It seems that some unduly passionate law makers won't be happy until the Internet consists of only 0's with no 1's. Or is it all 1's and no 0's? Either way they get what they want and don't understand what they lose.
Fortunately the Constitution will prevent them from getting what they want. However, unfortunately, they could (and probably will) cause a lot of pain as various cases wind their way through the courts (like FOSTA is doing), over possibly decades.
In the mean time it is likely, unless they outlaw ISP's, that the Internet will route around the damages they seem willing to do. I can imagine what their friends and family will have to say when they cannot access their bank accounts or make purchases from Amazon or other internet storefronts, or get on Facebook to relate their most recent meals, or Twit their daily dressing habits, or Skype with distant relatives, or their cell phones no longer connect, or ...
It has to do with another badly implemented law known as DMCA. By bad implementation I refer to, among other things, the failure to have a toothsome penalty for false take down notices and little to no recourse for those whom those false or frivolous notices were sent to.
McInnes files lawsuit claiming defamation over truthful allegations. One presumes, though it is possible it isn't true, McInnes has competent legal advise, who go ahead with the suit 'cause their paid to do so (isn't that a cause of action for the Bar?). So the purposes of the suit are likely an attempt to censor SPLC's speech and/or cost them money, which will likely only harm them in a minor way.
Well, it is costing McInnes money too, and since it appears he may lose (though who the hell knows was a given court will do on any given day) he will also not obtain the censorship he desires.
So what does he win? A hole in his foot. Oh, and something to be embarrassed about, though he won't be embarrassed as he will likely spin his loss as a win.
The first is that if cockroach parts were found in a beef patty the health department would go uncontrollably crazy.
The second is, if the product were made entirely of cockroaches but the source of the nutrition was masked in some way, the consumers, as well as the health department would go uncontrollably crazy if they found out.
Then, compared to those societies that endorse cockroach protein in chocolate covered forms, or deep fried, or prepared some other way, is our potential for insanity when cockroaches become a part of our food chain abnormal?
As to whether the cockroaches as protein should be disclosed or not, it is gonna take some time for acceptance in some cultures as much time and effort has been expended on vilifying cockroaches in food. The marketing folks probably feel a need to hide it, in face of the competing propaganda, but at the same time feel a need for truth in advertising. Time will tell. The question that remains is whether the new food sources can withstand the wait?
In math, two negatives make a positive, does it here?
"Hart InterCivic, a corporation that derives independent actual value from this information not being generally known or readily ascertainable and makes reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of this information, requests that it be designated as a trade secret pursuant to G.S. § 132-1.2(1)d. and G.S. § 66-152(3)."
The only way I can conceive of this being true is that their markets would be negatively impacted if their potential customers are aware of who the true owners are. By hiding the truth, those customers aren't turned away.
Is it real or is it Clairol, only the hairdresser knows for sure
Maybe the Academy Awards should focus on politicians rather than movies. Or, maybe not. While there is a lot of acting going on in politics, it may or may not be better acting.
The symptom of 'do something, anything, even if it's wrong' as displayed by politicians in search of votes rather than actual solutions to the problems, seems to be infectious. I don't know whether they are infecting us or we infected them but the 'solutions' presented often don't resolve the intended issues.
Our government has been pushing agendas for many decades, often through the CIA, and often via incredibly bad notions of what might work, that not only fail in the long run but set examples of how others should go about pushing their agendas. We, at least so far as our government goes (and likely the rest of us at least as a whole), has a terrible time looking in the mirror for the causes to the effects we find not to our liking. And it is not just in accepting responsibility for our actions, but in identifying the sources of the newly created or exacerbated problems.
The response to hide speech we don't like is like security through obscurity, and those who take security seriously, and not just as a slogan, know that that method does not work. It is not only likely that the information that is being blocked will be found and disseminated (it might no longer be on Facebook or Twitter or elsewhere public it is likely still on someones hard drive), but long term repercussions from that blocking will have significant impact on how things are viewed in the future.
For us, at least in our Democratic Republic, change will come with difficulty as it will be necessary to change parts of our current election and accountability model in order to achieve any substantive results, and that won't come easily as those in power will wish to retain their power in a manner that will ensure ongoing power to those that have it. Whereas the needed changes require that power be mitigated and accountability raised. An untenable result for the power hungry that tend to dominate the political arena.
