I postulate this question to you....would you like US citizens if a few came over on a Visa to your country to carry out a terrorist attack only to hear from people who do not understand your country's laws concerning citizenship that since they had a visa they had similar criminal rights as you do in accordance to the same laws you are bound when they should be treated like terrorists under NATO rules?
What does this have to do with the link I posted? Did you read the article? It's about more than just our response to terrorism. It also discusses why we have so many people dying each day from guns.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Collecting without approval
Unclaimed flattrs are not be taken from your monthly budget, until they sign up. The month the creators signs up, is the month that flattr will be a part of your budget. The creator will then get the money on the 10th the coming month.
Yes, I get that. But I was suggesting a reason Twitter might not want the service. A fan can flattr someone, but if that someone hasn't indicated he/she wants to be part of the service, then flattr is being connected to someone who hasn't asked to participate.
But let me clarify, then. You're saying that if I flattr thousands of people who haven't signed up for flattr, then you aren't taking any money from me? I DON'T need to pay you if no one I want to flattr is using your service?
Or are you saying that I DO need to pay you, but the money doesn't go to any people if they haven't signed up for the service and it sits in an escrow account?
I find a lot of the "us versus them" discussions contribute to the problem rather than getting rid of it. We may have to look at the entire American culture, not just the "them" within American culture that we don't like. This article suggests reasons for our reactions to the world within our borders and outside our borders. Read the whole thing, not just this very brief excerpt.
The debates about what government can or can't do just haven't caught up to that yet.
I'll go a step further and say that I think companies KNOW this. I view the "anti-government" crusade as a diversionary tactic. Companies have the info. They are using it to their advantage. If they paint government as the issue, maybe you won't notice what the companies are doing with your data.
Look, we've just seen the extent to which citizens have gotten involved in police work. Break down the walls between government, private enterprise, and citizens and we'll see how it all turns out. I'm hoping more work will be done by citizens to monitor environmental hazards. Laws may try to prevent it, but if leaks are happening on your property and you're shooting photos on your property and then posting them online, it is going to get out.
The other point I have been trying to make is that these days nothing is really secret anymore. So much of what we do is being sent to companies which are monitoring it that it's becoming harder to fully function in the world in total secrecy. That's also why I keep saying that the wall between companies and government is an artificial distinction. When the info/data/monitoring is out there and often is already public or for sale, then saying the government can't have access to it is unrealistic. There are ways around that. In the push to make everything available to them, companies have also opened everything up so that in one form or another everything is available to everyone. The debates about what government can or can't do just haven't caught up to that yet.
You can have all that information, and gloat over it like Scrooge McDuck gloats over the money in his bin, but you can't use it.
I understand how secret means it can't disclose what you are doing to the public, but what prevents you from "using" it? Companies use processes all the time that they don't disclose.
This is a good article about the new world of crime solving: traditional institutions aided by crowdsourcing and citizen-owned tools at the scene. It's not really a situation where government acts alone anymore.
The more I read about the stalemates in Congress over control and the more I read in places like Techdirt decrying government involvement in security, the more I believe government will get out of the business and just hand it over to contractors doing all the online monitoring. The info is available; it's just who sees it first and decides what to do with it. Why bother with search warrants when the cloud sees everything anyway? If you can track and monitor everyone who turns up anywhere, then figure out how to use it to improve national security and safety. If Google wires the country and knows what everyone is doing on every device they own and if AI and big data become so sophisticated that they allow us to know who is likely to do what when and where, we don't need politicians debating what has already been facilitated with technology. Private companies are moving much, much faster than government in this regard.
Citizen journalism is here to stay. But we'll also have situations like this. And it will be possible to manipulate the frenzy with false plants.
Family Of Missing Student Falsely Named As Boston Suspect Bombarded With Hate Messages - Business Insider: "All the authorities knew he was not a suspect. It was just people on Twitter and it went wild. It was the most horrific experience and I wouldnﾒt wish it on anybody. These kind of rumours must be corroborated with the authorities, but it was just individuals speculating and radio talk shows. It was the most harmful experience for 18 hours," he added.
About an hour ago I uploaded a link to a story about how photos taken by by-standers proved helpful to the FBI. It's awaiting moderation, so I don't know if this one will get through, either.
I wonder how juries will be affected as more instantaneous info becomes the norm. We've always had potential jurors exposed to info before they are picked, so it isn't new, just the degree to which they are likely to see and perhaps be influenced by a much bigger pool of info and opinions.
