Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 1 Jun 2018 @ 6:38pm
Re:
Well, they are not on the '95' list, and those agents that have been arrested and charged are part of an ongoing investigation, so they cannot release those names. Those investigations will be ongoing for the foreseeable, and the unforeseeable future. Breath holding is not recommended.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 1 Jun 2018 @ 6:35pm
You call that EVIDENCE? LOL
So social media accounts were taken down with the 'policy violation' equivalent of a DMCA (accusation with any corroboration) and THAT is evidence in a court case? Yes I understand that the court is in Egypt and they don't have the same kind of protections that other countries do. Never the less, their 'evidence' should still pass some level of a laugh test, even if the sense of humor is somewhat stilted.
In a regime as authoritarian as Egypt's, one would think they could come up with something better. I mean, actual straight forward lies would be better.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 1 Jun 2018 @ 6:10pm
Re: Any one?
Now that might be an interesting exercise. Invite 4 federal judges (2 male, 2 female) 4 Congress critters (1 male, 1 female republican and 1 male, 1 female democrat, members of the leadership would be better) along with a mix of senior three letter agency types, both male and female to a soiree in say Antigua. They all have to show up for the same commercial flight and there could be many, many, many cellphones there to record their reactions.
It won't happen, of course, but if it did, I bet some things would change thereafter.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 1 Jun 2018 @ 2:40pm
Re: Re:
I am beginning to think that they do understand it. What is hard is how they twist and turn to find ways to find exceptions that, at least to them, sound plausible.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 1 Jun 2018 @ 10:59am
Muppet Murder Madness
Now, if Miss Piggy was to go after Kermit and The Cookie Monster with, oh let's say a blowtorch, and that had been the premise of the movie, then the Sesame Workshop folks might have had some argument, though it might not have been trademark.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 1 Jun 2018 @ 10:00am
More uses for Kodi than streaming.
I use Kodi, and I don't stream anything. I use it to access my library of videos and music. It is installed on a Raspberry Pi with LibreElec (a fork of OpenElec, as OpenElec stopped updating and LibreElec is) as the underlying operating system.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 May 2018 @ 6:54pm
Re: Auto Qualified Immunity...just need to assert it...Granted
Oh, and let me add:
"Civilization rests on the principle that we treat our criminals better than they treated their victims. (Person of interest S3E10 @ 41;51)"
This courts actions does not seem particularly civilized. Which ones were the criminals...again? While that platitude is correct, letting criminals off because they wear badges of some sort is not civilized. Treat the better, sure. Let them off entirely, give them an excuse to absolve their obviously criminal behavior? Absolutely not.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 May 2018 @ 5:15pm
Auto Qualified Immunity...just need to assert it...Granted
"Both motions for protective orders noted that the Doctors had asserted qualified immunity."
So all it takes is someone to ask for qualified immunity (qualifications that should exist only with very, very, very and previously specified particulars) and they get it? No suggestion that maybe they should do something to prove that their 'qualifications' actually exist?
“One of the most salient benefits of qualified immunity is protection from pretrial discovery . . . .”
Could not the district court do some discovery 'in camera' or what ever the lawyers call private, for the courts eyes only, then allow the failure of written directions, names of agents, or other salient, probative points to be available for the plaintiff (the one who filed suit in this case)? Of course that would tie the appeals courts hands in putting another nail in the 4th Amendment coffin.
I, along with a lot of other folks, just don't understand what is so difficult to understand:
U.S. Constitution
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 29 May 2018 @ 1:35pm
Re:
I am surprised we haven't heard more from the online news organizations in the EU. Or are they expecting Google to make up for additional loss of ad revenue?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 May 2018 @ 6:59pm
Privacy first, income second
I have gotten a bunch of those emails about changes in different organizations privacy policy. The problem, as I see it, is that they basically all want to tell us about what they collect and how they use it. The problem with that is that they collect it and use it.
I understand that there are many free functions available on the Internet, and that those functions are funded by making use of information collected. That information goes to advertisers, companies that want to advertise, and other groups with possibly more nefarious motives.
I don't have an answer, but I bet someone will...eventually. Private information should remain private. Just because you connect to some website, they should not be able, or willing, to vacuum up every tidbit they can. I understand that this was the most available and lucrative source for income, to date, but there has to be a better way, or better ways. If we take away the ability to collect personal data, and here I am not talking about just the internet, but also those loyalty cards at the grocery stores, and your credit card data, and your phone data, etc., then the economy will change... a lot. But, I bet that 'they' will find a way to fund their operations.
