Okay, Google has provided probable cause that this content includes illegal photographs of a minor. Rock solid justification for a search. I just need a warrant and this is a slam dunk.
Oops. I looked at the file before getting the warrant.. thats okay, all I need to do is not mention that I looked at the files on my warrant application - I have probable cause without looking at them so I can save this in good faith by not using my knowledge from the illegal search.
Oops. I guess I told the court I searched the files. Oh well. Power ahead. Fake it till you make it.
I look forward to being required to tell the CSR my Social Security Number and Mother's Maiden Name
You might be confused, that is the reality right now, and they are as you sarcastically pointed out, bad. The demand is that these methods get replaced by actually good methods for dealing with identification.
Under that logic, Ron Wyden years ago? Its in the article as something he has been agitating about for years. I imagine congressional reps are constant targets for these kinds of attacks, and anyone concerned for their own well-being should be concerned with this issue on pure self interest and I really am struggling to see why you don't think any of them might be self-interested before they get simjacked. I've always been surprised their own self interest hasn't motivated similar thinking more often in these cases.
But as we've established for years, while deregulation can help improve functional, competitive, healthy markets, that's not what U.S. telecom is.
you've expanded on the point being made in the article, but cropped your quote so as to imply Techdirt has claimed the opposite. Contextually, the quote says that "while deregulation can help improve functional, competitive, healthy markets", US Telecom is not a "functional, competitive, healthy market".
Stating deregulation doesn't work in an environment without competition is exactly what Techdirt was saying. Why you've positioned your commentary in opposition to Techdirt's commentary, rather than as supportive of Techdirt's commentary is unclear.
An important step in reading is the ability to understand context. "Computers blindly preserve" doesn't have an obvious concern with a migrant caravan. Thats why the other guy who tried this shtick at least limited himself to border protection. Unfortunately he is clearly unaware that the DHS, the department of homeland security for you Americans who are ignorant of our government, is a US agency, so the CBP is likely as well, given the relationship indicated in the article. Just reading the article provide numerous context clues that CBP is an American government agency, such as coordination with Mexico to deny entry, the references to the 2018/2019 migrant caravan in relation to Mexico, the quote commenting on CBP retaliating against US individuals, the aforementioned relation to the DHS.
Being more unreasonable than the guy who tried to make the joke 5 hours earlier doesn't make the joke land better.
Ack, I wrote that wrong - campaign finance reform is a goal to get finance out of campaigns, to reduce financial influence in politics. K'Tetch's goal appears to be to get the influence of politics out of campaigns by increasing the financial burden of politics. That's a bit clearer in how ridiculous it is.
That is a significantly different proposition to the goals of campaign finance reform. Campaign Finance Reform is a move to get the influence of deep pocketed third parties out of campaigns. Your goal is very different - to get campaigns out of politics. Its not a good fit for finance reform. your proposal rather encourages more fundraising to cover costs of outrageous legislation. Reform's biggest goal is eliminating fundraising to reduce the influence. Its a complete perversion of campaign finance to encourage fundraising. And that doesn't cover the host of perverse incentives
For instance, say I am retiring in 4 years (or facing term limits). If I throw out a ton of virtue signaling legislation that does not pass constitutional muster, who pays? The threat of the lame duck politician is already a serious concern with term limits, you only need look at recent reporting that more vindictive political moves were being planned for a second Trump term. The policy invites strategic campaigns - get a reactionary voted in, have them put up a shit ton of shit legislation, and then retire, allowing their politically aligned governor to appoint a more "moderate" candidate that gets all the benefits of the virtue signaling without the penalties, gets the nod from the predecessor, who gets a job in the National Committe, or a staff position, or an ambassadorship for their sacrifice.
How do you verify age? Like seriously, how do you verify someone's age remotely?
How do you verify a name is false? I am acquianted with a ton of people whose legal names aren't normal, including 2 Lucifers.
