Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Jun 2018 @ 12:03pm
Power goes to the head, and destroys it
Man o man, how doth power corrupt. They want to control so much their grip keeps getting tighter and tighter, and the thing they wish to control just squeezes out of the tube.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Jun 2018 @ 8:49am
Re: Re:
40 years ago programmable thermostats weren't connected to the Internet. Other than a few minutes of discomfort if you come home at a time the thermostat wasn't programmed for, I see absolutely no reason for them to be connected now. Oh, except for the inane desire of the thermostat sellers to acquire information about you. That we, but apparently not they, can do without. No connectivity would solve the problem of someone hacking your furnace to blow up your house as well.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Jun 2018 @ 7:16am
This is a most difficult issue
The argument that the market will not solve this problem is probably correct, which leaves regulation, and that will incense some folks. However, even that leaves the problem of all the devices in existence that may or may not get fixed with that regulation. There are possibly a variety of reasons for that, that might include the company is now gone, the devices are so old as to not be considered important enough to update (and that age number might be laughable in and of itself) or that the company then folds in light of the extra cost and potential lack of income from selling information in the future, and therefore does nothing.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Jun 2018 @ 6:52am
Defamation? Maybe
Given the breadth of laws in this country, it is entirely possible that laws were broken, but have not yet been charged, and may not be charged as those in power perceive those charges to be beneficial to them, or not. On the other hand, those statements may or may not be defamatory now, but will or won't be in the future, depending upon the DOJ's future behavior.
Either way, asking for thousands of Twitter accounts information seems a bold, and quite possibly really stupid move, IMHO. Given that the subpoena has been withdrawn, at the very least those submitting the request have seen their actions as something less than appropriate.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Jun 2018 @ 4:18pm
Re: Re: Re:
I am fairly certain that blue is gone, whether that means in the metaphysical sense or just not with Techdirt anymore, the follow-up trolls just don't have his je ne sais quoi.
They try, but they all fall short. Blue had his own special way of failing to say anything sensible that the other just don't match. They are also wrong, but the just don't stand up to blue's standard of silliness.
What is really interesting is the blue is held up as a standard to be emulated. That one emulates down is a different method of emulation than I have been aware of in my life's experience. I hope I don't find others, though politics certainly offers the possibilities, or maybe hard core examples.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Jun 2018 @ 3:14pm
Re:
I miss John Fenderson. We went both head to head as well as in agreement at times. And sometimes my seeking his advice on technical issues.
Maybe notably we discussed baking, to the consternation of one of the Tim's (I am sorry I cannot recall which) who remonstrated us on not discussing the article at hand, but thought the discussion fascinating(?).
I do not know if John has suffered the same fate as Roger Strong, as yet, but we are all destined to meet that fate. Whether someone has the ability or opportunity to report to this community the passing of any contributors is beyond our control. That we acknowledge, either on the blog or just personally, that someone is missed might be important to us, whether they are still capable of comprehension of that acknowledgement is something mankind still does not know...factually.
Who the hell are you thinking about that came up in the last week who emulates out_of_the_blue, who was a troll that has only been emulated by other trolls and flagged by everyone else. Did you just learn his name?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 9 Jun 2018 @ 7:16am
Re:
I wonder if many Americans abhor the abuse of the government regardless of party affiliation? I bet they do, but I also think, not enough of them do...yet.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 Jun 2018 @ 6:25pm
Doesn't it all depend upon Where's The Harm,?
Along with Who's in Office?
If the information 'leaked' is merely an embarrassment to the government, no matter which level or agency, then there should be no harm to said leaker, and maybe even a reward. If the information leaked is actually about current, legitimate, relevant (all three are necessary) operations, then maybe some investigation might be appropriate. But the point of that investigation is to protect an ongoing operation, not to 'get' someone.
I think, however, that many of these investigations are about embarrassment, where the leaked information shows government wrongdoing rather than exposure of classified information that actually should be classified, rather than classified because someone might be embarrassed by the exposure, for whatever reason (be it corruption or ineptitude or cronyism or bribery by lobbyists or shear stupidity, or actual government wronging (looking at you NSA)). I have no problem with classifying information about ongoing, current operations that have actual national security implications, but the whole 'classifying just because' has gotten way, way out of hand. Think about how many CIA operations about trying to 'democratize' other nation states that went terribly, terribly wrong. Not only should these not have been classified, they should never have been attempted.
