Government Officials - "We need to get the stuff on the moon. Bring us the moon!"
Rocket Scientists - "Well, you know...that is not possible. We could send someone TO the moon....on many, many rocket ships, with a lot, lot of stuff and machines, and get some of the stuff and bring it back."
Officials - "Listen. I don't want to hear about your rocket ships, and stuff. Bring us the MOON! It'll be so much EASIER if it's just here. Why aren't you sciencing me a solution. I know that you have some experts. Have them propose a solution!"
Scientists - "We ARE the experts. We are telling you that even if we COULD science up a solution, if the moon comes here, we ALL DIE."
Congresspeople - "Just you try HARDER. We don't really believe all your experts about the whole dying thing."
So...these articles also incorrectly assume that people give a crap about getting "the same experience," which basically misses the entire point of cord-cutting to begin with.
People cut because they DO NOT WANT CABLE EXPERIENCE.
They also conveniently ignore another elephant:
...I get darn near 30 live channels - including many of the Ines listed as "missing" in the chart above - for free, without breaking any laws...with a $30 set of rabbit ears.
Canada stiffens the warrant requirements to get the info?
Seriously super cool.
However, I do kina see the point about the conflict in timing here.
If there us a legitimate cause for an investigation, and law enforcement legit satisfies the warrant requirements, it does seem like the information should then be able to be examined. It can't be if it no longer exists.
Um...they checked the serial and it wasn't purchased until...
Wait a minute.
Apple would not have been able to track the serial between the time it left to go to the retailer until the user registered it to iTunes. I mean, the UPC they scanned at Best Buy didn't communicate the serial at time of sale, right?
There are what, a dozen (Fifteen?) cops standing around watching one cop try to rouse a guy who was just:
Put in a choke hold until he passed out Had a grown-ass man pin his chest and neck to the ground for good measure Had been lying utterly motionless for several minutes
And not even one of them thinks, "you know, maybe we should... I don't know... CHECK HIS PULSE JUST TO SEE?"
I would do that and I'm just a guy who watches a ton of Law & Order.
Are you suggesting there is some innate difference between corporations in the US versus those in other countries?
That corporations in other countries are not driven mostly by figuring out how to get as much money from as many people as possible by any means necessary?
It's already been shown that NSA does physical interdiction of shipments of Cisco gear in order to plant access hardware into the machines.
If statements in the book you've quoted here are to be believed, and Cisco builds in NSA backdoors on its own, why the hell would NSA then need to covertly gain physical access to the chassis at all?
At this point in the Internet's history, requiring a license to use it is not AT ALL analogous to any of those things he invokes analogy to.
Cars can and do literally kill people.
Mortgages allow you to become indebted to someone else for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
For these reasons it makes PERFECT SENSE to require identity information.
Speech is neither of those. Hence, in real life, our countries protect our right to say whatever we damned well please.
What these people want is for you to have to get a license to SPEAK.
There is precisely ZERO difference in this regard between ON THE INTERNET and IN REAL LIFE.
Let's just go ahead and require a license for the following:
Using the telephone Researching your health Participating in politics Getting healthcare advice Communicating with support groups Speaking to people Protesting Going shopping Stating your opinions Being in public spaces Managing your finances Participating in civil society groups
NSA forwards its EVERYTHING, unminimized, in bulk to GCHQ
GCHQ forwards its EVERYTHING ELSE, unminimized, in bulk to NSA
NSA then asks to look at the foreign EVERYTHING now stored at GCHQ. NSA can claim that it's only looking at "foreign data - no warrant required."
GCHQ then asks to look at the foreign EVERYTHING ELSE now stored at NSA. GCHQ can claim that it's only looking at "foreign data - no warrant required."
Basically, the data being housed in the shed in Utah isn't AMERICAN data. It' the Britt's.
So, what he's saying here is that classified military "tactical things," like plans and operations, are kept on a system to which civilian subcontractors had unfettered access.