THat said, you have to stretch to get from "Will you commit to ending Finsta" to "will you commit to incremental improvements in how you verify ages and names". If the senator didn't want to be misunderstood, speaking clearly would significantly reduce misunderstandings.
The "accurate" description only covers a portion of Finsta usage. As someone who performs the Rocky Horror Picture Show, many members of the cast have fake social media for their Rocky/Burlesque activities to hide them from family or employers. I'm sure it isn't the only legal hobby someone might want to not broadcast to grandma. Several use variations of their name that pass muster under the Real Name Policy.
Sure we can discuss the policies. The issue is "ending Finsta" is not equivelent, even under the "accurate" description you cited, of "ending the use of instagram by individuals under the age of 13". "ending Finsta" reads, in the full context of the exchange to seemingly mean "ending any accounts not associated with a single person with no other accounts."
As I say, its an arms race. Point of origin tracking, random inspection, close scrutiny of specific categories, its all a cat and mouse game. Seizing domains seems to have lost its luster, but its about the closest they have managed to get when it comes to pharma, and foreign registrars don't seem as willing to bend over for US law enforcement.
However, you have hit the nail on the head why this is a stupid idea. Congress isn't funding customs enough as it is. Either they have to weaken customs, or business backlash from mounting delays will come up soon enough. It not only entrenches Amazon, its gonna give China and Alibaba a huge economic win.
no, it starts an arms race at customs, like imports of foreign prescription drugs which, while not technically counterfeit, are treated as counterfeit goods and barred from import.
It will fail, but that's the nature of this type of legislation.
My roommate had a cheap ring with artificial gems. They got it as a gift, it had been bought second hand, and it had no markings indicating a 'brand'. It wasn't worth much, and they sold it on merkari, one of those sell your clothes apps. They never claimed it was a particular brand, and was upfront that the gems were artificial.
A few weeks later she got a complaint the ring was counterfeit. Supposedly, one brand had a signature setting? The buyer thought they were getting a deal on a high-priced designer ring. It got her a strike, but the supposed counterfeit was unidentifiable as such unless you knew the supposed brand and knew the supposedly protected setting.
Thats how hard they go right now. It only gets worse from there.
I agree with Green AC's criticism. AS I pointed out above, Pruneyard's appellate history suggests that mearly being publically accessable does not define an area as public. Being public requires context.
It is a matter of record the officer went undercover in some fashion to surveil this snapchat - a snapchat with his name and photo was not considered "enough".
That is where the privacy violations occur. Undercover surveillance with oversight to ensure there is probable cause? Preferably with warrants? Sure. In the current legal framework that is fine. Undercover surveillance without oversight? Thats a 4th amendment violation.
Lots of these things are on auto renew and only renew once every few years. The result is information changes, new people are responsible, and all the information on the renewal slips through the cracks. With billy mitchell, all he needed was his card number to change, or get a new renewal date and the auto renew doesn't go through, and that email could easily get missed.
Or hes burning through his money on these legal challenges and can't afford it.
Re: It's a notable exception, you'd think it would be more known
That is a specious argument. The bill of rights doesn't detail the exceptions to the first amendment, be we generally accept that some limitations in some form should exist, for instance false statements of fact may raise the limitation of defamation.
I hadn't pegged you as being opposed to judicial review, but that appears to be your position as you have stated things here.
Assuming however that you do respect that judicial review is a thing that can dictate constitutionality in the eyes of the law, we can try to assess in the light of precedent how this plays out. Unfortunately, public and private have several contextual definitions, and determining where the proper line between them is not always simple. This is a long standing concern. The Pruneyard decision effectively addresses the same issue. Where the line between public and private is. In Pruneyard anyone could (and can) walk onto the property and were invited to do so to visit the shopping center. For most people, that defines the non- shop areas as "public". And indeed, peeing on a building could get me charged with public urination, or being drunk could earn me a public drunkenness charge. The initial rulings used this public definition. But the SCOTUS decided that in this context, the question hinges on if the property is considered public, not the fact that the space is generally available to the public.