As to the point of going after media persons to make a case against a 'suspected leaker', it seems wholly inappropriate. The 1st Amendment makes it clear. The journalist is not the leaker, they are the disseminator. The leak came from elsewhere. To violate the 1st Amendment just in order to make a case against a suspected leaker does not comport with the meaning or implications of the 1st Amendment. It sure seems that law enforcement should first need to prove that 1) the information leaked was not only classified, but that it needed to be classified, 2) that the need for classification was not merely to prevent embarrassment or government wrongdoing or corruption or cronyism or other bad thing, but actually put current, needed operations in jeopardy, 3) that the need to prosecute 'someone' is more than just trying to stop leaking, which looked at another way might just be actually patriotic, 4) that going after a journalists records is actually pertinent to the case, which does not mean that it proves the case against the leaker, but that it is actually part of the case, meaning that the journalist was actually participating in espionage, and not just reporting.
As to the lying to Federal Agents, is there any way that one cannot be 'proven' to be lying to them? They ask questions in such ways as to allow a variety of answers, and any of those answers that do not comport with their perception of what the answer should be is deemed lying. One might honestly say where they thought they were on the 25th of a month several months ago and be wrong. That is not a lie, it is an error. But not to these guys.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 Jun 2018 @ 12:54pm
Make sure the target is on target
Actually, he was a victim of piracy, except it wasn't on the high seas. Someone stole his money, not just copied it.
It does however point up a few more problems. The first being the responsibility of fiduciaries. If there was required insurance, for example, those insurance companies would be auditing those fiduciaries they insure, and a lot less of this would happen. The second is, when one gets a lot of income, they have a tendency to turn things over to some money manager, and this might include either a power of attorney or signing rights on bank accounts. Whom should the blame for this fall upon?
There is a difference between getting financial advice, and turning your business over to someone else, without some protection, auditing, or follow through.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 6 Jun 2018 @ 3:25pm
Well, it's better than the FBI
Even in this day and age of recording devices in almost everyone's pockets the FBI still relies on two agents in the room taking notes...notes that may or may not reflect the actual conversation. In this case they had a recording, and then took notes to reflect what they wanted the notes to reflect. The big problem...they got caught. Oh, and what the hell was the lower court doing? Extended nap?
And the really, really sad part? The cops and prosecutor will suffer little if any consequences due to their illegal acts.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 6 Jun 2018 @ 10:50am
Countdown to local trolls claiming victory...
Any bets on our local trolls making the claim that under Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center that Techdirt is a public forum and since it is based in California that being flagged by the community is illegal due to
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 5 Jun 2018 @ 6:03pm
How to screw things up with no benefits
If I understand this correctly, the officers weren't faking test to put people in jail, they were just faking them to get the quota numbers they needed? No additional income from fines. No reduced numbers of drunk drivers on the road. Just meeting a quota to keep their jobs, and those cops have now proven they don't deserve their jobs...due to a severe lack of integrity.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 5 Jun 2018 @ 4:07pm
Reactive vs Proactive
The network Chicago is deploying involves thousands of hi-def cameras, automatic license plate readers, mugshot databases, and predictive policing software.
Hi-def cameras, automatic license plate readers, mugshot databases are all reactive. They might help catch someone after the fact. That predictive policing software, most likely a joke, and it will be a long, long, long time before it actually has sufficient data to prove its efficacy. In the meantime resources are being expended on things that will not prevent crime.
I would think Chicago, or any other municipality, would be better off spending their money on those things that are likely causes of crime. Poverty and homelessness come to mind. Getting the police under control might also help. There is also the likelihood that some portion of the corruption in Chicago is due to gangs or mob type operations that getting the police under control would mitigate.
Cameras and this other crap won't prevent. Do other things.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 1 Jun 2018 @ 7:34pm
Re: Told you kids for years that corporations have ZERO right to
While I despise the collection of personal data by any company, or the government, your method of displaying your angst is not going to change anyone's mind. Try your particular manner of speaking on your legislative representatives, see what it gets you. Try a more moderate tone, and see what that brings. It will take a whole lot more than just you making those calls, or written messages, maybe you could try to convince your friends (do you have any?) and neighbors to help. Remember, you get more with honey than with vinegar. Do you even know what that means, or how to do it? One gets the populace to move by informing them and convincing them, not by berating them. Look to folks like Dr. Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi for examples.
