Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Feb 2018 @ 5:13pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: too glib
They could limit their collection and organization of information to those who OPT-IN. Which would by default eliminate anyone who is not a member, or ex-members, and everyone who is a member who does not explicitly give them permission to do so.
I realize that this methodology would be antithetical to their business model. It does point out how their business model needs adjusting. That is before some class action lawsuit about collecting information about non-customers forces them to. You know, a proactive PR position such as 'we are not actually evil'.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Feb 2018 @ 4:41pm
If it's bad then whom does it harm? Those doing it or all of us? If only them, then why do those doing it get to decide if it's bad?
There is a definitive distinction between whistleblowing and treason. That the people in positions of power either fail to discern that distinction, or fail to do so for ideological reasons is of import, but less so than that they fail to discern.
If something is leaked to another country, but is otherwise kept secret, that is treason. If something is leaked to a responsible person with the ability to do something about something that is wrong, or leaked to the entire world when course one fails, that is whistleblowing. That no action is taken on the information disclosed could not be classified as treasonous, it should be classified as illegal (what the actual charges should be would be up to someone with better legalese than I can muster). That actions are taken in the form of 'shooting the messenger' only harms the rest of us.
There needs to be some entity, separated from the government in some way that prevents the government from interfering, including how people are appointed/elected/hired for such office, that has the power to do something about wrongs done by the government. I know, a fourth estate that isn't the fourth estate, maybe a fifth estate because the fourth estate is failing in their, 'ahem' responsibilities. Possibly due to undue influence from the first estate, who actually has no responsibility to interfere, but does have some economic influence on that fourth estate. Where they should not have any influence.
Those persons whom are not treasonous, but mere whistleblowers should feel no harm from their actions. That includes how others within their current assignment interact with them, and especially managers who are responsible for performance reviews and immediate colleagues. No harm, no repercussions. Most difficult, but could be dealt with even if it takes an early retirement with full pay and benefits.
Possibly more important, those with any hand in blocking the information from reaching appropriate sources, or the public, or attempting retribution or trying to obscure the information being reported should suffer dire consequences. Those should include termination, and trial by jury for actions detrimental to the well being of the nation (let the legalese people define that better). Yeah, just what they would like to claim the crime the whistleblower committed was.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Feb 2018 @ 8:03am
Who is that?
My real name is 'Malicious Infarction'. I swear. My parents were nothing if not vindictive. All those 2:00AM feedings and the results of those feeding that wound up in my diapers.
This caused a certain amount of consternation as I matured. There were endless issues of school districts and teachers misspelling my name, calling me things I was not. Then there was the way other students treated me. Name calling was creative, to say the least. BTW, this had absolutely no impact on my personality, I am quite normal, depending on ones definition of normal.
Despite the above, things went well, until I tried to apply for a drivers license. The DMV absolutely refused to put that name on a government issued document. I had to go into court and get a legal name change, I chose 'Appropriate Misbehavior'. When that didn't work I went to the phone book and flipped open pages at random and picked first a first name and second a second name. Then back to court. The DMV finally issued my drivers license, but the fact of the matter is, it isn't my real name.
Now, about facial recognition...there is this plastic surgeon...
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Feb 2018 @ 7:24am
Re: Re:
One of the problems is that it is in Facebooks interest to have as many people on their service as possible. More eyeballs on more ads. It is not in their interest to strictly enforce rules that remove people from their service. Some of those rules, therefore, seem to be more PR than behavior conditioning.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Feb 2018 @ 10:03am
Re: Re:
Regardless of the '/s', there is some truth in your statement. The thing that is missing is 'only if it is taxed, and that tax is actually paid'. America First has a tendency to promote the profit and tax avoidance at the same time. What's a little contradiction. What's a little debt?
Oh, and this is a bipartisan point of view, though one could argue that one party is more egregious in their actions than the other.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Feb 2018 @ 9:18am
Reject a Congressional Request, What Could Happen?
