(1) whether the vehicle is close to the border; ["close" as with nuclear explosions, "border" as in the nearest collie] (2) whether the vehicle is on a known smuggling route; [as defined by having had one smuggler in the last century] (3) whether the vehicle’s presence is inconsistent with the local traffic patterns; [driving faster, driving slower, driving the speed limit] (4) whether the vehicle could have been trying to avoid a checkpoint; [turned off the interstate somewhere between Denver and the Texas border] (5) whether the vehicle appears to be heavily laden; [loaded with anything the agent couldn't carry with one hand] (6) whether the vehicle is from out of the area; [out of the area being anywhere over the horizon] (7) whether the vehicle or its load looks unusual in some way; [exceptionally dirty, exceptionally clean, attempting to look like in between] (8) whether the vehicle is of a sort often favored by smugglers; [includes planes, trains, automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and covered wagons] (9) whether the vehicle appears to have been altered or modified; [stickers count, so do license plates and dashboard hula dolls] (10) whether the cargo area in the vehicle is covered; [covered in canvas, cargo topper, paint, whatever] (11) the time of day or night at which the vehicle is spotted, and whether it corresponds to a shift change; [whether the time is day or night, and if the vehicle shifts gears] (12) whether the vehicle is being driven in an erratic or unsafe manner; [which, thanks to manufacturers, is any speed above 20 MPH] (13) whether the vehicle appears to be traveling in tandem with another vehicle; [rush hour is the best time to to find this, when the cars are bumper-to-bumper] (14) whether the vehicle looks as if it has recently been driven off road; [like if it was driven in a driveway, for example; i.e., all vehicles] (15) whether the persons inside the vehicle avoid looking at the agent; [applies to ugly agents] (16) whether the persons inside the vehicle are paying undue attention to the agent’s presence; [applies to cute agents] (17) whether the persons in the vehicle tried to avoid being seen or exhibited other unusual behavior; [for example, if they're hiding their nudity under clothing, or are wet from the shower] (18) whether the driver slowed down after seeing the agent; [best for the agent to stand near a stop sign] (19) whether the passengers appeared dirty; [i.e., not wet from the shower] (20) whether there is intelligence available that suggests that smuggling will occur in the area or by a specific vehicle; [even if that is a different vehicle than the one being stopped] and (21) whether the vehicle is coming from an area of a sensor alert. [the same sensors that go off all the time for no reason]
"Remember, only you can search anyone, anytime, anywhere."
I think all of this discussion of the comments on that page is irrelevant. In fact I think the response from Google was a red herring.
I look at the page and I see a quote from Mark Zuckerberg, and the first sentence of that quote ends with the phrase "deny that the H_______t happened".
Now, no one sane can possibly conclude that use is dangerous and derogatory. But that phrase is probably in a filter, and filters don't have a brain. And the reviewer, who probably was allowed ten seconds to look at it, probably started by looking at the reason, which probably said "denialism", and then looked at the page text, and the comment text, which together used the word H_______t twenty times, and which was going to take a quarter hour to review, shrugged, and tapped "confirm." After all, taking a quarter hour to review the page would get the reviewer dinged on their job review.
Which is not to say that anything about this type of review isn't going to be prone to the same thing. Because, as discussed above, there's no way for any company, no matter how large, to do this in a sane way on the world wide web. Which, of course, is why no company should have to do this...but we live in a world where companies are called "bad citizens" if they don't.
Since these advertising systems are biased toward shoving an ad everywhere that can possibly fit an ad, from time to time they're going to review the page to see if the problem has gone away. That explains why, every six months or so, Techdirt is going to get yet another notice for the same article. Because that system doesn't have a brain either.
There's nothing in the story to indicate that an officer died, true. But a "battalion" of officers was sent to kill a "fly." That happens most often after an officer has died.
So it seems likely that an officer died that we don't know about. Perhaps an undercover officer?
This is kind of like the final repudiation of "trickle-down theory," proof that nothing trickles down.
"You give me $10, I give you back $1," has never worked. The sick part is no one would fall for this in a face-to-face game. But greedy assholes managed to convince a generation of politicians that it would work.
Yet more proof that politicians are all idiots. If you needed any more proof.
Yeah, it sounds like a real list...not. The thing that leapt into my mind is: Where would he be planning to file that defamation lawsuit? Great Britain? Ha, ha. United States? Ho, ho, ho. Ecuador? Sweden? Australia? Stop, these jokes are killing me.
Do you feel it's appropriate to have your tax dollars spent on political or ideological indoctrination of children?