On the post: High School Student's Speech About Campus Sexual Assault Gets Widespread Attention After School Cuts Her Mic
Re: Re: Re: Your notion of Public Forums is not consistent except with YOU!
On the post: High School Student's Speech About Campus Sexual Assault Gets Widespread Attention After School Cuts Her Mic
Power goes to the head, and destroys it
On the post: Yet Another Study Shows The Internet Of Things Is A Privacy And Security Dumpster Fire
Re: Re:
On the post: Yet Another Study Shows The Internet Of Things Is A Privacy And Security Dumpster Fire
This is a most difficult issue
On the post: Attorneys In Seth Rich-Linked Defamation Case Demand Identifying Info Of Thousands Of Twitter Users [Updated]
Defamation? Maybe
Either way, asking for thousands of Twitter accounts information seems a bold, and quite possibly really stupid move, IMHO. Given that the subpoena has been withdrawn, at the very least those submitting the request have seen their actions as something less than appropriate.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt, Plus A Note From Mike
Re: Re: Re:
They try, but they all fall short. Blue had his own special way of failing to say anything sensible that the other just don't match. They are also wrong, but the just don't stand up to blue's standard of silliness.
What is really interesting is the blue is held up as a standard to be emulated. That one emulates down is a different method of emulation than I have been aware of in my life's experience. I hope I don't find others, though politics certainly offers the possibilities, or maybe hard core examples.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt, Plus A Note From Mike
Re:
Maybe notably we discussed baking, to the consternation of one of the Tim's (I am sorry I cannot recall which) who remonstrated us on not discussing the article at hand, but thought the discussion fascinating(?).
I do not know if John has suffered the same fate as Roger Strong, as yet, but we are all destined to meet that fate. Whether someone has the ability or opportunity to report to this community the passing of any contributors is beyond our control. That we acknowledge, either on the blog or just personally, that someone is missed might be important to us, whether they are still capable of comprehension of that acknowledgement is something mankind still does not know...factually.
Who the hell are you thinking about that came up in the last week who emulates out_of_the_blue, who was a troll that has only been emulated by other trolls and flagged by everyone else. Did you just learn his name?
On the post: FBI Hoovered Up Two Years Of A Journalist's Phone And Email Records To Hunt Down A Leaker
Re: Re: black bag jobs R us
I do like the way he turns an article about one subject into his personal rant about him. Right on point.
On the post: FBI Hoovered Up Two Years Of A Journalist's Phone And Email Records To Hunt Down A Leaker
Re:
On the post: FBI Hoovered Up Two Years Of A Journalist's Phone And Email Records To Hunt Down A Leaker
Doesn't it all depend upon Where's The Harm,?
Along with Who's in Office?
If the information 'leaked' is merely an embarrassment to the government, no matter which level or agency, then there should be no harm to said leaker, and maybe even a reward. If the information leaked is actually about current, legitimate, relevant (all three are necessary) operations, then maybe some investigation might be appropriate. But the point of that investigation is to protect an ongoing operation, not to 'get' someone.
I think, however, that many of these investigations are about embarrassment, where the leaked information shows government wrongdoing rather than exposure of classified information that actually should be classified, rather than classified because someone might be embarrassed by the exposure, for whatever reason (be it corruption or ineptitude or cronyism or bribery by lobbyists or shear stupidity, or actual government wronging (looking at you NSA)). I have no problem with classifying information about ongoing, current operations that have actual national security implications, but the whole 'classifying just because' has gotten way, way out of hand. Think about how many CIA operations about trying to 'democratize' other nation states that went terribly, terribly wrong. Not only should these not have been classified, they should never have been attempted.
As to the point of going after media persons to make a case against a 'suspected leaker', it seems wholly inappropriate. The 1st Amendment makes it clear. The journalist is not the leaker, they are the disseminator. The leak came from elsewhere. To violate the 1st Amendment just in order to make a case against a suspected leaker does not comport with the meaning or implications of the 1st Amendment. It sure seems that law enforcement should first need to prove that 1) the information leaked was not only classified, but that it needed to be classified, 2) that the need for classification was not merely to prevent embarrassment or government wrongdoing or corruption or cronyism or other bad thing, but actually put current, needed operations in jeopardy, 3) that the need to prosecute 'someone' is more than just trying to stop leaking, which looked at another way might just be actually patriotic, 4) that going after a journalists records is actually pertinent to the case, which does not mean that it proves the case against the leaker, but that it is actually part of the case, meaning that the journalist was actually participating in espionage, and not just reporting.
