And that act means nothing to the federal government unless people with power and ethics are in positions of power.
But it does mean something to the universities that hold the data. Getting info on a student from a university is like pulling teeth, even with a valid court order.
The article below doesn't really address what happens with students who either don't want to carry a smartphone around with them everywhere (even in this day and age, there are those who still use old-style flip phones that don't do anything other than make calls) or can't afford one in the first place.
Are you just not allowed to go to college now if you don't have one of these things and allow the school to co-opt it into an Orwellian surveillance device?
And it's not like the kids can't game the system, anyway. This would have been so easy to defeat if we'd had it back in my college days.
ME: Hey, man, put my phone in your backpack. I don't feel like going to Psych today. I'll do the same for you next week.
but it's pretty telling that the treasury is a low-priority target compared to one which let's the brown-nosing fink holding the job intimidate the entire voter base on behalf of his/her paymasters.
You're fucking kidding, right?
The Treasury Department runs the IRS. There's no easier and more effective way for a brown-nosing fink to "intimidate the entire voter base" than with the IRS.
The first director of the DHS - Tom ridge - admitted, in his memoirs, that he was under political pressure to use his new department as a political tool, raising terror alerts in the time just preceding the 2004 presidential elections.
And the Treasury Department and the IRS were used by the Obama Administration to discriminate against conservative political organizations and deny them the same tax-free status given to 'progressive' political organizations.
The Treasury Department was also used by the Obama Administration to discriminate against legal businesses that leftists don't like. Gun stores, for example, had their bank accounts and ability to process payments shut down by banks bowing to pressure from the Treasury Department. Google "Operation Chokepoint" for details.
'You know what the libs really hate? People donating time and money to local charities like food kitchens and/or homeless shelters
They actually do hate that. A disdain for private charity is a well-known characteristic of the 'progressive' left. To them, any handout that doesn't come from the government is suspect because it doesn't create the proper dependency on the government that keeps leftists in power.
I became a victim of this law as well. I have a full time day job that pays my bills nicely, but until recently I was also picking up some extra income by doing music engraving (for the uninitiated: turning handwritten orchestral musical scores into professionally typeset digital versions) for some Hollywood film music prep companies on the side. It was part-time work-- they only used me when their in-house staff was overwhelmed with work-- and it's something I could do from home in my off-time and make some nice cushion on top of my day job salary. With the recent explosion in popularity of live-to-projection concerts with orchestras around the country performing the scores to classic movies like STAR WARS, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, LORD OF THE RINGS, etc. live while the film is projected to the audience on a screen above the orchestra, this has created a lot of work for the music preparation companies, digging out these old handwritten scores from studio archives and preparing time-synched digital conductor's scores and parts from which the musicians can play.
Long story only slightly less long: I was recently informed by the companies that I was working with that they could no longer accept work from me due to this new California law that would re-classify me as an employee, something they cannot afford to do.
So yeah, thanks, Gonzalez. Workers rights, my ass. All you did was cost me a nice little nest egg that I was putting away for retirement.
here at Techdirt we prefer to be right, rather than first.
LOL! You mean like the way I've corrected you several times when you've falsely claimed that cops asking for consent to search is an "end-run around the 4th Amendment", yet you keep saying it anyway?
Meanwhile, the shelters are apparently not "pest-free."
Neither is the Santa Ana riverbed, for jeezus sweet sake. Any hotel that's operating has to have a license to do so, which means they meet the minimum county regulations for hygiene and safety, so whatever hotel it is, it's objectively better, safer, and cleaner than sleeping in a rat-infested vagrant encampment in the bed of a river that can flash flood and drown you without warning.
You do understand the massive differences between private companies exercising their right to refuse admission and the government suppressing speech, right?
You do understand the word "unconstitutional", right?
If so, go back and read what I wrote, paying special attention to that word.
"If Twitter kicks me out, they've deplatformed me."
No more than you've been made homeless when the bar you've been causing fights in bars you.
That makes literally no sense in this context.
"Deplatforming" merely means taking away someone's platform to speak Period. It doesn't come with all sorts of implications about motivations or limitations of legalities.
No, the responsibility and authority is irrelevant to the question of whether it has happened or not.
