So, the government demands that they resolve this issue 'their way', but there are other avenues Facebook could use to combat this very specific problem. one of which would be any photo uploaded could be hashed on the local device before upload to determine if it is probable CSAM. If it is found to be suspicious, a copy of the image could be uploaded to an FB server for further evaluation. You could add a ToS notice about this feature and still not break the encrypted communications channel.
Just one of the infinite number of possibilities that doesn't require backdoors to encrypted communications.
I guess I see a legitimate investigative technique with proper oversight (warrant) is a safeguard against widespread abuse. However, I understand the power of unintended consequences, and the rubber stamp machine we have in our judiciary.
I guess that is where the 'mixed' feelings comes in. There should be a way to do this in a way that protects the information of innocent people but also give investigators a way to use this information in a constructive way. Using the analogy of a law firm being raided, there would be a 'clean team' that would be involved with keeping sensitive information from the prosecutor and investigators. Just wondering if some form of 'information escrow' could solve this problem but still allow for investigative techniques to be employed.
This is one of those things that I think 'doing nothing' will keep the status quo of requests being made with minimal oversight, which is problematic. But thinking of this as a legitimate avenue for investigations, there may be a compromise to be had, or at least discussed. (I know... talking about compromising in 2020 America... I must be crazy).
I have mixed feelings on this subject. I understand the need for constitutional protections, but I also understand the need for detectives to do their job. I'm almost wondering if there could be such a thing as a 'blind warrant' that would request the information in some anonymized fashion and let a judge rule on whether or not based the information could be unsealed.
Do you want authoritarianism? This is how you get authoritarianism.
Let's assume this judge is right... the ripple effects are huge. Anyone using Waze and notifying users of cops could be prosecuted. Writing an article about a speed trap in a city calling out their nefarious practices could be prosecuted. Telling people THE LAW could be prosecuted...
According to him, you are now free to speak as long as a government employee doesn't object...
How is it that a judge can advocate, in advance, about rulings he hasn't yet received? Couldn't there be a lawsuit against these cases saying that the judge was obviously biased, using his own power points against him as evidence?
Why Do Republican Senators Seem To Want To Turn Every Website Into A Trash Heap Of Racism & Abuse?
Because their base is full of Racists and Abusers. But remember, this is only for THEIR racists and abusers. If someone is perceived to be on the 'other side' says something mean, then they want something done about it post-haste! How dare those websites not protect their good old fashioned family values of bigotry and misogyny!
...sorry still salty after the debate... /rantover
So what makes this dangerous is that it is a crack in the armor -- a wedge that opens 'publishing' up to something that it isn't. A 3rd party's speech that a machine has unknowingly parroted. Context is king and there is no way around that fact. The only thing you've done as made a site 'more liable' for something someone else said and using a political wedge to justify the point... It won't stop there, it never stops there... You'd then have 3rd parties parroting infringing content (DMCA still applies), and what happens if another arbiter site gets over x MAU? They have to pass on their data as well? ... and now you've a right big mess on your hands.
Novel idea... and better than anything those idiot politicians have come up with... but I still think the idea should be killed with fire.
You made a great and persuasive argument about the negative interactions that the internet can have, but isn't the internet in this case just a microcosm of reality? If you grow up in a place that has a high racial bias, then you have a higher percentage of being racist... you model your environment.
I guess my question is, if we start "enforcing" the "bad" speech, then aren't we inviting the government to dictate what is 'good' and what is 'bad'?
As a counter to why government shouldn't be allowed to do that, look at FOSTA, which criminalizes any site attempting to help people working in the sex trade... EVEN IN PARTS OF THE COUNTRY WHERE IT IS LEGAL.
So, while I understand your argument, agree with you in principle, I can't follow you across the bridge to start letting the government dictate 'good' and 'bad' speech... sometimes what you ask for isn't what you get.
