Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Jun 2020 @ 8:57am
Bad example in a good explanation
I just wish Senator Wyden had use a different example than #MeToo as there are many examples of facts optional rhetoric within that group. There is probably some truth as well, but it is difficult to discern without actual evidence.
For me, §230 is about bringing truth to the surface despite the volume or multitude of falsehoods, without liability for the platforms from those who don't like the discourse. The cure for bad speech is more speech, but using an example of a group that uses bad speech as a standard to support their position doesn't make the case as well as another example might.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Jun 2020 @ 7:25am
Re: It is a simple misunderstanding
Both inciteful and funny. But I have one quibble.
"After all, we are talking about Trump's DOJ."
While Trump may be the current head of the Executive branch, under which the DoJ operates, it is in fact OUR DoJ. It's a small quibble, but giving in to the pretense that the Dumpster Fire in Chief has more power than he really has will not do the rest of us any good.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Jun 2020 @ 2:22pm
Easy out
The White House has a simple solution at hand, revoke all press passes, then reissue them to sycophants, ass lickers, stenographers, brown nosers, died in the wool trumpets, Fox News, Breitbart, InfoWars, and Onan (did I leave anyone out?). Then make a rule that none of them can be in the White House for more than 10 minutes before or after official press conferences.
That that behavior would do violence to the concept of the Fourth Estate means nothing to them because anything anyone else says is 'fake news' anyway. I would also wager that many current press pass holders would get a new one under these rules.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Jun 2020 @ 10:57am
Have at it.
Cancel the damned police union contract and let them go on strike. We win twice. Then, like Reagan did with the air traffic controllers, start hiring, with a contract that says that we are in control and that they may not have a union in the future, and that striking in the future is a terminable offense. Many caveats on rehiring any existing officers, either from Minneapolis or other agency.
Depending on the rapidity of the force renewal, there will likely be only a small, if any, uptick in crime, as shown by the NYPD work slowdown where there was a significant drop on complaints about police, and no increase in crime.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Jun 2020 @ 9:47am
Re: Re: Federal carve outs, no, Federal inclusion, yes
Are you talking about the FBI sting operations where they 'create' a terrorist scenario and then coerce some marginal person to participate?
Are you talking about the DEA sting operations where they 'create' a stash house scenario and then coerce some marginal person to participate in robbing it?
Are you talking about the ATF sting operation (a.k.a. Fast and Furious) where they lost control of thousands of weapons that then got used against us?
I think we have had sufficient experience with Federal agencies doing 'undercover' investigations to know that they don't do them very well, often.
Besides, there are many civilians that have dash cams on their vehicles, do you really think they will be identified as law enforcement just because of that? I don't really see a downside to requiring accountability in even Federal law enforcement agencies. Well, they will, of course.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Jun 2020 @ 8:07am
Re: Enforcement
If you had read the article you would know that state and local must comply or they lose out on Federal funding, should this bill pass. Possibly not the only leverage they could bring, but it might be the most expedient.
States still have rights and hate the Fed's stepping on them. The DoJ has the power to bring significant pressure on state and local agencies, but only if they see their position as working for us, rather than the entrenched authoritarians.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Jun 2020 @ 7:55am
Federal carve outs, no, Federal inclusion, yes
They want dash cams on marked federal law enforcement vehicles. Why only marked? Is that so federal law enforcement personnel can get away with things they shouldn't be able to get away with?
How about requiring the FBI to record, visually and orally all of their interrogations, even ones that happen outside of interrogation rooms?
How about some sanction where the DoJ fails to bring civil rights complaints when it is clear to everyone else that such violations exist?
I am fairly certain that this list is incomplete, but there is no good reason for Congress to ignore obvious opportunities for improvement, like say ending unfettered surveillance.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Jun 2020 @ 7:44am
Yet he still claims to be Republican, but is there a difference?
Does Trump's infatuation with anti fascism blatantly declare that he is in fact pro fascist, or a fascist himself? Has anyone in his coterie mentioned this possible interpretation to him (if they did, did he either smile quietly, or giggle, or guffaw)?
When the acronym ANTIFA first started appearing I mistakenly read it as anti first amendment. After seeing it a few times I looked it up and realized my error. Though given Trump's behavior my initial reading could have been correct. Maybe it actually means both.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Jun 2020 @ 7:36pm
Re: Re: How does one determine the lesser of two evils?