Setting such an example, over unfortunately much too much time, might go a long way to help others in the world realize that the ideals of open vs closed societies with governments that work for the people rather than for their own retention, are better for the world in general, including their own parts of it. Even if it doesn't do much to feed their ego trips.
Like cameras, devices like these are for investigative purposes rather than prevention (recordings the police would need a warrant for). The only time they work in prevention is if a perpetrator is intent upon not getting caught, then the presence of such devices, in a conspicuous manner, do make some sense. That, however, doesn't seem to be the case with those folks who have caused havoc in schools. At least so far.
Calibre. I understand that it might remove DRM (though I have never used it for that purpose), but if nothing else they could probably just make a copy in a different format and or directory that might work after Microshaft performs their dirty deed.
"Because 5G doesn't travel as far as 3G or 4G, you actually need 3 times the cell towers to cover the same area as 4G."
Sounds like an opportunity for economy of scale. Those 5G cell towers will be cheap, cheap, cheap, so reinstalling on a 3-1 basis will actually a net cost benefit. Also, don't worry about non-urban areas, no one ever goes there, so your 5G enabled car won't get lost in the boonies.
I see the problem with wanting to break up big companies is that those looking into to future lack the imagination to conceive what might be 'harmful' to the current leading crop. This is not necessarily their fault (or a bad thing), as if they were capable of creating the next big thing, they would be doing so rather than prognosticating about things they know nothing about. And fear. Fear of the unknown and that the unknown will never come to pass.
There is also the problem of trying to identify vulnerabilities in the current crop, as the disruptions of the companies mentioned in the article came from...shall we say 'left field' rather than direct attacks. While the Iphone was targeted at competing with Nokia, the things that made it different and better weren't that it made better phone calls. The things that took out AIM weren't that it sent messages better, but that they weren’t in the AOL silo. The things that brought Chrome and other browsers to their current market positions was that they weren't IE, and focused on things not Microsoft rather than containing themselves to that walled garden.
So what will be the next disruption? It's not likely that anyone knows now, or they are not far enough along with their development for many to be talking about them yet. Just as with other disruptions it won't necessarily be some new technology competing with existing technology but possibly something that enables a new 'need, or convenience' that we, today, don't know we need, or need easier, yet. We used to listen to radios who programmed our listening, then we carried music around with us, to program our own listening, and now we have moved back to a wireless connection to music that has a greater variety but is still not only programmable but has access to new music as it comes out. There are other nuances to that analogy, buy songs rather than albums, for example.
So the things that will be different are what the marketplace determines is important to them. Those things may or may not exist yet, and whether those things will be accepted by the market, let alone become important to the market will depend not only on the uniqueness of the product/service, and the quality of the implementation of the product/service but whether it captures some link to the imagination of the market. While the actual disruption might be new and different, the process will be the same.
As mentioned above, a big problem is the fear created by the size of the current market dominators. That fear is irrational as, for example, while Microsoft and IBM are are still around, they have been re-imagined or taken some different directions than they had in the past, and aren’t quite as dominate as they were, while competitors are/have developed products/services that filled in the gaps. Who knows what Amazon might turn into, or what convolution of technologies might make it passe (maybe a new product search engines along with emerging delivery technologies that combine to make manufacturer to direct to consumer much more efficient, that then makes Amazon less relevant) or Facebook’s placement of everyone/thing in one place being replaced by some distributed connectivity that allows people to feel/be connected without the intrusion of Facebook’s leering over everyone's every thought and deed. The fear of size and the dislike for dominance which seems to be not able to be overcome has been shown to be overcome-able in the past, and likely will be in the future, even if those seemingly insurmountable obstacles continue to grow. While the process will remain the same, the disruptions will be different, and alike.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 28 Jun 2019 @ 7:31pm
Sign here, no need to read the fine print.
I'd like to see the contract signed by the courts when they 'purchase' this software. Purchase is in quotes because it might be sold as a service and they, like others don't actually own what they buy.
Somehow I think that the sales contract benefits the seller and prevents any kind of being able to qualify the product. That the courts, made up of lawyers (judges are lawyers...right?) didn't and now don't question the validity of the software seems somehow more political than judicial or judicious. Is this what we get from electing judges or are appointed judges just as political.