You have just criminalized TechDirt for using Google who served them a bad ad... How is that making the world 'better'? Why should TechDirt have to be drug into a lawsuit because of a problem Google allowed to happen? That seems... unnecessary and doesn't solve the problem you are setting out to... You have just codified 3rd party liability because... reasons? So what if TD gets 'off' after spending $$$ fighting this? Them going through a nuisance suit doesn't help anyone.
Event Intel couldn't compete in this market and had to sell to Apple in 2019 because they couldn't get traction into this market...
If 'competition' means a billion dollar company giving up and selling to a trillion dollar company is what a healthy ecosystem looks like... God help us all...
So... twitter has a 'verified account' concept where you can get vetted -- why the hell can't ad agencies have something similar? Like a list of companies that take extra scrutiny before they are banhammered... CNN isn't known for nazi propaganda... why let automated filters blanketban them because the filter got it wrong? The same thing here -- if you are of X size or pay X for some guarantee of being left alone (mostly), that would seem fair.
Those types of petty 'discretionary' rules definitely lend themselves to be abused...
I'm not saying get rid of discretion, but getting rid of rules that are so easy to oppress a group of people the officer may be biased towards (e.g. different race, different sex, etc), would be a good and SIMPLE start to police reform.
I guess my question is why couldn't the judge go ahead and say all of this, throw the book at at the guy, admit find a way to find a previous, but tenuous, precedent and kick it up the ladder, HOPEFULLY to another judge that will do the exact same thing?
Side Note: can someone please explain to me how Rodriguez didn't apply? The officer was blatantly not going to let this guy go regardless (5x times in asking is excessive)! That should have been considered enough grounds for QI being broken since that is an established precedent.
NEL -- Make this a 'shared' repo of all copies at all libraries
Another way to make sure this helps in the future would be to 'pool' resources from all libraries. Buy a physical book, scan it, and have it available within this shared library network. If every library did this, and shared their trove, wait lists would be smaller and more variety could be offered.
Probably some kinks to work out, but it would be a great business model for IA and let the world benefit.
Hopefully a win will work and something like this can be done!
We hereby decree that all persons above the age of 13 must wear an ankle monitor that will track your position. We also demand you wear a wrist watch capable of listening to audio. At any time your audio is muffled or unintelligible for any reason, we must assume you are plotting nefarious things. You must also wear a body camera.
Failure to comply will be met with 1 year in jail.
We do this because there are criminals, pedophiles, rapists, and murderers amongst you. And we do this because we care. We can't let the terrorists win! Think of the Children!
On the post: Clarence Thomas Doesn't Like Section 230, Adding To His Anti-Free Speech Legacy
Old Man Yells at Cloud
On the post: Five Eyes Countries Band Together To Complain About Facebook And End-To-End Encryption
Localized, hashed CSAM Check?
So, the government demands that they resolve this issue 'their way', but there are other avenues Facebook could use to combat this very specific problem. one of which would be any photo uploaded could be hashed on the local device before upload to determine if it is probable CSAM. If it is found to be suspicious, a copy of the image could be uploaded to an FB server for further evaluation. You could add a ToS notice about this feature and still not break the encrypted communications channel.
Just one of the infinite number of possibilities that doesn't require backdoors to encrypted communications.
On the post: Law Enforcement Also Using 'Reverse' Warrants To Obtain Google Searches
Re: Re:
I guess I see a legitimate investigative technique with proper oversight (warrant) is a safeguard against widespread abuse. However, I understand the power of unintended consequences, and the rubber stamp machine we have in our judiciary.
I guess that is where the 'mixed' feelings comes in. There should be a way to do this in a way that protects the information of innocent people but also give investigators a way to use this information in a constructive way. Using the analogy of a law firm being raided, there would be a 'clean team' that would be involved with keeping sensitive information from the prosecutor and investigators. Just wondering if some form of 'information escrow' could solve this problem but still allow for investigative techniques to be employed.
This is one of those things that I think 'doing nothing' will keep the status quo of requests being made with minimal oversight, which is problematic. But thinking of this as a legitimate avenue for investigations, there may be a compromise to be had, or at least discussed. (I know... talking about compromising in 2020 America... I must be crazy).