Absolutely not. I think the teachers should immediately stop indoctrinating our kids with anti-abortionist, creationist, white supremacist, anti-environmentalist, anti globalist, religious and states rightist political BS.
So you guys put the framework in place to let us ban what we don't like. So that when my party gets into power, we won't have to get yelled at for putting the framework in place ourselves, we can just use it...and blame your party for creating it.
They were hoping to snow the court with "neurological response." They were pretty sure that if they called it "a bad habit," it would be thrown out. The theory being that, if you make something sound important with big words, no one will notice what BS it is.
This runs completely contrary to the American way, which shifts the burden to the person actually doing the dirty, rather than the richest person remotely connected to the offender.
Really? Apparently you've never heard of joint and several, a legal term that means (for example) that if Alice is hurt when the wheel chair she is riding in is negligently pushed in front of a car by Joe, Joe and the wheelchair ymanufacturer can be sued, and the deep-pockets wheelchair manufacturer has to pay for Joe's neglect.
That's like the jet fuel of USA litigation. Maybe it doesn't apply to libel, but I wouldn't bet on it.
The intelligence agencies are chronically suspicious. If an agency doesn't find something to support its suspicions of a person, that is merely proof that it doesn't have enough data on the person. There is no such thing as someone being cleared once a suspicion has been raised.
Over and over again, the agency finds itself unable to prove its suspicions. That does not lead the agency to question its suspicions or its methodology, it merely proves its belief it is not keeping enough data. As a result it must always, always, always keep more data AND keep it all forever. The ultimate in circular reasoning and confirmation bias.
Stop being surprised they keep everything and keep it forever. It's what all the intelligence agencies do. NYPD, FBI, or NSA, they're all cut from the same coal-tarred cloth.
The memo instructs officers that “public and open recording of police officers by a civilian is not a violation” of Section 99.
However, the court also ruled that the right to film public officials was subject to reasonable limitations with respect to the time, place and manner in which the recording was conducted.
I hate to disillusion anyone, but section 99 is not done yet. The new memo will just say something like, "public and open recording of police officers by a civilian is not a violation unless the officer reasonably believes the time or place or manner of recording makes it a violation."
On the post: CBP Will Search You And Your Property If You're Paying Too Much Attention To An Agent. Or Too Little.
CBP stop and search rules, annotated
(2) whether the vehicle is on a known smuggling route; [as defined by having had one smuggler in the last century]
(3) whether the vehicle’s presence is inconsistent with the local traffic patterns; [driving faster, driving slower, driving the speed limit]
(4) whether the vehicle could have been trying to avoid a checkpoint; [turned off the interstate somewhere between Denver and the Texas border]
(5) whether the vehicle appears to be heavily laden; [loaded with anything the agent couldn't carry with one hand]
(6) whether the vehicle is from out of the area; [out of the area being anywhere over the horizon]
(7) whether the vehicle or its load looks unusual in some way; [exceptionally dirty, exceptionally clean, attempting to look like in between]
(8) whether the vehicle is of a sort often favored by smugglers; [includes planes, trains, automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and covered wagons]
(9) whether the vehicle appears to have been altered or modified; [stickers count, so do license plates and dashboard hula dolls]
(10) whether the cargo area in the vehicle is covered; [covered in canvas, cargo topper, paint, whatever]
(11) the time of day or night at which the vehicle is spotted, and whether it corresponds to a shift change; [whether the time is day or night, and if the vehicle shifts gears]
(12) whether the vehicle is being driven in an erratic or unsafe manner; [which, thanks to manufacturers, is any speed above 20 MPH]
(13) whether the vehicle appears to be traveling in tandem with another vehicle; [rush hour is the best time to to find this, when the cars are bumper-to-bumper]
(14) whether the vehicle looks as if it has recently been driven off road; [like if it was driven in a driveway, for example; i.e., all vehicles]
(15) whether the persons inside the vehicle avoid looking at the agent; [applies to ugly agents]
(16) whether the persons inside the vehicle are paying undue attention to the agent’s presence; [applies to cute agents]
(17) whether the persons in the vehicle tried to avoid being seen or exhibited other unusual behavior; [for example, if they're hiding their nudity under clothing, or are wet from the shower]
(18) whether the driver slowed down after seeing the agent; [best for the agent to stand near a stop sign]
(19) whether the passengers appeared dirty; [i.e., not wet from the shower]
(20) whether there is intelligence available that suggests that smuggling will occur in the area or by a specific vehicle; [even if that is a different vehicle than the one being stopped] and
(21) whether the vehicle is coming from an area of a sensor alert. [the same sensors that go off all the time for no reason]
"Remember, only you can search anyone, anytime, anywhere."
