilty parties a solid case to dismiss any evidence used against them thanks to the platforms being pressured into acting as arms of the state.
They're not mistakes if they're intentional lies or indifference towards the consequences.
Even worse, the bill will do the opposite of what it claims: instead of helping law enforcement crack down on child sexual abuse material (CSAM), the bill will actually help the most odious criminals walk free.
This is what people need to keep hammering away at. The proponents of the bill want to make it untouchable and impossible to challenge by framing it as a bill to help exploited children by going after CSAM so I say return the favor. Any time they pull that stunt point out that setting aside all the other very serious problems the bill will cause they are in fact voting for for child exploitation and CSAM, that a vote for EARN IT is a vote for CSAM and any politician who votes for it should be seen in that light.
FOSTA was touted as a way to combat sex trafficking and it just made things worse for everyone but the criminals, FOSTA 2.0 will be no different and that needs to be brought up constantly.
'Our law isn't an attack on free speech, it's only going after irresponsible speech, that being anything someone I don't like says.'
'We're not trying to undermine privacy, we're only going after those that misuse it by keeping us from being able to see everything they say and do.'
Or for one that would strike a little closer to home to half of those they're trying to sell this lie to...
'Our law doesn't threaten gun ownership, we're just going after irresponsible gun owners, any responsible gun owner will have nothing to worry about because gun ownership will only be a factor if any other charge are also brought against a person.'
They really, truly, think the CSAM problem is 'simple' to fix, but Big Tech is being obstinate out of greed and need to be threatened with bigger and bigger sticks until they finally Nerd Harder and just push that big red 'fix it' button they know they have.
As Bluegrass Geek noted above they(the politicians) don't actually care about CSAM and are just using it for their own ends so they simply assume that the tech platforms are the same, the difference is that tech platforms and the companies running them actually do care about cracking down on CSAM in a meaningful manner.
Can't see how this could backfire on them at all...
'Attorney-client and other similarly private documents are protected and deserve to be treated as such! Now if you'll excuse us we're going to go back to trying to scam and/or trick people into giving us private documents and other information that we can publish to the world.'
If a complete and utter inability to experience shame weren't a requirement to be a modern day 'conservative' I'd imagine each and every one of them would have choked to death from the hypocrisy of their argument here. How dare someone print the private communications of others, that's their business model!
Do you want another Snowden? That's how you get one
When the government decides that the default is to shut the public out and only hand out information when it absolutely has to that is how you get whistleblowers and leakers, people who've seen a system that has no interest in any sort of transparency that isn't forced by a lawsuit and as a result when they see something they think is off they don't report it to superiors they rightly expect will just bury it but make it public, potentially revealing far more than would have been exposed had the government done it itself.
Adding to the problems when the government is so resistant to being open with the public it makes it a lot harder for the public to trust it, which is problematic at the best of times but can be far more dire should(and I'm just spinning hypotheticals here) a situation arise wherein it's really important for the public to feel they can trust the government, both so they don't have to scramble to gain that trust in the moment and to make it harder for opportunistic grifters to exploit a reasonable distrust for their own gain.
Whether from pure self interest and/or for the sake of the public the government is much better off defaulting to transparency and keeping secrecy only to when they really need it, because while it may benefit them in the short-term to keep everyone in the dark the cost of that is one that just keeps adding up and getting worse the longer it goes on.
One could opine that doing so is the equivalent of hiring a hitman to kill somebody, only she "purchased the hit" in public view. That's not just a no-no, that a stupid no-no.
And that person would not only be wrong but hilariously so. 'Hey, this person is an asshole' does not 'and I would love it if someone were to kill them' make. As has been noted before the right to free speech is not shorthand for consequence-free speech, and your 'right' to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' does not give you a shield against criticism. If you act like a racist you don't get to play the victim card if someone calls you out on it, even if that makes your life more difficult and/or less 'happy'.
'Only a gang member would breathe the same air as gang members!'
Quick and easy way to shut down all such gang databases: Have it run by a third party and apply it to everyone, police included.
Simply being near a gang member is enough to get you points towards a 'gang member' designation? Good thing police and judges aren't around many gang members.
Talking to a gang member even more damning? See previous point.
Having a weapon(or even just something that could be one) an indication that you're a member of a dangerous gang? Sure hope police don't go around armed by default otherwise that would look pretty suspicious.
With every police officer and a good number of prosecutors and judges added to the database it would be all too easy to rip into any accusations by asking why only some of the people on the database are worthy of condemnation while others are completely ignored despite gaining their designations thought the same methods.
