Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Aug 2018 @ 4:27pm
Re: Re: VPN's through VPN's
It hasn't done her any good, what are you hoping for?
For that matter, it hasn't done her any harm either (despite those that argue that doing so violated federal law, for her, not you), but she is impervious to some kinds of embarrassment, and for whatever reasons she has, so far, escaped any kind of prosecution. Is that the kind of protection your looking for?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Aug 2018 @ 4:19pm
Arguments for open peer reviews:
and quantity and quality of peer reviews.
When I read the headline in the Crystal Ball, I severely wanted to write a sarcastic comment about getting someone to write an algorithm that would block all 'dubious studies'. Of course, such an algorithm could not exist, or would not actually work, just as algorithms that detect copyright infringement exist, but don't actually work.
So the question comes up, how do we detect and obfuscate dubious studies? One method is pointed out in the article, this study was not peer reviewed. But that points to yet another problem, peer reviews can be gamed by study/paper publishers. They want to publish (and charge for anyone using that paper) more, not more quality. So peer review is an indicator, but more investigation needs to be done. Who were the reviewers, and how were they recruited, and by whom?
Then we should take a close look at how many peer reviews took place. Then we should look at who those reviewers were, and what prejudices there might be. Are they a competitor and just being obstinate? Do they have a different theory they want promoted? Could both be right and more study is needed to excise the differences and come up with a more appropriate conclusion?
In the end, before 'studies' or 'papers' are taken as qualified, they should be subjected to a quantifiable, and qualifiable set of tests that determine whether any regard for the study should be taken. Without such a 'Study Reliability Score' (SRS for those that insist upon an acronyms) papers and studies should not be taken for granted.
One problems comes up. Currently paper publishers don't pay for anything except printing, so we aren't going to get an SRS from them, but there would be a cost to obtaining an SRS. How do we go about that?
After all that, there is the issue of getting those in power (Congress, government in general, etc.) to use only SRS approved studies.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Aug 2018 @ 3:52pm
VPN's through VPN's
I have a VPN. I have it mounted on one of my routers. I also have the same VPN's desktop apps. The router is set to one exit point. If I use one of my desktop apps and set yet another exit point, my exit point will be that IP address. It might slow the connection down, and it might double encrypt it (though I doubt that makes it harder to de-encrypt), it most certainly does more to obscure my location. Second exit point points to the first exit point which in theory points to nothing, as my VPN keeps no logs.
So, in theory, if one has a VPN and then also uses Facebook's VPN, they would be more protected than if they only used Facebook's VPN. None of that keeps Facebook from recording what you did during the session. It just keeps your actual location from being discerned.
That we have to go through these exercises to maintain some privacy is most certainly problematic. That Facebook advertised their VPN as protecting privacy is just a lie. Not unexpected, but disappointing still.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Aug 2018 @ 3:33pm
Re: Look Who's Doing the Collusion
"The effort is led by the Boston Globe, who called for editorial boards of publications across the country to publish their own editorials defending—in their own words—..."
They called for others to 'in their own words' say something about the President calling for 1st Amendment illegal activity by the government, is collusion? Was there any violation of law in that? Was there any 1st Amendment violation in that? Did they do it to burn Trumps butt? Possibly, but so what? They are allowed to burn Trumps butt, whether he likes it or not.
Well, maybe it was collusion, but there is nothing illegal about that. I can collude with my neighbor to complain about our HMO's contention that our community owned pool should not be used in the summer. What is wrong with that? Nothing illegal about that.
Now, conspiracy to commit an illegal act is something different. What illegal acts have been committed by any Trump associates, whether employees of the White House or employed by Trump directly, via contract or company? Do any conspiracies exist there? Are any of those conspiratorial acts illegal? Some were, see Cohen and Manafort.
Definition of collusion
: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose acting in collusion with the enemy
Definition of conspiracy
plural conspiracies
1 : the act of conspiring together They were accused of conspiracy to commit murder.
2 a : an agreement among conspirators uncovered a conspiracy against the government
b : a group of conspirators a conspiracy made up of disgruntled aristocrats
Both of those definitions make allusions to illegal activity. Illegal activity is not necessary to invoke either definition. Illegality is necessary for the activity to be illegal, under either condition.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Aug 2018 @ 8:05am
Re: Re: "SOMEONE is going to pay us what we deserve!"