If Twitter kicks me out, they've deplatformed me. They may be perfectly within their rights to do it, but that doesn't change the fact that it has, in fact, happened.
Same with the government. If the cops seize my soapbox and kick me out of the public park, they've deplatformed me. It may be unconstitutional for them to have done it, but that doesn't change the fact that it has, in fact, happened.
if you point out that it's cheaper to house homeless people than to either neglect or persecute them
Last year Santa Ana was forced to clear out a 1000+ vagrant encampment in the riverbed. The city had been happily ignoring their own residents' non-stop complaints about hygiene and arson, and a steadily increasing crime rate in the city, but then the federal government came a-knocking and told them that the encampment violates federal clean water environmental laws and if they didn't do something about it, the city would be fined quite steeply every day that it persists.
So the city grudgingly cleared out the encampment, and offered shelter to the displaced vagrants in the form of vouchers for free hotel rooms.
Guess how many vagrants accepted the free housing? … One in ten. So your claim that "it's cheaper to house homeless people" doesn't mean much when 90% of them have no interest in being sheltered. They want to live on the streets. At that point, I have no more patience with them. Sorry, but you've been offered shelter-- at your fellow citizens' expense, no less-- and you've refused. So now all bets are off. We can't force you to take the shelter, but you don't get lie around on the sidewalk or pitch a tent in a public playground or sleep on a public beach. Just get the fuck out and move on, and if that means you have to go out into the Mojave Desert to live, so be it.
Are you talking about defamatory content against the plaintiff (woman) being found via search engines, or the lawsuit itself being found by search engines?
This guy repeatedly brings up hypotheticals like this-- a company finds information via a Google search which has negative consequences for an employee-- and pretends like that's defamatory or something.
There's nothing defamatory about either the details of a harassment lawsuit on a courthouse website, or Google returning that information in its search results. Just because information impacts someone negatively doesn't make it defamatory.
What he really seems to be butthurt about is that in the past, you could run away from your mistakes, go live somewhere else, and your past generally wouldn't come back to haunt you, but now, the computer age has made it much harder to do that because someone's shady past is only a click away. And he acts like that's somehow illegal or defamatory when it's just the way of the world. You don't have a right to remake yourself and force the world to forget everything you ever did.
Being summoned, from a different country, to answer questions from the US Congress and the Department of Homeland Security
As a citizen of a foreign country and not present in the U.S., he was free to ignore Congress's demand. Congress doesn't have the ability or authority to compel every person in the world to come stand before them.
Who is to blame? The PEOPLE, for not demanding that all serious debates take place under USENET rules. Eliminating Section 230 wouldn't chill speech, just evil speech. With all the hatred it enables.
Dude, have you actually been on Usenet? There's more hatred and spam and vile bullshit there than anywhere else, because unlike social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, there is no moderation whatsoever. Nothing gets taken down, no matter how hostile.
That's why more civilized, GUN-FREE countries like England and Australia do not grant 230-style immunity.
So now DMCA 230 is now a 2nd Amendment issue, too? Wow. Who knew?
On the post: Tracking College Students Everywhere They Go On Campus Is The New Normal
Re: Re: Re: penalizing education doesn't end well
But it does mean something to the universities that hold the data. Getting info on a student from a university is like pulling teeth, even with a valid court order.
On the post: Tracking College Students Everywhere They Go On Campus Is The New Normal
Re: great possibilities
The article below doesn't really address what happens with students who either don't want to carry a smartphone around with them everywhere (even in this day and age, there are those who still use old-style flip phones that don't do anything other than make calls) or can't afford one in the first place.
Are you just not allowed to go to college now if you don't have one of these things and allow the school to co-opt it into an Orwellian surveillance device?
And it's not like the kids can't game the system, anyway. This would have been so easy to defeat if we'd had it back in my college days.
ME: Hey, man, put my phone in your backpack. I don't feel like going to Psych today. I'll do the same for you next week.
ROOMMATE: Cool, no problem.
On the post: Multi-Agency Task Force Raid House To Arrest Someone Already In Jail, Shoot Woman In House Multiple Times Because Reasons
Re: Re: Being Right
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191108/16451143350/ring-spends-week-collecting-data-trick-or-tre ating-kids-being-attack-vector-home-wifi-networks.shtml#c104
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190 817/18050742806/california-police-officers-are-handing-out-free-doorbell-cameras-exchange-testimony- court.shtml#c79
[Now the facts are in evidence.]