Sure, let's eliminate political parties. I know that the founding fathers debated the concept, but in the end went with parties. What, as a starter, if we didn't have them. I know getting from here to there would be a very serious chore, but there is nothing that says there has to be political parties. Then, next steps.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Jun 2020 @ 6:19pm
Sports
Something physical that one participates in and vies to excel at. It is not required, nor is it applicable to all, nor does it, nor should it denigrate non participants.
That some sports become competitive at an inter, oh I don't know league, faction, team, school, division, is great. That it needs to be, or that it is commoditized is a crying shame. That the middlemen (broadcasters or leagues or associations or god forbid team owners, or schools, or international organizers or whatever) profit in any way at all is just a really sad state of things.
Banishing sports is the wrong thing. Banishing the rest is the right thing. Getting those who wear the spotlight well to agree with the above is a very serious problem. Some organization is probably needed. Monetization is not. Supporting athletes to train for competition is needed, so is supporting those that cannot compete, or just don't do sports.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Jun 2020 @ 6:00pm
Re: Re: Re:
Sorry if I confused you, I do think the NYPD is an anarchist group (fighting for the cause of authoritarianism), but that is from my perspective. From the NYC administration's perspective they are saints, and therein lies the problem. Both work for us, but we don't have any say, except at the voting box where the money makes the difference.
It is telling that the teachers union and police unions are major factors (a.k.a contributors if you pledge to vote their way) in elections. Where do they get that money? Both factions are paid by us, yet an (apparently significant) portion of that pay goes to dues that then become contributions (a.k.a. bribes) to buttress political candidates. Hmm....
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Jun 2020 @ 5:48pm
How does one determine the lesser of two evils?
I don't want Trump again. I don't want Biden either. In fact I don't want any of the candidates that have presented themselves, R's or D's. So what is left? Third party or not voting only helps one or the other.
Yet another systemic failure.
Could we get the demonstrators to focus on systemic failures?
I know, it is too broad a topic and difficult to write slogans for, but those are the things we need to deal with, despite the issue du jour.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Jun 2020 @ 5:30pm
Re:
I think you should re-read this comment as it sets up the probability that the NYPD is doing illegal surveillance. That members of, or the entire NYPD is an anarchist group depends upon where your sitting. If one is a member of the authoritarian establishment, then no, but if one is outside of that establishment it will be hard to convince them (with good reason) that they are not. So when the NYPD enables their own encryption, they will be in fact possibly abusing encryption for anarchist reasons, that is, if the aren't already.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Jun 2020 @ 5:10pm
Re:
As an aside, for one who thinks § 230 should be abandoned, that is quite a reversal and a provable indictment that you have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about. Then again, that's not new.
For me, the issue is Facebook tracking non users. While I block Facebook on one of my computers, there is a local business that is good enough that I care about what is going on there, and to date (hopefully soon to be changed) the only way I can find out is through Facebook, so another machine does not have the Facebook block.
While that second machine is primarily a NAS server, it does have other uses. It got upgraded from a Raspberry Pi to a more robust computer because it seemed to create issues that got resolved with a reboot, meaning resources got locked up.
It then became able to do other things as well, and so it does, but when I clear the browsing data on that machine, everything goes, bleachbit hits everything, and if there was more I would probably do it.
My point is, that when Facebook stepped out of its boundaries and started tracking everyone, they overstepped. Stockholder should sell soon as I don't think this will end pretty for them.
As to interoperability, I am all for it, so long as it leads users to less egregious platforms without losing contact with...well their contacts but absolutely losing the tracking.
Now the question comes up, is that a sustainable model without all the tracking and advertising?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Jun 2020 @ 12:08pm
Should we or shouldn't we, please answer the question
"This would present a "challenge" to everyone who isn't an NYPD officer. Journalists would no longer be able to monitor calls and would have to rely solely on post facto press releases and official statements. More concerning is the fact that other entities the NYPD relies on -- volunteer fire departments and ambulance services -- would not have access either, delaying their response time.This would present a "challenge" to everyone who isn't an NYPD officer. Journalists would no longer be able to monitor calls and would have to rely solely on post facto press releases and official statements. More concerning is the fact that other entities the NYPD relies on -- volunteer fire departments and ambulance services -- would not have access either, delaying their response time."
