Like so many others you only present half the facts and then pretend you can make a conclusion based on that.
Those countries do have a similar percentage of killings and deaths as the US. The guns are not the cause or the problem. People are the cause and the problem. But then that's a far more difficult problem to address. Much easier to just attack whatever tool those people happen to be using.
Removing people's freedoms to prevent people from being able to do bad things is always the wrong way to approach any problem. It is always the wrong thing to do because there is no way to ever do that and have liberty at the same time. It is a path that only leads to the loss of all freedom.
We must accept that bad things will sometimes happen if we care about having liberty. The attempt to just prevent bad things from ever being able to happen is childish and selfish.
In other words, you don't have to take responsibility for your completely clueless and utterly wrong list because other people are the ones that actually do anything with it.
Nevermind your ignorance to the fact that others will simply trust that WIPO knows what it's talking about because "authority" despite the fact that this list and your responses clearly demonstrate that you have no clue in this universe what copyright is or just how wrong your list is.
Re: Safe holiday for the family? Beware the local cops...
I doubt tax returns would help. All they prove is that you reported your income to the government. They don't prove where any of that income actually came from.
What he's asking for is basically an impossible standard to meet. It's yet another example of why proving a negative is almost never possible and why the US Constitution explicitly declares it unjust and illegal to require that of people.
Unfortunately individuals too easily fall for the temptation to think that it makes perfect sense to ask you to prove you didn't do something wrong.
Nothing in the Constitution prevents religiously based messages in schools. Especially ones this generic that clearly do not specify any individual religion, only a generic religious belief.
There are some laws that have been passed since the Constitution that do this, but this has generally been recognized as an issue States are primarily responsible for.
HOA's are not part of the government so they are not bound by the Constitution. While there are still some extremes they cannot go to, they can absolutely violate many of your Constitutional rights.
Finger print reader FTW. You only leave your fingerprint on half the stuff you touch anyway. I'm sure no one will manage to get into your account with your password plastered all over your home.
While what was done is disgusting and despicable, I'm very concerned that the training our officers receive is more responsible for this reaction than the officer. If you teach nothing but fear and anger to someone about facing difficult situations you can't be surprised when they don't know how to react to someone that's not acting the way you drilled into them to think everyone they face is going to react.
Yes as an individual we should expect officers to rise above this rhetoric nonsense of nothing but fear. We should not ignore the responsibility that that teaching rightfully bears on situations like this either.
Re: Just exactly HOW privacy can be protected WITHOUT "lock down
You don't seem to understand the difference between "lock down" and "protected access". They are not the same thing and both protect privacy equally when done correctly. One just actually allows the user who owns the data to decide what to do with it.
This is taking the idea to the opposite extreme. Kids learn by handling experiences with the love and help of others. Their parents should absolutely be big players in this.
Yes there are parents that do it to far too great an extreme that prevents children from learning. That doesn't mean not doing it at all is the right answer.
This is exactly why I really struggle with Mike's take on this. He has some good points as children should definitely be given opportunities to make choices without parental involvement and freedom to do things without us hovering over them, but the idea that surveillance by a parent is teaching children that surveillance is always ok is just wrong IMHO. It depends far more on how you work with your child than just the fact that you are watching them.
I nearly lost one of my sons to a serious accident that highlights this to me. We had taught him hundreds of times not to do something. Talked to him and showed him why it was dangerous. It didn't change the fact that he just did not care in the moment. Surveilling your children is only bad if it's not done honestly and openly with open conversations with them about it.
A parent using these kinds of tools is not the same thing as parents constantly surveilling their children. The problems are not with the existence and use of these kinds of tools. It's with how parents use them and how they react to their children's choices.
The fact is teaching a child takes repetition, practice and examples. Moreso even than teaching an adult. If you use these tools to work with your child and openly explain to them that the tool is there so you can help them see what they should avoid and what is ok and respect those boundaries in your use of it then it is not harmful. Make sure they understand that you're not going to watch over every little thing they do but will be aware of dangers that crop up on the internet almost daily to share with them how to recognize and avoid them.