On the post: Law Enforcement Also Using 'Reverse' Warrants To Obtain Google Searches
I have mixed feelings on this subject. I understand the need for constitutional protections, but I also understand the need for detectives to do their job. I'm almost wondering if there could be such a thing as a 'blind warrant' that would request the information in some anonymized fashion and let a judge rule on whether or not based the information could be unsealed.
On the post: Federal Judge Ridiculously Says That Holding A Sign Telling People Cops Are Ahead Is Not Free Speech
Authoritarian much?
Do you want authoritarianism? This is how you get authoritarianism.
Let's assume this judge is right... the ripple effects are huge. Anyone using Waze and notifying users of cops could be prosecuted. Writing an article about a speed trap in a city calling out their nefarious practices could be prosecuted. Telling people THE LAW could be prosecuted...
According to him, you are now free to speak as long as a government employee doesn't object...
On the post: Former Patent Litigator Becomes Federal Judge And Begins Advertising For Patent Trolls To Come To His Court (And They Have In Droves)
Fair and impartial? What?
How is it that a judge can advocate, in advance, about rulings he hasn't yet received? Couldn't there be a lawsuit against these cases saying that the judge was obviously biased, using his own power points against him as evidence?
I don't understand how that is even close to legal.. When you have judges being told they can't be a comedian (https://patch.com/pennsylvania/moon/judge-cant-moonlight-as-a-comedian-court-says) but they can actively advocate businesses to venue shop? Talk about a screwed up legal system we got here.
On the post: Why Do Republican Senators Seem To Want To Turn Every Website Into A Trash Heap Of Racism & Abuse?
Why Do Republican Senators Seem To Want To Turn Every Website Into A Trash Heap Of Racism & Abuse?Because their base is full of Racists and Abusers. But remember, this is only for THEIR racists and abusers. If someone is perceived to be on the 'other side' says something mean, then they want something done about it post-haste! How dare those websites not protect their good old fashioned family values of bigotry and misogyny!
...sorry still salty after the debate... /rantover
On the post: Could A Narrow Reform Of Section 230 Enable Platform Interoperability?
Kill it with fire? Yes, Kill it with fire!
So what makes this dangerous is that it is a crack in the armor -- a wedge that opens 'publishing' up to something that it isn't. A 3rd party's speech that a machine has unknowingly parroted. Context is king and there is no way around that fact. The only thing you've done as made a site 'more liable' for something someone else said and using a political wedge to justify the point... It won't stop there, it never stops there... You'd then have 3rd parties parroting infringing content (DMCA still applies), and what happens if another arbiter site gets over x MAU? They have to pass on their data as well? ... and now you've a right big mess on your hands.
Novel idea... and better than anything those idiot politicians have come up with... but I still think the idea should be killed with fire.
On the post: Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz Reveals His Retainer Agreement: He Gets Most Of The Money
Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it
Liebowitz, is that you?
On the post: Ricky Byrdsong And The Cost Of Speech
Blaming the tool?
You made a great and persuasive argument about the negative interactions that the internet can have, but isn't the internet in this case just a microcosm of reality? If you grow up in a place that has a high racial bias, then you have a higher percentage of being racist... you model your environment.
I guess my question is, if we start "enforcing" the "bad" speech, then aren't we inviting the government to dictate what is 'good' and what is 'bad'?
As a counter to why government shouldn't be allowed to do that, look at FOSTA, which criminalizes any site attempting to help people working in the sex trade... EVEN IN PARTS OF THE COUNTRY WHERE IT IS LEGAL.
So, while I understand your argument, agree with you in principle, I can't follow you across the bridge to start letting the government dictate 'good' and 'bad' speech... sometimes what you ask for isn't what you get.
On the post: It Doesn't Make Sense To Treat Ads The Same As User Generated Content
But... Wha... Why?