Well, if Barr gets his way and forces backdoors in encryption, then in a short time everyone will have access again. Perhaps waiting to find out how Barr's flight of fancy goes is the reason they are waiting a year or so to encrypt their communications.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Jun 2020 @ 10:31am
Various Perspectives
There's a problem with writing this letter to the FCC. The FCC gave up all of its ability to regulate the Internet, and gave it over to the FTC. By all rights the FCC should return this to the post office as having been misaddressed.
/s
Thinking about the political spectrum I imagined a line between each and every distinction. Unfortunately, that created a solid bar as even closely held base ideologies often disagree on some point or another creating yet another subset.
Then there is the idea that a federal agency could step in and regulate where historically there have not been any agencies involved. The contests have always been in the courts, which is a different branch than the legislative or executive. What would the FCC do, sue someone, make a rule that says you can't do that? The lawsuits would be fast and furious and successful.
"Indeed, as the case made clear, the FCC could regulate broadcast airwaves, because it was scarce spectrum that the government was handing out to broadcasters. That is not true of the internet:"
Yet...and IP maximalists are working very hard to make it so.
And as has been pointed out by both article writers and commenters, §230 is a clarification of the 1st Amendment, not a replacement, not a substitution, not a limitation.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 9 Jun 2020 @ 5:26pm
Re: Princeton IoT Inspector ?
I don't have any IOT devices either, nor Windows 10, but after a quick look at this link it appears they are collecting a lot of information as well. A better question might be, are these people to be trusted with what they want from you?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 9 Jun 2020 @ 5:20pm
Re: Campuses
This may or may not be important to you, but you needn't have bothered with the creative username. You gave us sufficient information in your post (bragging) so that anyone with enough interest and time could figure out who you are. You may or may not want to be more careful in the future.
I only mention this because the dichotomy between the username and data given struck me as someone either uncaring, uniformed, or reckless. What does that tell us about those 25 articles you wrote?
On the post: Ron Wyden Explains Why President Trump (And Many Others) Are Totally Wrong About Section 230
Bad example in a good explanation
I just wish Senator Wyden had use a different example than #MeToo as there are many examples of facts optional rhetoric within that group. There is probably some truth as well, but it is difficult to discern without actual evidence.
For me, §230 is about bringing truth to the surface despite the volume or multitude of falsehoods, without liability for the platforms from those who don't like the discourse. The cure for bad speech is more speech, but using an example of a group that uses bad speech as a standard to support their position doesn't make the case as well as another example might.
On the post: The DOJ's Plan To 'Fix' The T-Mobile Merger Is Already A Hot Mess
Re: It is a simple misunderstanding
Both inciteful and funny. But I have one quibble.
While Trump may be the current head of the Executive branch, under which the DoJ operates, it is in fact OUR DoJ. It's a small quibble, but giving in to the pretense that the Dumpster Fire in Chief has more power than he really has will not do the rest of us any good.
On the post: Appeals Court Again Says That The White House Can't Just Remove A Press Pass Because It Didn't Like A Reporter Mocking Seb Gorka
Easy out
The White House has a simple solution at hand, revoke all press passes, then reissue them to sycophants, ass lickers, stenographers, brown nosers, died in the wool trumpets, Fox News, Breitbart, InfoWars, and Onan (did I leave anyone out?). Then make a rule that none of them can be in the White House for more than 10 minutes before or after official press conferences.
That that behavior would do violence to the concept of the Fourth Estate means nothing to them because anything anyone else says is 'fake news' anyway. I would also wager that many current press pass holders would get a new one under these rules.
/s
On the post: Behind Every Terrible Police Officer Is An Even Worse Police Union Rep
Have at it.
Cancel the damned police union contract and let them go on strike. We win twice. Then, like Reagan did with the air traffic controllers, start hiring, with a contract that says that we are in control and that they may not have a union in the future, and that striking in the future is a terminable offense. Many caveats on rehiring any existing officers, either from Minneapolis or other agency.
Depending on the rapidity of the force renewal, there will likely be only a small, if any, uptick in crime, as shown by the NYPD work slowdown where there was a significant drop on complaints about police, and no increase in crime.
On the post: Federal Legislators Pitching Massive Police Reform Bill That Would End Qualified Immunity
Re: Re: Federal carve outs, no, Federal inclusion, yes
Are you talking about the FBI sting operations where they 'create' a terrorist scenario and then coerce some marginal person to participate?
Are you talking about the DEA sting operations where they 'create' a stash house scenario and then coerce some marginal person to participate in robbing it?