According to this judge, the House Intelligence Committee has no responsibility over Intelligence. Those folks who might imitate the defunding of FISA courts altogether. While the FISA court might be created by Executive Order, the funding still comes from Congress. Obvious indications of a group who thinks they have more power than they actually have.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Feb 2018 @ 7:56am
Re:
While voting out anyone with an R by their names might change the way some laws are passed through the legislature, the one person, the one who appoints the FCC chair (and has to sign any law passed by the legislature, if he is willing) unfortunately isn't up for election this November.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 18 Feb 2018 @ 9:01am
Re: Re: legislative fix
As I said above, I don't actually expect it to happen. What my 'plan' is, is to wait for the electorate to be fed up sufficiently with our current 'system' to do something about it. No breath holding though.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 17 Feb 2018 @ 8:06am
Re: Re: legislative fix
If, and this is very very big if, legislatures made qualified immunity and good faith exceptions non viable excuses along with a requirement for law enforcement personnel to actually know they law they enforce, then the judiciary would have less wiggle room. They might come up with some new excuses, but these loopholes would be closed.
At the same time, if we constitutionally require all laws to be sunset every 7 years, after some time we would have fewer laws, maybe even few enough that law enforcement personnel might be able to remember them.
So, no, not just there 'ought to be a law', but adjustments to existing law so that justice actually happens.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 Feb 2018 @ 6:26pm
So, how does one go about making decisions without detailed instructions?
How does one spell anal retentively deficient? The court cites all the reasons one should not be allowed to do something, and then gives a pass because there was nothing on point due to the specific age of the child. 8, not OK. 11, not OK. 10, well there doesn't seem to be anything related to 10, so OK. Good grief!
Then there is the whole 'good faith exception', 'qualified immunity' thing. Where is the good faith when reasonable people think that cops should not only know the law they were hired to enforce, but know HOW to enforce those laws. Where is the qualification in them not actually knowing their jobs. They claim to be professional. They have professional associations and for some seriously wacky reasons we let them have unions (aka benevolent associations), another form of professional association.
Of course, there is also the double standard where we, not law enforcement professionals, have to know the law, but they, actual law enforcement professionals, are not required to. Is there anything out of line there?
These things need fixing legislatively. The courts have screwed it up enough. Could there be a legislative fix in the offing? Not bloody likely, given the current state of legislative affairs. To boot, we would need 51 of them, apparently, 50 states and then separately federal. No breath holding, the funeral business will have their crack at you soon enough.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 Feb 2018 @ 8:34pm
Vulnerabilities
What is seriously at issue here is that the TV viewing public actually believes what they saw on TV. It might extend from decades ago advertising where the 'kicker' was 'as seen on TV' where that merely meant there was an AD on TV at some time, but the public took it as some sort of endorsement. Hmm, shame on the public. And worse, it is still true.
This reaction, the tossing of actually safe cooking equipment, because some TV show exhibited an episode where a 'like' piece of equipment 'might' have caused some havoc just goes to show how vulnerable the general viewing public might be. I don't use Crock Pots, or any other 'slow cooker' but only because I was taught how to cook (retired professional chef here, hence the Toque next to my login), and don't need such contrivances. Which is not to say that they are not useful for others. I have used slow cooking methods, but in specific circumstances (18 hours for Prime Ribs or Turkeys, but we used higher temperatures for browning, and the reason for slow cooking was to reduce evaporation which gave a better yield in the end product which was generally served by the ounce), and with much different equipment. For the home cook, not looking to replicate a particular classical dish, they are fine, and useful.
I bet that political advertisers, whether actual political parties, or big money advocates of whatever, are just creaming in their pants over this reaction. It merely means that they can tell anyone anything and be believed. How sad.
Num, num, num, oooh, I saw it on TV...must be true/real, I gotta...well something or other cause I saw it on TV and it must be, well I saw it on TV, they wouldn't lie to me??? Would they???