'They'd just tell us we're wrong and that won't do.'
Why the Judiciary Committee is going straight to a markup, rather than holding hearings with actual experts, I cannot explain, but that's the process.
Ooh, ooh, I know, I know, pick me, pick me!
It's because they don't care what the experts know and would rather avoid having a bunch of those people say on the record and possibly on national television why their bill is not only a horrible idea but will actually make things much worse for exploited children, such that anyone who votes for EARN IT is in fact voting for CSAM.
Okay, then don't. Sit back, wait for your reaming from whoever ends up in office and let people who are still interested in trying to change things do their thing.
Only for a very select few companies in a certain industry, if you're an exec for a company not in that narrow range there's no need to worry and you can feel perfectly safe exploiting your customers and market power to your black heart's content.
No, that makes perfect sense, why just last week I went to the grocery store because I heard they were selling apples and to my great surprise I was pointed towards a pile of fruit. How dare the store and it's staff deceive people by telling their customers that they are selling apples when they clearly are not, don't they understand that when someone hears 'apple' the only thing that comes to mind is electronics of various types?
'This action would be entirely legal to do but that person over there said 'nuh-uh' so if you try to do it it's illegal, but don't worry that other person can provide limited exceptions every few years so it's fine' is such a blatantly absurd twisting of logic you really do need to be a politician to buy it, and one can only hope that the courts don't.
As I've noted in the past that's what makes police behavior(and the courts who cover for them) so dangerous for everyone, the public and police, as by banging so hard on the 'feared for your life = justification to gun someone down' drum and being so quick to employ deadly force they've left the public 'fearing for their lives' and provided the perfect excuse for them to return the favor, and that's not a good outcome for anyone.
Just like no one should want vigilantes no one should look forward to a system where lethal force is the first go-to response to potential threats.
My first thought is that it's a matter of projection, after all they train their dogs to attack people so clearly every other dog out there is trained to attack people, hence why it's so vital for police to kill every dog they run across.
UK government: Oh no no no, we're not making encryption illegal explicitly, we're just proposing a law that would make having encryption a massive liability and open people up to potential jail time. It's still entirely their choice whether to employ encryption or not.
It's like they're doing a speed-run to see how fast they can have every platform geoblock any UK user by making it far too risky to set up and/or offer service to anyone in the country. It's a good thing the internet isn't a huge boon to the economy and numerous other aspects of modern society otherwise wow would this be a stupid move on their part.
On the post: UK Government Refreshes Its Terrible 'Online Safety Bill,' Adds Even More Content For Platforms To Police
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Awesome, then you should have no trouble listing at least one of those topics, and be specific.
On the post: Minneapolis Police Officers Demanded No-Knock Warrant, Killed Innocent Gunowner Nine Seconds After Entering Residence
Criminals lying? Perish the thought
No no, gunning someone down on the spot after you broke into their house in the middle of the night and they're disoriented from being woken up is totally reasonable so long as you say 'police' and 'warrant', I mean can you imagine criminals ever doing something like that or police ever shooting an innocent person?
Clearly not, which means that if someone armed breaks into your house yelling about how they're cops they have a right to be there, and so long as you're innocent you have absolutely no reason to be worried or feel the need to defend yourself or even protest in the slightest.
On the post: The Top Ten Mistakes Senators Made During Today's EARN IT Markup
Re:
Honestly, did anyone read the whole article? It's REALLY long.
With ease because it really isn't.
If you can't summarize your points and make a persuasive argument, do you think making a LONGER argument makes you more credible?
The bill threatens encryption which hundreds of millions in the US alone depend on by making having it a liability and will not only not combat CSAM it will make it worse by incentivizing platforms not to look and giving guilty parties a solid case to dismiss any evidence used against them thanks to the platforms being pressured into acting as arms of the state.
Short and simple enough for you?
On the post: The Top Ten Mistakes Senators Made During Today's EARN IT Markup
That's not what 'mistake' means
They're not mistakes if they're intentional lies or indifference towards the consequences.
Even worse, the bill will do the opposite of what it claims: instead of helping law enforcement crack down on child sexual abuse material (CSAM), the bill will actually help the most odious criminals walk free.
