AT&T's removal of this luxury price for privacy, in order to prevent privacy rules for broadband, is the best evidence that such rules are necessary.
Dear AT&T: If you're not going to violate users' privacy, then why would you be against rules against violating users' privacy?
Also: If you're not going to secretly harvest customers' organs in the night, then why would you be against rules against secretly harvesting customers' organs in the night?
If customers are unhappy with AT&T's harvesting of their vital organs, can't they use binding arbitration? And the market is self regulating, they can just choose a competitor that harvests fewer of your organs.
Both the arrest with subsequently dropped charges, and the other prosecution are simply malicious ways of inflicting "extra judicial" punishment. Street justice. Justice outside of the court system.
The police can detain or arrest you merely as a form of punishment. Seize your guilty property as a form of punishment. Just to satisfy the cop.
If you're being blackmailed, then DON'T take two selfies.
In the lynching situation, two selfies could be your friend.
"Oh, see, I have a selfie of me voting for ${ trump | hillary }. So I'm not one of the voters you want to lynch."
You make a good point about getting paid twice. In fact, maybe more than twice. You can get paid by anyone wanting to pay for a vote since you have a selfie of both.
Of course, results of election are known by election night after the news media delays announcing the result so as not to spoil the actual, already determined result for people in far west time zones.
1. Get ballot 2. Mark it for the selfie 3. Take selfie picture 4. Tear ballot and return it to election judge for a new ballot. If asked, explanation is that you had mis-marked your ballot and require a new one. 5. Mark ballot how you actually want it 6. Take _another_ selfie with correct ballot
Now if you were being paided to vote a certain way: 7. Profit
Or if paid or blackmailed to vote a certain way, and you were being watched, you could explain that the first time, you forgot, and marked the ballot the wrong way (selfie to prove it), then tore that one up, and voted the way the blackmailer or payer desired (selfie to prove it). [Just be sure there is no way to tell which selfie was taken first, such as on your camera, phone, etc. You emailed the selfie to the blackmailer, then deleted from camera to leave no evidence other than the email.]
Or if it comes to "we're going to track down and lynch everyone who voted for X", you have a selfie to prove you voted for the *other* evil candidate -- no matter what the election outcome.
I'm not trying to defend cops who did something wrong.
It seems that the parole officers can search the home at any time. Otherwise these anonymous tips would not have worked to initiate a search.
It seems that if there is a law forbidding the police from being the source of these anonymous tips, there must be a reason for that. Maybe because of some past pattern of abuse? (That wouldn't be a surprise.)
If someone is on parole and their parole officer can search at any time, then I'm not quite so sure what is wrong here -- except that technically, the police cannot just search anyone, any time, any where on their whim. Even though they seem to think they can.
If the parole officer can search at any time, then it seems that people on parole don't quite have the same right of not being searched at any random time. What is the purpose of parole?
So why can the parole officer search them and their house, but not the police?
Am I misunderstanding some basic facts or unaware of some law? (Very possibly)
The owners of the venue may be able to escort a journalist off their private property for not using their outrageously overpriced WiFi.
But it's a real prick move.
The university no doubt gets a genuine benefit for hosting the presidential debates. The dignity of the debates -- especially when Trump is one of the master debaters. :-)
But I can also imagine the university no longer being invited to host the debates. :-O How would they react to that?
And I'll give the same advice as I said to the Marriott hotel when they did their jamming. If you really want to make a better WiFi network, for legit reasons, then make it FREE TO USE for all. That will ENCOURAGE people to use it rather than interfere with it by using their own equipment.
On the post: AT&T Stops Charging Broadband Users Extra For Privacy
Re:
Dear AT&T: If you're not going to violate users' privacy, then why would you be against rules against violating users' privacy?
Also: If you're not going to secretly harvest customers' organs in the night, then why would you be against rules against secretly harvesting customers' organs in the night?
If customers are unhappy with AT&T's harvesting of their vital organs, can't they use binding arbitration? And the market is self regulating, they can just choose a competitor that harvests fewer of your organs.
On the post: MPAA Applauds Derailment of FCC Cable Box Competition Plan Because, Uh, Jobs!
Re:
On the post: MPAA Applauds Derailment of FCC Cable Box Competition Plan Because, Uh, Jobs!
Re: Re: It just speeds up cord cutting
How many cords would I need to cut per day to make that much? Do you provide the cutting tools? How is this computer based?
On the post: MPAA Applauds Derailment of FCC Cable Box Competition Plan Because, Uh, Jobs!
Re: Re: It just speeds up cord cutting
On the post: MPAA Applauds Derailment of FCC Cable Box Competition Plan Because, Uh, Jobs!
It just speeds up cord cutting
It just speeds up cord cutting.
Put the dinosaurs out of their misery faster.
The MPAA will end up wanting to sell their movies on the streaming services.
On the post: Arkansas Congressman Who Helped Protect Citizens' Right To Record Police Arrested For Recording Police
Re:
The police can detain or arrest you merely as a form of punishment. Seize your guilty property as a form of punishment. Just to satisfy the cop.