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 Feb 2018 @ 7:45pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
I started commenting on this site close to twenty years ago. I began as an Anonymous Coward. Then, several year later I decided to distinguish myself using Anonymous Anonymous Coward. Then several years later I joined (I paid some monthly money and became an 'insider') and then my comments were cataloged.
I thought that my earlier comments might be incorporated into my cataloged comments, but that has not happened, for whatever reasons. I am not terribly concerned with that. But your position that some commenters that do not have all their comments logged in their profiles does not mean that they have not commented. It might mean that they commented and didn't bother to log in. It might mean that they didn't want to log in because they were replying to some bullshit that you posted and did not want to be denigrated by showing that they commented on some bullshit that you posted.
That I am commenting on your dispersion of other people for not logging all of their comments does not mean that I give you any credence for any of your comments (I generally and purposefully do not comment on your comments because I do actually believe that feeding trolls is harmful to the site, and proactively discourage such) and therefore make a habit of flagging your comments and moving on, without regard to anything you might say.
The pity of the above is that once in a great while you might have something useful to say, but you go about it in such a way that nobody actually listens.
If you think, for even one second, that I would respond to any response that you might have to this post, you are not thinking. And seemingly, never have.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 Feb 2018 @ 7:12pm
Biometrics
Whether used as passwords or personal identification or by 'legitimate law enforcement needs' (whatever those are vs whatever they should be) should not be a final, end all system to establish who someone is. I am much more than my DNA, or iris scan, or fingerprint. Each of those may be faked. Who I am is something much, much more. And, as the article points out biometrics are not changeable. But they are fake-able. Me, I am not as fakeable.
They might lead a legitimate, appropriately conducted, law enforcement investigation to look at me closer, but they are not, in and of themselves, indicators of criminality. There are too many ways for them to be faked to be indicators of actual guilt. Watch the many TV cop shows for various examples. I could have a stone cold unbreakable alibi verified by 50 other people. What do they do with their biometrics then?
Then there is the whole non law enforcement use, which should be illegal from the get go. Why should any non government agency have access to such information? Why (other than nefarious reasons) would they need to? It is my personal information. Mine! And unless someone gives me a compelling reason to give it to someone other than the government (and their compelling reasons have some extremely serous dubious intentions) then they should not have access to it, at any price. And if they do, then the decision to share it further is up to me, not them. Even if I derive some benefit from the sharing of information. Passing it along should be opt in, and not a blanket opt in, but a case by case opt in, with full disclosure as to who and why it is being shared as well as how it will be used.
My information is my information whether it is a part of doing business with another entity or not. It is still, my information. States should not share drivers license databases (photos in the case of biometrics), ISP's should not share IP addresses (potential location information, which does not mean a person, just a user, and the location might be which end point I choose for my VPN today), and phone carriers should not share location information (which might be someone to whom I lent my phone, but not me (which would be a great trick as I don't have a phone)) without a warrant. Under any circumstances. And, those warrants should be hard to come by, that is, no rubber stamping and the judge in question committing some interrogatory that verifies the probable cause in front of a clerk that takes down and records for posterity (no seals) everything said.
Now I realize this article is about India, and that their laws are not the same as US laws, but the underlying principles should not be different.
