Our pet nutjob is gaming the forum. Putting his delusional wingnuttery in the title, so that it appears even in reasonable replies after his own comments are hidden.
Now, I'm not against responding to his posts. His dishonest claims are often countered with good facts and citations. Those replies can complement the original article.
However, how do people feel about down-voting replies that repeat his wingnuttery-loaded titles? (Added irony there given the article title.) Should there be a forum mechanism that recognizes what he's doing? Some requirement for a reply to have a new title once a post receives a number of abusive/trolling/spam flags?
OAuth is simply a standard that allows a web site operator (and others) to offload the work of authenticating users to a 3rd party.
But that's exactly what I'm saying.
Sure, a password won't be shared between sites. But if Facebook passwords were ever to leak, a crook could authenticate using that, and now he's also authenticated for the user's non-Facebook sites and services.
Facebook should be burned to the ground, then nuked from orbit just to make sure. Everyone who has ever worked there should be blacklisted for life from IT.
That's too subtle and optimistic for my tastes.
Facebook has partnered with Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Twitter and others on the OAuth standard for access delegation. Log into one, and you're automatically logged into the rest.
Microsoft is pushing this in their Visual Studio programming environment for web sites, desktop and mobile apps to the extent that they've removed other user authentication tools.
I have a new Ricoh camera. To use its full functionality I need to log into the Ricoh web site. Which doesn't have its own user authentication system. To log in I had to set up a Facebook account and use THAT to authenticate on the Ricoh site.
This is the future of all your apps, websites and devices. What could possibly go wrong?
That's a real shame. Following the space industry, I'd occasionally see good (and often surprised) things said about them. I even kept a couple quotes:
In the context of Id Software, I have been written about in a large number of magazines and newspapers, including big ones like Time, Newsweek, Forbes, Fortune, The Economist, the NYT, etc. Many things are often reported incorrectly. I still remember the first time I got a call from someone fact checking an upcoming article. It was from Wired magazine, which has fact checked with me directly every time they have written about me. I have explicitly asked some magazines to do a fact check call, and got a haughty "We don't do that", as if I had insulted their journalistic integrity.
John Carmack, Id Software, Armadillo Aerospace
Some years ago, Wired asked me to write a tiny little piece -- I think the limit was 250 words -- on one-way Mars missions, just explaining briefly why the idea might make sense. After I sent it in, I was a bit startled when their fact checker called me up and asked for references on a couple of the numerical details I'd quoted. I don't know whether he actually dug up the references and checked them, but he did want to know that the facts I was citing were at least somewhat verifiable. I can't say that I'm all that enthralled with Wired in general, but this aspect impressed me.
Reporting crimes is not in the same as committing them. It in no way makes you responsible.
(Possible exception: Repeating slander and defamation. Many news sources will report that a defamation lawsuit has been launched, without repeating the claim that sparked it unless they can independently verify the claim.)
Embedding off-site infringing images in your publication on the other hand is a way to profit off of infringement while saying "not responsible!"
(And again, I'm making a distinction between that and embedding tweets.)
Re: Re: Re: "Analysis: Most Immigrants Arrested by Ice Have Prior Convictions"
No argument there.
When I've read the stories here about the steep fees charged for prison phone use, I have to wonder if they're deliberately trying to isolate prisoners from those who would support and encourage them upon release. Driving up the recidivism rates and profit.
And hey, we’ll learn who squealed to the reporter too.
Just once I'd like to see a reporter "comply" government agency style by releasing documents with blacked-out redacted bits. Including the odd page blacked out entirely except for a few random words.
According to the National Institute of Justice, about 68 percent of 405,000 prisoners released in 30 states in 2005 were arrested for a new crime within three years of their release from prison, and 77 percent were arrested within five years.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ICE's actions should be viewed in a larger context
Nope. Won't work.
There's an old saying, "The only way I can lose this election is if I’m caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy."
The evangelicals have stuck with Donald Trump through multiple wives, "grab her by the pussy", Stormy Daniels, white supremacy, his endorsement of Roy Moore and much much more. The old saying is no longer true.
In this case -- and the very reason why the server test is so important -- the content in question is never on the publisher's premises or server.
I can't dismiss this quite so casually.
You could publish a document locally, full of infringing images hosted on another server in another country beyond the reach of the legal system. A denial of responsibility doesn't hold much credibility, because the end user only saw them because they were embedded in YOUR publication. The user wouldn't even know that they were hosted elsewhere.
