Well, I get that, but then I would expect some analysis of how time spent working on the Klout score detrimentally cannibalizes writing time and therefore skill.
It is my opinion that conclusion does not logically follow even if time is scarce. People are capable of promoting themselves and honing their craft at the same time and I would presume that the more you learn and experiment with promotion the better you get and the less time it may take.
In fact, I think the fundamental premise behind what Mike tries to teach is that most professions require that individual promotion and outreach to become a core part of becoming successful.
I appreciate your insight, but why do you believe that the two are mutually exclusive? Your last sentence appears to indicate that you can either focus on Klout or learn to write, which from my perspective is nonsensical.
What I read from this article and these professors, is that they are trying to teach students both how to write/etc. and how to understand and influence measures of their impact online.
That seems pretty comprehensive and valuable to me.
I'm not convinced that citizens don't care, the problem is that they can't comprehend what to do about it on top of the alligators eating their shorts every day.
On a daily basis they are stressing about their job, health, the hole in their roof, debt, kids, the environment, etc.
How can we expect them to make a stink that may jeopardize their job or security, when they might not even be educated enough to fully comprehend the issue?
And of course part of their flawed logic is that either perfect information or a perfect system are achievable. Plus, to your point, even if false positives are eliminated the mere existence of the information can invite abuse.
"This suggests that the project's participants believe that having even more information available about members of the public is not only justified by the deeply-flawed logic "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear", but that governments have what amounts to a duty to gather that information in order to make that argument true."
I agree that they conclude that *more* information is the solution, but I don't agree that they think "if you've done nothing wrong,..." justifies anything. In fact, they outright agree that it is flawed. Quite frankly that's the first time I've heard any government authority admit that.
Their logic, as I understand it is, "the justice system will make mistakes, so it's better for it to have the best information available to reduce those mistakes."
The thing they are missing is that there is no amount of information that can be gathered that will eliminate false positives while maximizing appropriate interdiction. In fact, as has been discussed here ad nauseum, more information can easily lead to MORE false positives, not less.
Ugh, you must really read things just hoping to be offended. Otherwise, I can't seem to understand why you missed all of the words before that comment and the general tone of the article (see The First Word callout).
It isn't about the government's redistribution of wealth, but it is about the expectation of those impacted by competition and innovation that they get to share in the spoils of those that have succeeded in the market.
That is fairly similar to the concept of wealth redistribution. You can call it a tax, entitlement, stupidity, whatever, but it is still one party expecting that they share in benefits they had little to do with.
Not all of them were created specifically for terrorism, but the majority were and the funding certainly came out of the aftermath of 9/11.
But look, I'm not disagreeing. The report is clear--the fusion centers are either being run so poorly that they fail in their mission or they inherently create those weaknesses.
I can't say which, I'm just saying that the work I've seen and the agents I've worked with have been effective, respectful of citizens' rights, and not something that could easily occur in a different environment.
I can, actually. I observed multiple interdictions of individuals later convicted of fraud, drug-related charges, and money laundering.
This was achieved in a much shorter time period than normal by having co-located agents using data all available through the same shared tools.
I'm not sure why you are attacking me, though. I believe that those running these centers need to be held accountable for the issues that have come out of this report. Shame on them.
All I'm saying is that having an extremely narrow view and refusing to acknowledge any positive outcomes or elements of these centers is being blinded by ideology at best and ignorant at worst.
Read the article please, this is not talking about the TSA, it is talking about fusion centers, which are sites dedicated to the sharing of information and joint investigation activities among agencies.
And also don't mistake the intent of my post--I agree very strongly with many in this community around privacy protections. But as I said, I observed (very small sample set) good and respectful work being done, not what is described here.
I just hope the fusion center concept isn't completely abandoned (see my post above). But maybe it has to be completely bootstrapped--I realize sometimes things have to be completely broken down before they can be fixed.
Well, I've actually spent time in a couple of these fusion centers. I can't speak to the waste, which I imagine is certainly occurring, but let's not act like there is no value whatsoever from these centers.
In my experience, I saw agents from multiple agencies working closely together and applying some fairly strict policy to govern protection of the data and unintended targets.