I think this is a similar fuckup by the lower court. Anyone could join the snapchat, so its publicly available. but you don't have the right to access it. The big issue here is the officer clearly did not think he would have been shown the content he saw unless he hid his identity. That indicates a lack of public access - there was curation of the audience. The key question is not whether lots of people had access - Pruneyard has more people across their property daily, or at least did at the time of the Pruneyard case. the question is whether the officer could have made plain view observations if he had not been hiding his identity.
It would be well understood that I was trespassing if I chose to hide my identity to gain access to a private space I could not have otherwise. Same with the officer in this case. It is my policy opinion that any undercover surveillance needs approvals, preferably in the form of a warrant. That seems the way the SCOTUS was headed before the recent ideological changes. How it goes now is much harder to determine
Plunged into chaos is not a phrase I’d use with a 5 year old. I specifically choose simple, slightly inaccurate on the details language like I think would have the maximum impact on me as a five year old.
When are you going to understand that blacks,Indians,Asians,Mexicans,jews,,and weird combinations of these people were NEVER intended by the people who wrote the Constitution to be citizens of America and women were NEVER INTENDED to be allowed to have any political power,let alone gay people or people who dress up in the opposite sex's clothing and impersonate them?
That's why Texas passed this law, Cathy,because they are tired of you shoving blacks,gays,trannies,loud-mouthed female idiots,illegals,and the rest of your annoying shit down their throats.
They did it because they hate you.
Like its refreshing to see someone so willing to out their White supremacy and that the abortion law isn't about life, its about punishing non-whites. Its the Ron burgundy meme level of refreshing. Its somewhat strange to try to see you justify a moral high ground around fetal rights when you are advocating for stripping away rights on the basis of skin tone and region of birth, but at least you are honest about how shit a person you are.
Courts, from the local courthouse to the Supreme Court of the United States, exist to help people settle adult arguments. Normally, they try be fair and decide the same way every time. This lets people learn how a court makes a decision. If a court changes its mind, it likes to explain the change. That way we can still understand what is okay and what is not and why.
When the court made a decision in this arguement, they changed their mind about a lot of things. One thing they changed their mind about is explaining why they changed their mind. A lot of people are very upset because now we don't know what is okay and what is not.
Well, I for one have been quite frustrated anytime I have to deal with the android infrastructure. I get an iphone because I never bought an app my phone doesn't support. I buy an iphone because a security update never required 10 hours researching which custom firmware to install for my specific phone build and which is going to brick my phone. I buy an iphone because its a communication device I need to just work. I am not looking for PC building 2.0. I get an iPhone because all of the advantages of Android are not advantages I put weight on. Its not because its a "premium product". Its because i hate working with the OS, and the hardware is designed with the same cheap components, or cheaper once you get out of the overpriced premium market.
On the post: Court Tells Child Sexual Abuse Investigators That The Private Search Warrant Exception Only Works When There's A Private Search
Incompetance, a play in 4 parts.
Okay, Google has provided probable cause that this content includes illegal photographs of a minor. Rock solid justification for a search. I just need a warrant and this is a slam dunk.
Oops. I looked at the file before getting the warrant.. thats okay, all I need to do is not mention that I looked at the files on my warrant application - I have probable cause without looking at them so I can save this in good faith by not using my knowledge from the illegal search.
Oops. I guess I told the court I searched the files. Oh well. Power ahead. Fake it till you make it.
What do you mean I broke the law?
On the post: FCC Finally Gets Off Its Ass To Combat SIM Hijacking
Re:
You might be confused, that is the reality right now, and they are as you sarcastically pointed out, bad. The demand is that these methods get replaced by actually good methods for dealing with identification.
