Being a little bit crackable is like being a little bit pregnant.
Not really. There's a spectrum, from "vulnerable to advanced intelligence agencies" to "the password is 1234". Everything is crackable, it's just secure enough for expected threats, or not.
Student & Teacher hooking up... its a police matter, you let them deal with it.
They did.
"In May 2016, a student enrolled in a high-school in Shelbyville, Texas, consented to having his phone searched by one of the district’s school resource officers."
That's a cop. The question is whether there should be police in the schools to begin with.
Apple's employee database (think massive HIPPA violations if leaked)
Apple (and any ordinary employer) is not subject to HIPAA.
"The Privacy Rule, as well as all the Administrative Simplification rules, apply to health plans, health care clearinghouses, and to any health care provider who transmits health information in electronic form in connection with transactions for which the Secretary of HHS has adopted standards under HIPAA (the “covered entities”)."
Assume, for just a moment, that not everyone has perfect eyesight - and you'll begin to gain an insight into the lives of tens of millions of folks with impaired vision.
If you have impaired vision and don't know how to increase the size of text on your browser/monitor, that's on you.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Googoole says we aren't allowed to discuss m
Bloody h*** that's not basing calculations on a couple of flawed premises that's basing them on an entirely fictional world.
Exactly right. The reasoning is: assume P, and figure out the chances that P is true based on the sampling. It turns out the chances are astronomically low, so we conclude P must not be true. The Texas lawsuit just cherry picked the "chances are astronomically low" part without mentioning the rest. The statistician didn't conclude there must have been fraud, he concluded (you may want to be sitting down for this part) that the preferences of voters were different in this race compared to 2016.
So no - the US military is not authorized to defend the speech of individuals ranting in city square. Local law enforcement will take care of it.
Interesting thought. The military is not authorized to perform law enforcement duties within the US. Yet the oath is to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. So what does that imply? And would local law enforcement actually do anything about it if your first amendment rights were being violated, or would it be left to the court system?
Going back to the original statement: "It's ironic the purpose of the military is to defend America and the American way of life freedom which includes free speech." I think you have to get deep into the weeds of hair splitting (and mixed metaphors) to argue that there is no irony in attacking free speech in a bill to fund the military, on the basis that the first amendment is not perfectly aligned with the concept of free speech in general.
"A man who had been handcuffed with his arms behind his back by police in Maryland was involved in a fatal shooting incident inside an officer's cruiser."
The issue in the US is that there's a very odious bit of legislation called the "communications decency act", or CDA, which makes that first amendment conditional online.
Either I misunderstood you or you're mistaken. The only part of the CDA that has not been struck down as unconstitutional is section 230. The problem 230 is solving was raised by court cases, not legislation. It does not place any obligations on anyone to receive any kind of protections. It is possible you're conflating it with the DMCA, which does have obligations which must be met in order to qualify for its safe harbor protection.
The US military is not authorized to defend "free speech" as you put it.
The oath of enlistment is as follows:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
So yes, every member of the military is sworn to uphold the Constitution, including the free speech provisions of the first amendment.
And if that requires cutting off our bloated military budget for a short while...what's the problem, exactly?
I think the main problem is that the people most affected are service members, who are generally not exactly rolling in cash. And it's a pretty bad look to veto a bill that provides them things like pay raises and hazard pay. If this were just a matter of delaying payments to defense contractors, sure maybe not such a big deal.
If it passed initially with a 2/3 majority, what's the point in sending it back to be voted on again?
I think this has been partially answered, but in addition the Constitution spells out the process. Congress cannot take away the president's right to veto a bill by passing it with a 2/3 majority.
Re: 'Should we test this on non-whites?' '... nah.'
There could be tens of millions of black faces correctly tagged, and dozens or hundreds or thousands with these bad tags. If the numbers are anything like that, it would be easy to get through testing without encountering any of the problem scenarios. I don't know if that's how it went down, or if testing really was inadequate, but from what I've read there's not enough information to tell which.
A judge does not consider the facts in the case at all and instead reads his ruling from a piece of paper written before he read the suit and that means the case brought before the judge who had already made up his mind the week before is "ridiculous?"
I'm only reading elected by the people thereof which doesn't specify the particulars of the election, such as FPTP, winner-take-all by district, Majority, Plurality or who counts as people.
Correct, there are details not mentioned in the amendment. However I doubt a state could get away with electing by district. Who counts as people comes up from time to time. Any effort to allow corporations to vote I'm sure would fail instantly.
Even if it is a popular majority, there's always good old fashioned voter suppression to assure McConnell cannot be ousted.
I'm not sure that has even been necessary - it's Kentucky - but no doubt the option is available.
On the post: Schools Are Using Phone-Cracking Tech To Access The Contents Of Students' Devices
Re: Re: Between Resource Officers and Zero tolerance policies...
It denotes children being schooled at home. Perhaps you meant "connotes".
On the post: Schools Are Using Phone-Cracking Tech To Access The Contents Of Students' Devices
Re: Re:
Not really. There's a spectrum, from "vulnerable to advanced intelligence agencies" to "the password is 1234". Everything is crackable, it's just secure enough for expected threats, or not.
On the post: Schools Are Using Phone-Cracking Tech To Access The Contents Of Students' Devices
Re: HIGH SCHOOL?
Well, that depends on the age of consent. In Texas, where this case happened, that is 17. I don't know how old the student was.
On the post: Schools Are Using Phone-Cracking Tech To Access The Contents Of Students' Devices
Re:
They did.
"In May 2016, a student enrolled in a high-school in Shelbyville, Texas, consented to having his phone searched by one of the district’s school resource officers."