That a system of justice can allow software that cannot be proven to provide justice is considered to be just is an anathema. How is it that these questions have not reached a higher court and the entire concept shot down?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 28 Jun 2019 @ 1:06pm
Re: Re: Double standard in the making
That concept will only work if both ends have the necessary encryption/deencrypt software, oh and the keys. Try setting that up with your bank, Amazon, Steam, or any other online seller/service that needs your money/credit/debit card information.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 24 Jun 2019 @ 6:31am
Talk about word salad
When Ajit (gesundheit) Pai (lemon meringue seems appropriate) opens his mouth, nothing but sausage comes out. Different flavored sausages mind you. There's Verizon sausage, AT&T sausage, Sprint sausage, TMobile sausage, Comcast sausage and etc. sausage (made from the bits and pieces of the other telecom/Internet companies contributions to the public good...err...).
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 24 Jun 2019 @ 6:15am
Re: Re: Re: What’s Your Opinion #1
Fukawis, where the Fukawis. Say it fast and you will approach how the creators of that show managed to get over the FCC's words you can't say on TV rules.
An NPR interview with Forrest Tucker and Larry Storch a long time ago describing this was more fun than the show, partly because I was too young (or innocent) at the time of the show to understand what was happening.
On the post: Senator Graham Spreads A Bunch Of Nonsense About 'Protecting Digital Innocence' Online
Intended consequences denied as intentional
It seems that some unduly passionate law makers won't be happy until the Internet consists of only 0's with no 1's. Or is it all 1's and no 0's? Either way they get what they want and don't understand what they lose.
Fortunately the Constitution will prevent them from getting what they want. However, unfortunately, they could (and probably will) cause a lot of pain as various cases wind their way through the courts (like FOSTA is doing), over possibly decades.
In the mean time it is likely, unless they outlaw ISP's, that the Internet will route around the damages they seem willing to do. I can imagine what their friends and family will have to say when they cannot access their bank accounts or make purchases from Amazon or other internet storefronts, or get on Facebook to relate their most recent meals, or Twit their daily dressing habits, or Skype with distant relatives, or their cell phones no longer connect, or ...
On the post: YouTube Finally Demands Specificity From Copyright Claimants
Re: what am I not understanding?
It has to do with another badly implemented law known as DMCA. By bad implementation I refer to, among other things, the failure to have a toothsome penalty for false take down notices and little to no recourse for those whom those false or frivolous notices were sent to.
On the post: SPLC Asks Court To Toss Proud Boy Founder's Defamation Lawsuit By Asking 'Where's The Lie?'
Look out foot, here comes the shot
McInnes files lawsuit claiming defamation over truthful allegations. One presumes, though it is possible it isn't true, McInnes has competent legal advise, who go ahead with the suit 'cause their paid to do so (isn't that a cause of action for the Bar?). So the purposes of the suit are likely an attempt to censor SPLC's speech and/or cost them money, which will likely only harm them in a minor way.
Well, it is costing McInnes money too, and since it appears he may lose (though who the hell knows was a given court will do on any given day) he will also not obtain the censorship he desires.
So what does he win? A hole in his foot. Oh, and something to be embarrassed about, though he won't be embarrassed as he will likely spin his loss as a win.
On the post: Vegan Food Manufacturers Sue State Over Unconstitutional Law Banning Them From Using Meat Words
Two ways to think about that
The first is that if cockroach parts were found in a beef patty the health department would go uncontrollably crazy.
The second is, if the product were made entirely of cockroaches but the source of the nutrition was masked in some way, the consumers, as well as the health department would go uncontrollably crazy if they found out.
Then, compared to those societies that endorse cockroach protein in chocolate covered forms, or deep fried, or prepared some other way, is our potential for insanity when cockroaches become a part of our food chain abnormal?
As to whether the cockroaches as protein should be disclosed or not, it is gonna take some time for acceptance in some cultures as much time and effort has been expended on vilifying cockroaches in food. The marketing folks probably feel a need to hide it, in face of the competing propaganda, but at the same time feel a need for truth in advertising. Time will tell. The question that remains is whether the new food sources can withstand the wait?
On the post: Thinking Of Privacy As A Property Right Will End Badly
Two related articles
Concept of "Return on Data"
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/05/the_concept_of_.html
https://papers.ssrn.c om/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3362880
and
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/06/maciej_ceg lowsk.html
Maciej Cegłowski on Privacy in the Information Age
On the post: Appeals Court Affirms: Trump Can't Block Followers On Social Media
Different angles and dangles
Scott Greenfield had a post about this today entitled First Test of 2d Circuit’s Twitter Ruling? @AOC Make sure you check out the comments.