On the post: FCC Finally Gets Off Its Ass To Combat SIM Hijacking
Re:
Under that logic, Ron Wyden years ago? Its in the article as something he has been agitating about for years. I imagine congressional reps are constant targets for these kinds of attacks, and anyone concerned for their own well-being should be concerned with this issue on pure self interest and I really am struggling to see why you don't think any of them might be self-interested before they get simjacked. I've always been surprised their own self interest hasn't motivated similar thinking more often in these cases.
On the post: FCC Finally Gets Off Its Ass To Combat SIM Hijacking
Re: Not exactly
Lets look at that full quote for a moment:
you've expanded on the point being made in the article, but cropped your quote so as to imply Techdirt has claimed the opposite. Contextually, the quote says that "while deregulation can help improve functional, competitive, healthy markets", US Telecom is not a "functional, competitive, healthy market".
Stating deregulation doesn't work in an environment without competition is exactly what Techdirt was saying. Why you've positioned your commentary in opposition to Techdirt's commentary, rather than as supportive of Techdirt's commentary is unclear.
On the post: Investigation: CBP Targeted Journalists, Illegally Shared Info With Mexico, And Attempted To Cover It All Up
Re: Acronyms
An important step in reading is the ability to understand context. "Computers blindly preserve" doesn't have an obvious concern with a migrant caravan. Thats why the other guy who tried this shtick at least limited himself to border protection. Unfortunately he is clearly unaware that the DHS, the department of homeland security for you Americans who are ignorant of our government, is a US agency, so the CBP is likely as well, given the relationship indicated in the article. Just reading the article provide numerous context clues that CBP is an American government agency, such as coordination with Mexico to deny entry, the references to the 2018/2019 migrant caravan in relation to Mexico, the quote commenting on CBP retaliating against US individuals, the aforementioned relation to the DHS.
Being more unreasonable than the guy who tried to make the joke 5 hours earlier doesn't make the joke land better.
On the post: In Josh Hawley's World, People Should Be Able To Sue Facebook Both For Taking Down Stuff They Don't Like AND Leaving Up Stuff They Don't Like
Re: Re:
Ack, I wrote that wrong - campaign finance reform is a goal to get finance out of campaigns, to reduce financial influence in politics. K'Tetch's goal appears to be to get the influence of politics out of campaigns by increasing the financial burden of politics. That's a bit clearer in how ridiculous it is.
On the post: In Josh Hawley's World, People Should Be Able To Sue Facebook Both For Taking Down Stuff They Don't Like AND Leaving Up Stuff They Don't Like
Re:
That is a significantly different proposition to the goals of campaign finance reform. Campaign Finance Reform is a move to get the influence of deep pocketed third parties out of campaigns. Your goal is very different - to get campaigns out of politics. Its not a good fit for finance reform. your proposal rather encourages more fundraising to cover costs of outrageous legislation. Reform's biggest goal is eliminating fundraising to reduce the influence. Its a complete perversion of campaign finance to encourage fundraising. And that doesn't cover the host of perverse incentives
For instance, say I am retiring in 4 years (or facing term limits). If I throw out a ton of virtue signaling legislation that does not pass constitutional muster, who pays? The threat of the lame duck politician is already a serious concern with term limits, you only need look at recent reporting that more vindictive political moves were being planned for a second Trump term. The policy invites strategic campaigns - get a reactionary voted in, have them put up a shit ton of shit legislation, and then retire, allowing their politically aligned governor to appoint a more "moderate" candidate that gets all the benefits of the virtue signaling without the penalties, gets the nod from the predecessor, who gets a job in the National Committe, or a staff position, or an ambassadorship for their sacrifice.
Sniff test. Use it.
On the post: Blumenthal's Finsta Debacle: It Remains Unacceptable That Our Politicians Are So Clueless About The Internet
Re:
He also defined it wrong, because adults have Finsta's too.
On the post: Blumenthal's Finsta Debacle: It Remains Unacceptable That Our Politicians Are So Clueless About The Internet
Re:
How do you verify age? Like seriously, how do you verify someone's age remotely?