Another way to help use this to build trust with them instead of tear it down is to share some liberties with them as well. One easy one is that since they know you can see their location at virtually any moment give the same to them. There are plenty of easy ways to share that with someone for free.
Yes children should be given freedom to make their own choices without parental involvement to a degree. As the child gets older those opportunities should certainly be increased. It is also true that they need to be watched over by parents and other adults far more than adults do. Doing that is not teaching them that surveillance is ok in and of itself. It depends far more on how you work with your child than just the fact that you are doing it.
Such an absolutist view on data about people prevents many of the very real benefits sharing of that data can bring to the individuals involved. This only highlights why trying to regulate this problem is not as easy as many think.
Lumping it in with IP "rights" only brings in all the inherent problems existing in that system and does nothing to address the actual problems we're concerned about.
Privacy is no more a right than IP. Yes it's something we think is important enough that there should be regulations on it but trying to elevate it to the value of a right is pretending it exists without outside control and leaves us thinking many very wrong ideas make sense when they are actually very damaging to everyone including the people they claim to protect. Most recent EU regulations attempting to regulate privacy are a perfect example of this problem.
Re: If I don't eat somebody else's cake, won't make me fat!
"It's corporate-funded lawyers arguing against the Constitutional provisions of copyright."
You know saying the same lie over and over again can never make it true. Go ahead, keep trying. You just undercut your own half made arguments to everyone who actually knows what the Constitution says about copyright.
Considering your claim is to claim ownership over what can never be owned by anyone, I don't even care about your insanely ridiculous claims about what I supposedly think.
Congrats on completely ignoring his point to pretend to make your own. Copyright law literally says you can. The DMCA violates that by saying you can't if you have to get past x/y/z first. Supreme court says any copyright law that doesn't allow for this is unconstitutional. Not hard to connect the dots here.
Re: The First Amendment is NEVER in conflict with Copyright.
Except of course for the minor issue of the fact that nothing is taken when someone violates copyright.
But then acknowledging what's really happening rips your entire argument to shreds so I guess I can understand why you continue to cling to that lie.
It didn't "take a company with Google's market power" to threaten Microsoft because that's not what happened at all.
It took someone doing it better than Microsoft was, which is what Google did and that's what gave them the market power they now have. No one had any clue who Google was back then. Microsoft lost it's dominance because it sat around, not because anyone was big enough to take them down.
This is the problem with focusing so much on how big these companies are. Their size doesn't prevent someone else from coming in and doing what they're doing better. The fact that no one else is getting as big as Google is is also not a bad thing. Smaller companies existing and being able to try to compete is enough to force the larger players to continue to compete. As long as it is easy for someone else to enter the market and offer their product to the same customer base market forces will be able to replace any big player that behaves badly so quickly they honestly won't know what hit them.
On the post: Why Is Our First Reaction To Mass Shootings To Talk About Censorship?
Re:
Like so many others you only present half the facts and then pretend you can make a conclusion based on that.
Those countries do have a similar percentage of killings and deaths as the US. The guns are not the cause or the problem. People are the cause and the problem. But then that's a far more difficult problem to address. Much easier to just attack whatever tool those people happen to be using.
Removing people's freedoms to prevent people from being able to do bad things is always the wrong way to approach any problem. It is always the wrong thing to do because there is no way to ever do that and have liberty at the same time. It is a path that only leads to the loss of all freedom.
We must accept that bad things will sometimes happen if we care about having liberty. The attempt to just prevent bad things from ever being able to happen is childish and selfish.
On the post: WIPO Now Gets Into The Extrajudicial, Zero Due Process, Censorship Act Over Sites It Declares 'Infringing'
Re: Re: Re: WIPO's reply
In other words, you don't have to take responsibility for your completely clueless and utterly wrong list because other people are the ones that actually do anything with it.
Nevermind your ignorance to the fact that others will simply trust that WIPO knows what it's talking about because "authority" despite the fact that this list and your responses clearly demonstrate that you have no clue in this universe what copyright is or just how wrong your list is.
On the post: The FTC's Settlement With Equifax Is Such A Joke, The FTC Is Now Begging You Not To Ask For A Cash Settlement
Re: Re: You could save Hundreds by signing up NOW
"but the credit monitoring is technically worth what they're claiming it's worth"
No, it isn't. They didn't just say it's worth hundreds of dollars. They specifically said "hundreds of dollars a year". It's a complete lie.