Perhaps the bad outweighs the good, but that's not what I observed.
You know, I struggle with this one. On the one hand, I feel strongly about transparency. On the other hand, I know what most government agencies have to do and what they have to do it with.
a) very few records fall into a category where one person can sit down, easily find them, be assured and confident that they have found all of them, and package them up to send to the requestor. These efforts are highly manual and require multiple people involved to make certain they are correct.
b) over the last ten years, many federal agencies have been asked to do more with much less. This is not bad, but it usually has meant a shrinkage of staff through attrition.
As much as I want transparency, I think we have to acknowledge that there aren't people just sitting around waiting for their boss to tell them to take 5 minutes, go get those records, and send them to the requestor. The resources and time have to come from somewhere and they have to do so at the expense of some other activity.
Hiring people dedicated to this effort doesn't help that much, because the requests are so ad-hoc that they would often have no idea how to find the information.
Such is the problem with the AC's philosophy of consequentialism. It's great as long as everyone believes the same as he/she.
And its sad that he/she doesn't realize that this same line of belief can be used against you as well. Without some uniform basis for ethics (usually codified as laws in society), everyone will feel as though everyone else is bending the rules to achieve their own ends.
The point trying to be made here over and over again, is that it isn't an idea, it's a fact.
And yet the digital markets haven't died. People still pay for content and software even though it is available through other means.
But the other important thing to consider, is that the friction of which I speak can be minimized--if copyright terms are reduced and if businesses learn to stop using them as a giant bludgeon there would be hope.
Instead, head the other direction and it will continue to be a giant drain on resources that could be used by producers and consumers for other things.
On the post: Bizarre Trend: Journalism Professors Using Klout Scores As Part Of Students' Grades
Re: Re: Re:
It is my opinion that conclusion does not logically follow even if time is scarce. People are capable of promoting themselves and honing their craft at the same time and I would presume that the more you learn and experiment with promotion the better you get and the less time it may take.
In fact, I think the fundamental premise behind what Mike tries to teach is that most professions require that individual promotion and outreach to become a core part of becoming successful.
On the post: Bizarre Trend: Journalism Professors Using Klout Scores As Part Of Students' Grades
Re:
What I read from this article and these professors, is that they are trying to teach students both how to write/etc. and how to understand and influence measures of their impact online.
That seems pretty comprehensive and valuable to me.
On the post: It Takes Jon Stewart To Finally Ask Obama About Civil Liberties... But Lets Him Off The Hook On Bogus Answer
Re: Re: Re:
On a daily basis they are stressing about their job, health, the hole in their roof, debt, kids, the environment, etc.
How can we expect them to make a stink that may jeopardize their job or security, when they might not even be educated enough to fully comprehend the issue?
On the post: EU Surveillance Team: We Need More Surveillance To Justify More Surveillance
Re: Re: Disagree with your last conclusion
And of course part of their flawed logic is that either perfect information or a perfect system are achievable. Plus, to your point, even if false positives are eliminated the mere existence of the information can invite abuse.
On the post: EU Surveillance Team: We Need More Surveillance To Justify More Surveillance
Disagree with your last conclusion
I agree that they conclude that *more* information is the solution, but I don't agree that they think "if you've done nothing wrong,..." justifies anything. In fact, they outright agree that it is flawed. Quite frankly that's the first time I've heard any government authority admit that.
Their logic, as I understand it is, "the justice system will make mistakes, so it's better for it to have the best information available to reduce those mistakes."
The thing they are missing is that there is no amount of information that can be gathered that will eliminate false positives while maximizing appropriate interdiction. In fact, as has been discussed here ad nauseum, more information can easily lead to MORE false positives, not less.
On the post: Google To French Media: We May Have To Cut You Off
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Redistribution of wealth?
On the post: Google To French Media: We May Have To Cut You Off
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Redistribution of wealth?
On the post: Google To French Media: We May Have To Cut You Off
Re:
On the post: Google To French Media: We May Have To Cut You Off
Re: Re: Re: Re: Redistribution of wealth?
