Re: But you won't consider for a second that FBI fabricated "Trump-Russia collusion"?
What about Clinton and the scandal with Lewinsky? What about Nixon and watergate? What about President Mc-10th and the buggy-whip scandal????????? WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT TRUMP HAS A TINY PENIS?!!??!?!?!?!?!
Newsflash: even if those are topics worth discussing this is not the focus here. You can open your own blog and publish articles on those if you wish. Start with the tiny penis one for our amusement.
Even if it's limited to 1 person streaming at a time, if I want to let a friend/relative use my password to access the service I paid while I'm not using then it's my problem, my money. The entitlement in display still boggles the mind even if it has been the norm to the likes of Disney, ISPs for years.
People are growing sick of it guys. That's why people have lost respect for copyright for instance. Because you made it into a tool to feed your sense of entitlement. Chill. You'll be in for a rude awakening when the next generation grows without Disney because of your idiocy and you go Kodak.
Are you that dumb? That's exactly what the sentence you are replying to said.
"However, he forget (or ignored) one basic thing, which is the moment he is out of office, the next person can just do what Pai is doing now and remove the Title II status, which kills off NN."
Except it's not that simple. there are procedures that must be followed (ie: public consultation) and the current head must prove that the changes are justified. Which the current FCC failed spectacularly to do and still went ahead and voted to repeal it despite plenty of evidence of fraud and general opposition against the move in the comments. This will be reversed by the courts.
"The true evidence pointed to the need for legislation and not regulation. but Wheeler didn't do it right - and now you are paying for it."
Legislation IS regulation. And the law EXPLICITLY allows the FCC to regulate. Laws could avoid such blatant fuckery Ajit Pay is promoting but in an ideal world he would actually listen to the constituents and experts and would leave the rules intact. That ignoring the fact that telcos will write the laws as Blackburn just showed us.
"Let's reverse that for a moment: 500 complaints from the public strong enough to merit internal investigation, and over 90% of the are dismissed."
That's still 10% too many.
"The question unanswered is about how things moved along to use of force."
Statistics say most of the time the cops misbehaving. But yes, there are researches showing that the public behaves better as well. Win-win situation.
"The other big question, unanswered, is the longer term privacy issues. How long is all the video kept? How much of it has been summoned into trials? How much of it has made trials longer or required more time from lawyers (both sides) to deal with?"
Non issue. Really. Even if it's not needed in a trial it's records from police work. You know, accountability.
"Most importantly - is Vegas conviction rate up, dismissal rate up, or are things all even?"
Another non-issue. Police abuse and general complaints about cops have decreased, money is being saved, people are being respected.
"Forcing them into those areas isn't a good solution either."
But it is. We have a very broad landline and mobile coverage here because the govt 'auctions' areas of a high profitable one paired with something ranging from low profits to loss inducing areas. And guess what, it works! Whenever there are new auctions the companies fight tooth and nail for the pairs.
So basically what they are saying is that because some copyright owner might produce some parody with something someday then there's no fair use in parodies.
Wouldn't that be illegal as hell and some sort of artistic prior restraint because fuck, anything you may create may also be created by someone. So, really, let's not producing anymore art and science because a fucking arts, science and whatever because somebody that has infinite copyrights may have the same idea.
No, seriously, copyright has to be scrapped, forbidden and avoided like the plague.
This bad shit won't happen anyway and while it may be a good thing to codify such behaviors into law it's not the freaking point. It's like screaming about the elephant in the room while ignoring the lethal fungus that is growing everywhere because the elephant is the immediate annoyance.
The 2015 rules had wide support among both political spectrum in the US and clearly not only didn't hamper investment but also solved interconnection issues almost magically. So let us get these rules and make a law with them, Title II and all, shall we?
"Now that they are proposing rules that include specifying that they wouldn't be allowed to do such things, it's dismissed as "they wouldn't have done that anyway"."
Exactly. Because this is not the point. blocking sites would trigger a PR shitstorm they know they won't be able to handle. What they want is to use that excuse "codify that outrageous behavior into law!" to piggyback loopholes into it that will allow less obvious but equally egregious behavior such as selective throttling traffic, double or triple charging for connections etc etc. Not to mention benefits from Title II that don't even touch NN directly.