On the other hand, embedding tweets changes this. Now you're embedding Twitter's documents, which in turn contain the infringing image. Twitter hosts it.
Which means that now you're into CDA 230 territory. The person who posted the tweet is the one responsible.
Which leads to another issue: If you claim damages over the original infringing tweet, should the tweeter be held responsible for vastly greater damages because major news organizations re-tweeted it? I would argue against it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: ICE's actions should be viewed in a larger context
Yup. Robert Mueller is a Republican, appointed the Director of the FBI by President George W. Bush in 2001.
The head of the FBI is Trump appointee Christopher Wray, who Trump said is "a man of impeccable credentials." Wray himself says that the Republican House memo is false and misleading.
The renewal of the Carter Page FISA warrant was done by Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General appointed by Trump. He worked on Ken Starr’s Whitewater investigation into Bill and Hillary’s real estate dealings.
Rosenstein wrote the memo for Trump that Trump used to fire James Comey. Comey is a registered Republican who served in the Bush Administration and donated to the Presidential campaigns of John McCain and Mitt Romney.
All 11 FISA judges were appointed by Republican appointee John Roberts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Actually discredits Hispanics and lawyers. But besides blame all of ICE and its mission to keep out foreign invaders, I'm sure you blame "Republicans", Trump, and Russians too.
A) "the royals" have veto power over all laws in Canada too
On paper, with the understanding that they don't use it. They could override Canadians' wishes once, but that power would quickly be gone.
B) the Kingdom has TWO classes, and YOU are in the LOWER class
Nope. Just one class in Canada. We stopped allowing the monarch to grant knighthoods, baronetcies, and peerages almost a century ago.
C) "the royals" STILL own about 30 percent of the land in Britain
The Canadian government owns a similar percentage in Canada. It's sometimes called "crown land", but again that's a ceremonial thing. Legally it's "public land" and not owned by the monarch. Likewise, the US federal government owns 28% of US land.
E) There's only ONE person in the whole UK who can operate a private car on the roads without being licensed, and that's the monarch, because OWNS the roads. PERIOD.
Also military drivers, because in theory they get their orders from the queen. (There's a funny story there....) But again, in theory. It's the Canadian military handing out the orders. The queen is a ceremonial figurehead. Legal power which would quickly disappear if she ever tried to wield it.
F) You are DISARMED serfs, DO NOT HAVE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO OWN AND KEEP FIREARMS. That's the KEY point of rights.
Incorrect on all points. We have stricter controls on handguns, but you can own them.
Consider the Quebec man who killed a cop and disabled another with his handgun in his home because he legitimately believed he was about to be killed by armed robbers. (No-announce search warrant in the middle of the night). Found not guilty. Try that in America. They'd have given him the electric chair.
Again, even your right-wing Cato institute ranks Canada higher than the US on its Human Freedom Index.
Re: Re: Re: Actually discredits Hispanics and lawyers. But besides blame all of ICE and its mission to keep out foreign invaders, I'm sure you blame "Republicans", Trump, and Russians too.
Canadians are citizens. We have all the rights that Americans have. Even your Cato Institute ranks Canada higher than the US on their Human Freedom Index.
The royals are ceremonial. On paper they have power, but only with the understanding that don't use it. Canadians are horrified by the thought of dropping the monarchy, but only because of the inevitable bickering over who would replace them on the currency. It'll be like a Trump/Cruz/Hillary debate lasting for years.
Welcome folks with hugs and free goodies, and they tend to be good friends. The US was built on large numbers of immigrants.
Re: Actually discredits Hispanics and lawyers. But besides blame all of ICE and its mission to keep out foreign invaders, I'm sure you blame "Republicans", Trump, and Russians too.
Seems most of the frequent commenters at Techdirt aren't even Americans! You have NO say in MY country.
Given that Canada has had refugees crossing our border by the thousands from the US over the last year or so, we have every right to comment on your immigration policy. 15,000 just in the first half of last year, many of them in the US legally but seeing the writing on the wall.
Given that ICE (in its earlier INS incarnation) has been responsible for kidnapping and torturing Canadians, we have every right to comment on them too.
On the post: Even If The Russian Troll Factory Abused Our Openness Against Us, That Doesn't Mean We Should Close Up
Re: Re:
On the post: Trump, Nunes Accidentally Undo DOJ's Efforts To Keep Surveillance Docs Under Wraps
Re:
"I'm going to do very restrained, if I use it at all."