This is what people need to keep hammering away at. The proponents of the bill want to make it untouchable and impossible to challenge by framing it as a bill to help exploited children by going after CSAM so I say return the favor. Any time they pull that stunt point out that setting aside all the other very serious problems the bill will cause they are in fact voting for for child exploitation and CSAM, that a vote for EARN IT is a vote for CSAM and any politician who votes for it should be seen in that light.
FOSTA was touted as a way to combat sex trafficking and it just made things worse for everyone but the criminals, FOSTA 2.0 will be no different and that needs to be brought up constantly.
On the post: Senator Blumenthal, After Years Of Denial, Admits He's Targeting Encryption With EARN IT
Apply the same logic to anything else
'Our law isn't an attack on free speech, it's only going after irresponsible speech, that being anything someone I don't like says.'
'We're not trying to undermine privacy, we're only going after those that misuse it by keeping us from being able to see everything they say and do.'
Or for one that would strike a little closer to home to half of those they're trying to sell this lie to...
'Our law doesn't threaten gun ownership, we're just going after irresponsible gun owners, any responsible gun owner will have nothing to worry about because gun ownership will only be a factor if any other charge are also brought against a person.'
On the post: Senator Blumenthal, After Years Of Denial, Admits He's Targeting Encryption With EARN IT
Re: Re: Something I feel deserves more attension
They really, truly, think the CSAM problem is 'simple' to fix, but Big Tech is being obstinate out of greed and need to be threatened with bigger and bigger sticks until they finally Nerd Harder and just push that big red 'fix it' button they know they have.
As Bluegrass Geek noted above they(the politicians) don't actually care about CSAM and are just using it for their own ends so they simply assume that the tech platforms are the same, the difference is that tech platforms and the companies running them actually do care about cracking down on CSAM in a meaningful manner.
On the post: Court (For Now) Says NY Times Can Publish Project Veritas Documents
Can't see how this could backfire on them at all...
'Attorney-client and other similarly private documents are protected and deserve to be treated as such! Now if you'll excuse us we're going to go back to trying to scam and/or trick people into giving us private documents and other information that we can publish to the world.'
If a complete and utter inability to experience shame weren't a requirement to be a modern day 'conservative' I'd imagine each and every one of them would have choked to death from the hypocrisy of their argument here. How dare someone print the private communications of others, that's their business model!
On the post: Even Officials In The Intelligence Community Are Recognizing The Dangers Of Over-Classification
Do you want another Snowden? That's how you get one
When the government decides that the default is to shut the public out and only hand out information when it absolutely has to that is how you get whistleblowers and leakers, people who've seen a system that has no interest in any sort of transparency that isn't forced by a lawsuit and as a result when they see something they think is off they don't report it to superiors they rightly expect will just bury it but make it public, potentially revealing far more than would have been exposed had the government done it itself.
Adding to the problems when the government is so resistant to being open with the public it makes it a lot harder for the public to trust it, which is problematic at the best of times but can be far more dire should(and I'm just spinning hypotheticals here) a situation arise wherein it's really important for the public to feel they can trust the government, both so they don't have to scramble to gain that trust in the moment and to make it harder for opportunistic grifters to exploit a reasonable distrust for their own gain.
Whether from pure self interest and/or for the sake of the public the government is much better off defaulting to transparency and keeping secrecy only to when they really need it, because while it may benefit them in the short-term to keep everyone in the dark the cost of that is one that just keeps adding up and getting worse the longer it goes on.
On the post: Terrible Vermont Harassment Law Being Challenged After Cops Use It To Punish A Black Lives Matter Supporter Over Her Facebook Posts
Re:
One could opine that doing so is the equivalent of hiring a hitman to kill somebody, only she "purchased the hit" in public view. That's not just a no-no, that a stupid no-no.
And that person would not only be wrong but hilariously so. 'Hey, this person is an asshole' does not 'and I would love it if someone were to kill them' make. As has been noted before the right to free speech is not shorthand for consequence-free speech, and your 'right' to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' does not give you a shield against criticism. If you act like a racist you don't get to play the victim card if someone calls you out on it, even if that makes your life more difficult and/or less 'happy'.
On the post: First Circuit Tears Into Boston PD's Bullshit Gang Database While Overturning A Deportation Decision
'Only a gang member would breathe the same air as gang members!'
Quick and easy way to shut down all such gang databases: Have it run by a third party and apply it to everyone, police included.
Simply being near a gang member is enough to get you points towards a 'gang member' designation? Good thing police and judges aren't around many gang members.
Talking to a gang member even more damning? See previous point.
