I would not be surprised if Universal isn't using the video to hunt down each and every person who participated in that musical homage with the intent on suing them for an unlicensed public performance of their IP. They might not win, but they will MAKE THEIR POINT, come hell or high water.
Because they love recognition, no matter how they get it. It is what they are after, in whatever demented psychological phenomena they are subject to. Because of that, the best strategy is to flag and ignore.
When a lab is testing a specific patients stool or urine, I agree. But when they are testing a large pipe that runs out of a large neighborhood, there are no specific persons involved. At least not yet. When they start to track it back to a particular residence, things might change, but they still aren't dealing with records, not yet, they are dealing with as yet unidentified samples. Which is why I asked the question about curtilage and warrants. Your HIPAA theory might take effect when they get to one person or household. But, they still don't have any records, not identifiable ones.
Then again, how do they get around HIPAA laws when they test an arrested suspects blood or urine sample for drugs? That happens all the time and would seem to make some parts of your argument moot.
I hear ya, but I have my doubts about whether sewage could be considered a medical record. The doctors, or rather the lab tech's involved in such a search would not have patients.
When (not if) this comes to the US, are our sewers going to be considered third parties and all the data collected available? At what point in following sewage upstream, as it gets closer and closer to your house/apartment, when does it become curtilage and therefore require warrants?
According to you, they should represent their biggest contributors.
No they aren't supposed to have a referendum of their constituency on every issue, but the sure as hell aren't supposed to be significantly influenced by people they do not represent. They should have a sense of what their constituents want, and not just those that belong to THEIR party.
What big money folks want should not be part of their consideration as that is not necessarily in the interest of the people, that is what big money wants.
I had been dreaming about Congresscritters, Judges, or high level law enforcement officials, or even high level bureaucrats being caught up in some of the antics law enforcement exhibit these days. This will do for a start.
It is too bad that they weren't actually taken into custody and held for some time (it would be illegal to arrest a congress person on their way to a vote) in order for someone up there in the ethereal levels of government to take notice. If they are as vulnerable as the rest of us, they might put aside their quest for power, and do something for the rest of us.
I have little hope, but this might give them a nudge in the right direction.
"This is the basis on which political decisions are made carefully and with deliberation."
Along with bribes (erm, campaign contributions).
"If that makes you go "huh?" you are not an average voter and have no business telling Congress how to do its job.
"
Congress represents (or are supposed to) their constituents. It is the business of the constituents to tell their representatives what they want. Your assertion that constituents have no business telling Congress what to do leads the rest of us to believe that you are pro-bribery rather than constituent representation.
Isn't it funny how employees of a government by the people and for the people think everything they do should be kept secret from the people (well maybe except your tax bill)? While it appears to be true, it certainly isn't funny.
A month is not long enough, some lawsuits take longer than that to initiate, and that is after the plaintiff is released, which might be a longer time, even if the DA refuses to confer charges. At least a year, and there is probably argument for longer.
I have reviewed a video about ranked-choice voting, and while the concepts are still a bit hazy for me, I don't disagree with the concept.
That idea has the same problems as others I have espoused, how to get them implemented. Getting ones foot in the door (so to speak) and getting entrenched politicos to give up their 'power' is what is at issue.
Getting 'rid' of parties, to me, is the same as removing their power. Power not given from the Constitution. Letting like minded people talk to each other is not part of what I think about when considering the issue. Letting them take a 'majority' position in Congress and allow or not allow legislation to the floor for a vote (for example) is. Or putting a particular candidate up for election. Or to hold 'national conventions' that determine who is on the ballot. These and other things are what takes 'belonging' to a party beyond 'like people communicating with each other'. That control that seeped in, over time, and is wrong.
The security mechanisms implemented in the system provide flexible support for a wide range of security policies. They make it possible to configure the system to meet a wide range of security requirements. The reference implementation included a general-purpose security policy configuration designed to meet a number of security objectives as an example of how this may be done. The flexibility of the system allows the policy to be modified and extended to customize the security policy as required for any given installation.
There is still much work needed to develop a complete security solution. Nonetheless, we feel we have presented a good starting point to bring valuable security features to mainstream operating systems. We are looking forward to building upon this work with other developers and users. Participation with comments, constructive criticism, and/or improvements is welcome.