Yes there will be fallout in the process of changing over to some new way to fund some sites, a.k.a creative destruction. But I bet, in the long run, there will be fewer scam sites and more quality in the things we see on the Internet as those organizations find ways to 'connect with fans and give them reasons to buy' or maybe, even maybe more importantly, they find advertisers who value the message or service and THEY support the sites, which would be sending the 'buy' part in another direction, a supporter rather than a user. I don't pretend to know the final answer. I do know that I don't appreciate all this collecting.
Do I use sites that, at least in theory (I do do things to block them), use my private information? Yes. Will I continue to? Yes. Do I want them to change. Also YES.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 May 2018 @ 6:59pm
Privacy first, income second
I have gotten a bunch of those emails about changes in different organizations privacy policy. The problem, as I see it, is that they basically all want to tell us about what they collect and how they use it. The problem with that is that they collect it and use it.
I understand that there are many free functions available on the Internet, and that those functions are funded by making use of information collected. That information goes to advertisers, companies that want to advertise, and other groups with possibly more nefarious motives.
I don't have an answer, but I bet someone will...eventually. Private information should remain private. Just because you connect to some website, they should not be able, or willing, to vacuum up every tidbit they can. I understand that this was the most available and lucrative source for income, to date, but there has to be a better way, or better ways. If we take away the ability to collect personal data, and here I am not talking about just the internet, but also those loyalty cards at the grocery stores, and your credit card data, and your phone data, etc., then the economy will change... a lot. But, I bet that 'they' will find a way to fund their operations.
Yes there will be fallout in the process of changing over to some new way to fund some sites, a.k.a creative destruction. But I bet, in the long run, there will be fewer scam sites and more quality in the things we see on the Internet as those organizations find ways to 'connect with fans and give them reasons to buy' or maybe, even maybe more importantly, they find advertisers who value the message or service and THEY support the sites, which would be sending the 'buy' part in another direction, a supporter rather than a user. I don't pretend to know the final answer. I do know that I don't appreciate all this collecting.
Do I use sites that, at least in theory (I do do things to block them), use my private information? Yes. Will I continue to? Yes. Do I want them to change. Also YES.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 May 2018 @ 6:04pm
Re: Re: Uhm, no, once instance isn't justification of paranoia
Not really. If it doesn't get discussed, then it won't get fixed. Fixed is a long way off, but we will never get there if we don't discuss it. Every journey starts with a single, or maybe multiple steps.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 May 2018 @ 5:26pm
Re:
I am much of the same mind, except for WiFi. For that I use a 64 digit randomly selected password comprised of lowercase, uppercase, and numbers (my router (Tomato OS) did that for me). Rather than trying to type it, I use copy and paste for those few devices I allow access (though I had to type it into my HP printer until it became impossible to get ink for that, and it got tossed). Some devices don't allow for a 64 digit password, my Roku for example, so it doesn't get used anymore.
On the post: TSA Has Been Compiling A Shitlist Of Travelers It Just Doesn't Like
Re:
On the post: Egyptian Gov't Arrests Journalist Who Exposed Brutality; Will Use Social Media Suspensions As Evidence Against Him
You call that EVIDENCE? LOL
In a regime as authoritarian as Egypt's, one would think they could come up with something better. I mean, actual straight forward lies would be better.
On the post: FCC Wants Ebay, Amazon To Crack Down On Kodi-Based Pirate TV Boxes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: 11th Circuit Says No Reasonable Suspicion Needed For Invasive Device Searches At The Border
Re: Any one?
It won't happen, of course, but if it did, I bet some things would change thereafter.
On the post: 11th Circuit Says No Reasonable Suspicion Needed For Invasive Device Searches At The Border
Re: Re:
On the post: Six More J20 Protest Prosecutions Dismissed As Gov't Admits To Hiding Exculpatory Evidence From Defendants
Question
On the post: S Is For Streisand: Sesame Street Decides To Offer Free Promotion To R-Rated Muppet Satire By Filing Trademark Claim
Muppet Murder Madness
On the post: FCC Wants Ebay, Amazon To Crack Down On Kodi-Based Pirate TV Boxes
Re: Re: More uses for Kodi than streaming.
On the post: FCC Wants Ebay, Amazon To Crack Down On Kodi-Based Pirate TV Boxes
More uses for Kodi than streaming.
On the post: Court Has No Problem With Multiple Invasive Probings In Search Of Drugs That Didn't Exist
Re: Auto Qualified Immunity...just need to assert it...Granted
Oh, and let me add:
This courts actions does not seem particularly civilized. Which ones were the criminals...again? While that platitude is correct, letting criminals off because they wear badges of some sort is not civilized. Treat the better, sure. Let them off entirely, give them an excuse to absolve their obviously criminal behavior? Absolutely not.