Anyone else have another idea of who we'd pin a murder wrap to?
On the post: Car Hack Demonstrates Why Security Researchers Shouldn't Have To Worry About Copyright In Exposing Weaknesses
Only if you "get" it
Never has it been argued that car companies "get" the Internet.
Ditto airliner manufacturers.
On the post: FBI: Bring Us A Unicorn. Techies: They Don't Exist. Senator: Stop Complaining & Tell Us Where The Unicorn Is
The moon...bring it to me
Government Officials - "We need to get the stuff on the moon. Bring us the moon!"
Rocket Scientists - "Well, you know...that is not possible. We could send someone TO the moon....on many, many rocket ships, with a lot, lot of stuff and machines, and get some of the stuff and bring it back."
Officials - "Listen. I don't want to hear about your rocket ships, and stuff. Bring us the MOON! It'll be so much EASIER if it's just here. Why aren't you sciencing me a solution. I know that you have some experts. Have them propose a solution!"
Scientists - "We ARE the experts. We are telling you that even if we COULD science up a solution, if the moon comes here, we ALL DIE."
Congresspeople - "Just you try HARDER. We don't really believe all your experts about the whole dying thing."
On the post: Mi Amiga: One Michigan School District's Three-Decades-Old Hero Computer That Still Manages HVAC Today
Think about this...
On the post: When Analyzing Cord Cutting Options, Most TV Analysts Continue To Pretend Piracy Simply Doesn't Exist
People cut because they DO NOT WANT CABLE EXPERIENCE.
They also conveniently ignore another elephant:
...I get darn near 30 live channels - including many of the Ines listed as "missing" in the chart above - for free, without breaking any laws...with a $30 set of rabbit ears.
On the post: Telco Analyst Compares Google Fiber To Ebola... Completely Misses The Point
Stop it.
He plays the contrarian on everything FOR THE PRESS IT GETS HIM. Anything he's said about anything, ever, is wrong and we all know it at this point.
On the post: Canadian Law Enforcement Agency Dropping Cases Rather Than Deal With New Warrant Requirements For ISP Subscriber Info
I kind see the RCMPs point on one thing
That is freaking awesome.
Canada stiffens the warrant requirements to get the info?
Seriously super cool.
However, I do kina see the point about the conflict in timing here.
If there us a legitimate cause for an investigation, and law enforcement legit satisfies the warrant requirements, it does seem like the information should then be able to be examined. It can't be if it no longer exists.
On the post: Class Action Lawsuit Over Apple DRM Stumbles Because Plaintiffs Aren't Actually In The Class
Apple checked...
Wait a minute.
Apple would not have been able to track the serial between the time it left to go to the retailer until the user registered it to iTunes. I mean, the UPC they scanned at Best Buy didn't communicate the serial at time of sale, right?
On the post: Why Requiring Social Networks To Monitor Posts To Spot Terrorists Will Make It Even Harder To Catch Them
Wait....I have an idea.
What's the best reasonable expectation for an algorithm to pull? 80%? 90%? 60%?
Even if it's 80%. Let's let Facebook implement the system. And Google. And LinkedIn. Ok. Now Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram...
Let's flag...
237 Million People (at least) as terrorists.
Let's flag as many people and give them absolutely as many messages as we can muster until they give up.
On the post: The Homicide No One Committed: Eric Garner's Death At The Hands Of An NYPD Officer No-Billed By Grand Jury
Re: 15 cops, none of whom ever watch crime drama
A was a Boy Scout.
Oh. And I give a crap.
On the post: The Homicide No One Committed: Eric Garner's Death At The Hands Of An NYPD Officer No-Billed By Grand Jury
15 cops, none of whom ever watch crime drama
There are what, a dozen (Fifteen?) cops standing around watching one cop try to rouse a guy who was just:
Put in a choke hold until he passed out
Had a grown-ass man pin his chest and neck to the ground for good measure
Had been lying utterly motionless for several minutes
And not even one of them thinks, "you know, maybe we should... I don't know... CHECK HIS PULSE JUST TO SEE?"