On the post: Voting Machine Makers Claim The Names Of The Entities That Own Them Are Trade Secrets
In math, two negatives make a positive, does it here?
The only way I can conceive of this being true is that their markets would be negatively impacted if their potential customers are aware of who the true owners are. By hiding the truth, those customers aren't turned away.
On the post: NASA, NOAA, and the Navy Tell The FCC Its 5G Plan Will Harm Weather Forecasting
Re: Re: Re: The ephemeral elephant in the room
It's not the specs, it's what is being measured. See:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190701/07244842500/nasa-noaa-navy-tell-fcc-5g-plan-will-har m-weather-forecasting.shtml#c302
On the post: Senator Lindsey Graham To Host Special 'But Think Of The Children Online!' Moral Panic Hearing
Is it real or is it Clairol, only the hairdresser knows for sure
Maybe the Academy Awards should focus on politicians rather than movies. Or, maybe not. While there is a lot of acting going on in politics, it may or may not be better acting.
On the post: We Should Probably Stop Blaming Technology For The Failings Of Human Beings
Re: CAPTCHA
It works for me and I didn't need to fiddle with NoScript or uMatrix.
On the post: We Should Probably Stop Blaming Technology For The Failings Of Human Beings
Society, open or closed?
The symptom of 'do something, anything, even if it's wrong' as displayed by politicians in search of votes rather than actual solutions to the problems, seems to be infectious. I don't know whether they are infecting us or we infected them but the 'solutions' presented often don't resolve the intended issues.
Our government has been pushing agendas for many decades, often through the CIA, and often via incredibly bad notions of what might work, that not only fail in the long run but set examples of how others should go about pushing their agendas. We, at least so far as our government goes (and likely the rest of us at least as a whole), has a terrible time looking in the mirror for the causes to the effects we find not to our liking. And it is not just in accepting responsibility for our actions, but in identifying the sources of the newly created or exacerbated problems.
The response to hide speech we don't like is like security through obscurity, and those who take security seriously, and not just as a slogan, know that that method does not work. It is not only likely that the information that is being blocked will be found and disseminated (it might no longer be on Facebook or Twitter or elsewhere public it is likely still on someones hard drive), but long term repercussions from that blocking will have significant impact on how things are viewed in the future.
For us, at least in our Democratic Republic, change will come with difficulty as it will be necessary to change parts of our current election and accountability model in order to achieve any substantive results, and that won't come easily as those in power will wish to retain their power in a manner that will ensure ongoing power to those that have it. Whereas the needed changes require that power be mitigated and accountability raised. An untenable result for the power hungry that tend to dominate the political arena.
Setting such an example, over unfortunately much too much time, might go a long way to help others in the world realize that the ideals of open vs closed societies with governments that work for the people rather than for their own retention, are better for the world in general, including their own parts of it. Even if it doesn't do much to feed their ego trips.
On the post: Schools Are Using 'Aggression Detecting' Mics That Are Set Off By Coughing, Slamming Locker Doors To Head Off The Next School Shooting
Only effective after the fact
Like cameras, devices like these are for investigative purposes rather than prevention (recordings the police would need a warrant for). The only time they work in prevention is if a perpetrator is intent upon not getting caught, then the presence of such devices, in a conspicuous manner, do make some sense. That, however, doesn't seem to be the case with those folks who have caused havoc in schools. At least so far.
On the post: You Don't Own What You've Bought: Microsoft's Books 'Will Stop Working'
To fix or not to fix, that is the question
Calibre. I understand that it might remove DRM (though I have never used it for that purpose), but if nothing else they could probably just make a copy in a different format and or directory that might work after Microshaft performs their dirty deed.
On the post: The Press Needs An Intervention When It Comes To Over-Hyping 5G
Re:
Sounds like an opportunity for economy of scale. Those 5G cell towers will be cheap, cheap, cheap, so reinstalling on a 3-1 basis will actually a net cost benefit. Also, don't worry about non-urban areas, no one ever goes there, so your 5G enabled car won't get lost in the boonies.
/s
On the post: Is 'This Time Different' Concerning Big Internet Dominance?
Is it different?