On the post: DHS Wanted To Add US Citizens To The Long List Of People Subjected To Mandatory Face Scans At Airports... But Has Backed Down For Now
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're fucking kidding, right?
The Treasury Department runs the IRS. There's no easier and more effective way for a brown-nosing fink to "intimidate the entire voter base" than with the IRS.
And the Treasury Department and the IRS were used by the Obama Administration to discriminate against conservative political organizations and deny them the same tax-free status given to 'progressive' political organizations.
The Treasury Department was also used by the Obama Administration to discriminate against legal businesses that leftists don't like. Gun stores, for example, had their bank accounts and ability to process payments shut down by banks bowing to pressure from the Treasury Department. Google "Operation Chokepoint" for details.
On the post: Appeals Court Revisits Its Terrible New Orleans Protest Decision, Changes Nothing About Its Rejection Of First Amendment Protections
Re:
Because that annoying little fact doesn't fit the narrative.
On the post: Appeals Court Revisits Its Terrible New Orleans Protest Decision, Changes Nothing About Its Rejection Of First Amendment Protections
Re: 'Civil rights'? Never heard of it.
Decimation isn't all that bad. It only destroys 10% of a thing. A law like this would have done a lot more than decimate those protests.
On the post: Author Of California's Bill That Effectively Ends Freelancing Finally Open To Making Changes After Freelancers Lose Jobs & Lawsuit Filed
Re: Re: The Other Side
Yep. I live in California and use Uber a lot. I have yet to meet one driver who was happy to be reclassified as an employee.
On the post: Author Of California's Bill That Effectively Ends Freelancing Finally Open To Making Changes After Freelancers Lose Jobs & Lawsuit Filed
Re: Re:
They actually do hate that. A disdain for private charity is a well-known characteristic of the 'progressive' left. To them, any handout that doesn't come from the government is suspect because it doesn't create the proper dependency on the government that keeps leftists in power.
On the post: Author Of California's Bill That Effectively Ends Freelancing Finally Open To Making Changes After Freelancers Lose Jobs & Lawsuit Filed
I was fired because of this, too...
I became a victim of this law as well. I have a full time day job that pays my bills nicely, but until recently I was also picking up some extra income by doing music engraving (for the uninitiated: turning handwritten orchestral musical scores into professionally typeset digital versions) for some Hollywood film music prep companies on the side. It was part-time work-- they only used me when their in-house staff was overwhelmed with work-- and it's something I could do from home in my off-time and make some nice cushion on top of my day job salary. With the recent explosion in popularity of live-to-projection concerts with orchestras around the country performing the scores to classic movies like STAR WARS, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, LORD OF THE RINGS, etc. live while the film is projected to the audience on a screen above the orchestra, this has created a lot of work for the music preparation companies, digging out these old handwritten scores from studio archives and preparing time-synched digital conductor's scores and parts from which the musicians can play.
Long story only slightly less long: I was recently informed by the companies that I was working with that they could no longer accept work from me due to this new California law that would re-classify me as an employee, something they cannot afford to do.
So yeah, thanks, Gonzalez. Workers rights, my ass. All you did was cost me a nice little nest egg that I was putting away for retirement.
On the post: Multi-Agency Task Force Raid House To Arrest Someone Already In Jail, Shoot Woman In House Multiple Times Because Reasons
Being Right
LOL! You mean like the way I've corrected you several times when you've falsely claimed that cops asking for consent to search is an "end-run around the 4th Amendment", yet you keep saying it anyway?
On the post: Why Intermediary Liability Protections Matter: Our 'Copying Is Not Theft' T-Shirt May Be Collateral Damage To A Bad Court Ruling
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Neither is the Santa Ana riverbed, for jeezus sweet sake. Any hotel that's operating has to have a license to do so, which means they meet the minimum county regulations for hygiene and safety, so whatever hotel it is, it's objectively better, safer, and cleaner than sleeping in a rat-infested vagrant encampment in the bed of a river that can flash flood and drown you without warning.
