"Check Your Privilege" is an especially apt title. Among other things, statements like that made by Wittes are either a statement of privilege ("I'm among the elite, so I don't have to worry about government surveillance.") or else insipid ("I'm too stupid to have any opinion that would interest the government: What, me worry?").
So what about those of us who are neither elite nor insipid?
I wondered if this wouldn't be the case, because I had a vague recollection it was previously set in law that the cable companies did not need permission to retransmit. They merely had to pay a retransmission fee.
Sure enough, guess what Aereo is arguing now.
Some have suggested the SCOTUS was being idiotic with it's "quacks like a duck" test. I'm not so sure. Suppose this sticks: Then SCOTUS basically gave the best of both worlds to Aereo and the TV stations; Aereo gets to keep on doing business (likely with one lonely antenna now instead of a swarm) but has to pay; the TV stations can't make Aereo go away, but get paid instead of watching Aereo take their content without payment.
If that leaves both sides a little unhappy, well, the best compromises often do.
| Date _____________ | | E-Mail ___________________________________________________ | | Identity _________________________________________________ | _________________________________________________ | | ASG background (below is an example from a past justification) | | |_| Because, terrorism. | (note: Check box at left to reuse past justification | or you can waste your time filling in below.) | ______________________________________________ | ______________________________________________ | ______________________________________________
I've been waiting for one of these DMCA-happy RIAA members to shut down its own sales site. ("That site is selling all kinds of copyrighted music! Kill it!")
Not quite there yet, but it'll happen. Wait for it...
Alexander insists that Snowden didn't have access to the database. Maybe he was right: Maybe Snowden had access to A database, but not THE database Alexander was thinking of.
So maybe Snowden's revelation is just the tip of the iceberg. (As usual.)
Also, remember the disclosure last week that they were using first order contacts of targets as targets. Therefore, the correct total above (using the 9:1 ratio) is 89000x9x9, or 7.2 million people...and that was just the one request.
Sigh. I read the code wrong, with respect to the words list. The words must appear in combination with either the word "tails" or term "Amnesiac Incognito Live System". So it's not quite as sensitive to the words as I believed.
It is sensitive to all the linuxjournal.com articles matching the lead-in, though.
In fact, NSA captures every web search containing one of these words: "linux", "USB", "CD", "IRC" (Internet Relay Chat). They also capture anyone who goes to any article whatsoever that begins with "http://linuxjournal.com/content/linux". Does that sound like "interested in encryption" to you?
This fits right in with my ideas of the NSA: When they claim they want x, they just capture everything and keep it all. If challenged, they say something like, "No, really, we were only interested in 'x'."
Should we believe that? When, in this case, they capture every web search that contains the words above, whether it involves encryption or not?
So the government has now admitted the existence of a new biometric database, and you want to make sure it doesn't become a "domestic surveillance tool"?
It seems clear to me that there is some propaganda involved, all right. The author letter makes it pretty clear to me that there was some kind of missive that went from Hachette to all the authors, with the idea of involving the authors in the dispute on Hachette's side.
I wonder if we can get a look at that missive: I'm betting it is a propaganda masterpiece, given the nature of the response from the authors.
I would be interested to know if there is even one single person in the whole wide world, that NSA would not list as an extremist. (Assuming there are any it hasn't already listed.)
After thinking about this for a while, I suspect this is merger interference.
After all, AT&T and Verizon have done and do the same, and many similar "scams" have also been done on credit cards. All have a common recurrent theme: You somehow get conned into agreeing to the subscription...but good luck getting out of it.
It is the timing that strikes me as suspicious here: T-Mobile and Sprint are talking about a merger...and then here is this. I suspect it is a purely political move, triggered by AT&T or Verizon, to sink the merger.
As the last time of great freedom from surveillance and government control. The good old days before every baby born was required to have a imbedded brain chip implant complete with built in intent interpreter and pain-enforced retraining.
You have a substantial nonexempt purpose because you develop software published under open source compatible licenses that authorize use by any person for any purpose, including nonexempt purposes such as commercial, recreational, or personal purposes, including campaign intervention and lobbying.
Now let's change that a bit and see how it sounds in another environment:
You [church has] a substantial nonexempt purpose because you [collect clothing and donate it without restriction for] authorize[d] use by any person for any purpose, including nonexempt purposes such as [employment], recreational, or personal purposes, including campaign intervention and lobbying.
Hmmm...the IRS interpretation doesn't sound very compatible with non-profit purpose. Could be a problem.