That is until we find out that the movie company actually did the leaking, as has happened in the past. They made a claim, but have not shown proof. The above claim is just as likely, until there is proof. This lawsuit sounds like a fishing expedition, looking for something they can point to and say 'See?', whether that is actual proof or not.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Aug 2018 @ 6:53pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: it'd be a shame
That's assuming they show up at all, or call the next day to request a new appointment sometime in the future (when convenient for us), between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Aug 2018 @ 5:14pm
Re: What good are the cameras when they can't be believed
I should add that digital photography amended by Photoshop or GIMP or whatever for artistic purposes is a good thing. When they are supposed to be documenting actual happenings for evidence in court, not so much.
Some police appear to be conflicted about the difference. They seem to think that 'producing' their version is the right thing to do. Get the bad guys. Make the quota. This does not work for the innocent, and innocent until proven guilty (with actual, real evidence) is what justice is supposed to be about. Not getting bad guys, or making quotas.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Aug 2018 @ 3:53pm
What good are the cameras when they can't be believed
Great. Now, not only can the police edit things to make them look how they wan't (so long as they don't get physically caught as some have) but others can help with the editing. If the video shows something the cops don't like, they can claim some hacker fixed it to make them look bad. If it shows something they do like, they don't even have a proper chain of evidence (one that shows no tampering) to make it legitimately court worthy.
On top of that, they send out signals that let bad guys track them, supporting their fear of their own shadows rhetoric. Expect them to argue to have the cameras removed for this.
All of this is beside the point that the cops want to keep what should be public information private. Obscuring their embarrassment is more important than justice.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Aug 2018 @ 12:22pm
Re: Re: Only sorta dirty, from their point of view
I am not hopeful, but I bet any defense attorneys will be taking a very close look, and make appropriate assertions. Maybe even when they don't have a leg to stand on, just the precedent.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Aug 2018 @ 12:20pm
Re: Re: Re:
Personally, I would look at whether they tried to influence corporate policy, then hold those who controlled those influence attempts liable under conspiracy theories. The government is good at accusing others with conspiracy, just not themselves, or favorite entities (for example banks and other 'too big to fail' type organizations).
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Aug 2018 @ 11:53am
Re:
I think the big problem with holding 'persons', also known as corporations, accountable for criminal laws is who do you send to jail? The CEO, the president, other officers, the board of directors, the shareholders, managers, regional directors, state district directors, all of the above? I would vote for all of the above, but limit the shareholders part, unless they own large portions and are or represent an individual who has influence over company policy. Large portions might mean 5% or more.
Now this has happened, but not nearly enough, and too often the top people managed to point fingers and deny any ability to control their underlings. A sad failure in management, as well as the justice system.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Aug 2018 @ 11:38am
Lying liars claim it's a lie, and want to be believed.
Mikhail Fridman, German Khan, Peter Aven, and their lawyers seem to think that a mere allegation of 'that's a lie' is sufficient to make a claim of defamation. One would think that if they could produce evidence of the lie, they would. Since they didn't, the rest of the world is then led to believe that it most certainly isn't a lie. I wonder what actionable items are in there. Personally, I don't care, but someone will.
Reminds me of the old joke. Two politicians arguing, one says to the other, your lying. The other responds with, well yes I am, but hear me out.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Aug 2018 @ 11:15am
Only sorta dirty, from their point of view
"...Recognizing a Bivens action here will produce widespread litigation only if ICE attorneys routinely submit false evidence, which no party argues is the case. And if this problem is indeed widespread, it demonstrates a dire need for deterrence, validating Bivens’s purpose."
That they did it, and got caught once, leaves the question as to whether they did it more times. It is hard to believe that they didn't. The problem will be that other cases won't have such clear cut evidence. That no party argues that in this case could mean they didn't investigate other cases, not that other cases don't exist.
Courts should take any filing by DHS with a huge amount of skepticism, because of this.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Aug 2018 @ 10:08am
Re: Re: Conundrum
But not you, apparently. How is it that it is always 'their' fault with folks like you? You have NO responsibility in this?
I actually blame the FEC, and the politicians who appoint the FEC members who said money is speech and it's OK for anyone to spend whatever they want in soft money. Politicians, whom I did not vote for.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Aug 2018 @ 8:38am
Some clarification please
A couple of questions. What is the difference between a songwriter and a publisher? Does a publisher collect the songwriters portion and then (after their expenses and profit) pass something along to songwriters? Aren't the songwriter and artist often one in the same? I do understand that sometimes they are not, but when they are, isn't the percentage the artist receives then higher, when they also wrote the song?