- Trump in November 2016, on using Twitter as president
On the post: Even If The Russian Troll Factory Abused Our Openness Against Us, That Doesn't Mean We Should Close Up
Re: (Troll headline removed)
Same old claim, same old response:
Wikipedia: Links between Trump associates and Russian officials
133 citations.
Wikipedia: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
415 citations.
On the post: Germany's Speech Laws Continue To Be A Raging Dumpster Fire Of Censorial Stupidity
Re: Re:
On the post: Germany's Speech Laws Continue To Be A Raging Dumpster Fire Of Censorial Stupidity
Re: Downvote replies with troll titles?
Now, I'm not against responding to his posts. His dishonest claims are often countered with good facts and citations. Those replies can complement the original article.
However, how do people feel about down-voting replies that repeat his wingnuttery-loaded titles? (Added irony there given the article title.) Should there be a forum mechanism that recognizes what he's doing? Some requirement for a reply to have a new title once a post receives a number of abusive/trolling/spam flags?
On the post: Facebook 'Security': A New VPN That's Spyware And Two-Factor Authentication That Spams You
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But that's exactly what I'm saying.
Sure, a password won't be shared between sites. But if Facebook passwords were ever to leak, a crook could authenticate using that, and now he's also authenticated for the user's non-Facebook sites and services.
On the post: Facebook 'Security': A New VPN That's Spyware And Two-Factor Authentication That Spams You
Re: Re:
That's too subtle and optimistic for my tastes.
Facebook has partnered with Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Twitter and others on the OAuth standard for access delegation. Log into one, and you're automatically logged into the rest.
Microsoft is pushing this in their Visual Studio programming environment for web sites, desktop and mobile apps to the extent that they've removed other user authentication tools.
I have a new Ricoh camera. To use its full functionality I need to log into the Ricoh web site. Which doesn't have its own user authentication system. To log in I had to set up a Facebook account and use THAT to authenticate on the Ricoh site.
This is the future of all your apps, websites and devices. What could possibly go wrong?
On the post: Wired's Big Cover Story On Facebook Gets Key Legal Point Totally Backwards, Demonstrating Why CDA 230 Is Actually Important
Re: not surprising
That's a real shame. Following the space industry, I'd occasionally see good (and often surprised) things said about them. I even kept a couple quotes:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Is The Second Amendment More Important Than The First Amendment?
You mean like CPAC and the Republican National Convention?
On the post: Terrible Copyright Ruling Over An Embedded Tweet Undermines Key Concept Of How The Internet Works
Re: Re:
(Possible exception: Repeating slander and defamation. Many news sources will report that a defamation lawsuit has been launched, without repeating the claim that sparked it unless they can independently verify the claim.)
Embedding off-site infringing images in your publication on the other hand is a way to profit off of infringement while saying "not responsible!"
(And again, I'm making a distinction between that and embedding tweets.)
On the post: Top ICE Lawyer Accused Of Identity Fraud Against Detained Immigrants
Re: Re: Re: "Analysis: Most Immigrants Arrested by Ice Have Prior Convictions"
When I've read the stories here about the steep fees charged for prison phone use, I have to wonder if they're deliberately trying to isolate prisoners from those who would support and encourage them upon release. Driving up the recidivism rates and profit.
On the post: County Gov't Tries To Dodge Liability In Jailhouse Deaths By Intimidating The Journalist Who Exposed Them
Just once I'd like to see a reporter "comply" government agency style by releasing documents with blacked-out redacted bits. Including the odd page blacked out entirely except for a few random words.
On the post: Top ICE Lawyer Accused Of Identity Fraud Against Detained Immigrants
Re: "Analysis: Most Immigrants Arrested by Ice Have Prior Convictions"
They're not saying that 74% of immigrants are criminals. They're saying that of those who are, 74% are repeat offenders.
How does that compare with non-immigrant arrestees?
Wikipedia: Recidivism: United States:
So immigrants are about average then.
On the post: Top ICE Lawyer Accused Of Identity Fraud Against Detained Immigrants
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ICE's actions should be viewed in a larger context
There's an old saying, "The only way I can lose this election is if I’m caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy."
The evangelicals have stuck with Donald Trump through multiple wives, "grab her by the pussy", Stormy Daniels, white supremacy, his endorsement of Roy Moore and much much more. The old saying is no longer true.
On the post: Top ICE Lawyer Accused Of Identity Fraud Against Detained Immigrants
Re: Re: Re:
Briefly. America's torturers, and those who issued the orders, were not prosecuted.