I find myself amazed by the apologists. Paraphrased: "Facebook's terms of service allow modification of messages. No one was hurt. So they are in the clear."
Suppose, without informed consent, you feed a thousand people a small dose of a poison to determine if the poison is safe. None of them get sick, none of them die. Since no "major harm" results, is the test therefore ethical? I think not.
Because ethics applies to your actions, not the result of your actions. The question isn't whether people got sick or people died. The question is: Was it ethical to give them the poison without informed consent?
Yes, Facebook routinely modifies messages, and is allowed to do so by its terms of service. It is entirely different to deliberately select 639,000 people, and deliberately experiment to see if selected modifications will help some or harm others. To me, this appears unethical, even if there were no major harms as a result. The results don't matter, Facebook's actions matter.
Okay, maybe this was a minor effect. Maybe this was fiddling with just a few variables.
But where does one draw the line? Suppose Facebook had selected a group of people and modified their messages with the specific experimental goal of trying to get those people to commit suicide?
Let's say it wasn't successful and no one actually did commit suicide: Would you say that, because the effects weren't major, therefore such an experiment was okay?
If you don't think so, then where does one draw the line?
This is turning into a real bugaboo these days, with these "royal corporations" using whichever strategy seems to promise the greatest freedom.
Here where I live it is the Central Florida Expressway authority. Sue them for the equivalent of FOIA requests and they argue they are a private corporation, therefore exempt from the state's Sunshine laws. Sue them because you think a "corporation" shouldn't be able to issue tickets for arrest for tollgate running, and they argue they are a government agency with enforcement authority.
This is also a perfect demonstration with the problem of patenting "obvious ideas". The article lists four separate patents for; Becker makes five; and Broadbent brings the total to at least six.
There was also a fairly involved discussion of this somewhere about a year ago, in which I was involved (I can't find it, unfortunately).
So it is obviously a very...obvious...idea.
So what does obvious really mean? I thought it meant that any reasonably intelligent person could propose the same solution.
But the US PTO seems to take the position that, "An idea is not obvious if it would not occur to your average cedar post."
On the post: Saying That You're Not Concerned Because The NSA Isn't Interested In You Is Obnoxious And Dangerous
Especially apt title
So what about those of us who are neither elite nor insipid?
On the post: The Fifth Surveillance: Corporate Spying On Non-Profits
On the post: Aereo: Okay, Fine, If You Say We Look Like A Duck, We'll Quack Like A Duck
Maybe SCOTUS not so dumb?
Sure enough, guess what Aereo is arguing now.
Some have suggested the SCOTUS was being idiotic with it's "quacks like a duck" test. I'm not so sure. Suppose this sticks: Then SCOTUS basically gave the best of both worlds to Aereo and the TV stations; Aereo gets to keep on doing business (likely with one lonely antenna now instead of a swarm) but has to pay; the TV stations can't make Aereo go away, but get paid instead of watching Aereo take their content without payment.
If that leaves both sides a little unhappy, well, the best compromises often do.
On the post: FBI Directly Spying On Prominent Muslim-American Politicians, Lawyers And Civil Rights Activists
|
| E-Mail ___________________________________________________
|
| Identity _________________________________________________
| _________________________________________________
|
| ASG background (below is an example from a past justification)
|
| |_| Because, terrorism.
| (note: Check box at left to reuse past justification
| or you can waste your time filling in below.)
| ______________________________________________
| ______________________________________________
| ______________________________________________
On the post: Qualcomm Uses DMCA To Shut Down Its Own GitHub Repository (Plus A Bunch Of Others)
Not quite there yet, but it'll happen. Wait for it...
On the post: NSA Insisted Snowden Didn't Have Access To Actual Surveillance Data: But He Did... And It Shows How Much Non-Terrorist Content NSA Collects
Which database?
So maybe Snowden's revelation is just the tip of the iceberg. (As usual.)
Also, remember the disclosure last week that they were using first order contacts of targets as targets. Therefore, the correct total above (using the 9:1 ratio) is 89000x9x9, or 7.2 million people...and that was just the one request.
On the post: NSA's XKeyscore Source Code Leaked! Shows Tor Users Classified As 'Extremists'
Re: Not just interested in encryption...
It is sensitive to all the linuxjournal.com articles matching the lead-in, though.
On the post: NSA's XKeyscore Source Code Leaked! Shows Tor Users Classified As 'Extremists'
Not just interested in encryption...
