And yet, Techdirt has posted several articles detailing concerns over ALPR abuse, particularly by law enforcement. My question is, how is this (which there's apparently nothing wrong with) any different?
Seems to me it's the same issue as ALPRs. Large amounts of data that, in individual instances, is indisputably public, can still be abused in the aggregate.
If not, what is the difference between data-mining "the firehose" and building ALPR record databases?
It would be better to just accept the growing shift to encryption and explore other options that don't involve slamming your head repeatedly into an immovable force.
It's "immovable object" or "irresistible force". The idea of an "immovable force" makes no sense.
No idea why a sports broadcast is exempted here, but okay.
Most likely to head off potential stupid lawsuits where players go "hey, I don't like what the commentary guys said about me, and according to this law they didn't actually have the right to say that, so I can sue them over it!"
Problem here is that a water bottling company COULD also bottle juice.
Exactly. Look at all the non-soda products sold by Coca-Cola. It's perfectly reasonable to think that a successful bottled water brand might branch out into juice as well, which creates the likelihood for customer confusion, even if they aren't actually selling juice at the present time.
I don't see why anyone is talking about section 230 or "identity theft" at all, when there's something much simpler to charge him with: running a protection racket.
Victimizing people, then directing them to pay money to ChangeMyReputation for protection against the victimization caused by the people running ChangeMyReputation (who are the same people running YouGotPosted) is about as clear a case of a protection racket as I've ever seen, except that the victims did not know of the connection between ChangeMyReputation and YouGotPosted, which means you could probably make a case for adding a fraud charge on top of the protection racket charge.
Nothing in this implicates Section 230 rights in any way.
Trade secrets are an archaic concept that literally should have died out centuries ago. We've all seen plenty of stories on here about abuse of the patent system, but how many people are aware of where it came from?
Trade secrets are the problem that patents were invented to solve. That's literally how bad they are: the problem of people keeping their discoveries secret got so bad that the British government invented patents to put a stop to it!
Unfortunately, no one since then has had the good sense to follow through on it and officially abolish trade secret protection once and for all. Maybe it's time someone did.
This can be fixed with a very simple, straightforward law: If any company offers a purchased product that is dependent upon external hosted software for its basic functionality, and then decides to discontinue support for that software, they have the legal obligation to release that software, in its entirety, under an open source license, with the complete documentation necessary to allow users to establish their own servers and convert the product to use these servers instead of the obsolete ones, before they turn their servers off.
With all of the clever names and clever applications of old terms making their way into the modern lexicon, I'm really surprised that no one seems to be using the term "head in the clouds" for people who fail to think these things through.
Under the Protect America Act, then, the government has an unqualified right to have the Court review a classified submission ex parte and in camera which, of course, includes the unqualified right to keep that submission from being disclosed to any party in an adversarial proceeding before this Court.
Seems to me, then, that the judge only has one course of action that's even remotely reasonable: rule the Protect America Act unconstitutional and find the NSA in contempt of court.
This efficient system increases the potential for a security breach to impact large numbers of vehicles by orders of magnitude.
Good point! That would explain why Tesla's cars are getting remote-hacked left and right... oh wait, no, they aren't. In fact, security researchers trying to hack Teslas are saying the same thing about them that physical crash testers are saying: they're the safest cars on the road. This is probably because Tesla is not "a car company" as commonly understood, but rather a high-tech company whose product is cars. It's run by tech-savvy people who understand computers and computer security, and that makes a huge difference.
I'm not privy to any details, but I can only assume that people aren't spreading malware to Tesla systems over their remote update protocol for the same reason we haven't seen malware pushed en masse to billions of computers worldwide over Windows Update: because the updates are cryptographically signed to prevent such attacks.
...which is why I specifically said that exemptions for legitimate use are necessary to make this reasonable. It was literally the first thing I wrote in my original post. Why are you acting as if I was supporting the entire proposed law exactly as written, when I specifically said the opposite?
There's nothing that malware can do that isn't comparable to some existing tampering with a car.
I beg to differ. Read up on the Jeep hack: the hackers were able to take control of the vehicle remotely, with the driver inside. That's something new that you can't get without a computer. What if the next malware is being run by someone less benevolent than a couple of security researchers, and they decide to play demolition derby on a highway--or in a residential neighborhood?
- Legally mandate that any programmable control system must be easily and cheaply replace.
There are two meanings of the word "cheap." One is "low price", and the other is "low quality." They're attached to the same word due to their high tendency to be correlated. This "option" would effectively require that one of the most critical components of a car be selected based on low price rather than high quality.
- Legally mandate that any programmable control system must be wholly reprogrammable, so that any installed malware is wiped
Which is great in theory, right up until you miss something. Problem is, the fact that malware got in in the first place is prima facie evidence that they missed something, which tends to diminish confidence in the idea that they wouldn't have missed anything else.
- Legally mandate that programmable control systems be isolated from remote communications, so that malware can only be installed by someone physically adjacent to the target vehicle.
Congratulations, you just shut down Tesla's incredibly effective and efficient system of fixing car software bugs by deploying remote updates!
On the post: Is It Really That Big A Deal That Twitter Blocked US Intelligence Agencies From Mining Public Tweets?