Boston Bomb Victim in Photo Helped Identify Suspects - Bloomberg: Just before 3 p.m. on April 15, "Bauman was waiting among the crowd for his girlfriend to cross the finish line at the Boston Marathon. A man wearing a cap, sunglasses and a black jacket over a hooded sweatshirt looked at Jeff, 27, and dropped a bag at his feet, his brother, Chris Bauman, said in an interview. Two and a half minutes later, the bag exploded, tearing Jeff’s legs apart."
Is there actual footage of them doing what they were accused of? I'm not saying they didn't do this, but i am hesitant to rush to judgement for the "evidence" the media has not produced.
Someone who got both his legs blown off was able to describe them to police in detail, so yes, there was more than just the video.
Think about it. Gun manufacturers sell more product by convincing citizens they will have to protect themselves. Private prison operators make more money to encouraging laws that lock up more people. Defense contractors make more money by encouraging the country to spend more on defense. And so on. I don't think politicians operate without the support from some element of private industry. So whatever laws that do or don't get passed enable financial gain somewhere in the system.
The data gathering/monitoring industries may want government to get out of the way, but they will make money selling that data and all that goes along with it. I don't think you can separate government in the US or in any country from the companies/people who will profit from the laws or lack of them. I am inclined to think that these days multinationals have far more influence globally than nation-states.
Blaming politicians is convenient, but I'd look more closely at the political/economic systems that have put them there in the first place.
The difference? With civilians incidentally filming me, I know they won't watch my every move as it happens to ensure I'm not breaking some silly law that nobody follows (jaywalking in suburban areas), aren't freaking out because I look middle eastern (well, some may), and won't keep the footage once there was no attack.
I assume the opposite. I figure the government doesn't have the manpower to watch everything, but huge corporations do, plus the computer power to match faces and info across lots of different data. I think the real surveillance is already coming from the private sector. And at some point politicians won't bother to debate this. They'll just let the government work with private companies serving as security contractors. The government won't get in the middle of it. Private enterprise will do all the dirty work and if a crime is committed (hopefully private enterprise will prevent it in the first place), private enterprise will identify the suspects and turn them over to the authorities at the appropriate time.
What I am concerned about in letting citizen groups take over crime prevention is a vigilante mentality. But perhaps we're headed there, too.
On the post: Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea
Re: Re: A really good piece
What does this have to do with the link I posted? Did you read the article? It's about more than just our response to terrorism. It also discusses why we have so many people dying each day from guns.
On the post: Unfortunate: Twitter Forces Flattr To Stop Its Twitter Integration
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Collecting without approval
Yes, I get that. But I was suggesting a reason Twitter might not want the service. A fan can flattr someone, but if that someone hasn't indicated he/she wants to be part of the service, then flattr is being connected to someone who hasn't asked to participate.
But let me clarify, then. You're saying that if I flattr thousands of people who haven't signed up for flattr, then you aren't taking any money from me? I DON'T need to pay you if no one I want to flattr is using your service?
Or are you saying that I DO need to pay you, but the money doesn't go to any people if they haven't signed up for the service and it sits in an escrow account?
On the post: Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea
A really good piece
Is American Nonviolence Possible? - NYTimes.com: "Competitive individualism, insecurity, neoliberalism: the triad undergirding our penchant for violence."
On the post: CISPA Passes The House, As 288 Representatives Don't Want To Protect Your Privacy
Re: Re: Privacy is a thing of the past, sadly.
On the post: Former DHS Official Says Boston Bombing Proves ACLU & EFF Are Wrong About Surveillance And CISPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Former DHS Official Says Boston Bombing Proves ACLU & EFF Are Wrong About Surveillance And CISPA
Re: Re: The judicial process now
Runner, spectator capture marathon suspects on camera | Metro News - WCVB Home
On the post: Former DHS Official Says Boston Bombing Proves ACLU & EFF Are Wrong About Surveillance And CISPA
Re: Re: Re:
I'll go a step further and say that I think companies KNOW this. I view the "anti-government" crusade as a diversionary tactic. Companies have the info. They are using it to their advantage. If they paint government as the issue, maybe you won't notice what the companies are doing with your data.
Look, we've just seen the extent to which citizens have gotten involved in police work. Break down the walls between government, private enterprise, and citizens and we'll see how it all turns out. I'm hoping more work will be done by citizens to monitor environmental hazards. Laws may try to prevent it, but if leaks are happening on your property and you're shooting photos on your property and then posting them online, it is going to get out.
On the post: Former DHS Official Says Boston Bombing Proves ACLU & EFF Are Wrong About Surveillance And CISPA
Re: Re:
On the post: Former DHS Official Says Boston Bombing Proves ACLU & EFF Are Wrong About Surveillance And CISPA
Re:
I understand how secret means it can't disclose what you are doing to the public, but what prevents you from "using" it? Companies use processes all the time that they don't disclose.