You have just criminalized TechDirt for using Google who served them a bad ad... How is that making the world 'better'? Why should TechDirt have to be drug into a lawsuit because of a problem Google allowed to happen? That seems... unnecessary and doesn't solve the problem you are setting out to... You have just codified 3rd party liability because... reasons? So what if TD gets 'off' after spending $$$ fighting this? Them going through a nuisance suit doesn't help anyone.
On the post: It Was Nice While It Lasted: 9th Circuit Rejects Lower Court Ruling On How Abuse Of Patent Monopolies Can Violate Antitrust
Intel competitive modem manufacturer? Uh... What?
Event Intel couldn't compete in this market and had to sell to Apple in 2019 because they couldn't get traction into this market...
If 'competition' means a billion dollar company giving up and selling to a trillion dollar company is what a healthy ecosystem looks like... God help us all...
On the post: Why Are There Currently No Ads On Techdirt? Apparently Google Thinks We're Dangerous
Side Note:
So... twitter has a 'verified account' concept where you can get vetted -- why the hell can't ad agencies have something similar? Like a list of companies that take extra scrutiny before they are banhammered... CNN isn't known for nazi propaganda... why let automated filters blanketban them because the filter got it wrong? The same thing here -- if you are of X size or pay X for some guarantee of being left alone (mostly), that would seem fair.
But alas... we can't have nice things...
On the post: Why Are There Currently No Ads On Techdirt? Apparently Google Thinks We're Dangerous
Microsoft Ad Network?
I know that Microsoft Ads are what DuckDuckGo uses to populate their site; not sure if that is helpful but may be a non-sketchy alternative
On the post: San Diego Police Officers Are Using An Old Sedition Law To Punish People For Swearing Around Cops
Those types of petty 'discretionary' rules definitely lend themselves to be abused...
I'm not saying get rid of discretion, but getting rid of rules that are so easy to oppress a group of people the officer may be biased towards (e.g. different race, different sex, etc), would be a good and SIMPLE start to police reform.
On the post: Congress To Consider National Right To Repair Law For First Time
Magnuson Moss anyone?
So, we have Mag-Moss from 1975 that gives the 'right to repair' to 3rd parties... How does this not already apply?!
On the post: Federal Judge Calls Out Qualified Immunity's Contribution To Racist Policing
Re: This? This is why you get protests.
I guess my question is why couldn't the judge go ahead and say all of this, throw the book at at the guy, admit find a way to find a previous, but tenuous, precedent and kick it up the ladder, HOPEFULLY to another judge that will do the exact same thing?
Side Note: can someone please explain to me how Rodriguez didn't apply? The officer was blatantly not going to let this guy go regardless (5x times in asking is excessive)! That should have been considered enough grounds for QI being broken since that is an established precedent.
On the post: Internet Archive Responds To Publishers Lawsuit: Libraries Lend Books, That's What We Do
NEL -- Make this a 'shared' repo of all copies at all libraries
Another way to make sure this helps in the future would be to 'pool' resources from all libraries. Buy a physical book, scan it, and have it available within this shared library network. If every library did this, and shared their trove, wait lists would be smaller and more variety could be offered.
Probably some kinks to work out, but it would be a great business model for IA and let the world benefit.
Hopefully a win will work and something like this can be done!
On the post: Australian Tech Giant Says Country's Anti-Encryption Laws Are Harming Local Tech Companies
New Australian Mandate:
Attention Australians,
We hereby decree that all persons above the age of 13 must wear an ankle monitor that will track your position. We also demand you wear a wrist watch capable of listening to audio. At any time your audio is muffled or unintelligible for any reason, we must assume you are plotting nefarious things. You must also wear a body camera.
Failure to comply will be met with 1 year in jail.
We do this because there are criminals, pedophiles, rapists, and murderers amongst you. And we do this because we care. We can't let the terrorists win! Think of the Children!
Sincerely,
Ministry of Accountability
On the post: Publisher Decries Damn Libraries Entertaining The Masses Stuck At Home For Free
Don't tell this guy about the used book market or he might have an aneurysm....
Next >>