I bet there are many other things that they do that are not Open Sourced, and they won't confirm or deny that, though those who know how will find out...eventually. I do not expect them to give any hints.
Remove the rules in Congress that purport a majority and minority standing. I have no problem with parties, so to speak. I have a problem with them having power greater than the electorate. Let them exist, take away any power they have to control candidates for election or to control legislation on a party basis.
This is not a new idea and we might listen to our first President as well as some who went before him. We have a long history of 'partisanship' where there should have been anti-partisanship, except for party loyalty, which leads to political support and reelection. I reccomend reading that Widipedia page to better understand what was thought about political parties when our nation was formed, Pay special attention to George Washington's farewell speech, after he had some experience with parties.
Political parties are not constitutionally demanded, and while the could continue to exist, there is ample opportunity to reduce, or better yet eliminate, their control over our system. The problem is how to get people with power (and likely addicted to) to give up their power, for the good of the nation.
I am not so sure that an amendment is necessary. Look to the Election Commission where the concept of money is speech started. They could make the change. Getting them to do so is the problem. Politicians are happy with the current state of affairs and stack the Election Commission to continue the current status quo. But current politicians are dependent upon that 'free' money to get reelected, or their own personal bank accounts. And power has certain attractions, for the weak and maybe for everyone without the requisite level of integrity, and they face not being reelected.
The issue of a constitutional amendment bears the same problem. Those in office benefit from the current system, and it would take integrity and a personal commitment to democracy, as pure as a republic can get to pure democracy, to overcome the current situation. Even for those inclined, the strings pull from various directions.
Article V of the Constitution prescribes how an amendment can become a part of the Constitution. While there are two ways, only one has ever been used. All 27 Amendments have been ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.
The other method of passing an amendment requires a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States. That Convention can propose as many amendments as it deems necessary. Those amendments must be approved by three-fourths of the states.
The actual wording of Article V is: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
On the post: Universal Right Back At It Issuing A DMCA For A Reporter's Video Of Prince Fans Singing 'Purple Rain'
It's Miiiiiiiiiine
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
Then of course, there are the plain old trolls.
On the post: Chinese Law Enforcement Alchemists Turn Shit To Drug Bust Gold
Re: Re: Re:
Then again, how do they get around HIPAA laws when they test an arrested suspects blood or urine sample for drugs? That happens all the time and would seem to make some parts of your argument moot.
On the post: Chinese Law Enforcement Alchemists Turn Shit To Drug Bust Gold
Re:
On the post: Chinese Law Enforcement Alchemists Turn Shit To Drug Bust Gold
So, shit does flow uphill?
When (not if) this comes to the US, are our sewers going to be considered third parties and all the data collected available? At what point in following sewage upstream, as it gets closer and closer to your house/apartment, when does it become curtilage and therefore require warrants?
On the post: Ajit Pai Lies (Again) To Congress With Claim Net Neutrality Killed Broadband Investment
Re: PAI needs a name change..
On the post: Ajit Pai Lies (Again) To Congress With Claim Net Neutrality Killed Broadband Investment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Look, you are wrong.
No they aren't supposed to have a referendum of their constituency on every issue, but the sure as hell aren't supposed to be significantly influenced by people they do not represent. They should have a sense of what their constituents want, and not just those that belong to THEIR party.
What big money folks want should not be part of their consideration as that is not necessarily in the interest of the people, that is what big money wants.
On the post: Congress Members Want Answers After Amazon's Facial Recognition Software Says 28 Of Them Are Criminals
Re: How does this compare to humans?
Are you saying that pictures of Congress persons aren't mugshots?
On the post: Congress Members Want Answers After Amazon's Facial Recognition Software Says 28 Of Them Are Criminals
Re: Re: Goose, Gander, Good, can you feel now?
A little, but he wasn't subject to false facial recognition then. There were other, also ill considered, reasons for his arrests.
On the post: Congress Members Want Answers After Amazon's Facial Recognition Software Says 28 Of Them Are Criminals
Goose, Gander, Good, can you feel now?
It is too bad that they weren't actually taken into custody and held for some time (it would be illegal to arrest a congress person on their way to a vote) in order for someone up there in the ethereal levels of government to take notice. If they are as vulnerable as the rest of us, they might put aside their quest for power, and do something for the rest of us.