How do you verify a name is false? I am acquianted with a ton of people whose legal names aren't normal, including 2 Lucifers.
THat said, you have to stretch to get from "Will you commit to ending Finsta" to "will you commit to incremental improvements in how you verify ages and names". If the senator didn't want to be misunderstood, speaking clearly would significantly reduce misunderstandings.
The "accurate" description only covers a portion of Finsta usage. As someone who performs the Rocky Horror Picture Show, many members of the cast have fake social media for their Rocky/Burlesque activities to hide them from family or employers. I'm sure it isn't the only legal hobby someone might want to not broadcast to grandma. Several use variations of their name that pass muster under the Real Name Policy.
Sure we can discuss the policies. The issue is "ending Finsta" is not equivelent, even under the "accurate" description you cited, of "ending the use of instagram by individuals under the age of 13". "ending Finsta" reads, in the full context of the exchange to seemingly mean "ending any accounts not associated with a single person with no other accounts."
On the post: The SHOP SAFE Act Is A Terrible Bill That Will Eliminate Online Marketplaces
Re: Re: Re:
As I say, its an arms race. Point of origin tracking, random inspection, close scrutiny of specific categories, its all a cat and mouse game. Seizing domains seems to have lost its luster, but its about the closest they have managed to get when it comes to pharma, and foreign registrars don't seem as willing to bend over for US law enforcement.
However, you have hit the nail on the head why this is a stupid idea. Congress isn't funding customs enough as it is. Either they have to weaken customs, or business backlash from mounting delays will come up soon enough. It not only entrenches Amazon, its gonna give China and Alibaba a huge economic win.
On the post: The SHOP SAFE Act Is A Terrible Bill That Will Eliminate Online Marketplaces
Re:
no, it starts an arms race at customs, like imports of foreign prescription drugs which, while not technically counterfeit, are treated as counterfeit goods and barred from import.
It will fail, but that's the nature of this type of legislation.
On the post: The SHOP SAFE Act Is A Terrible Bill That Will Eliminate Online Marketplaces
A case study on counterfeiting
My roommate had a cheap ring with artificial gems. They got it as a gift, it had been bought second hand, and it had no markings indicating a 'brand'. It wasn't worth much, and they sold it on merkari, one of those sell your clothes apps. They never claimed it was a particular brand, and was upfront that the gems were artificial.
A few weeks later she got a complaint the ring was counterfeit. Supposedly, one brand had a signature setting? The buyer thought they were getting a deal on a high-priced designer ring. It got her a strike, but the supposed counterfeit was unidentifiable as such unless you knew the supposed brand and knew the supposedly protected setting.
Thats how hard they go right now. It only gets worse from there.
On the post: Area Free Market Proponent Sues Facebook For Defaming Him By Moderating His Personal Marketplace Of Climate Change Ideas
Re: You can immediately dismiss him as a crank
Slight correction, but the term means something very different outside the US.
On the post: Massachusetts Supreme Court Being Asked To Decide Whether Cops Can Engage In Warrantless Surveillance Of Social Media Users
Re: Re:
I agree with Green AC's criticism. AS I pointed out above, Pruneyard's appellate history suggests that mearly being publically accessable does not define an area as public. Being public requires context.
It is a matter of record the officer went undercover in some fashion to surveil this snapchat - a snapchat with his name and photo was not considered "enough".
That is where the privacy violations occur. Undercover surveillance with oversight to ensure there is probable cause? Preferably with warrants? Sure. In the current legal framework that is fine. Undercover surveillance without oversight? Thats a 4th amendment violation.
On the post: Billy Mitchell Lets His Site Lapse, With A Critic Of His High Score Claims Swooping In To Take It Over
Re: Re: Re: Re: happen to anybody?
Lots of these things are on auto renew and only renew once every few years. The result is information changes, new people are responsible, and all the information on the renewal slips through the cracks. With billy mitchell, all he needed was his card number to change, or get a new renewal date and the auto renew doesn't go through, and that email could easily get missed.