The big problem is getting the governments of the world to understand that they are not in control, and that at some point they will find out so. One way or another. Do they need to control criminal activity? Yes. Do they need these things to do so? No. Are there other ways to convict criminals and OMG 'terrorists'? Yes. They used to do so before all this 'technology' came about. Sometime they did it well, and sometimes they did it conveniently and therefore incorrectly. Today, they should be doing it both correctly and inconveniently. Takes more effort? So what?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 Feb 2018 @ 6:09pm
Marketing 203
I am looking forward to the time when one IP trolling asshole sues another IP trolling asshole for copyright infringement over the methodology (written statements) of their claims. I know it isn't legal, as there is not actually a copyright claim in any court filing, but that doesn't preclude any member of Prenda from suing all of them, simply because there is no such thing as bad publicity.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 Feb 2018 @ 6:09pm
Marketing 203
I am looking forward to the time when one IP trolling asshole sues another IP trolling asshole for copyright infringement over the methodology (written statements) of their claims. I know it isn't legal, as there is not actually a copyright claim in any court filing, but that doesn't preclude any member of Prenda from suing all of them, simply because there is no such thing as bad publicity.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 Feb 2018 @ 10:11am
Learn about the fantastic benefits of copyright and the gatekeepers, now playing for young creators
It appears to me that Scholastic is just trying to educate young creators on the better aspects of copyright laws. When a publisher or recording studio strips a creator of their rights in order to get the 'product' out there, it is for the benefit of the creator.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 Feb 2018 @ 9:28am
Do the Hand Jive
Or, it's a matter of embarrassment. How does one introduce sock puppets in an open forum? Doing so in a closed session would preclude those with clearances to attend those session from disclosing sock puppetry. How many shades of red can Wray turn?
On the post: German Court Says Facebook's Real Names Policy Violates Users' Privacy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: too glib
I realize that this methodology would be antithetical to their business model. It does point out how their business model needs adjusting. That is before some class action lawsuit about collecting information about non-customers forces them to. You know, a proactive PR position such as 'we are not actually evil'.
On the post: Inspector General For Intelligence Community Buried Report Showing Whistleblower Retaliation
If it's bad then whom does it harm? Those doing it or all of us? If only them, then why do those doing it get to decide if it's bad?
If something is leaked to another country, but is otherwise kept secret, that is treason. If something is leaked to a responsible person with the ability to do something about something that is wrong, or leaked to the entire world when course one fails, that is whistleblowing. That no action is taken on the information disclosed could not be classified as treasonous, it should be classified as illegal (what the actual charges should be would be up to someone with better legalese than I can muster). That actions are taken in the form of 'shooting the messenger' only harms the rest of us.
There needs to be some entity, separated from the government in some way that prevents the government from interfering, including how people are appointed/elected/hired for such office, that has the power to do something about wrongs done by the government. I know, a fourth estate that isn't the fourth estate, maybe a fifth estate because the fourth estate is failing in their, 'ahem' responsibilities. Possibly due to undue influence from the first estate, who actually has no responsibility to interfere, but does have some economic influence on that fourth estate. Where they should not have any influence.
Those persons whom are not treasonous, but mere whistleblowers should feel no harm from their actions. That includes how others within their current assignment interact with them, and especially managers who are responsible for performance reviews and immediate colleagues. No harm, no repercussions. Most difficult, but could be dealt with even if it takes an early retirement with full pay and benefits.
Possibly more important, those with any hand in blocking the information from reaching appropriate sources, or the public, or attempting retribution or trying to obscure the information being reported should suffer dire consequences. Those should include termination, and trial by jury for actions detrimental to the well being of the nation (let the legalese people define that better). Yeah, just what they would like to claim the crime the whistleblower committed was.
On the post: German Court Says Facebook's Real Names Policy Violates Users' Privacy
Who is that?
This caused a certain amount of consternation as I matured. There were endless issues of school districts and teachers misspelling my name, calling me things I was not. Then there was the way other students treated me. Name calling was creative, to say the least. BTW, this had absolutely no impact on my personality, I am quite normal, depending on ones definition of normal.
Despite the above, things went well, until I tried to apply for a drivers license. The DMV absolutely refused to put that name on a government issued document. I had to go into court and get a legal name change, I chose 'Appropriate Misbehavior'. When that didn't work I went to the phone book and flipped open pages at random and picked first a first name and second a second name. Then back to court. The DMV finally issued my drivers license, but the fact of the matter is, it isn't my real name.
Now, about facial recognition...there is this plastic surgeon...
On the post: German Court Says Facebook's Real Names Policy Violates Users' Privacy
Re: Re:
On the post: Court Sends Cop Back To Prison For Bogus 'Contempt Of Cop' Arrest
Re:
It's the Freemasons.