I see the problem with wanting to break up big companies is that those looking into to future lack the imagination to conceive what might be 'harmful' to the current leading crop. This is not necessarily their fault (or a bad thing), as if they were capable of creating the next big thing, they would be doing so rather than prognosticating about things they know nothing about. And fear. Fear of the unknown and that the unknown will never come to pass.
There is also the problem of trying to identify vulnerabilities in the current crop, as the disruptions of the companies mentioned in the article came from...shall we say 'left field' rather than direct attacks. While the Iphone was targeted at competing with Nokia, the things that made it different and better weren't that it made better phone calls. The things that took out AIM weren't that it sent messages better, but that they weren’t in the AOL silo. The things that brought Chrome and other browsers to their current market positions was that they weren't IE, and focused on things not Microsoft rather than containing themselves to that walled garden.
So what will be the next disruption? It's not likely that anyone knows now, or they are not far enough along with their development for many to be talking about them yet. Just as with other disruptions it won't necessarily be some new technology competing with existing technology but possibly something that enables a new 'need, or convenience' that we, today, don't know we need, or need easier, yet. We used to listen to radios who programmed our listening, then we carried music around with us, to program our own listening, and now we have moved back to a wireless connection to music that has a greater variety but is still not only programmable but has access to new music as it comes out. There are other nuances to that analogy, buy songs rather than albums, for example.
So the things that will be different are what the marketplace determines is important to them. Those things may or may not exist yet, and whether those things will be accepted by the market, let alone become important to the market will depend not only on the uniqueness of the product/service, and the quality of the implementation of the product/service but whether it captures some link to the imagination of the market. While the actual disruption might be new and different, the process will be the same.
As mentioned above, a big problem is the fear created by the size of the current market dominators. That fear is irrational as, for example, while Microsoft and IBM are are still around, they have been re-imagined or taken some different directions than they had in the past, and aren’t quite as dominate as they were, while competitors are/have developed products/services that filled in the gaps. Who knows what Amazon might turn into, or what convolution of technologies might make it passe (maybe a new product search engines along with emerging delivery technologies that combine to make manufacturer to direct to consumer much more efficient, that then makes Amazon less relevant) or Facebook’s placement of everyone/thing in one place being replaced by some distributed connectivity that allows people to feel/be connected without the intrusion of Facebook’s leering over everyone's every thought and deed. The fear of size and the dislike for dominance which seems to be not able to be overcome has been shown to be overcome-able in the past, and likely will be in the future, even if those seemingly insurmountable obstacles continue to grow. While the process will remain the same, the disruptions will be different, and alike.
On the post: AI Isn't Making The Criminal Justice System Any Smarter
Sign here, no need to read the fine print.
I'd like to see the contract signed by the courts when they 'purchase' this software. Purchase is in quotes because it might be sold as a service and they, like others don't actually own what they buy.
Somehow I think that the sales contract benefits the seller and prevents any kind of being able to qualify the product. That the courts, made up of lawyers (judges are lawyers...right?) didn't and now don't question the validity of the software seems somehow more political than judicial or judicious. Is this what we get from electing judges or are appointed judges just as political.
That a system of justice can allow software that cannot be proven to provide justice is considered to be just is an anathema. How is it that these questions have not reached a higher court and the entire concept shot down?
On the post: Here We Go Again: Trump Administration Considers Outlawing Encryption
Re:
Hey, that looks like my password!
On the post: Here We Go Again: Trump Administration Considers Outlawing Encryption
Re: Re: Double standard in the making
That concept will only work if both ends have the necessary encryption/deencrypt software, oh and the keys. Try setting that up with your bank, Amazon, Steam, or any other online seller/service that needs your money/credit/debit card information.
On the post: Robocalls Swamp Hospitals As The Trump FCC Pretends To Fix The Problem
Talk about word salad
When Ajit (gesundheit) Pai (lemon meringue seems appropriate) opens his mouth, nothing but sausage comes out. Different flavored sausages mind you. There's Verizon sausage, AT&T sausage, Sprint sausage, TMobile sausage, Comcast sausage and etc. sausage (made from the bits and pieces of the other telecom/Internet companies contributions to the public good...err...).
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: What’s Your Opinion #1
Fukawis, where the Fukawis. Say it fast and you will approach how the creators of that show managed to get over the FCC's words you can't say on TV rules.
An NPR interview with Forrest Tucker and Larry Storch a long time ago describing this was more fun than the show, partly because I was too young (or innocent) at the time of the show to understand what was happening.
Next >>