Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 Aug 2018 @ 4:53pm
Re: Re: Re:
I use Kodi/LibreElec/Raspberry Pi, and I don't use any of the addons the anti-piracy folks complain about. I use it to play my video/audio collection. So Kodi is not necessarily synonymous with piracy.
Now I have not tested this, nor have I had any reason to.
Is it better than Google or any other search engine? I wouldn't know, I haven't even tried testing them. I find what I am looking for and don't worry about the rest.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Aug 2018 @ 4:02pm
Standardless standards
"... a government official whose conduct is being challenged will not be subject to damages liability if she or he pleads and proves as an affirmative defense that she or he exercised all due care to conform to the requirements of the law."
OK, now I am confused. If they need to PROVE that they exercised all due care to conform to the requirements of the law how is qualified immunity so devastating? They need to prove it. What is the standard of proof here, the same as any defendant, beyond a reasonable doubt, or something lower? If it is in fact lower, then there is a significant imbalance in justice. If it isn't lower, then how are cops not required to know they laws they are paid to enforce?
You be the fool. There is very little that Google does that is not available elsewhere. Therefore it is both not necessary, nor is it a monopoly. So you are wrong on both counts, and Ninja is right on both counts.
So far as language, Ninja has been around here a lot longer than you and he deals with English better than many native English speakers.
Given your propensity for childish argument, you might want to grow up before you try again. See you in 20 or 30 years.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Aug 2018 @ 12:43pm
Re: Upcoming Thursday: FCC Oversight Hearing
Hmm. Sounds like a plan. Keep Ajit Pai in front of Congressional hearings full time. Think how little additional damage he could do if he spends all of his time before Congress?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Aug 2018 @ 8:22am
Slow news and relevance
I, for one, appreciate your tendency to insight vs speed. As you point out, there are some who perceive that your not jumping on 'their agenda du jour' as an intentional slight. Like your supposed to know what their 'feelz' are at all times, and should succumb to their every though, concern, or issue, at their will. As is continually pointed out to them, they can always start their own blog.
While your perspective with regard to 'slow news' is, I think, right for your blog, there is some potential to wait too long and loose relevance. That's a balance. I think you do it well, even with some complaining that certain articles are 'so last week'. They fail to understand that some issues remain relevant, until they are resolved. We have quite a few outstanding, unresolved issues that are ripe for periodic reexamination. Sometimes those reexaminations bring new perspectives, sometimes they merely rehash old arguments. But like with censorship, more speech is an appropriate answer.
Then, there is your perception of what it is you want to write about. In that, you can never be wrong, because it is what you want, not what others want, and they cannot absolutely and completely, know you. Some say not enough tech and too much dirt, or vise versa. Well, there are plethora other blogs to satisfy their needs, but they do not all offer the same ability to state their mind that Techdirt does.
Another way to look at the concept of slow news is related in the old saw 'put mind in gear before engaging mouth'. Understanding what happened, taking a considered approach, posting thoughtful commentary rather than rushing to post 'just the facts' is a different way than some traditional journalism. More like news magazines than newspapers, at least in some cases. Faster isn't always better. Neither is all editorial. While perspective is sometimes related in the articles on Techdirt, it is different than the editorial pages where a particular political/social agenda is pushed. For that, I thank you.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Aug 2018 @ 7:31am
The marketplace that is, or could be?
"This month, USTelecom is petitioning the FCC for nationwide forbearance from rules created in 1996 that no longer make sense in today’s marketplace."
This is absolutely correct, from the big Telco's point of view. They are working to complete their monopolistic framework and letting peons in on the infrastructure grab makes no sense for their plans. Their desired marketplace.
On the other hand, should the ruling go the other way, not just letting the small guys in, but removing the obstructions created by the ILEC's, the public could benefit greatly. That is to say, the public benefits greatly, the stockholders not so much. Thus, the actual, uncontrolled (by the ELEC's) marketplace. Something the FCC and FTC should be working hard on, in the name of the people.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 13 Aug 2018 @ 3:52pm
Re: Re: Re: What do you mean "we" white man?
The founders recognize privacy as a human right. Maybe you should consider that before you try and take THEM down a notch.
Did they define privacy? There is some definition, but there is also a lot of contention as to what privacy actually means, and as to where it applies.
The fact is, that the Constitution applies to the government, not to private actors, which would include corporations. If you want privacy to protect you from corporations, the get Congress to do something. Not the something that corporations want (good luck seeing they have a bigger voice in Congressional actions than constituents), but something that is actually for the people. And while you are at it, remember that some 'private' information is not actually harmful, and its use to 'commoditize' certain collections, might actually be a good thing. Now, I for one, certainly want to know what information is being collected, how it is being used, to whom it is being distributed to, and how to opt in (which should be the standard) or opt out, and still receive the service.