No, that's not it, it's the Star Chamber...oh, wait, that has been renamed the Deep State.
Well, it's gotta be one of those, or yet another. The most important thing is that we agree that there be some conspiracy agoin' on.
Or not.
On the post: FCC Broadband Availability Data Derided As Inaccurate, 'Shameful'
Re: Re:
Oh, and this is a bipartisan point of view, though one could argue that one party is more egregious in their actions than the other.
On the post: FCC Broadband Availability Data Derided As Inaccurate, 'Shameful'
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Nunes Demands Copies Of FISA Docs About Steele Dossier Warrants; Court Suggests Taking It Up With The FBI
Reject a Congressional Request, What Could Happen?
On the post: FCC Broadband Availability Data Derided As Inaccurate, 'Shameful'
Re:
On the post: Appeals Court: Handcuffing A Compliant Ten-Year-Old Is Unreasonable But Deputy Had No Way Of Knowing That
Re: Re: legislative fix
On the post: Appeals Court: Handcuffing A Compliant Ten-Year-Old Is Unreasonable But Deputy Had No Way Of Knowing That
Re: Re: legislative fix
At the same time, if we constitutionally require all laws to be sunset every 7 years, after some time we would have fewer laws, maybe even few enough that law enforcement personnel might be able to remember them.
So, no, not just there 'ought to be a law', but adjustments to existing law so that justice actually happens.
On the post: Appeals Court: Handcuffing A Compliant Ten-Year-Old Is Unreasonable But Deputy Had No Way Of Knowing That
So, how does one go about making decisions without detailed instructions?
Then there is the whole 'good faith exception', 'qualified immunity' thing. Where is the good faith when reasonable people think that cops should not only know the law they were hired to enforce, but know HOW to enforce those laws. Where is the qualification in them not actually knowing their jobs. They claim to be professional. They have professional associations and for some seriously wacky reasons we let them have unions (aka benevolent associations), another form of professional association.
Of course, there is also the double standard where we, not law enforcement professionals, have to know the law, but they, actual law enforcement professionals, are not required to. Is there anything out of line there?
These things need fixing legislatively. The courts have screwed it up enough. Could there be a legislative fix in the offing? Not bloody likely, given the current state of legislative affairs. To boot, we would need 51 of them, apparently, 50 states and then separately federal. No breath holding, the funeral business will have their crack at you soon enough.
On the post: Kudos To The Crock-Pot People For Handling The Online Fallout From 'This Is Us' So Well
Vulnerabilities
This reaction, the tossing of actually safe cooking equipment, because some TV show exhibited an episode where a 'like' piece of equipment 'might' have caused some havoc just goes to show how vulnerable the general viewing public might be. I don't use Crock Pots, or any other 'slow cooker' but only because I was taught how to cook (retired professional chef here, hence the Toque next to my login), and don't need such contrivances. Which is not to say that they are not useful for others. I have used slow cooking methods, but in specific circumstances (18 hours for Prime Ribs or Turkeys, but we used higher temperatures for browning, and the reason for slow cooking was to reduce evaporation which gave a better yield in the end product which was generally served by the ounce), and with much different equipment. For the home cook, not looking to replicate a particular classical dish, they are fine, and useful.
I bet that political advertisers, whether actual political parties, or big money advocates of whatever, are just creaming in their pants over this reaction. It merely means that they can tell anyone anything and be believed. How sad.
Num, num, num, oooh, I saw it on TV...must be true/real, I gotta...well something or other cause I saw it on TV and it must be, well I saw it on TV, they wouldn't lie to me??? Would they???
On the post: US Piracy Lawsuits Shoot Out Of The 2018 Gates As The Malibu Media 'Coaching Tree' Spreads Its Seeds
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
I thought that my earlier comments might be incorporated into my cataloged comments, but that has not happened, for whatever reasons. I am not terribly concerned with that. But your position that some commenters that do not have all their comments logged in their profiles does not mean that they have not commented. It might mean that they commented and didn't bother to log in. It might mean that they didn't want to log in because they were replying to some bullshit that you posted and did not want to be denigrated by showing that they commented on some bullshit that you posted.