Next up is what portion of the platform's revenue is spent on licensing? I don't follow it closely, but we hear about platforms complaining that they don't actually make much because the labels keep insisting that they need more, in the form of licenses. Then, along the same lines, are those license fees passed along and included in the portion paid to artists, or are they included in the portion assigned to the labels? Or both, which would mean it is listed as part of label income, but also as part of their expenses?
Then there is the question of what portion of total music expenditures is independent vs label related? We keep talking about how much easier it is today for artists to self publish and earn more by connecting with fans and giving them reasons to buy. But, given the whole market, what portion is independent? Any studies about how well the independents are doing? And what about a breakdown of their expenses vs actual profit? Then of note would be what methods are they using in the CwF/RtB, and which seem to be more effective, which does not preclude someone trying something else, and making it work? Those charts seem to ignore independents, or are they included but not broken out? If included, which portion are they included in?
I am not suggesting that Techdirt, of any of the community has the answers to these questions. I am suggesting that the studies listed don't give as complete a picture as they would like us to believe.
On the post: Facebook's 'Privacy Protecting' VPN Booted From Apple Store For Snooping Too Much
Re: Oh, by the way: Google too is just great at privacy! Tracks location when "off"!
Yeah, Techdirt totally missed that.
On the post: Facebook's 'Privacy Protecting' VPN Booted From Apple Store For Snooping Too Much
Re: Re: VPN's through VPN's
For that matter, it hasn't done her any harm either (despite those that argue that doing so violated federal law, for her, not you), but she is impervious to some kinds of embarrassment, and for whatever reasons she has, so far, escaped any kind of prosecution. Is that the kind of protection your looking for?
On the post: Dubious Studies And Easy Headlines: No, A New Report Does Not Clearly Show Facebook Leads To Hate Crimes
Arguments for open peer reviews:
and quantity and quality of peer reviews.
When I read the headline in the Crystal Ball, I severely wanted to write a sarcastic comment about getting someone to write an algorithm that would block all 'dubious studies'. Of course, such an algorithm could not exist, or would not actually work, just as algorithms that detect copyright infringement exist, but don't actually work.
So the question comes up, how do we detect and obfuscate dubious studies? One method is pointed out in the article, this study was not peer reviewed. But that points to yet another problem, peer reviews can be gamed by study/paper publishers. They want to publish (and charge for anyone using that paper) more, not more quality. So peer review is an indicator, but more investigation needs to be done. Who were the reviewers, and how were they recruited, and by whom?
Then we should take a close look at how many peer reviews took place. Then we should look at who those reviewers were, and what prejudices there might be. Are they a competitor and just being obstinate? Do they have a different theory they want promoted? Could both be right and more study is needed to excise the differences and come up with a more appropriate conclusion?
In the end, before 'studies' or 'papers' are taken as qualified, they should be subjected to a quantifiable, and qualifiable set of tests that determine whether any regard for the study should be taken. Without such a 'Study Reliability Score' (SRS for those that insist upon an acronyms) papers and studies should not be taken for granted.
One problems comes up. Currently paper publishers don't pay for anything except printing, so we aren't going to get an SRS from them, but there would be a cost to obtaining an SRS. How do we go about that?
After all that, there is the issue of getting those in power (Congress, government in general, etc.) to use only SRS approved studies.
On the post: Facebook's 'Privacy Protecting' VPN Booted From Apple Store For Snooping Too Much
VPN's through VPN's
So, in theory, if one has a VPN and then also uses Facebook's VPN, they would be more protected than if they only used Facebook's VPN. None of that keeps Facebook from recording what you did during the session. It just keeps your actual location from being discerned.
That we have to go through these exercises to maintain some privacy is most certainly problematic. That Facebook advertised their VPN as protecting privacy is just a lie. Not unexpected, but disappointing still.
On the post: Trump's Anti-press Rhetoric Is Dangerous, But His Actions Are Worse
Re: Look Who's Doing the Collusion
They called for others to 'in their own words' say something about the President calling for 1st Amendment illegal activity by the government, is collusion? Was there any violation of law in that? Was there any 1st Amendment violation in that? Did they do it to burn Trumps butt? Possibly, but so what? They are allowed to burn Trumps butt, whether he likes it or not.
Well, maybe it was collusion, but there is nothing illegal about that. I can collude with my neighbor to complain about our HMO's contention that our community owned pool should not be used in the summer. What is wrong with that? Nothing illegal about that.
Now, conspiracy to commit an illegal act is something different. What illegal acts have been committed by any Trump associates, whether employees of the White House or employed by Trump directly, via contract or company? Do any conspiracies exist there? Are any of those conspiratorial acts illegal? Some were, see Cohen and Manafort.