"I have be repeated over and and over again that ISPs aren't stupid enough to do things that would invite FTC scrutiny. Overt blocked, intentional slowing (beyond reasonable network management) or otherwise making certain sites inaccessible would be suicidal. I knew that, and pointed it out often."
Thanks, captain Obvious! And you kept ignoring all the rest while pointing at the low hanging fruit.
"I seem to remember even someone like you pulling out a list of all the bad things that ISPs have done all over the world (I think you got to 10 in 20 years). It included the dreaded blocking and slowing down points."
Indeed. Showing that the ISPs cannot be trusted to behave without being regulated. And even some of otherwise unthinkable stuff like that zombie cookie from Verizon that is both a privacy and a security major violation has taken place.
"So no, I am not talking about Facebook or Twitter or Google, sorry."
Finally. But you are still ignoring whatever isn't dead obvious. You are ignoring that they won't ever take any draconian step but rather try to slow boil the frog. Remember when there weren't data caps? Fun times. I live in a '3rd world' country and there are no data caps on any ISP around here. Not because they didn't try, they did. Until lawmakers told them to fuck off. And incredibly they are still investing strong. My ISP recently started offering gigabit speeds =) Obviously we still have a lot to do here in terms of access and quality. But we don't have to worry about ISPs proposing fast lanes. Because it's codified into law. Truth be said, the execs have smiles from ear to ear after the US took that extremely backwards decision because they will use it to try to repeal the law here.
"But this is either an outright lie, or Pai honestly doesn't know how his own agency even works."
It's past time we start treating Pai as what he really is: a corrupt assholish liar. The benefit of doubt has expired a few months ago already for this dipshit.
"The fact that Russia will be holding a presidential election next March, in which Vladimir Putin is standing, and presumably expects to win, may be a factor here."
Good thing TD is sensible enough to see the shifting needs of the market and change their minds, no? https://tdrt.io/gy0
And while you haven't explicitly said it you are probably talking about the Googles and Facebooks of life that can't be compared to telcos because 1- they can't prevent you from using the competition (Google+ is there to prove it) because they don't own the infrastructure, 2-they don't own the infrastructure (I thought this should be emphasized) and 3- they are a mono/duopoly.
So, unlike in your black and white world, there are times where you should be very scared of what's going to happen. If Google go rogue you can always go Microsoft for instance. If Facebook goes rogue you can always go to *insert the multitude of social networks available here*. They won't abuse much in an unregulated field because they simply can't. And when Facebook tried to build its walled garden internet in India the Indians said no to the bullshit. And regulated the shit out of net neutrality.
"But we just haven't seen that happen, which suggests the entities make the loudest noises about encryption aren't making a good faith effort to use every option available to them."
And some options like the one discussed in this article are already twisted and awful already so nothing that wouldn't please these sociopaths, no?
"every locked device contains a wealth of criminal evidence"
When you treat the citizenry asking questions as 'terrorists' this makes total sense. But that's not the point.
If he thinks encryption is so bad, why doesn't he give it up and make his bank transactions in the open? And if you believe only the good guys should have the keys for some 'responsible encryption' then how do you explain multiple data breaches due to improper setup, security flaws or plain old human error won't happen with that magic key as well? (for added lulz point to the many times the Govt itself screwed up)
On the post: FBI Celebrates Taking Down A 'Terrorist' Who Told Undercover Agents He Couldn't Go Through With An Attack
Re: But you won't consider for a second that FBI fabricated "Trump-Russia collusion"?
Newsflash: even if those are topics worth discussing this is not the focus here. You can open your own blog and publish articles on those if you wish. Start with the tiny penis one for our amusement.
On the post: Charter, Disney Execs Pledge To Crack Down On Streaming Password Sharing 'Piracy'
People are growing sick of it guys. That's why people have lost respect for copyright for instance. Because you made it into a tool to feed your sense of entitlement. Chill. You'll be in for a rude awakening when the next generation grows without Disney because of your idiocy and you go Kodak.