Re: Re:
On the post: India's Proposed 'Geospatial Information Regulation Bill' Would Shut Down Most Map-Based Services There
"You are in violation of the GERBIL act of 2016..."
On the post: Is It Really That Big A Deal That Twitter Blocked US Intelligence Agencies From Mining Public Tweets?
If not, what is the difference between data-mining "the firehose" and building ALPR record databases?
On the post: Minnesota's Broad Publicity Rights Law, The PRINCE Act, So Broad That It May Violate Itself
Re: Re:
On the post: Why Encryption Bans Won't Work: Brazil Government's WhatsApp Block Just Sends Users To Other Encrypted Platforms
It's "immovable object" or "irresistible force". The idea of an "immovable force" makes no sense.
On the post: Minnesota's Broad Publicity Rights Law, The PRINCE Act, So Broad That It May Violate Itself
Most likely to head off potential stupid lawsuits where players go "hey, I don't like what the commentary guys said about me, and according to this law they didn't actually have the right to say that, so I can sue them over it!"
On the post: The Saratoga Conundrum: Is It Water, Or Is It Juice
Re:
Exactly. Look at all the non-soda products sold by Coca-Cola. It's perfectly reasonable to think that a successful bottled water brand might branch out into juice as well, which creates the likelihood for customer confusion, even if they aren't actually selling juice at the present time.
On the post: Revenge Porn Creep Kevin Bollaert's Appeal Underway... And Actually Raises Some Important Issues
Victimizing people, then directing them to pay money to ChangeMyReputation for protection against the victimization caused by the people running ChangeMyReputation (who are the same people running YouGotPosted) is about as clear a case of a protection racket as I've ever seen, except that the victims did not know of the connection between ChangeMyReputation and YouGotPosted, which means you could probably make a case for adding a fraud charge on top of the protection racket charge.
Nothing in this implicates Section 230 rights in any way.
On the post: Advice To Immediately Trademark Kickstarter Projects Rests On Crowdfunding Not Being Commerce
Pedantic note
On the post: European Greens Present Draft Law On Protecting Whistleblowers
Trade secrets are the problem that patents were invented to solve. That's literally how bad they are: the problem of people keeping their discoveries secret got so bad that the British government invented patents to put a stop to it!
Unfortunately, no one since then has had the good sense to follow through on it and officially abolish trade secret protection once and for all. Maybe it's time someone did.
On the post: Do You Own What You Own? Not So Much Anymore, Thanks To Copyright
On the post: Do You Own What You Own? Not So Much Anymore, Thanks To Copyright
Re: Re: Double check.
On the post: Judge Tosses Evidence In Murder Case Where Suspect Was Located With A Stingray Device
On the post: Unsealed Yahoo/FISA Documents Show NSA Expected Company, FISC Judge To Operate On Zero Information
Seems to me, then, that the judge only has one course of action that's even remotely reasonable: rule the Protect America Act unconstitutional and find the NSA in contempt of court.
On the post: When A Fingerprint IS The Password, Where Does The Fifth Amendment Come Into Play?
On the post: Michigan Politicians Want People Who Hack Cars To Spend The Rest Of Their Lives In Prison
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good point! That would explain why Tesla's cars are getting remote-hacked left and right... oh wait, no, they aren't. In fact, security researchers trying to hack Teslas are saying the same thing about them that physical crash testers are saying: they're the safest cars on the road. This is probably because Tesla is not "a car company" as commonly understood, but rather a high-tech company whose product is cars. It's run by tech-savvy people who understand computers and computer security, and that makes a huge difference.
I'm not privy to any details, but I can only assume that people aren't spreading malware to Tesla systems over their remote update protocol for the same reason we haven't seen malware pushed en masse to billions of computers worldwide over Windows Update: because the updates are cryptographically signed to prevent such attacks.
On the post: Michigan Politicians Want People Who Hack Cars To Spend The Rest Of Their Lives In Prison
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a reasonable option
On the post: Michigan Politicians Want People Who Hack Cars To Spend The Rest Of Their Lives In Prison
Re: Re: Not a reasonable option
More appropriate:
"What are you in for?"
"I hacked someone else's car."
On the post: Michigan Politicians Want People Who Hack Cars To Spend The Rest Of Their Lives In Prison
Re: Re:
I beg to differ. Read up on the Jeep hack: the hackers were able to take control of the vehicle remotely, with the driver inside. That's something new that you can't get without a computer. What if the next malware is being run by someone less benevolent than a couple of security researchers, and they decide to play demolition derby on a highway--or in a residential neighborhood?
On the post: Michigan Politicians Want People Who Hack Cars To Spend The Rest Of Their Lives In Prison
Re: Re:
There are two meanings of the word "cheap." One is "low price", and the other is "low quality." They're attached to the same word due to their high tendency to be correlated. This "option" would effectively require that one of the most critical components of a car be selected based on low price rather than high quality.
Which is great in theory, right up until you miss something. Problem is, the fact that malware got in in the first place is prima facie evidence that they missed something, which tends to diminish confidence in the idea that they wouldn't have missed anything else.
Congratulations, you just shut down Tesla's incredibly effective and efficient system of fixing car software bugs by deploying remote updates!
Got any more brilliant ideas?
Next >>