Both of those definitions make allusions to illegal activity. Illegal activity is not necessary to invoke either definition. Illegality is necessary for the activity to be illegal, under either condition.
On the post: Trump's Anti-press Rhetoric Is Dangerous, But His Actions Are Worse
Re: Re:
Where did you find orange tinfoil?
On the post: Movie Company Sues Post-Production Studio For $5 Million For Leaking 'Kickboxer' Film That Grossed $5k Domestically
Re: Re: "SOMEONE is going to pay us what we deserve!"
On the post: Verizon Throttled The 'Unlimited' Data Plan Of A Fire Dept. Battling Wildfires
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: it'd be a shame
On the post: Researcher Says Police Body Cameras Are An Insecure Mess
Re: What good are the cameras when they can't be believed
Some police appear to be conflicted about the difference. They seem to think that 'producing' their version is the right thing to do. Get the bad guys. Make the quota. This does not work for the innocent, and innocent until proven guilty (with actual, real evidence) is what justice is supposed to be about. Not getting bad guys, or making quotas.
On the post: Researcher Says Police Body Cameras Are An Insecure Mess
What good are the cameras when they can't be believed
On top of that, they send out signals that let bad guys track them, supporting their fear of their own shadows rhetoric. Expect them to argue to have the cameras removed for this.
All of this is beside the point that the cops want to keep what should be public information private. Obscuring their embarrassment is more important than justice.
On the post: No Immunity For ICE Attorney Who Submitted A Forged Document In A Deportation Hearing
Re: Re: Only sorta dirty, from their point of view
On the post: Verizon Throttled The 'Unlimited' Data Plan Of A Fire Dept. Battling Wildfires
Re: Re: Re:
But, that's just me.
On the post: Verizon Throttled The 'Unlimited' Data Plan Of A Fire Dept. Battling Wildfires
Re:
Now this has happened, but not nearly enough, and too often the top people managed to point fingers and deny any ability to control their underlings. A sad failure in management, as well as the justice system.
On the post: Court Dismisses Defamation Lawsuit Over Steele Dossier
Lying liars claim it's a lie, and want to be believed.
Reminds me of the old joke. Two politicians arguing, one says to the other, your lying. The other responds with, well yes I am, but hear me out.
On the post: No Immunity For ICE Attorney Who Submitted A Forged Document In A Deportation Hearing
Only sorta dirty, from their point of view
That they did it, and got caught once, leaves the question as to whether they did it more times. It is hard to believe that they didn't. The problem will be that other cases won't have such clear cut evidence. That no party argues that in this case could mean they didn't investigate other cases, not that other cases don't exist.
Courts should take any filing by DHS with a huge amount of skepticism, because of this.
On the post: Verizon Throttled The 'Unlimited' Data Plan Of A Fire Dept. Battling Wildfires
Re: Re: Conundrum
I actually blame the FEC, and the politicians who appoint the FEC members who said money is speech and it's OK for anyone to spend whatever they want in soft money. Politicians, whom I did not vote for.
On the post: Verizon Throttled The 'Unlimited' Data Plan Of A Fire Dept. Battling Wildfires
Conundrum
On the post: Dutch Government Prosecuting Dutch Citizen For Insulting Turkish President Recep Erdogan
Re: Found a flaw in that plan right off the bat
On the post: Only 12% Of Music Revenue Goes To Actual Artists
Some clarification please
Next up is what portion of the platform's revenue is spent on licensing? I don't follow it closely, but we hear about platforms complaining that they don't actually make much because the labels keep insisting that they need more, in the form of licenses. Then, along the same lines, are those license fees passed along and included in the portion paid to artists, or are they included in the portion assigned to the labels? Or both, which would mean it is listed as part of label income, but also as part of their expenses?
Then there is the question of what portion of total music expenditures is independent vs label related? We keep talking about how much easier it is today for artists to self publish and earn more by connecting with fans and giving them reasons to buy. But, given the whole market, what portion is independent? Any studies about how well the independents are doing? And what about a breakdown of their expenses vs actual profit? Then of note would be what methods are they using in the CwF/RtB, and which seem to be more effective, which does not preclude someone trying something else, and making it work? Those charts seem to ignore independents, or are they included but not broken out? If included, which portion are they included in?
I am not suggesting that Techdirt, of any of the community has the answers to these questions. I am suggesting that the studies listed don't give as complete a picture as they would like us to believe.
On the post: As Press Freedom Dies In Turkey, Twitter Is There To Help Dig Its Grave
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, your talking about yourself? Self identification is good. Especially when you're right.
Next >>