Third parties to that collection should be illegal and forcefully enforced. There is no opportunity to opt in or out when an actor with whom you have no relationship with is collecting, and distributing stuff they have no actual right to. They get it because it's there and can be gotten. Better encryption of the whole Internet might help here, and HTTPS helps in that arena. There may be better methods that those who know about Internet security would be in a better position to suggest and explain.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 13 Aug 2018 @ 3:23pm
Penalize the government for doing wrong? So what?
We are limited with what we know. The real downside might be that if the police had actually followed procedure and gained sufficient information for probable cause, and THEN applied for the warrant, it seems like Mr. Tucker would have been convicted. But again, we have limited information.
The problem being that police seem to think they can do whatever they want to make an arrest and then expect a conviction. This is not actually the case. There are rules. Those rules apply, albeit inconsistently, and often not with due respect to the constitution.
As to penalizing the government, well, they screwed up. Why shouldn't they be penalized. If they had followed the rules, they might not have been penalized. Let them follow the rules. All the rules. That is what they are paid for.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 13 Aug 2018 @ 11:03am
Re:
He would probably be better off if he found a nice resort at the bottom of some disused mine shaft. Though, missing a court date at this point might put him in a different kind of resort. One operated by the government, or some contractor thereof.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Aug 2018 @ 6:39pm
Re: Re: tl;dr
And there we go. Someone with a different, and possibly better perspective of some Constitutional issues, with some information I did not bring to bear.
Courts are always musing about the Framers intents. We only have some idea what the intent of the Framers were from their writings. While I agree with Thad (there are legitimate exceptions to the plain language), for me, the plain language is more important than perceived intent. If the Framers meant something else, they should have written something else. At least for my perspective.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Aug 2018 @ 6:09pm
Re: Re: Re: How does the epicenter of liberal progressivism...
OK, we get you have some personal axes to grind, but this story is about two Deputies. Deputies, by definition, are not members of the LAPD. They work for Los Angeles County, which I assume means the Sheriffs Department, which is related to, but still not LAPD. That, doesn't mean they are not dirty, but it does mean that your assertions have nothing to do with the article being discussed.
Also, anecdotal stories are not actually evidence. Especially when the stories are about incidents that are not germane to the current discussion.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Aug 2018 @ 5:31pm
Re: Re: Is it, or isn't it? Only your Supreme Court knows...
No Dude! That's the whole problem. Just because someone is a constitutional lawyer or scholar, does not automagically empower them to interpret the constitution.
There are people, and some of them here, who know more about what subject violates which amendment better than I do. I want to hear from them, rather than bloviating about which amendment(s) are violated by some complex concept, and be wrong or leave something out. There is potential for more than one here. I am not expert enough to capture all the possibilities. Hence a request for some expertise.
That kind of deference to pseudo-expertise, is exactly why we have such a fucked in the head legal system!
Law is complex. Lawyers made it so. Some argue that they did so for job protection. Maybe that is so. But until we change it, it is what we have. We can argue within that system for simpler laws, but for now, we need to ague within that system.
Anyone with even a moderate level of intelligence can interpret what the Constitution means.
I do all the time, and yet courts seem to disagree with me. The 4th Amendment seems pretty clear to me, yet we have all sorts of exceptions and clarifications and and purely disingenuous interpretations from courts all the time.
Legislatures have some tendency to try to control speech in different ways, yet the pure reading of the 1st Amendment states "Congress shall make no law..." yet state legislatures are not Congress and keep on trying. Right or wrong, they try.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Aug 2018 @ 3:30pm
Is it, or isn't it? Only your Supreme Court knows...
though everyone else cares. (for you younger folks, this is a reference to a hair coloring commercial from...well possibly before you were born where only your hairdresser was supposed to know)
"In addition, each limitation creates problems of its own. First, the rule relies on a vague causal standard. Second, while the reasonableness of a search or seizure is almost always based on objective factors, the provocation rule looks to the subjective intent of the officers who carried out the seizure. There is no need to distort the excessive force inquiry in this way in order to hold law enforcement officers liable for the foreseeable consequences of all their constitutional torts. Plaintiffs can, subject to qualified immunity, generally recover damages that are proximately caused by any Fourth Amendment violation."
That's from the Supreme Court. It covers all jurisdictions. Why do we still have problems with police not being held accountable for their 4th Amendment violations?
Ah. There is that qualified immunity exception mentioned. Something that is not found in any Legislative made law, but in an 'out of whole cloth made up by the Supreme Court exception', that seems to clearly violate the constitution (possibly several articles, though I leave that to the constitutional lawyers here). Except that since the Supreme Court made it up, they aren't (at least any time soon) going to reverse that position.