That I am commenting on your dispersion of other people for not logging all of their comments does not mean that I give you any credence for any of your comments (I generally and purposefully do not comment on your comments because I do actually believe that feeding trolls is harmful to the site, and proactively discourage such) and therefore make a habit of flagging your comments and moving on, without regard to anything you might say.
The pity of the above is that once in a great while you might have something useful to say, but you go about it in such a way that nobody actually listens.
If you think, for even one second, that I would respond to any response that you might have to this post, you are not thinking. And seemingly, never have.
On the post: Mozilla's Open Letter To Expert Committee Drafting India's First Data Protection Law Slams Aadhaar Biometric Identity System
Biometrics
They might lead a legitimate, appropriately conducted, law enforcement investigation to look at me closer, but they are not, in and of themselves, indicators of criminality. There are too many ways for them to be faked to be indicators of actual guilt. Watch the many TV cop shows for various examples. I could have a stone cold unbreakable alibi verified by 50 other people. What do they do with their biometrics then?
Then there is the whole non law enforcement use, which should be illegal from the get go. Why should any non government agency have access to such information? Why (other than nefarious reasons) would they need to? It is my personal information. Mine! And unless someone gives me a compelling reason to give it to someone other than the government (and their compelling reasons have some extremely serous dubious intentions) then they should not have access to it, at any price. And if they do, then the decision to share it further is up to me, not them. Even if I derive some benefit from the sharing of information. Passing it along should be opt in, and not a blanket opt in, but a case by case opt in, with full disclosure as to who and why it is being shared as well as how it will be used.
My information is my information whether it is a part of doing business with another entity or not. It is still, my information. States should not share drivers license databases (photos in the case of biometrics), ISP's should not share IP addresses (potential location information, which does not mean a person, just a user, and the location might be which end point I choose for my VPN today), and phone carriers should not share location information (which might be someone to whom I lent my phone, but not me (which would be a great trick as I don't have a phone)) without a warrant. Under any circumstances. And, those warrants should be hard to come by, that is, no rubber stamping and the judge in question committing some interrogatory that verifies the probable cause in front of a clerk that takes down and records for posterity (no seals) everything said.
Now I realize this article is about India, and that their laws are not the same as US laws, but the underlying principles should not be different.
The big problem is getting the governments of the world to understand that they are not in control, and that at some point they will find out so. One way or another. Do they need to control criminal activity? Yes. Do they need these things to do so? No. Are there other ways to convict criminals and OMG 'terrorists'? Yes. They used to do so before all this 'technology' came about. Sometime they did it well, and sometimes they did it conveniently and therefore incorrectly. Today, they should be doing it both correctly and inconveniently. Takes more effort? So what?
On the post: US Piracy Lawsuits Shoot Out Of The 2018 Gates As The Malibu Media 'Coaching Tree' Spreads Its Seeds
Marketing 203
On the post: US Piracy Lawsuits Shoot Out Of The 2018 Gates As The Malibu Media 'Coaching Tree' Spreads Its Seeds
Marketing 203
On the post: Scholastic Wants To Help Young Creators Showcase Their Works By Stripping Them Of Their IP Rights
Learn about the fantastic benefits of copyright and the gatekeepers, now playing for young creators
It appears to me that Scholastic is just trying to educate young creators on the better aspects of copyright laws. When a publisher or recording studio strips a creator of their rights in order to get the 'product' out there, it is for the benefit of the creator.
/s
On the post: FBI Director Still Won't Say Which Encryption Experts Are Advising Him On His Bizarre Approach To Encryption
Do the Hand Jive
On the post: Cloudflare Gets An Easy, Quick And Complete Win Over Patent Troll
Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline is "Easy, Quick And Complete", then it's downgraded in 2nd para to "fairly complete victory".
Next >>