One of those torturers, Rick Saccone, is now the GOP nominee in Pennsylvania’s 18th congressional district. He's ahead in the polls too.
Nuremburg ain't Pennsylvania.
On the post: Terrible Copyright Ruling Over An Embedded Tweet Undermines Key Concept Of How The Internet Works
I can't dismiss this quite so casually.
You could publish a document locally, full of infringing images hosted on another server in another country beyond the reach of the legal system. A denial of responsibility doesn't hold much credibility, because the end user only saw them because they were embedded in YOUR publication. The user wouldn't even know that they were hosted elsewhere.
On the other hand, embedding tweets changes this. Now you're embedding Twitter's documents, which in turn contain the infringing image. Twitter hosts it.
Which means that now you're into CDA 230 territory. The person who posted the tweet is the one responsible.
Which leads to another issue: If you claim damages over the original infringing tweet, should the tweeter be held responsible for vastly greater damages because major news organizations re-tweeted it? I would argue against it.
On the post: Top ICE Lawyer Accused Of Identity Fraud Against Detained Immigrants
Re: Re: Re: Re: ICE's actions should be viewed in a larger context
The head of the FBI is Trump appointee Christopher Wray, who Trump said is "a man of impeccable credentials." Wray himself says that the Republican House memo is false and misleading.
The renewal of the Carter Page FISA warrant was done by Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General appointed by Trump. He worked on Ken Starr’s Whitewater investigation into Bill and Hillary’s real estate dealings.
Rosenstein wrote the memo for Trump that Trump used to fire James Comey. Comey is a registered Republican who served in the Bush Administration and donated to the Presidential campaigns of John McCain and Mitt Romney.
All 11 FISA judges were appointed by Republican appointee John Roberts
The left really stacked the deck there.
On the post: Top ICE Lawyer Accused Of Identity Fraud Against Detained Immigrants
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Actually discredits Hispanics and lawyers. But besides blame all of ICE and its mission to keep out foreign invaders, I'm sure you blame "Republicans", Trump, and Russians too.
On paper, with the understanding that they don't use it. They could override Canadians' wishes once, but that power would quickly be gone.
Nope. Just one class in Canada. We stopped allowing the monarch to grant knighthoods, baronetcies, and peerages almost a century ago.
The Canadian government owns a similar percentage in Canada. It's sometimes called "crown land", but again that's a ceremonial thing. Legally it's "public land" and not owned by the monarch. Likewise, the US federal government owns 28% of US land.
Also military drivers, because in theory they get their orders from the queen. (There's a funny story there....) But again, in theory. It's the Canadian military handing out the orders. The queen is a ceremonial figurehead. Legal power which would quickly disappear if she ever tried to wield it.
Incorrect on all points. We have stricter controls on handguns, but you can own them.
Consider the Quebec man who killed a cop and disabled another with his handgun in his home because he legitimately believed he was about to be killed by armed robbers. (No-announce search warrant in the middle of the night). Found not guilty. Try that in America. They'd have given him the electric chair.
Again, even your right-wing Cato institute ranks Canada higher than the US on its Human Freedom Index.
On the post: Top ICE Lawyer Accused Of Identity Fraud Against Detained Immigrants
Re: Re: Re: Actually discredits Hispanics and lawyers. But besides blame all of ICE and its mission to keep out foreign invaders, I'm sure you blame "Republicans", Trump, and Russians too.
Canadians are citizens. We have all the rights that Americans have. Even your Cato Institute ranks Canada higher than the US on their Human Freedom Index.
The royals are ceremonial. On paper they have power, but only with the understanding that don't use it. Canadians are horrified by the thought of dropping the monarchy, but only because of the inevitable bickering over who would replace them on the currency. It'll be like a Trump/Cruz/Hillary debate lasting for years.
Welcome folks with hugs and free goodies, and they tend to be good friends. The US was built on large numbers of immigrants.
On the post: Top ICE Lawyer Accused Of Identity Fraud Against Detained Immigrants
Re: Actually discredits Hispanics and lawyers. But besides blame all of ICE and its mission to keep out foreign invaders, I'm sure you blame "Republicans", Trump, and Russians too.
Given that Canada has had refugees crossing our border by the thousands from the US over the last year or so, we have every right to comment on your immigration policy. 15,000 just in the first half of last year, many of them in the US legally but seeing the writing on the wall.
Given that ICE (in its earlier INS incarnation) has been responsible for kidnapping and torturing Canadians, we have every right to comment on them too.
Next >>