As to the lying to Federal Agents, is there any way that one cannot be 'proven' to be lying to them? They ask questions in such ways as to allow a variety of answers, and any of those answers that do not comport with their perception of what the answer should be is deemed lying. One might honestly say where they thought they were on the 25th of a month several months ago and be wrong. That is not a lie, it is an error. But not to these guys.
On the post: Chuck Palahniuk Apologizes For Blaming Piracy For His Business Partner Stealing His Money
Make sure the target is on target
It does however point up a few more problems. The first being the responsibility of fiduciaries. If there was required insurance, for example, those insurance companies would be auditing those fiduciaries they insure, and a lot less of this would happen. The second is, when one gets a lot of income, they have a tendency to turn things over to some money manager, and this might include either a power of attorney or signing rights on bank accounts. Whom should the blame for this fall upon?
There is a difference between getting financial advice, and turning your business over to someone else, without some protection, auditing, or follow through.
On the post: Court Tosses Out Silly Trollish Publicity Stunt Defamation Lawsuit
Re: Re: when far left and far right intersect
Seems to be true. From a piece by Scott Greenfield:
It doesn't need to be pretend either.
On the post: Court Calls Out Cops For Altering Interrogation Transcript To Hide Suspect's Request For A Lawyer
Well, it's better than the FBI
And the really, really sad part? The cops and prosecutor will suffer little if any consequences due to their illegal acts.
On the post: Court Not At All Impressed By Chuck Johnson's Silly Lawsuit Against Twitter, Plans To Grant Anti-SLAPP Win To Twitter
Re: Re: Re: Simple formulas
≠
U+2260 NOT EQUAL TO
General Character Properties
In Unicode since: 1.1
Unicode category: Symbol, Math
Canonical decomposition: = U+003D EQUALS SIGN + ̸ U+0338 COMBINING LONG SOLIDUS OVERLAY
Various Useful Representations
UTF-8: 0xE2 0x89 0xA0
UTF-16: 0x2260
C octal escaped UTF-8: \342\211\240
XML decimal entity:
Annotations and Cross References
See also:
• = U+003D EQUALS SIGN
• ǂ U+01C2 LATIN LETTER ALVEOLAR CLICK
Equivalents:
• = U+003D EQUALS SIGN ̸ U+0338 COMBINING LONG SOLIDUS OVERLAY
On the post: Court Not At All Impressed By Chuck Johnson's Silly Lawsuit Against Twitter, Plans To Grant Anti-SLAPP Win To Twitter
Re: Simple formulas
On the post: Court Not At All Impressed By Chuck Johnson's Silly Lawsuit Against Twitter, Plans To Grant Anti-SLAPP Win To Twitter
Countdown to local trolls claiming victory...
Any bets on our local trolls making the claim that under Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center that Techdirt is a public forum and since it is based in California that being flagged by the community is illegal due to
the California constitution that Techdirt's rules about flagging are unreasonable?
Three...Two...One...
On the post: Boys In Blew: Australian Cops Caught Faking 258,000 Breathalyzer Tests
How to screw things up with no benefits
On the post: 30,000 Cameras Can't Be Wrong: Chicago Banks On Surveillance To Solve Violence Problem
Reactive vs Proactive
Hi-def cameras, automatic license plate readers, mugshot databases are all reactive. They might help catch someone after the fact. That predictive policing software, most likely a joke, and it will be a long, long, long time before it actually has sufficient data to prove its efficacy. In the meantime resources are being expended on things that will not prevent crime.
I would think Chicago, or any other municipality, would be better off spending their money on those things that are likely causes of crime. Poverty and homelessness come to mind. Getting the police under control might also help. There is also the likelihood that some portion of the corruption in Chicago is due to gangs or mob type operations that getting the police under control would mitigate.
Cameras and this other crap won't prevent. Do other things.
On the post: Egyptian Gov't Arrests Journalist Who Exposed Brutality; Will Use Social Media Suspensions As Evidence Against Him
Re: Techdirt continues ignore Israel shot 60 DEAD wounds over 1000.
On the post: Judge OKs Class Action Status For Illinoisans Claiming Facebook Violated State Privacy Law
Re: Told you kids for years that corporations have ZERO right to
Next >>