On the post: Congress Backs Down From Terrible Surveillance Bill; Running Out Of Time
On the post: Shocker: FOIA Request Shows Yet Another Core Justification For Repealing Net Neutrality Was Bullshit
Re: re-writing history?
"However, he forget (or ignored) one basic thing, which is the moment he is out of office, the next person can just do what Pai is doing now and remove the Title II status, which kills off NN."
Except it's not that simple. there are procedures that must be followed (ie: public consultation) and the current head must prove that the changes are justified. Which the current FCC failed spectacularly to do and still went ahead and voted to repeal it despite plenty of evidence of fraud and general opposition against the move in the comments. This will be reversed by the courts.
"The true evidence pointed to the need for legislation and not regulation. but Wheeler didn't do it right - and now you are paying for it."
Legislation IS regulation. And the law EXPLICITLY allows the FCC to regulate. Laws could avoid such blatant fuckery Ajit Pay is promoting but in an ideal world he would actually listen to the constituents and experts and would leave the rules intact. That ignoring the fact that telcos will write the laws as Blackburn just showed us.
On the post: Shocker: FOIA Request Shows Yet Another Core Justification For Repealing Net Neutrality Was Bullshit
https://youtu.be/1ZAPwfrtAFY
At about 12:25.
That's the modus operandi of this administration so no amount of evidence and hard facts is going to change it.
On the post: Gov't Committee: UK Should Move To Holding Platforms Liable For Third-Party Content Post-Brexit
On the post: Study Of Las Vegas PD Body Cameras Shows Reductions In Complaints, Use Of Force
Re:
That's still 10% too many.
"The question unanswered is about how things moved along to use of force."
Statistics say most of the time the cops misbehaving. But yes, there are researches showing that the public behaves better as well. Win-win situation.
"The other big question, unanswered, is the longer term privacy issues. How long is all the video kept? How much of it has been summoned into trials? How much of it has made trials longer or required more time from lawyers (both sides) to deal with?"
Non issue. Really. Even if it's not needed in a trial it's records from police work. You know, accountability.
"Most importantly - is Vegas conviction rate up, dismissal rate up, or are things all even?"
Another non-issue. Police abuse and general complaints about cops have decreased, money is being saved, people are being respected.
On the post: Court Says German Intelligence Agency Can No Longer Hoard Billions Of Metadata Records
On the post: NAACP Fought Net Neutrality Until Last Week, Now Suddenly Supports The Idea
Re:
But it is. We have a very broad landline and mobile coverage here because the govt 'auctions' areas of a high profitable one paired with something ranging from low profits to loss inducing areas. And guess what, it works! Whenever there are new auctions the companies fight tooth and nail for the pairs.
On the post: How The Muppets And A Font Choice Hurt The Star Trek / Dr. Seuss Mashup In Court
Re:
On the post: How The Muppets And A Font Choice Hurt The Star Trek / Dr. Seuss Mashup In Court
Wouldn't that be illegal as hell and some sort of artistic prior restraint because fuck, anything you may create may also be created by someone. So, really, let's not producing anymore art and science because a fucking arts, science and whatever because somebody that has infinite copyrights may have the same idea.
No, seriously, copyright has to be scrapped, forbidden and avoided like the plague.
On the post: Comcast's Push For A Shitty New Net Neutrality Law Begins In Earnest
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: narrative?
This bad shit won't happen anyway and while it may be a good thing to codify such behaviors into law it's not the freaking point. It's like screaming about the elephant in the room while ignoring the lethal fungus that is growing everywhere because the elephant is the immediate annoyance.
The 2015 rules had wide support among both political spectrum in the US and clearly not only didn't hamper investment but also solved interconnection issues almost magically. So let us get these rules and make a law with them, Title II and all, shall we?
On the post: Comcast's Push For A Shitty New Net Neutrality Law Begins In Earnest
Re: Re: Re: narrative?