On the post: Intel Community To Institute Actual Whistleblower Award For 'Speaking Truth To Power'
Re:
On the post: U.S. Court Of Appeals Upholds Ruling That New Hampshire's Silly Ballot Selfie Ban Violated The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: It has to be illegal
On the post: U.S. Court Of Appeals Upholds Ruling That New Hampshire's Silly Ballot Selfie Ban Violated The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: It has to be illegal
In the lynching situation, two selfies could be your friend.
"Oh, see, I have a selfie of me voting for ${ trump | hillary }. So I'm not one of the voters you want to lynch."
You make a good point about getting paid twice. In fact, maybe more than twice. You can get paid by anyone wanting to pay for a vote since you have a selfie of both.
Of course, results of election are known by election night after the news media delays announcing the result so as not to spoil the actual, already determined result for people in far west time zones.
On the post: A Massive Cable Industry Disinformation Effort Just Crushed The FCC's Plan For Cable Box Competition
Nothing to get excited about -- It doesn't matter
The cable companies don't realize that they can only hurt themselves with this.
Dinosaurs drowning in the tarpit. Trying to remove competing tarpits that might be more temporarily comfortable.
On the post: U.S. Court Of Appeals Upholds Ruling That New Hampshire's Silly Ballot Selfie Ban Violated The First Amendment
Re: It has to be illegal
1. Get ballot
2. Mark it for the selfie
3. Take selfie picture
4. Tear ballot and return it to election judge for a new ballot. If asked, explanation is that you had mis-marked your ballot and require a new one.
5. Mark ballot how you actually want it
6. Take _another_ selfie with correct ballot
Now if you were being paided to vote a certain way:
7. Profit
Or if paid or blackmailed to vote a certain way, and you were being watched, you could explain that the first time, you forgot, and marked the ballot the wrong way (selfie to prove it), then tore that one up, and voted the way the blackmailer or payer desired (selfie to prove it). [Just be sure there is no way to tell which selfie was taken first, such as on your camera, phone, etc. You emailed the selfie to the blackmailer, then deleted from camera to leave no evidence other than the email.]
Or if it comes to "we're going to track down and lynch everyone who voted for X", you have a selfie to prove you voted for the *other* evil candidate -- no matter what the election outcome.
On the post: U.S. Court Of Appeals Upholds Ruling That New Hampshire's Silly Ballot Selfie Ban Violated The First Amendment
Re:
On the post: Intel Community To Institute Actual Whistleblower Award For 'Speaking Truth To Power'
Re:
They know EXACTLY what truth looks like because they are diligently alert in case truth were to rear its ugly head.
What you call mishandling they call damage control. Political expedience. A matter of internal security.
Then there are fallbacks if it is actually exposed: but it's perfectly legal, I was only doing my job, I'm shocked, shocked! Etc.
On the post: Intel Community To Institute Actual Whistleblower Award For 'Speaking Truth To Power'
Re: Bait?
1. What is your name?
2. Which part of the government do you work for?
3. Please explain what you are reporting and why you would want to embarrass the government this with this?
4. What is your least favorite form of enhanced interrogation?
Don't forget to click SUBMIT
On the post: Intel Community To Institute Actual Whistleblower Award For 'Speaking Truth To Power'
Proposed name for this new award
On the post: Cops Dodge 4th Amendment By Phoning In 'Anonymous' Tips; Watch Their Drug Bust Vanish After They're Exposed
A serious and honest question
It seems that the parole officers can search the home at any time. Otherwise these anonymous tips would not have worked to initiate a search.
It seems that if there is a law forbidding the police from being the source of these anonymous tips, there must be a reason for that. Maybe because of some past pattern of abuse? (That wouldn't be a surprise.)
If someone is on parole and their parole officer can search at any time, then I'm not quite so sure what is wrong here -- except that technically, the police cannot just search anyone, any time, any where on their whim. Even though they seem to think they can.
If the parole officer can search at any time, then it seems that people on parole don't quite have the same right of not being searched at any random time. What is the purpose of parole?
So why can the parole officer search them and their house, but not the police?
Am I misunderstanding some basic facts or unaware of some law? (Very possibly)
Thanks for a any clarification
On the post: The FCC Wants To Know Why Journalists Had To Pay $200 For WiFi At Presidential Debate
Re: Welcome to unlicensed spectrum!
But it's a real prick move.
The university no doubt gets a genuine benefit for hosting the presidential debates. The dignity of the debates -- especially when Trump is one of the master debaters. :-)
But I can also imagine the university no longer being invited to host the debates. :-O How would they react to that?
And I'll give the same advice as I said to the Marriott hotel when they did their jamming. If you really want to make a better WiFi network, for legit reasons, then make it FREE TO USE for all. That will ENCOURAGE people to use it rather than interfere with it by using their own equipment.
On the post: How I Taught A Jury About Trolls, Memes And 4Chan -- And Helped Get A Troll Out Of Jail
Re: Fat Man Gadget =?
* wheelchair
* scooter (EMV)
* cane
* walker
On the post: What Cord Cutting? Cable Sector Hiked TV Prices 40% In Last Five Years
Re: And the Death Spiral Begins...
Oh, wait. You're saying it's undefined? Well, then executives can still define it as success!
On the post: What Cord Cutting? Cable Sector Hiked TV Prices 40% In Last Five Years
Re: Re:
The only way to break this abuse is to forcibly separate the DUMB PIPES from the content providers and delivery.
Next >>