"In Michigan, the state House voted 108-0 earlier this year in favor of a bill that would make it illegal for agencies to sue public records requesters."
Good to see at least this has legislative support.
Now, we need to make court expenses to be handled by the government and then 'awarded' to the losing party. This would do wonders to balance the scales of justice.
Oversight is the key word. As long as it's virtually inexistent and the majority of the Govt is unwilling to punish violations properly it's gonna keep happening.
Because if Backpage is actually engaged in criminal stuff then CDA230 doesn't apply and existing laws apply. In summary that's why SESTA is not needed.
Unless of course, your real intent is to pretend to be doing something, wanting to circumvent due process and to go after the easier target even if it means real victims go to hell because you couldn't care less about them.
Re: You've just agreed with me that there's over-arching law!
From the article:
"It just makes sure that the liability is actually on the parties engaged in the criminal activity. If it's the end users, CDA 230 does nothing for them. And if it's the platforms themselves, then CDA 230 also doesn't protect them from their own activities."
It seems very, very, blindingly clear that if the platform is engaged in criminal activity they don't have CDA230 protections as it's the case with their users as well. Which means it's not absolute and that SESTA is not needed. So please explain how this is trying "to have everything all ways at once, so long as serves corporate profits."
Of course I don't expect anything coherent but do try.
Re: Re: Re: Re: If clearly specific, you'd argue "ineffective"; if a bit broader, you'd argue "overbroad".
No, life requires you to not screw a whole lot of people because a few do it wrong. And SESTA is not needed to prosecute the crooks, CDA230 doesn't stop neither users nor the platform themselves from being prosecuted and jailed if they are engaged in criminal activity. I will repeat: seems most people generally agree with the stated goals but CURRENT laws are already enough to reach such goals. I know it's too much for you to understand but maybe from repetition it will get through your thick skull.
Nobody supports Backpage if they are engaged in criminal activity (and it seems from the developments of their story that they are and they may end up in jail WITHOUT SESTA). A lot of people also doesn't support a bad, broadly, vaguely written law. Opposing SESTA doesn't mean supporting trafficking or something. I know it's very hard for you and it must hurt but you need to understand that simple concept.
Re: Re: Re: If clearly specific, you'd argue "ineffective"; if a bit broader, you'd argue "overbroad".
Keep making a fool of yourself. The fact that this is a public forum has nothing to do with what the Constitution says. It forbids the GOVERNMENT from meddling with speech.
"run by a business that asked the public for permission to exist"
Golden comedy here! Nobody at TD asks permission to run their business. And the fact that they are there for over 20 years show they are doing it right because people keep rewarding them with eyeballs and money (which, amusingly, includes you).
"it's required to police the site against egregious blowhards who, say, call others "ignorant motherfucker""
LOOOL. Nope. You ignorant motherfucker. TD could censor this at their discretion if they wanted. The government can't (remember, Constitution? That thing you fail epically at understanding?).
"You admit severe inability at making your strawman argument work, is all."
You don't have to admit. In your case it's glaring, written all over your ignorant ramblings.
It seems somebody downloaded a bullet in the show.. /dark humor
disclaimer: I'm not in favor of the murder neither I agree with this copyright idiocy but at the very least you can find some humor in the clusterfuck around this series.
"Notice the problem here: they were admitting that this language is problematic, but seemed to have no interest in understanding why or how to fix it -- instead, demanding that others give them new language, with the implicit threat that if they don't, this language will stay because this is "something."
This is interesting. If you are backing the bill and it has problematic language then YOU will be responsible for the harms such broad/bad language will cause so YOU are the one responsible to come with better language. If I agree with the general point of the bill but won't vote/back it I MAY suggest changes and I WILL fight against the bill but what I won't be is responsible for harms that come afterwards.
It's YOUR responsibility to legislate wisely. If nobody can come with better language then don't make it into law.
And it worked. I don't know what would be the value of having access to the inner works of Google. I mean, they have no data on billions of people at all!
While I do agree with you it's easier to keep these update systems in good security shape with all the latest security patches than leaving millions of not so savvy users to update by themselves. Pro-tip: they won't update. Auto-update is still the best approach.
I would argue that a decentralized system in some sort of blockchain configuration to distribute updates that could be used by smaller players for instance. The update would only be delivered after the developer authenticated the new hashes, files, certificates with each part of the network. Of course I'm speculating here so there might be safer, better ways but we do need better solutions.
It has happened on open source before. To the best of my knowledge, the only full auditing conducted on any software out there was on Truecrypt once the original team shut things down. Sure it's easier to find these stuff but there aren't many comprehensive auditing going on out there that I'm aware of.
On the post: More Government Agencies Filing Lawsuits Against Public Records Requesters
Good to see at least this has legislative support.
Now, we need to make court expenses to be handled by the government and then 'awarded' to the losing party. This would do wonders to balance the scales of justice.