Well, according to the code snippet at NSA Targets the Privacy-Conscious for Surveillance, it goes just a bit beyond that...
In fact, NSA captures every web search containing one of these words: "linux", "USB", "CD", "IRC" (Internet Relay Chat). They also capture anyone who goes to any article whatsoever that begins with "http://linuxjournal.com/content/linux". Does that sound like "interested in encryption" to you?
This fits right in with my ideas of the NSA: When they claim they want x, they just capture everything and keep it all. If challenged, they say something like, "No, really, we were only interested in 'x'."
Should we believe that? When, in this case, they capture every web search that contains the words above, whether it involves encryption or not?
On the post: Microsoft Orders UK's National Health Service To Pay Overdue Licensing Fees; NHS Presses 'Remind Me Later' Button In Response
On the post: Privacy Rights Groups Ask Eric Holder To Ensure The FBI's Biometric Database Doesn't Become Just Another Domestic Surveillance Tool
If you have to wait until you hear about it...
Too late.
On the post: One-Percent Authors Want To End Destructive Conflict, Bring Order to the Galaxy
Whose propaganda?
I wonder if we can get a look at that missive: I'm betting it is a propaganda masterpiece, given the nature of the response from the authors.
On the post: NSA's XKeyscore Source Code Leaked! Shows Tor Users Classified As 'Extremists'
Extremely extremist sensitive
On the post: FTC Cracks Down On T-Mobile For Massive Bogus Charges And Fee Scam
Merger interference
After all, AT&T and Verizon have done and do the same, and many similar "scams" have also been done on credit cards. All have a common recurrent theme: You somehow get conned into agreeing to the subscription...but good luck getting out of it.
It is the timing that strikes me as suspicious here: T-Mobile and Sprint are talking about a merger...and then here is this. I suspect it is a purely political move, triggered by AT&T or Verizon, to sink the merger.
On the post: NSA Appears To Be Chaining Calls Using Phone Numbers One Hop Out As New Originating Selectors
Re:
On the post: IRS Rejects Non-Profit Status For Open Source Organization, Because Private Companies Might Use The Software
Let's take it out of software:
Now let's change that a bit and see how it sounds in another environment:
Hmmm...the IRS interpretation doesn't sound very compatible with non-profit purpose. Could be a problem.
On the post: Facebook Messed With The Emotions Of 689,003 Users... For Science
Ethics: Before and after
Suppose, without informed consent, you feed a thousand people a small dose of a poison to determine if the poison is safe. None of them get sick, none of them die. Since no "major harm" results, is the test therefore ethical? I think not.
Because ethics applies to your actions, not the result of your actions. The question isn't whether people got sick or people died. The question is: Was it ethical to give them the poison without informed consent?
Yes, Facebook routinely modifies messages, and is allowed to do so by its terms of service. It is entirely different to deliberately select 639,000 people, and deliberately experiment to see if selected modifications will help some or harm others. To me, this appears unethical, even if there were no major harms as a result. The results don't matter, Facebook's actions matter.
On the post: Facebook Messed With The Emotions Of 689,003 Users... For Science
Re: Re: Re:
But where does one draw the line? Suppose Facebook had selected a group of people and modified their messages with the specific experimental goal of trying to get those people to commit suicide?
Let's say it wasn't successful and no one actually did commit suicide: Would you say that, because the effects weren't major, therefore such an experiment was okay?
If you don't think so, then where does one draw the line?
On the post: Massachusetts SWAT Teams Claim They're Private Corporations To Get Out Of Transparency Requests
Royal corporations
Here where I live it is the Central Florida Expressway authority. Sue them for the equivalent of FOIA requests and they argue they are a private corporation, therefore exempt from the state's Sunshine laws. Sue them because you think a "corporation" shouldn't be able to issue tickets for arrest for tollgate running, and they argue they are a government agency with enforcement authority.
Whichever serves them best at the moment...
On the post: Transparency Report From Office Of The Director Of National Intelligence Shows Government Issuing 50 NSLs Per Day
Trust
On the post: How Patents Are Stopping Your Microwave From Being Awesome
Obvious patents
There was also a fairly involved discussion of this somewhere about a year ago, in which I was involved (I can't find it, unfortunately).
So it is obviously a very...obvious...idea.
So what does obvious really mean? I thought it meant that any reasonably intelligent person could propose the same solution.
But the US PTO seems to take the position that, "An idea is not obvious if it would not occur to your average cedar post."
Next >>