Are you talking about the ATF sting operation (a.k.a. Fast and Furious) where they lost control of thousands of weapons that then got used against us?
I think we have had sufficient experience with Federal agencies doing 'undercover' investigations to know that they don't do them very well, often.
Besides, there are many civilians that have dash cams on their vehicles, do you really think they will be identified as law enforcement just because of that? I don't really see a downside to requiring accountability in even Federal law enforcement agencies. Well, they will, of course.
On the post: Federal Legislators Pitching Massive Police Reform Bill That Would End Qualified Immunity
Re: Enforcement
If you had read the article you would know that state and local must comply or they lose out on Federal funding, should this bill pass. Possibly not the only leverage they could bring, but it might be the most expedient.
States still have rights and hate the Fed's stepping on them. The DoJ has the power to bring significant pressure on state and local agencies, but only if they see their position as working for us, rather than the entrenched authoritarians.
On the post: Federal Legislators Pitching Massive Police Reform Bill That Would End Qualified Immunity
Federal carve outs, no, Federal inclusion, yes
They want dash cams on marked federal law enforcement vehicles. Why only marked? Is that so federal law enforcement personnel can get away with things they shouldn't be able to get away with?
How about requiring the FBI to record, visually and orally all of their interrogations, even ones that happen outside of interrogation rooms?
How about some sanction where the DoJ fails to bring civil rights complaints when it is clear to everyone else that such violations exist?
I am fairly certain that this list is incomplete, but there is no good reason for Congress to ignore obvious opportunities for improvement, like say ending unfettered surveillance.
On the post: Trump, DOJ Claim ANTIFA, Other Extremists Are Hijacking Protests. DOJ Filings Show No Link To Outside Groups.
Yet he still claims to be Republican, but is there a difference?
Does Trump's infatuation with anti fascism blatantly declare that he is in fact pro fascist, or a fascist himself? Has anyone in his coterie mentioned this possible interpretation to him (if they did, did he either smile quietly, or giggle, or guffaw)?
When the acronym ANTIFA first started appearing I mistakenly read it as anti first amendment. After seeing it a few times I looked it up and realized my error. Though given Trump's behavior my initial reading could have been correct. Maybe it actually means both.
On the post: Why Doesn't Joe Biden Have Any Tech Policy Advisors?
Re: Re: How does one determine the lesser of two evils?
Sure, let's eliminate political parties. I know that the founding fathers debated the concept, but in the end went with parties. What, as a starter, if we didn't have them. I know getting from here to there would be a very serious chore, but there is nothing that says there has to be political parties. Then, next steps.
On the post: Cable Customers Have Paid $3.5 Billion For Sports They Can't Watch
Re:
Sport and money combined are irrelevant, except for those who make money.
Sport, however is a good thing, just keep the money out of it.
On the post: Cable Customers Have Paid $3.5 Billion For Sports They Can't Watch
Sports
Something physical that one participates in and vies to excel at. It is not required, nor is it applicable to all, nor does it, nor should it denigrate non participants.
That some sports become competitive at an inter, oh I don't know league, faction, team, school, division, is great. That it needs to be, or that it is commoditized is a crying shame. That the middlemen (broadcasters or leagues or associations or god forbid team owners, or schools, or international organizers or whatever) profit in any way at all is just a really sad state of things.
Banishing sports is the wrong thing. Banishing the rest is the right thing. Getting those who wear the spotlight well to agree with the above is a very serious problem. Some organization is probably needed. Monetization is not. Supporting athletes to train for competition is needed, so is supporting those that cannot compete, or just don't do sports.
Where do we go from here?
On the post: NYPD Counterterrorism Official Worried About 'Anarchists' Who Are 'Good At Using' Encryption
Re: Re: Re:
Sorry if I confused you, I do think the NYPD is an anarchist group (fighting for the cause of authoritarianism), but that is from my perspective. From the NYC administration's perspective they are saints, and therein lies the problem. Both work for us, but we don't have any say, except at the voting box where the money makes the difference.
It is telling that the teachers union and police unions are major factors (a.k.a contributors if you pledge to vote their way) in elections. Where do they get that money? Both factions are paid by us, yet an (apparently significant) portion of that pay goes to dues that then become contributions (a.k.a. bribes) to buttress political candidates. Hmm....
On the post: Why Doesn't Joe Biden Have Any Tech Policy Advisors?
How does one determine the lesser of two evils?