Having a weapon(or even just something that could be one) an indication that you're a member of a dangerous gang? Sure hope police don't go around armed by default otherwise that would look pretty suspicious.
With every police officer and a good number of prosecutors and judges added to the database it would be all too easy to rip into any accusations by asking why only some of the people on the database are worthy of condemnation while others are completely ignored despite gaining their designations thought the same methods.
On the post: Over 60 Human Rights/Public Interest Groups Urge Congress To Drop EARN IT Act
'They'd just tell us we're wrong and that won't do.'
Why the Judiciary Committee is going straight to a markup, rather than holding hearings with actual experts, I cannot explain, but that's the process.
Ooh, ooh, I know, I know, pick me, pick me!
It's because they don't care what the experts know and would rather avoid having a bunch of those people say on the record and possibly on national television why their bill is not only a horrible idea but will actually make things much worse for exploited children, such that anyone who votes for EARN IT is in fact voting for CSAM.
On the post: Over 60 Human Rights/Public Interest Groups Urge Congress To Drop EARN IT Act
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay, then don't. Sit back, wait for your reaming from whoever ends up in office and let people who are still interested in trying to change things do their thing.
On the post: Over 60 Human Rights/Public Interest Groups Urge Congress To Drop EARN IT Act
If someone's going to stab you, make them work for it
Once again: SOPA.
That bill was a done deal, expected to sail right though with ease, yet a big enough pushback was enough to tank it.
Fight back and you might lose, give up and you ensure it.
On the post: Automakers Can't Give Up The Idea Of Turning Everyday Features Into Subscription Services With Fees
Re:
Cause antitrust is the flavor of the moment
Only for a very select few companies in a certain industry, if you're an exec for a company not in that narrow range there's no need to worry and you can feel perfectly safe exploiting your customers and market power to your black heart's content.
On the post: Apple Opposes Trademark For Indie Film 'Apple-Man' Claiming Potential Confusion
Apple: Our customers are INCREDIBLY stupid
No, that makes perfect sense, why just last week I went to the grocery store because I heard they were selling apples and to my great surprise I was pointed towards a pile of fruit. How dare the store and it's staff deceive people by telling their customers that they are selling apples when they clearly are not, don't they understand that when someone hears 'apple' the only thing that comes to mind is electronics of various types?
On the post: UK Government Refreshes Its Terrible 'Online Safety Bill,' Adds Even More Content For Platforms To Police
Re: Re: At least be honest you tyrannical cowards
Sounds like the Tories are your version of US republicans in that case.
On the post: Appeals Court Can Rule That DMCA's Anti-Circumvention Rules Are Unconstitutional
The ultimate fair-use veto
'This action would be entirely legal to do but that person over there said 'nuh-uh' so if you try to do it it's illegal, but don't worry that other person can provide limited exceptions every few years so it's fine' is such a blatantly absurd twisting of logic you really do need to be a politician to buy it, and one can only hope that the courts don't.
On the post: Court Grants Qualified Immunity To Officer Who Told Couple To Take Down Facebook Post About Off-Duty Cop Who Shot Their Dog
Re: fair is fair
As I've noted in the past that's what makes police behavior(and the courts who cover for them) so dangerous for everyone, the public and police, as by banging so hard on the 'feared for your life = justification to gun someone down' drum and being so quick to employ deadly force they've left the public 'fearing for their lives' and provided the perfect excuse for them to return the favor, and that's not a good outcome for anyone.
Just like no one should want vigilantes no one should look forward to a system where lethal force is the first go-to response to potential threats.
On the post: Court Grants Qualified Immunity To Officer Who Told Couple To Take Down Facebook Post About Off-Duty Cop Who Shot Their Dog
Re:
My first thought is that it's a matter of projection, after all they train their dogs to attack people so clearly every other dog out there is trained to attack people, hence why it's so vital for police to kill every dog they run across.
On the post: UK Government Refreshes Its Terrible 'Online Safety Bill,' Adds Even More Content For Platforms To Police
At least be honest you tyrannical cowards
UK government: Oh no no no, we're not making encryption illegal explicitly, we're just proposing a law that would make having encryption a massive liability and open people up to potential jail time. It's still entirely their choice whether to employ encryption or not.
It's like they're doing a speed-run to see how fast they can have every platform geoblock any UK user by making it far too risky to set up and/or offer service to anyone in the country. It's a good thing the internet isn't a huge boon to the economy and numerous other aspects of modern society otherwise wow would this be a stupid move on their part.
Next >>