On the post: Court Has No Problem With Multiple Invasive Probings In Search Of Drugs That Didn't Exist
Auto Qualified Immunity...just need to assert it...Granted
So all it takes is someone to ask for qualified immunity (qualifications that should exist only with very, very, very and previously specified particulars) and they get it? No suggestion that maybe they should do something to prove that their 'qualifications' actually exist?
Could not the district court do some discovery 'in camera' or what ever the lawyers call private, for the courts eyes only, then allow the failure of written directions, names of agents, or other salient, probative points to be available for the plaintiff (the one who filed suit in this case)? Of course that would tie the appeals courts hands in putting another nail in the 4th Amendment coffin.
I, along with a lot of other folks, just don't understand what is so difficult to understand:
Seems pretty clear to me.
On the post: EU Parliament's Own Website Violates The GDPR
Re:
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: May 20th - 26th
Re:
On the post: Amazon Alexa Instantaneously Justifies Years Of Surveillance Paranoia
Re:
On the post: The GDPR: Ghastly, Dumb, Paralyzing Regulation It's Hard To Celebrate
Privacy first, income second
I have gotten a bunch of those emails about changes in different organizations privacy policy. The problem, as I see it, is that they basically all want to tell us about what they collect and how they use it. The problem with that is that they collect it and use it.
I understand that there are many free functions available on the Internet, and that those functions are funded by making use of information collected. That information goes to advertisers, companies that want to advertise, and other groups with possibly more nefarious motives.
I don't have an answer, but I bet someone will...eventually. Private information should remain private. Just because you connect to some website, they should not be able, or willing, to vacuum up every tidbit they can. I understand that this was the most available and lucrative source for income, to date, but there has to be a better way, or better ways. If we take away the ability to collect personal data, and here I am not talking about just the internet, but also those loyalty cards at the grocery stores, and your credit card data, and your phone data, etc., then the economy will change... a lot. But, I bet that 'they' will find a way to fund their operations.
Yes there will be fallout in the process of changing over to some new way to fund some sites, a.k.a creative destruction. But I bet, in the long run, there will be fewer scam sites and more quality in the things we see on the Internet as those organizations find ways to 'connect with fans and give them reasons to buy' or maybe, even maybe more importantly, they find advertisers who value the message or service and THEY support the sites, which would be sending the 'buy' part in another direction, a supporter rather than a user. I don't pretend to know the final answer. I do know that I don't appreciate all this collecting.
Do I use sites that, at least in theory (I do do things to block them), use my private information? Yes. Will I continue to? Yes. Do I want them to change. Also YES.
On the post: The GDPR: Ghastly, Dumb, Paralyzing Regulation It's Hard To Celebrate
Privacy first, income second
I have gotten a bunch of those emails about changes in different organizations privacy policy. The problem, as I see it, is that they basically all want to tell us about what they collect and how they use it. The problem with that is that they collect it and use it.
I understand that there are many free functions available on the Internet, and that those functions are funded by making use of information collected. That information goes to advertisers, companies that want to advertise, and other groups with possibly more nefarious motives.
I don't have an answer, but I bet someone will...eventually. Private information should remain private. Just because you connect to some website, they should not be able, or willing, to vacuum up every tidbit they can. I understand that this was the most available and lucrative source for income, to date, but there has to be a better way, or better ways. If we take away the ability to collect personal data, and here I am not talking about just the internet, but also those loyalty cards at the grocery stores, and your credit card data, and your phone data, etc., then the economy will change... a lot. But, I bet that 'they' will find a way to fund their operations.
Yes there will be fallout in the process of changing over to some new way to fund some sites, a.k.a creative destruction. But I bet, in the long run, there will be fewer scam sites and more quality in the things we see on the Internet as those organizations find ways to 'connect with fans and give them reasons to buy' or maybe, even maybe more importantly, they find advertisers who value the message or service and THEY support the sites, which would be sending the 'buy' part in another direction, a supporter rather than a user. I don't pretend to know the final answer. I do know that I don't appreciate all this collecting.
Do I use sites that, at least in theory (I do do things to block them), use my private information? Yes. Will I continue to? Yes. Do I want them to change. Also YES.
On the post: The GDPR: Ghastly, Dumb, Paralyzing Regulation It's Hard To Celebrate
To begin with, requisite
And...it seems he got it all right.
On the post: Amazon Alexa Instantaneously Justifies Years Of Surveillance Paranoia
Re: Re: Uhm, no, once instance isn't justification of paranoia
On the post: Amazon Alexa Instantaneously Justifies Years Of Surveillance Paranoia
Re: Re: Meh...
On the post: Amazon Alexa Instantaneously Justifies Years Of Surveillance Paranoia
Re:
Next >>