Exactly. Because this is not the point. blocking sites would trigger a PR shitstorm they know they won't be able to handle. What they want is to use that excuse "codify that outrageous behavior into law!" to piggyback loopholes into it that will allow less obvious but equally egregious behavior such as selective throttling traffic, double or triple charging for connections etc etc. Not to mention benefits from Title II that don't even touch NN directly.
"I have be repeated over and and over again that ISPs aren't stupid enough to do things that would invite FTC scrutiny. Overt blocked, intentional slowing (beyond reasonable network management) or otherwise making certain sites inaccessible would be suicidal. I knew that, and pointed it out often."
Thanks, captain Obvious! And you kept ignoring all the rest while pointing at the low hanging fruit.
"I seem to remember even someone like you pulling out a list of all the bad things that ISPs have done all over the world (I think you got to 10 in 20 years). It included the dreaded blocking and slowing down points."
Indeed. Showing that the ISPs cannot be trusted to behave without being regulated. And even some of otherwise unthinkable stuff like that zombie cookie from Verizon that is both a privacy and a security major violation has taken place.
"So no, I am not talking about Facebook or Twitter or Google, sorry."
Finally. But you are still ignoring whatever isn't dead obvious. You are ignoring that they won't ever take any draconian step but rather try to slow boil the frog. Remember when there weren't data caps? Fun times. I live in a '3rd world' country and there are no data caps on any ISP around here. Not because they didn't try, they did. Until lawmakers told them to fuck off. And incredibly they are still investing strong. My ISP recently started offering gigabit speeds =) Obviously we still have a lot to do here in terms of access and quality. But we don't have to worry about ISPs proposing fast lanes. Because it's codified into law. Truth be said, the execs have smiles from ear to ear after the US took that extremely backwards decision because they will use it to try to repeal the law here.
On the post: FCC Boss Claims Net Neutrality Supporters Were Clearly Wrong Because Twitter Still Works The Day After Repeal
It's past time we start treating Pai as what he really is: a corrupt assholish liar. The benefit of doubt has expired a few months ago already for this dipshit.
On the post: Russia Threatens To Ban YouTube And Twitter, But Probably Won't Try
"Expects" to win. At any cost. Emphasis mine.
On the post: Five Below, Trendy Retailer, Sues 10 Below, Ice Cream Seller, For Trademark Infringement
On the post: Comcast's Push For A Shitty New Net Neutrality Law Begins In Earnest
Re: narrative?
Good thing TD is sensible enough to see the shifting needs of the market and change their minds, no? https://tdrt.io/gy0
And while you haven't explicitly said it you are probably talking about the Googles and Facebooks of life that can't be compared to telcos because 1- they can't prevent you from using the competition (Google+ is there to prove it) because they don't own the infrastructure, 2-they don't own the infrastructure (I thought this should be emphasized) and 3- they are a mono/duopoly.
So, unlike in your black and white world, there are times where you should be very scared of what's going to happen. If Google go rogue you can always go Microsoft for instance. If Facebook goes rogue you can always go to *insert the multitude of social networks available here*. They won't abuse much in an unregulated field because they simply can't. And when Facebook tried to build its walled garden internet in India the Indians said no to the bullshit. And regulated the shit out of net neutrality.
On the post: Another Court Says Compelled Password Production Doesn't Violate The Fifth Amendment
And some options like the one discussed in this article are already twisted and awful already so nothing that wouldn't please these sociopaths, no?
On the post: Manhattan DA Cy Vance Makes His Annual Pitch For Anti-Encryption Legislation
When you treat the citizenry asking questions as 'terrorists' this makes total sense. But that's not the point.
If he thinks encryption is so bad, why doesn't he give it up and make his bank transactions in the open? And if you believe only the good guys should have the keys for some 'responsible encryption' then how do you explain multiple data breaches due to improper setup, security flaws or plain old human error won't happen with that magic key as well? (for added lulz point to the many times the Govt itself screwed up)
I will risk a prediction: he will react just like Trump: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-wiretap-claims-walks-out-cbs-intervie w-john-dickerson-a7711856.html
On the post: Daily Deal: Sid Meier's Civilization VI
Next >>