I would do that and I'm just a guy who watches a ton of Law & Order.
On the post: The Homicide No One Committed: Eric Garner's Death At The Hands Of An NYPD Officer No-Billed By Grand Jury
This was me.
Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2014 @ 5:56pm
"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by....
The Daily News
On the post: NYPD Baffled By Tech Advances Like Laptops And WiFi
You're saying...
I gotta get me one of those.
Also, I love this:
'"We’re reacting to these situations, which means we are not fully in control of them,” the source said.'
So...what gave this guy the idea that the police were necessarily supposed to be in control of protests in the first place?
On the post: White House Admits That It Still Supports Parts Of SOPA: Wants To Make Streaming A Felony
Seriously...
Given the political state of things, it's starting to sound much more like prediction than colloquialism.
It's starting to creep me out.
On the post: So, If Someone Could Just Kill A Child And Let The FBI And DOJ Get Their Anti-Phone Encryption Legislation Going, That Would Be Great
I think I know the real problem.
Voters
We can't have THOSE CRIMINALS running around.
On the post: Fixing The Broadband Market And Protecting Net Neutrality By Prying Open Incumbent Networks To Meaningful Competition
Re:
Are you suggesting there is some innate difference between corporations in the US versus those in other countries?
That corporations in other countries are not driven mostly by figuring out how to get as much money from as many people as possible by any means necessary?
Clearly you've never read Techdirt.
On the post: New Book Reveals Significant Cybersecurity Information Sharing Between Tech Companies And NSA; So Why Do We Need A New Law?
I has a sceptical
It's already been shown that NSA does physical interdiction of shipments of Cisco gear in order to plant access hardware into the machines.
If statements in the book you've quoted here are to be believed, and Cisco builds in NSA backdoors on its own, why the hell would NSA then need to covertly gain physical access to the chassis at all?
On the post: Ontario Police Inspector Says He Wants A 'Driver's License For The Internet'
Why stop at THE INTERNET?
Cars can and do literally kill people.
Mortgages allow you to become indebted to someone else for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
For these reasons it makes PERFECT SENSE to require identity information.
Speech is neither of those. Hence, in real life, our countries protect our right to say whatever we damned well please.
What these people want is for you to have to get a license to SPEAK.
There is precisely ZERO difference in this regard between ON THE INTERNET and IN REAL LIFE.
Let's just go ahead and require a license for the following:
Using the telephone
Researching your health
Participating in politics
Getting healthcare advice
Communicating with support groups
Speaking to people
Protesting
Going shopping
Stating your opinions
Being in public spaces
Managing your finances
Participating in civil society groups
There is no line here.
On the post: UK's GCHQ Can Get Warrantless Access To Bulk NSA Data
So, basically....
NSA captures EVERYTHING
GCHQ captures EVERYTHING ELSE
NSA forwards its EVERYTHING, unminimized, in bulk to GCHQ
GCHQ forwards its EVERYTHING ELSE, unminimized, in bulk to NSA
NSA then asks to look at the foreign EVERYTHING now stored at GCHQ. NSA can claim that it's only looking at "foreign data - no warrant required."
GCHQ then asks to look at the foreign EVERYTHING ELSE now stored at NSA. GCHQ can claim that it's only looking at "foreign data - no warrant required."
Basically, the data being housed in the shed in Utah isn't AMERICAN data. It' the Britt's.
On the post: Rep. Mike Rogers Now Claims Ed Snowden Should Be Charged With Murder, Because Someone Might Die
Military plans and operations
Anyone else have another idea of who we'd pin a murder wrap to?
On the post: FUD: Former FBI Guy Lies, Claiming New Mobile Encryption Would Have Resulted In Dead Kidnap Subject
Headline misleading
I don't know if the latter would necessarily be a bad result.
Next >>