On the post: Former Law Enforcement Officer Displays His Ignorance Of The Law In Civil Forfeiture Article
Re: Safe holiday for the family? Beware the local cops...
I doubt tax returns would help. All they prove is that you reported your income to the government. They don't prove where any of that income actually came from.
What he's asking for is basically an impossible standard to meet. It's yet another example of why proving a negative is almost never possible and why the US Constitution explicitly declares it unjust and illegal to require that of people.
Unfortunately individuals too easily fall for the temptation to think that it makes perfect sense to ask you to prove you didn't do something wrong.
On the post: Josh Hawley Wants To Appoint Himself Product Manager For The Internet
Re: Free Peaches
Nothing in the Constitution prevents religiously based messages in schools. Especially ones this generic that clearly do not specify any individual religion, only a generic religious belief.
There are some laws that have been passed since the Constitution that do this, but this has generally been recognized as an issue States are primarily responsible for.
On the post: The Newest Growth Market For License Plate Readers Is Those Assholes Running The Local Homeowners Association
Re: Re: Re:
HOA's are not part of the government so they are not bound by the Constitution. While there are still some extremes they cannot go to, they can absolutely violate many of your Constitutional rights.
On the post: Court Will Decide If AT&T Is Liable For Cryptocurrency Theft Caused By Shoddy Security
Re:
Finger print reader FTW. You only leave your fingerprint on half the stuff you touch anyway. I'm sure no one will manage to get into your account with your password plastered all over your home.
On the post: Cop Claims His Shooting Of An Unarmed Man Gave Him PTSD, Walks Off With A Medical Pension
The officer should not bear the full fault
While what was done is disgusting and despicable, I'm very concerned that the training our officers receive is more responsible for this reaction than the officer. If you teach nothing but fear and anger to someone about facing difficult situations you can't be surprised when they don't know how to react to someone that's not acting the way you drilled into them to think everyone they face is going to react.
Yes as an individual we should expect officers to rise above this rhetoric nonsense of nothing but fear. We should not ignore the responsibility that that teaching rightfully bears on situations like this either.
On the post: FTC's Privacy Settlement With Facebook Gets Pretty Much Everything Backwards; Probably Helps Facebook
Re: Just exactly HOW privacy can be protected WITHOUT "lock down
You don't seem to understand the difference between "lock down" and "protected access". They are not the same thing and both protect privacy equally when done correctly. One just actually allows the user who owns the data to decide what to do with it.
On the post: Instead Of Parents Spying On Their Kids Online, Why Not Teach Them How To Be Good Digital Citizens
Re: More Watched = Less Capable
This is taking the idea to the opposite extreme. Kids learn by handling experiences with the love and help of others. Their parents should absolutely be big players in this.
Yes there are parents that do it to far too great an extreme that prevents children from learning. That doesn't mean not doing it at all is the right answer.
On the post: Instead Of Parents Spying On Their Kids Online, Why Not Teach Them How To Be Good Digital Citizens
Re: I Don't Look Forward To Having Children
This is exactly why I really struggle with Mike's take on this. He has some good points as children should definitely be given opportunities to make choices without parental involvement and freedom to do things without us hovering over them, but the idea that surveillance by a parent is teaching children that surveillance is always ok is just wrong IMHO. It depends far more on how you work with your child than just the fact that you are watching them.
I nearly lost one of my sons to a serious accident that highlights this to me. We had taught him hundreds of times not to do something. Talked to him and showed him why it was dangerous. It didn't change the fact that he just did not care in the moment. Surveilling your children is only bad if it's not done honestly and openly with open conversations with them about it.
On the post: Instead Of Parents Spying On Their Kids Online, Why Not Teach Them How To Be Good Digital Citizens
Use of the tools alone is not the problem
A parent using these kinds of tools is not the same thing as parents constantly surveilling their children. The problems are not with the existence and use of these kinds of tools. It's with how parents use them and how they react to their children's choices.