On the post: Why Intermediary Liability Protections Matter: Our 'Copying Is Not Theft' T-Shirt May Be Collateral Damage To A Bad Court Ruling
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://twitter.com/edantes112/status/1207836271667580928?s=21
It was the Best Western motel and they weren't locked in. The people that accepted were free to come and go as they pleased.
This whole 'cage' thing you've concocted is nothing but a strawman.
On the post: Losing Streak Continues For Litigants Suing Social Media Companies Over Violence Committed By Terrorists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You do understand the word "unconstitutional", right?
If so, go back and read what I wrote, paying special attention to that word.
On the post: Losing Streak Continues For Litigants Suing Social Media Companies Over Violence Committed By Terrorists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That makes literally no sense in this context.
"Deplatforming" merely means taking away someone's platform to speak Period. It doesn't come with all sorts of implications about motivations or limitations of legalities.
On the post: Losing Streak Continues For Litigants Suing Social Media Companies Over Violence Committed By Terrorists
Re: Re: Re:
No, the responsibility and authority is irrelevant to the question of whether it has happened or not.
If Twitter kicks me out, they've deplatformed me. They may be perfectly within their rights to do it, but that doesn't change the fact that it has, in fact, happened.
Same with the government. If the cops seize my soapbox and kick me out of the public park, they've deplatformed me. It may be unconstitutional for them to have done it, but that doesn't change the fact that it has, in fact, happened.
On the post: Why Intermediary Liability Protections Matter: Our 'Copying Is Not Theft' T-Shirt May Be Collateral Damage To A Bad Court Ruling
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Last year Santa Ana was forced to clear out a 1000+ vagrant encampment in the riverbed. The city had been happily ignoring their own residents' non-stop complaints about hygiene and arson, and a steadily increasing crime rate in the city, but then the federal government came a-knocking and told them that the encampment violates federal clean water environmental laws and if they didn't do something about it, the city would be fined quite steeply every day that it persists.
So the city grudgingly cleared out the encampment, and offered shelter to the displaced vagrants in the form of vouchers for free hotel rooms.
Guess how many vagrants accepted the free housing? … One in ten. So your claim that "it's cheaper to house homeless people" doesn't mean much when 90% of them have no interest in being sheltered. They want to live on the streets. At that point, I have no more patience with them. Sorry, but you've been offered shelter-- at your fellow citizens' expense, no less-- and you've refused. So now all bets are off. We can't force you to take the shelter, but you don't get lie around on the sidewalk or pitch a tent in a public playground or sleep on a public beach. Just get the fuck out and move on, and if that means you have to go out into the Mojave Desert to live, so be it.
On the post: Losing Streak Continues For Litigants Suing Social Media Companies Over Violence Committed By Terrorists
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This guy repeatedly brings up hypotheticals like this-- a company finds information via a Google search which has negative consequences for an employee-- and pretends like that's defamatory or something.
There's nothing defamatory about either the details of a harassment lawsuit on a courthouse website, or Google returning that information in its search results. Just because information impacts someone negatively doesn't make it defamatory.
What he really seems to be butthurt about is that in the past, you could run away from your mistakes, go live somewhere else, and your past generally wouldn't come back to haunt you, but now, the computer age has made it much harder to do that because someone's shady past is only a click away. And he acts like that's somehow illegal or defamatory when it's just the way of the world. You don't have a right to remake yourself and force the world to forget everything you ever did.
On the post: Losing Streak Continues For Litigants Suing Social Media Companies Over Violence Committed By Terrorists
Re:
The distinction between public and private property is irrelevant to the question of whether a person has been "deplatformed" or not.
On the post: Losing Streak Continues For Litigants Suing Social Media Companies Over Violence Committed By Terrorists
Re: Re:
As a citizen of a foreign country and not present in the U.S., he was free to ignore Congress's demand. Congress doesn't have the ability or authority to compel every person in the world to come stand before them.
On the post: Why Intermediary Liability Protections Matter: Our 'Copying Is Not Theft' T-Shirt May Be Collateral Damage To A Bad Court Ruling
Re:
Dude, have you actually been on Usenet? There's more hatred and spam and vile bullshit there than anywhere else, because unlike social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, there is no moderation whatsoever. Nothing gets taken down, no matter how hostile.
So now DMCA 230 is now a 2nd Amendment issue, too? Wow. Who knew?
Next >>