I don't want Trump again. I don't want Biden either. In fact I don't want any of the candidates that have presented themselves, R's or D's. So what is left? Third party or not voting only helps one or the other.
Yet another systemic failure.
Could we get the demonstrators to focus on systemic failures?
I know, it is too broad a topic and difficult to write slogans for, but those are the things we need to deal with, despite the issue du jour.
On the post: NYPD Counterterrorism Official Worried About 'Anarchists' Who Are 'Good At Using' Encryption
Re:
I think you should re-read this comment as it sets up the probability that the NYPD is doing illegal surveillance. That members of, or the entire NYPD is an anarchist group depends upon where your sitting. If one is a member of the authoritarian establishment, then no, but if one is outside of that establishment it will be hard to convince them (with good reason) that they are not. So when the NYPD enables their own encryption, they will be in fact possibly abusing encryption for anarchist reasons, that is, if the aren't already.
On the post: Interoperability And Privacy: Squaring The Circle
Re:
As an aside, for one who thinks § 230 should be abandoned, that is quite a reversal and a provable indictment that you have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about. Then again, that's not new.
For me, the issue is Facebook tracking non users. While I block Facebook on one of my computers, there is a local business that is good enough that I care about what is going on there, and to date (hopefully soon to be changed) the only way I can find out is through Facebook, so another machine does not have the Facebook block.
While that second machine is primarily a NAS server, it does have other uses. It got upgraded from a Raspberry Pi to a more robust computer because it seemed to create issues that got resolved with a reboot, meaning resources got locked up.
It then became able to do other things as well, and so it does, but when I clear the browsing data on that machine, everything goes, bleachbit hits everything, and if there was more I would probably do it.
My point is, that when Facebook stepped out of its boundaries and started tracking everyone, they overstepped. Stockholder should sell soon as I don't think this will end pretty for them.
As to interoperability, I am all for it, so long as it leads users to less egregious platforms without losing contact with...well their contacts but absolutely losing the tracking.
Now the question comes up, is that a sustainable model without all the tracking and advertising?
On the post: NYPD Counterterrorism Official Worried About 'Anarchists' Who Are 'Good At Using' Encryption
Should we or shouldn't we, please answer the question
Well, if Barr gets his way and forces backdoors in encryption, then in a short time everyone will have access again. Perhaps waiting to find out how Barr's flight of fancy goes is the reason they are waiting a year or so to encrypt their communications.
On the post: Senators Rubio, Hawley, Loeffler And Cramer Ask The FCC To Reinterpret Section 230 In A Totally Ridiculous Manner
Various Perspectives
There's a problem with writing this letter to the FCC. The FCC gave up all of its ability to regulate the Internet, and gave it over to the FTC. By all rights the FCC should return this to the post office as having been misaddressed.
/s
Thinking about the political spectrum I imagined a line between each and every distinction. Unfortunately, that created a solid bar as even closely held base ideologies often disagree on some point or another creating yet another subset.
Then there is the idea that a federal agency could step in and regulate where historically there have not been any agencies involved. The contests have always been in the courts, which is a different branch than the legislative or executive. What would the FCC do, sue someone, make a rule that says you can't do that? The lawsuits would be fast and furious and successful.
Yet...and IP maximalists are working very hard to make it so.
And as has been pointed out by both article writers and commenters, §230 is a clarification of the 1st Amendment, not a replacement, not a substitution, not a limitation.
On the post: Major ISP Cox Begins Throttling Entire Neighborhoods for 'Excessive Usage'
Re: Re:
Careful, bad as he is, he might raise the level of discourse in some of our legislative bodies.
On the post: Carnegie Mellon Researchers Design 'Nutrition Label' For The Internet Of Broken Things
Re: Princeton IoT Inspector ?
I don't have any IOT devices either, nor Windows 10, but after a quick look at this link it appears they are collecting a lot of information as well. A better question might be, are these people to be trusted with what they want from you?
On the post: No, The Resignation Of NYT Editor James Bennet Does Not Mean American Newsrooms Have 'Turned Into College Campuses'
Re: Campuses
This may or may not be important to you, but you needn't have bothered with the creative username. You gave us sufficient information in your post (bragging) so that anyone with enough interest and time could figure out who you are. You may or may not want to be more careful in the future.
I only mention this because the dichotomy between the username and data given struck me as someone either uncaring, uniformed, or reckless. What does that tell us about those 25 articles you wrote?
Next >>