Or hes burning through his money on these legal challenges and can't afford it.
On the post: Massachusetts Supreme Court Being Asked To Decide Whether Cops Can Engage In Warrantless Surveillance Of Social Media Users
Re: It's a notable exception, you'd think it would be more known
That is a specious argument. The bill of rights doesn't detail the exceptions to the first amendment, be we generally accept that some limitations in some form should exist, for instance false statements of fact may raise the limitation of defamation.
I hadn't pegged you as being opposed to judicial review, but that appears to be your position as you have stated things here.
Assuming however that you do respect that judicial review is a thing that can dictate constitutionality in the eyes of the law, we can try to assess in the light of precedent how this plays out. Unfortunately, public and private have several contextual definitions, and determining where the proper line between them is not always simple. This is a long standing concern. The Pruneyard decision effectively addresses the same issue. Where the line between public and private is. In Pruneyard anyone could (and can) walk onto the property and were invited to do so to visit the shopping center. For most people, that defines the non- shop areas as "public". And indeed, peeing on a building could get me charged with public urination, or being drunk could earn me a public drunkenness charge. The initial rulings used this public definition. But the SCOTUS decided that in this context, the question hinges on if the property is considered public, not the fact that the space is generally available to the public.
I think this is a similar fuckup by the lower court. Anyone could join the snapchat, so its publicly available. but you don't have the right to access it. The big issue here is the officer clearly did not think he would have been shown the content he saw unless he hid his identity. That indicates a lack of public access - there was curation of the audience. The key question is not whether lots of people had access - Pruneyard has more people across their property daily, or at least did at the time of the Pruneyard case. the question is whether the officer could have made plain view observations if he had not been hiding his identity.
It would be well understood that I was trespassing if I chose to hide my identity to gain access to a private space I could not have otherwise. Same with the officer in this case. It is my policy opinion that any undercover surveillance needs approvals, preferably in the form of a warrant. That seems the way the SCOTUS was headed before the recent ideological changes. How it goes now is much harder to determine
On the post: The Night The United States Supreme Court Cancelled Law
Re: Re: Re:
Plunged into chaos is not a phrase I’d use with a 5 year old. I specifically choose simple, slightly inaccurate on the details language like I think would have the maximum impact on me as a five year old.
On the post: The Night The United States Supreme Court Cancelled Law
Re:
Like its refreshing to see someone so willing to out their White supremacy and that the abortion law isn't about life, its about punishing non-whites. Its the Ron burgundy meme level of refreshing. Its somewhat strange to try to see you justify a moral high ground around fetal rights when you are advocating for stripping away rights on the basis of skin tone and region of birth, but at least you are honest about how shit a person you are.
On the post: The Night The United States Supreme Court Cancelled Law
Re:
Courts, from the local courthouse to the Supreme Court of the United States, exist to help people settle adult arguments. Normally, they try be fair and decide the same way every time. This lets people learn how a court makes a decision. If a court changes its mind, it likes to explain the change. That way we can still understand what is okay and what is not and why.
When the court made a decision in this arguement, they changed their mind about a lot of things. One thing they changed their mind about is explaining why they changed their mind. A lot of people are very upset because now we don't know what is okay and what is not.
On the post: Apple Training Videos Highlight Company's Adversarial Stance On Affordable Repairs
Re: The "i" stands for "idiot"
Well, I for one have been quite frustrated anytime I have to deal with the android infrastructure. I get an iphone because I never bought an app my phone doesn't support. I buy an iphone because a security update never required 10 hours researching which custom firmware to install for my specific phone build and which is going to brick my phone. I buy an iphone because its a communication device I need to just work. I am not looking for PC building 2.0. I get an iPhone because all of the advantages of Android are not advantages I put weight on. Its not because its a "premium product". Its because i hate working with the OS, and the hardware is designed with the same cheap components, or cheaper once you get out of the overpriced premium market.
Next >>