On the post: Turkish President Claims Jailed Journalists Are Actually Terrorists
Gollum on steroids.
Obligatory comparison.
Why on steroids? Because at least Gollum only 'constituents' were himself and his evil was limited to a few small people.
On the post: Report Details The NSA's Decade-Long Abuse Of Its Surveillance Powers
On the post: Backpage's Biggest Law Enforcement Critic Doesn't Think He Needs SESTA To Take Down Backpage
Unless of course, your real intent is to pretend to be doing something, wanting to circumvent due process and to go after the easier target even if it means real victims go to hell because you couldn't care less about them.
On the post: Backpage's Biggest Law Enforcement Critic Doesn't Think He Needs SESTA To Take Down Backpage
Re: You've just agreed with me that there's over-arching law!
"It just makes sure that the liability is actually on the parties engaged in the criminal activity. If it's the end users, CDA 230 does nothing for them. And if it's the platforms themselves, then CDA 230 also doesn't protect them from their own activities."
It seems very, very, blindingly clear that if the platform is engaged in criminal activity they don't have CDA230 protections as it's the case with their users as well. Which means it's not absolute and that SESTA is not needed. So please explain how this is trying "to have everything all ways at once, so long as serves corporate profits."
Of course I don't expect anything coherent but do try.
On the post: CCleaner Hack May Have Been A State-Sponsored Attack On 18 Major Tech Companies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: CCleaner Hack May Have Been A State-Sponsored Attack On 18 Major Tech Companies
Re:
On the post: More Thoughts On The Senate's SESTA Hearing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hand wringing
On the post: More Thoughts On The Senate's SESTA Hearing
Re: Re: Re: Re: If clearly specific, you'd argue "ineffective"; if a bit broader, you'd argue "overbroad".
Nobody supports Backpage if they are engaged in criminal activity (and it seems from the developments of their story that they are and they may end up in jail WITHOUT SESTA). A lot of people also doesn't support a bad, broadly, vaguely written law. Opposing SESTA doesn't mean supporting trafficking or something. I know it's very hard for you and it must hurt but you need to understand that simple concept.
On the post: More Thoughts On The Senate's SESTA Hearing
Re: Re: Re: If clearly specific, you'd argue "ineffective"; if a bit broader, you'd argue "overbroad".
"run by a business that asked the public for permission to exist"
Golden comedy here! Nobody at TD asks permission to run their business. And the fact that they are there for over 20 years show they are doing it right because people keep rewarding them with eyeballs and money (which, amusingly, includes you).
"it's required to police the site against egregious blowhards who, say, call others "ignorant motherfucker""
LOOOL. Nope. You ignorant motherfucker. TD could censor this at their discretion if they wanted. The government can't (remember, Constitution? That thing you fail epically at understanding?).
"You admit severe inability at making your strawman argument work, is all."
You don't have to admit. In your case it's glaring, written all over your ignorant ramblings.
On the post: More Thoughts On The Senate's SESTA Hearing
Re: Re: hand wringing
On the post: CCleaner Hack May Have Been A State-Sponsored Attack On 18 Major Tech Companies
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dispute Between Roberto Escobar And Netflix Over 'Narcos' Gets Weird: Licensing Talks And A Dead Location Scout
disclaimer: I'm not in favor of the murder neither I agree with this copyright idiocy but at the very least you can find some humor in the clusterfuck around this series.
On the post: More Thoughts On The Senate's SESTA Hearing
This is interesting. If you are backing the bill and it has problematic language then YOU will be responsible for the harms such broad/bad language will cause so YOU are the one responsible to come with better language. If I agree with the general point of the bill but won't vote/back it I MAY suggest changes and I WILL fight against the bill but what I won't be is responsible for harms that come afterwards.
It's YOUR responsibility to legislate wisely. If nobody can come with better language then don't make it into law.
On the post: CCleaner Hack May Have Been A State-Sponsored Attack On 18 Major Tech Companies
Re:
On the post: CCleaner Hack May Have Been A State-Sponsored Attack On 18 Major Tech Companies
Re:
I would argue that a decentralized system in some sort of blockchain configuration to distribute updates that could be used by smaller players for instance. The update would only be delivered after the developer authenticated the new hashes, files, certificates with each part of the network. Of course I'm speculating here so there might be safer, better ways but we do need better solutions.
On the post: CCleaner Hack May Have Been A State-Sponsored Attack On 18 Major Tech Companies
Re:
On the post: Released Snowden Doc Shows NSA Thwarting Electronic Dead Drops By Using Email Metadata
On the post: WhatsApp Reportedly Rejected UK Government Demand For Encryption Backdoor
Re: Lies and Statistics
On the post: With Court Ruling, Fan Subtitles Officially Copyright Infringement In Sweden
Sad to see Sweden going deeper and deeper in the mud.
Next >>