The fact is teaching a child takes repetition, practice and examples. Moreso even than teaching an adult. If you use these tools to work with your child and openly explain to them that the tool is there so you can help them see what they should avoid and what is ok and respect those boundaries in your use of it then it is not harmful. Make sure they understand that you're not going to watch over every little thing they do but will be aware of dangers that crop up on the internet almost daily to share with them how to recognize and avoid them.
Another way to help use this to build trust with them instead of tear it down is to share some liberties with them as well. One easy one is that since they know you can see their location at virtually any moment give the same to them. There are plenty of easy ways to share that with someone for free.
Yes children should be given freedom to make their own choices without parental involvement to a degree. As the child gets older those opportunities should certainly be increased. It is also true that they need to be watched over by parents and other adults far more than adults do. Doing that is not teaching them that surveillance is ok in and of itself. It depends far more on how you work with your child than just the fact that you are doing it.
On the post: FTC's YouTube Privacy Settlement Pisses Everyone Off; Perhaps We're Doing Privacy Wrong
Re:
Such an absolutist view on data about people prevents many of the very real benefits sharing of that data can bring to the individuals involved. This only highlights why trying to regulate this problem is not as easy as many think.
On the post: FTC's YouTube Privacy Settlement Pisses Everyone Off; Perhaps We're Doing Privacy Wrong
Re:
Lumping it in with IP "rights" only brings in all the inherent problems existing in that system and does nothing to address the actual problems we're concerned about.
Privacy is no more a right than IP. Yes it's something we think is important enough that there should be regulations on it but trying to elevate it to the value of a right is pretending it exists without outside control and leaves us thinking many very wrong ideas make sense when they are actually very damaging to everyone including the people they claim to protect. Most recent EU regulations attempting to regulate privacy are a perfect example of this problem.
On the post: The CASE Act: The Road To Copyright Trolling Is Paved With Good Intentions
Re: If I don't eat somebody else's cake, won't make me fat!
"It's corporate-funded lawyers arguing against the Constitutional provisions of copyright."
You know saying the same lie over and over again can never make it true. Go ahead, keep trying. You just undercut your own half made arguments to everyone who actually knows what the Constitution says about copyright.
On the post: The CASE Act: The Road To Copyright Trolling Is Paved With Good Intentions
Re: Re: Chill out
Considering your claim is to claim ownership over what can never be owned by anyone, I don't even care about your insanely ridiculous claims about what I supposedly think.
On the post: Three Years Later: 1st Amendment Challenge Over DMCA's Anti-Circumvention Provisions Can Move Forward
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Congrats on completely ignoring his point to pretend to make your own. Copyright law literally says you can. The DMCA violates that by saying you can't if you have to get past x/y/z first. Supreme court says any copyright law that doesn't allow for this is unconstitutional. Not hard to connect the dots here.
On the post: Three Years Later: 1st Amendment Challenge Over DMCA's Anti-Circumvention Provisions Can Move Forward
Re: The First Amendment is NEVER in conflict with Copyright.
Except of course for the minor issue of the fact that nothing is taken when someone violates copyright.
But then acknowledging what's really happening rips your entire argument to shreds so I guess I can understand why you continue to cling to that lie.
On the post: Is 'This Time Different' Concerning Big Internet Dominance?
Re:
It didn't "take a company with Google's market power" to threaten Microsoft because that's not what happened at all.
It took someone doing it better than Microsoft was, which is what Google did and that's what gave them the market power they now have. No one had any clue who Google was back then. Microsoft lost it's dominance because it sat around, not because anyone was big enough to take them down.
This is the problem with focusing so much on how big these companies are. Their size doesn't prevent someone else from coming in and doing what they're doing better. The fact that no one else is getting as big as Google is is also not a bad thing. Smaller companies existing and being able to try to compete is enough to force the larger players to continue to compete. As long as it is easy for someone else to enter the market and offer their product to the same customer base market forces will be able to replace any big player that behaves badly so quickly they honestly won't know what hit them.
On the post: Can't Have Copyright Enforcement Without Destroying Privacy Protections
Re: Re: Re:
Putting "right" into the name of something does not make it an actual right. Copyright is neither natural nor a right, even under the law.
Next >>