On the post: Former DHS Official Says Boston Bombing Proves ACLU & EFF Are Wrong About Surveillance And CISPA
A good summary of what I have been posting
Boston Bombers Caught by Cops, Community, Cameras
On the post: Former DHS Official Says Boston Bombing Proves ACLU & EFF Are Wrong About Surveillance And CISPA
Private contractors will take over the monitoring
Lindsey Graham: FBI 'Dropped Ball' In Boston - Business Insider
On the post: It's Not About Whether Amateur Internet Journalism Is Good Or Bad, But That It Happens And Will Continue To Happen
Where we're headed
Family Of Missing Student Falsely Named As Boston Suspect Bombarded With Hate Messages - Business Insider: "All the authorities knew he was not a suspect. It was just people on Twitter and it went wild. It was the most horrific experience and I wouldnﾒt wish it on anybody. These kind of rumours must be corroborated with the authorities, but it was just individuals speculating and radio talk shows. It was the most harmful experience for 18 hours," he added.
On the post: Former DHS Official Says Boston Bombing Proves ACLU & EFF Are Wrong About Surveillance And CISPA
Re: The judicial process now
"Runner, spectator capture marathon suspects on camera. Photographer uses time stamp to narrow search of crowd."
On the post: Former DHS Official Says Boston Bombing Proves ACLU & EFF Are Wrong About Surveillance And CISPA
The judicial process now
I wonder how juries will be affected as more instantaneous info becomes the norm. We've always had potential jurors exposed to info before they are picked, so it isn't new, just the degree to which they are likely to see and perhaps be influenced by a much bigger pool of info and opinions.
Tragedy In Real Time: Living A Terrible Week, Vicariously : NPR: "This week, these awful events have cemented the reality that the media is now everyone, anyone, with a computer or a smart phone, a Twitter account or a Facebook page."
On the post: Former DHS Official Says Boston Bombing Proves ACLU & EFF Are Wrong About Surveillance And CISPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Runner, spectator capture marathon suspects on camera | Metro News - WCVB Home
On the post: Former DHS Official Says Boston Bombing Proves ACLU & EFF Are Wrong About Surveillance And CISPA
Re: Re: Re: Re:
WATCH: Watertown Police Chief’s Epic Minute-By-Minute Account Of Deadly Manhunt | TPMDC: "In Thursday’s confrontation, Deveau described how the suspects allegedly shot Collier in his car then hijacked a separate vehicle, bragging to its owner about their role in Monday’s attack along the way.
'They said "We did the Boston marathon bombing and killed a police officer,"' Deveau recounted."
On the post: Former DHS Official Says Boston Bombing Proves ACLU & EFF Are Wrong About Surveillance And CISPA
Re: Re: Re:
Boston Bomb Victim in Photo Helped Identify Suspects - Bloomberg: Just before 3 p.m. on April 15, "Bauman was waiting among the crowd for his girlfriend to cross the finish line at the Boston Marathon. A man wearing a cap, sunglasses and a black jacket over a hooded sweatshirt looked at Jeff, 27, and dropped a bag at his feet, his brother, Chris Bauman, said in an interview. Two and a half minutes later, the bag exploded, tearing Jeff’s legs apart."
On the post: Former DHS Official Says Boston Bombing Proves ACLU & EFF Are Wrong About Surveillance And CISPA
Re: Re:
Someone who got both his legs blown off was able to describe them to police in detail, so yes, there was more than just the video.
On the post: Former DHS Official Says Boston Bombing Proves ACLU & EFF Are Wrong About Surveillance And CISPA
Re: Re:
The data gathering/monitoring industries may want government to get out of the way, but they will make money selling that data and all that goes along with it. I don't think you can separate government in the US or in any country from the companies/people who will profit from the laws or lack of them. I am inclined to think that these days multinationals have far more influence globally than nation-states.
Blaming politicians is convenient, but I'd look more closely at the political/economic systems that have put them there in the first place.
On the post: Former DHS Official Says Boston Bombing Proves ACLU & EFF Are Wrong About Surveillance And CISPA
Re:
I assume the opposite. I figure the government doesn't have the manpower to watch everything, but huge corporations do, plus the computer power to match faces and info across lots of different data. I think the real surveillance is already coming from the private sector. And at some point politicians won't bother to debate this. They'll just let the government work with private companies serving as security contractors. The government won't get in the middle of it. Private enterprise will do all the dirty work and if a crime is committed (hopefully private enterprise will prevent it in the first place), private enterprise will identify the suspects and turn them over to the authorities at the appropriate time.
What I am concerned about in letting citizen groups take over crime prevention is a vigilante mentality. But perhaps we're headed there, too.
Next >>