That is fairly similar to the concept of wealth redistribution. You can call it a tax, entitlement, stupidity, whatever, but it is still one party expecting that they share in benefits they had little to do with.
On the post: Microsoft Sends Google A DMCA Notice... To Block Microsoft's Bing Search Engine
Re:
Wait, what were we talking about again?
On the post: Congressional Investigation Slams DHS Anti-Terror Centers: Wasted Taxpayer Funds, Created No Useful Intelligence & Violated Civil Liberties
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But look, I'm not disagreeing. The report is clear--the fusion centers are either being run so poorly that they fail in their mission or they inherently create those weaknesses.
I can't say which, I'm just saying that the work I've seen and the agents I've worked with have been effective, respectful of citizens' rights, and not something that could easily occur in a different environment.
On the post: Congressional Investigation Slams DHS Anti-Terror Centers: Wasted Taxpayer Funds, Created No Useful Intelligence & Violated Civil Liberties
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This was achieved in a much shorter time period than normal by having co-located agents using data all available through the same shared tools.
I'm not sure why you are attacking me, though. I believe that those running these centers need to be held accountable for the issues that have come out of this report. Shame on them.
All I'm saying is that having an extremely narrow view and refusing to acknowledge any positive outcomes or elements of these centers is being blinded by ideology at best and ignorant at worst.
On the post: Congressional Investigation Slams DHS Anti-Terror Centers: Wasted Taxpayer Funds, Created No Useful Intelligence & Violated Civil Liberties
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And also don't mistake the intent of my post--I agree very strongly with many in this community around privacy protections. But as I said, I observed (very small sample set) good and respectful work being done, not what is described here.
On the post: Congressional Investigation Slams DHS Anti-Terror Centers: Wasted Taxpayer Funds, Created No Useful Intelligence & Violated Civil Liberties
Re: Re:
I just hope the fusion center concept isn't completely abandoned (see my post above). But maybe it has to be completely bootstrapped--I realize sometimes things have to be completely broken down before they can be fixed.
On the post: Congressional Investigation Slams DHS Anti-Terror Centers: Wasted Taxpayer Funds, Created No Useful Intelligence & Violated Civil Liberties
Re: Re:
In my experience, I saw agents from multiple agencies working closely together and applying some fairly strict policy to govern protection of the data and unintended targets.
Perhaps the bad outweighs the good, but that's not what I observed.
On the post: Still All Talk: 19 Of 20 Presidential Cabinet Agencies Ignore Requirements Of The Freedom Of Information Act
Re:
a) very few records fall into a category where one person can sit down, easily find them, be assured and confident that they have found all of them, and package them up to send to the requestor. These efforts are highly manual and require multiple people involved to make certain they are correct.
b) over the last ten years, many federal agencies have been asked to do more with much less. This is not bad, but it usually has meant a shrinkage of staff through attrition.
As much as I want transparency, I think we have to acknowledge that there aren't people just sitting around waiting for their boss to tell them to take 5 minutes, go get those records, and send them to the requestor. The resources and time have to come from somewhere and they have to do so at the expense of some other activity.
Hiring people dedicated to this effort doesn't help that much, because the requests are so ad-hoc that they would often have no idea how to find the information.
On the post: The 'Hey Jude' Replacement Ref Protest Plan: Turning Copyright Maximalism Against Itself
Re: Re: Re: Ron Rezendes
On the post: NZ Prime Minister Admits That The Government Illegally Wiretapped Megaupload Employees
Re: Re:
And its sad that he/she doesn't realize that this same line of belief can be used against you as well. Without some uniform basis for ethics (usually codified as laws in society), everyone will feel as though everyone else is bending the rules to achieve their own ends.
On the post: When Even Hilarious Web Comic Artists Are Mocking The Insanity Of The Patent System...
To this idea I say...
On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility
Re: Re: Re:
And yet the digital markets haven't died. People still pay for content and software even though it is available through other means.
But the other important thing to consider, is that the friction of which I speak can be minimized--if copyright terms are reduced and if businesses learn to stop using them as a giant bludgeon there would be hope.
Instead, head the other direction and it will continue to be a giant drain on resources that could be used by producers and consumers for other things.
Next >>