On the post: Court Says CBP Likely Violating First Amendment By Forbidding Photography Of Publicly-Viewable Border Crossings
Re: Re: The "don't wear a short skirt problem"
There are many that are not, and the current system of paid for government doesn't work for us either.
Expect change. It might not be through elections, though I hope it is.
On the post: Facebook Bans 'Promotion' Of Kodi Boxes, Even If They're Perfectly Legal
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Court Rejects Ajit Pai's Bid To Reduce Broadband Subsidies For Tribal Areas
Re: Re: Re: You're careful to specify "natural monopolies"...
Oh, and they state:
1. We don't store your personal info.
2. We don't follow you around with ads.
3. We don't track you. Ever.
Now I have not tested this, nor have I had any reason to.
Is it better than Google or any other search engine? I wouldn't know, I haven't even tried testing them. I find what I am looking for and don't worry about the rest.
On the post: Iowa Supreme Court Thinks Things Are Too Tough For Bad Cops, Adopts Qualified Immunity Defense
Standardless standards
OK, now I am confused. If they need to PROVE that they exercised all due care to conform to the requirements of the law how is qualified immunity so devastating? They need to prove it. What is the standard of proof here, the same as any defendant, beyond a reasonable doubt, or something lower? If it is in fact lower, then there is a significant imbalance in justice. If it isn't lower, then how are cops not required to know they laws they are paid to enforce?
On the post: Court Rejects Ajit Pai's Bid To Reduce Broadband Subsidies For Tribal Areas
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're careful to specify "natural monopolies"...
So far as language, Ninja has been around here a lot longer than you and he deals with English better than many native English speakers.
Given your propensity for childish argument, you might want to grow up before you try again. See you in 20 or 30 years.
On the post: Free Speech Pro-Tip: You Can Yell Fire In A Crowded Theatre
Re: Re: Re: No. Context is always: FALSE report intended taken for real.
On the post: Court Rejects Ajit Pai's Bid To Reduce Broadband Subsidies For Tribal Areas
Re: Upcoming Thursday: FCC Oversight Hearing
On the post: In Defense Of Slow News
Slow news and relevance
While your perspective with regard to 'slow news' is, I think, right for your blog, there is some potential to wait too long and loose relevance. That's a balance. I think you do it well, even with some complaining that certain articles are 'so last week'. They fail to understand that some issues remain relevant, until they are resolved. We have quite a few outstanding, unresolved issues that are ripe for periodic reexamination. Sometimes those reexaminations bring new perspectives, sometimes they merely rehash old arguments. But like with censorship, more speech is an appropriate answer.
Then, there is your perception of what it is you want to write about. In that, you can never be wrong, because it is what you want, not what others want, and they cannot absolutely and completely, know you. Some say not enough tech and too much dirt, or vise versa. Well, there are plethora other blogs to satisfy their needs, but they do not all offer the same ability to state their mind that Techdirt does.
Another way to look at the concept of slow news is related in the old saw 'put mind in gear before engaging mouth'. Understanding what happened, taking a considered approach, posting thoughtful commentary rather than rushing to post 'just the facts' is a different way than some traditional journalism. More like news magazines than newspapers, at least in some cases. Faster isn't always better. Neither is all editorial. While perspective is sometimes related in the articles on Techdirt, it is different than the editorial pages where a particular political/social agenda is pushed. For that, I thank you.
On the post: Oh Look, Yet More Efforts To Strangle Broadband Competition
The marketplace that is, or could be?
This is absolutely correct, from the big Telco's point of view. They are working to complete their monopolistic framework and letting peons in on the infrastructure grab makes no sense for their plans. Their desired marketplace.
On the other hand, should the ruling go the other way, not just letting the small guys in, but removing the obstructions created by the ILEC's, the public could benefit greatly. That is to say, the public benefits greatly, the stockholders not so much. Thus, the actual, uncontrolled (by the ELEC's) marketplace. Something the FCC and FTC should be working hard on, in the name of the people.
On the post: We're Bad At Regulating Privacy, Because We Don't Understand Privacy
Re: Re: Re: What do you mean "we" white man?
Did they define privacy? There is some definition, but there is also a lot of contention as to what privacy actually means, and as to where it applies.
The fact is, that the Constitution applies to the government, not to private actors, which would include corporations. If you want privacy to protect you from corporations, the get Congress to do something. Not the something that corporations want (good luck seeing they have a bigger voice in Congressional actions than constituents), but something that is actually for the people. And while you are at it, remember that some 'private' information is not actually harmful, and its use to 'commoditize' certain collections, might actually be a good thing. Now, I for one, certainly want to know what information is being collected, how it is being used, to whom it is being distributed to, and how to opt in (which should be the standard) or opt out, and still receive the service.