I have little hope, but this might give them a nudge in the right direction.
On the post: Ajit Pai Lies (Again) To Congress With Claim Net Neutrality Killed Broadband Investment
Re: Look, you are wrong.
Along with bribes (erm, campaign contributions).
Congress represents (or are supposed to) their constituents. It is the business of the constituents to tell their representatives what they want. Your assertion that constituents have no business telling Congress what to do leads the rest of us to believe that you are pro-bribery rather than constituent representation.
On the post: Appeals Court Blocks DEA's Attempt To Bury Lawsuit Settlement Terms
Re: Re: 'Nope, not a single other person before you. So, ready to cave?'
Or you forgot or intended /s.
On the post: Appeals Court Blocks DEA's Attempt To Bury Lawsuit Settlement Terms
Re: Re: We're from the Government, we're here to help
Oh, and they don't see us as their boss, even though we pay them.
On the post: Appeals Court Blocks DEA's Attempt To Bury Lawsuit Settlement Terms
We're from the Government, we're here to help
On the post: After Repeatedly Failing To Document Stops/Frisks, NYPD Ordered To Record All Encounters
Re:
On the post: No, The Public Standing Up For An Open Internet Is Not A Criminal Google Conspiracy
On the post: Senators Wyden & Rubio Ask Google And Amazon To Bring Back Domain Fronting
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ron Wyden gets it
That idea has the same problems as others I have espoused, how to get them implemented. Getting ones foot in the door (so to speak) and getting entrenched politicos to give up their 'power' is what is at issue.
Getting 'rid' of parties, to me, is the same as removing their power. Power not given from the Constitution. Letting like minded people talk to each other is not part of what I think about when considering the issue. Letting them take a 'majority' position in Congress and allow or not allow legislation to the floor for a vote (for example) is. Or putting a particular candidate up for election. Or to hold 'national conventions' that determine who is on the ballot. These and other things are what takes 'belonging' to a party beyond 'like people communicating with each other'. That control that seeped in, over time, and is wrong.
On the post: FBI Boss Chris Wray: We Put A Man On The Moon So Why Not Encryption Backdoors?
Re: Re: Re:
OK, they do participate in Open Source development, at least so long as it helps them.
Then they do other things that may or may not be Open Sourced:
I bet there are many other things that they do that are not Open Sourced, and they won't confirm or deny that, though those who know how will find out...eventually. I do not expect them to give any hints.
On the post: Senators Wyden & Rubio Ask Google And Amazon To Bring Back Domain Fronting
Re: Re: Re: Ron Wyden gets it
Remove the rules in Congress that purport a majority and minority standing. I have no problem with parties, so to speak. I have a problem with them having power greater than the electorate. Let them exist, take away any power they have to control candidates for election or to control legislation on a party basis.
This is not a new idea and we might listen to our first President as well as some who went before him. We have a long history of 'partisanship' where there should have been anti-partisanship, except for party loyalty, which leads to political support and reelection. I reccomend reading that Widipedia page to better understand what was thought about political parties when our nation was formed, Pay special attention to George Washington's farewell speech, after he had some experience with parties.
Political parties are not constitutionally demanded, and while the could continue to exist, there is ample opportunity to reduce, or better yet eliminate, their control over our system. The problem is how to get people with power (and likely addicted to) to give up their power, for the good of the nation.
On the post: Senators Wyden & Rubio Ask Google And Amazon To Bring Back Domain Fronting
Re: Re: Re: Ron Wyden gets it
I am not so sure that an amendment is necessary. Look to the Election Commission where the concept of money is speech started. They could make the change. Getting them to do so is the problem. Politicians are happy with the current state of affairs and stack the Election Commission to continue the current status quo. But current politicians are dependent upon that 'free' money to get reelected, or their own personal bank accounts. And power has certain attractions, for the weak and maybe for everyone without the requisite level of integrity, and they face not being reelected.
The issue of a constitutional amendment bears the same problem. Those in office benefit from the current system, and it would take integrity and a personal commitment to democracy, as pure as a republic can get to pure democracy, to overcome the current situation. Even for those inclined, the strings pull from various directions.
Now how do we get there, without violence?
Next >>