That's a cop. The question is whether there should be police in the schools to begin with.
On the post: Security Researcher Reveals Solarwinds' Update Server Was 'Secured' With The Password 'solarwinds123'
Re:
Apple (and any ordinary employer) is not subject to HIPAA.
"The Privacy Rule, as well as all the Administrative Simplification rules, apply to health plans, health care clearinghouses, and to any health care provider who transmits health information in electronic form in connection with transactions for which the Secretary of HHS has adopted standards under HIPAA (the “covered entities”)."
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/laws-regulations/index.html
On the post: DHS Cyber Warriors Issue Warning About Massive Hacking Campaign, Disclose They've Been Hacked A Day Later
Re: Re: Re: Re: Soo.
I have never heard of a standard practice of decompiling and analyzing software updates from trusted vendors. Does your company do this? Does anyone?
On the post: Wireless Carriers Are Training Consumers To Equate "5G" With Bluster And Empty Promises
Re:
If you have impaired vision and don't know how to increase the size of text on your browser/monitor, that's on you.
On the post: Biden's Top Tech Advisor Trots Out Dangerous Ideas For 'Reforming' Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Googoole says we aren't allowed to discuss m
Exactly right. The reasoning is: assume P, and figure out the chances that P is true based on the sampling. It turns out the chances are astronomically low, so we conclude P must not be true. The Texas lawsuit just cherry picked the "chances are astronomically low" part without mentioning the rest. The statistician didn't conclude there must have been fraud, he concluded (you may want to be sitting down for this part) that the preferences of voters were different in this race compared to 2016.
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/09/more-on-statistical-stupidity-at-scotus/
On the post: Trump Makes It Official: He's Going To Pull Military Funding, Because Congress Won't Kill The Open Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
US military on US soil:
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/07/01/loophole-in-law-governing-amer ican-military-use-on-us-soil-raises-concerns/
On the post: Trump Makes It Official: He's Going To Pull Military Funding, Because Congress Won't Kill The Open Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Interesting thought. The military is not authorized to perform law enforcement duties within the US. Yet the oath is to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. So what does that imply? And would local law enforcement actually do anything about it if your first amendment rights were being violated, or would it be left to the court system?
Going back to the original statement: "It's ironic the purpose of the military is to defend America and the American way of life freedom which includes free speech." I think you have to get deep into the weeds of hair splitting (and mixed metaphors) to argue that there is no irony in attacking free speech in a bill to fund the military, on the basis that the first amendment is not perfectly aligned with the concept of free speech in general.
On the post: ICE Sends Subpoena To BuzzFeed, Hoping To Force It To Turn Over Its Sources
Re: Re: Officer-involved brutalty
It could be even more vague though.
"A man who had been handcuffed with his arms behind his back by police in Maryland was involved in a fatal shooting incident inside an officer's cruiser."
On the post: Trump Makes It Official: He's Going To Pull Military Funding, Because Congress Won't Kill The Open Internet
Re: Re:
Either I misunderstood you or you're mistaken. The only part of the CDA that has not been struck down as unconstitutional is section 230. The problem 230 is solving was raised by court cases, not legislation. It does not place any obligations on anyone to receive any kind of protections. It is possible you're conflating it with the DMCA, which does have obligations which must be met in order to qualify for its safe harbor protection.
On the post: Trump Makes It Official: He's Going To Pull Military Funding, Because Congress Won't Kill The Open Internet
Re: Re:
The oath of enlistment is as follows:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
So yes, every member of the military is sworn to uphold the Constitution, including the free speech provisions of the first amendment.
https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html
On the post: Trump Makes It Official: He's Going To Pull Military Funding, Because Congress Won't Kill The Open Internet
Re: CASE Act?
I think the main problem is that the people most affected are service members, who are generally not exactly rolling in cash. And it's a pretty bad look to veto a bill that provides them things like pay raises and hazard pay. If this were just a matter of delaying payments to defense contractors, sure maybe not such a big deal.
On the post: Trump Makes It Official: He's Going To Pull Military Funding, Because Congress Won't Kill The Open Internet
Re: Re: Re: Veto proof
I think this has been partially answered, but in addition the Constitution spells out the process. Congress cannot take away the president's right to veto a bill by passing it with a 2/3 majority.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Google's Photo App Tags Photos Of Black People As 'Gorillas' (2015)
Re: 'Should we test this on non-whites?' '... nah.'
There could be tens of millions of black faces correctly tagged, and dozens or hundreds or thousands with these bad tags. If the numbers are anything like that, it would be easy to get through testing without encountering any of the problem scenarios. I don't know if that's how it went down, or if testing really was inadequate, but from what I've read there's not enough information to tell which.
On the post: Trump Promises To Defund The Entire Military, If Congress Won't Let Him Punish The Internet For Being Mean To Him
Re: Video on US Unemployment
Ah, Second Thought. Nice, thanks. Depressing, but a good video.
On the post: Georgia Court Streams Ridiculous 'Kraken' Lawsuit Hearing On YouTube; Then Tells People They Can't Repost Recordings
Re: Ridiculous
What in the crap are you talking about?
On the post: Colorado's Broadband Internet Doesn't Have to Be Rocky
Advertorial
I hope Techdirt got paid well for this ad.
On the post: Nancy Pelosi Sells Out The Public: Agrees To Put Massive Copyright Reform In 'Must Pass' Spending Bill
Re: 17th Amendment
Correct, there are details not mentioned in the amendment. However I doubt a state could get away with electing by district. Who counts as people comes up from time to time. Any effort to allow corporations to vote I'm sure would fail instantly.
I'm not sure that has even been necessary - it's Kentucky - but no doubt the option is available.
Next >>