Third parties to that collection should be illegal and forcefully enforced. There is no opportunity to opt in or out when an actor with whom you have no relationship with is collecting, and distributing stuff they have no actual right to. They get it because it's there and can be gotten. Better encryption of the whole Internet might help here, and HTTPS helps in that arena. There may be better methods that those who know about Internet security would be in a better position to suggest and explain.
On the post: Court Tells Government It Can't Search A House Just Because A Suspected Drug Dealer Once Parked In Its Driveway
Penalize the government for doing wrong? So what?
The problem being that police seem to think they can do whatever they want to make an arrest and then expect a conviction. This is not actually the case. There are rules. Those rules apply, albeit inconsistently, and often not with due respect to the constitution.
As to penalizing the government, well, they screwed up. Why shouldn't they be penalized. If they had followed the rules, they might not have been penalized. Let them follow the rules. All the rules. That is what they are paid for.
On the post: Appeals Court: No Immunity For Border Patrol Agent's Murder Of 16-Year-Old Mexican Citizen
Re: Casus belli
You mean the people who want Mexico to write a check to the United States for the wall Trump wants built? They aren't embarrassed enough?
Right, they are still waiting for their check.
On the post: Appeals Court: No Immunity For Border Patrol Agent's Murder Of 16-Year-Old Mexican Citizen
Re:
On the post: 9th Circuit Denies Cops Who Shot Innocent People 15 Times Qualified Immunity For The Second Time
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How does the epicenter of liberal progressivism...
OK, it's time to consult the Master List of Logical Fallacies for the likely cause(s) of this ranter's behavior.
I think the assertion of 'master' might be a bit of a stretch, but it is fairly comprehensive.
On the post: 9th Circuit Denies Cops Who Shot Innocent People 15 Times Qualified Immunity For The Second Time
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How does the epicenter of liberal progressivism...
On the post: 9th Circuit Denies Cops Who Shot Innocent People 15 Times Qualified Immunity For The Second Time
Re: Re: tl;dr
Courts are always musing about the Framers intents. We only have some idea what the intent of the Framers were from their writings. While I agree with Thad (there are legitimate exceptions to the plain language), for me, the plain language is more important than perceived intent. If the Framers meant something else, they should have written something else. At least for my perspective.
On the post: 9th Circuit Denies Cops Who Shot Innocent People 15 Times Qualified Immunity For The Second Time
Re: Re: Re: How does the epicenter of liberal progressivism...
Also, anecdotal stories are not actually evidence. Especially when the stories are about incidents that are not germane to the current discussion.
On the post: 9th Circuit Denies Cops Who Shot Innocent People 15 Times Qualified Immunity For The Second Time
Re: Re: Is it, or isn't it? Only your Supreme Court knows...
There are people, and some of them here, who know more about what subject violates which amendment better than I do. I want to hear from them, rather than bloviating about which amendment(s) are violated by some complex concept, and be wrong or leave something out. There is potential for more than one here. I am not expert enough to capture all the possibilities. Hence a request for some expertise.
Law is complex. Lawyers made it so. Some argue that they did so for job protection. Maybe that is so. But until we change it, it is what we have. We can argue within that system for simpler laws, but for now, we need to ague within that system.
I do all the time, and yet courts seem to disagree with me. The 4th Amendment seems pretty clear to me, yet we have all sorts of exceptions and clarifications and and purely disingenuous interpretations from courts all the time.
Legislatures have some tendency to try to control speech in different ways, yet the pure reading of the 1st Amendment states "Congress shall make no law..." yet state legislatures are not Congress and keep on trying. Right or wrong, they try.
On the post: Verizon Launched A VPN Without Bothering To Write A Real Privacy Policy
Re: Re: Re: List of good VPNs over at Torrentfreak
It could be that the government has compromised every tech related company in the US, but there is no proof of that, yet. Got some?
On the post: 9th Circuit Denies Cops Who Shot Innocent People 15 Times Qualified Immunity For The Second Time
Is it, or isn't it? Only your Supreme Court knows...
though everyone else cares. (for you younger folks, this is a reference to a hair coloring commercial from...well possibly before you were born where only your hairdresser was supposed to know)
That's from the Supreme Court. It covers all jurisdictions. Why do we still have problems with police not being held accountable for their 4th Amendment violations?
Ah. There is that qualified immunity exception mentioned. Something that is not found in any Legislative made law, but in an 'out of whole cloth made up by the Supreme Court exception', that seems to clearly violate the constitution (possibly several articles, though I leave that to the constitutional lawyers here). Except that since the Supreme Court made it up, they aren't (at least any time soon) going to reverse that position.
Next >>