On the post: Verizon Promises Not To Over-Hype 5G, Immediately Proceeds To Over-Hype 5G
My response to the story
On the post: Google Still Says Our Post On Content Moderation Is Dangerous Or Derogatory
Red herring
I look at the page and I see a quote from Mark Zuckerberg, and the first sentence of that quote ends with the phrase "deny that the H_______t happened".
Now, no one sane can possibly conclude that use is dangerous and derogatory. But that phrase is probably in a filter, and filters don't have a brain. And the reviewer, who probably was allowed ten seconds to look at it, probably started by looking at the reason, which probably said "denialism", and then looked at the page text, and the comment text, which together used the word H_______t twenty times, and which was going to take a quarter hour to review, shrugged, and tapped "confirm." After all, taking a quarter hour to review the page would get the reviewer dinged on their job review.
Which is not to say that anything about this type of review isn't going to be prone to the same thing. Because, as discussed above, there's no way for any company, no matter how large, to do this in a sane way on the world wide web. Which, of course, is why no company should have to do this...but we live in a world where companies are called "bad citizens" if they don't.
Since these advertising systems are biased toward shoving an ad everywhere that can possibly fit an ad, from time to time they're going to review the page to see if the problem has gone away. That explains why, every six months or so, Techdirt is going to get yet another notice for the same article. Because that system doesn't have a brain either.
On the post: AT&T's Planning Yet More Layoffs Despite Tens Of Billions In Tax Breaks And Government Favors
Re: Re: Trickle down
On the post: Atlanta Prosecutor Sues DOJ For Blocking Investigation Of Incident Where Cops Shot A Man 59 Times
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read for content...
So it seems likely that an officer died that we don't know about. Perhaps an undercover officer?
On the post: AT&T's Planning Yet More Layoffs Despite Tens Of Billions In Tax Breaks And Government Favors
Trickle down
"You give me $10, I give you back $1," has never worked. The sick part is no one would fall for this in a face-to-face game. But greedy assholes managed to convince a generation of politicians that it would work.
Yet more proof that politicians are all idiots. If you needed any more proof.
On the post: Dept. Of Interior Wants To Rewrite FOIA Law To Make It Easier To Reject Requests
Title
On the post: Another Day, Another Massive Cellular Location Data Privacy Scandal We'll Probably Do Nothing About
Oops
The word "probably" is not usually used for certainties, Karl.
On the post: Irony Alert: Wikileaks Sends Reporters A List Of 140 Things Not To Say About Julian Assange; Tells Them Not To Publish
Which Court would laugh loudest?
On the post: Another State Lawmaker Thinks Teachers Should Be Banned From Discussing 'Controversial' Issues
Re:
Absolutely not. I think the teachers should immediately stop indoctrinating our kids with anti-abortionist, creationist, white supremacist, anti-environmentalist, anti globalist, religious and states rightist political BS.
So you guys put the framework in place to let us ban what we don't like. So that when my party gets into power, we won't have to get yelled at for putting the framework in place ourselves, we can just use it...and blame your party for creating it.
On the post: Atlanta Prosecutor Sues DOJ For Blocking Investigation Of Incident Where Cops Shot A Man 59 Times
Re: Re: Re: Read for content...
On the post: Fifth Circuit Says Apple Can't Be Held Liable For A Car Crash Caused By Someone Reading Text Messages
Re:
On the post: FCC Shuttered, Ajit Pai Forced To Cancel CES Trip Because The US Government Is a Hot Mess
Re: Re: Re: Re: work?
Wrong word. Let me fix that for you:
On the post: UK Court: Guy Who Didn't Write Defamatory Tweet Needs To Pay $50,000 In Damages Because The Guy Who Did Doesn't Have Any Money
Joint and several
Really? Apparently you've never heard of joint and several, a legal term that means (for example) that if Alice is hurt when the wheel chair she is riding in is negligently pushed in front of a car by Joe, Joe and the wheelchair ymanufacturer can be sued, and the deep-pockets wheelchair manufacturer has to pay for Joe's neglect.
That's like the jet fuel of USA litigation. Maybe it doesn't apply to libel, but I wouldn't bet on it.
On the post: Atlanta Prosecutor Sues DOJ For Blocking Investigation Of Incident Where Cops Shot A Man 59 Times
What shape was that again?
More like into "shredded shape," probably.
On the post: FBI Swept Up Info About Aaron Swartz While Pursuing An Al-Qaeda Investigation
It's the nature of intelligence agencies
Over and over again, the agency finds itself unable to prove its suspicions. That does not lead the agency to question its suspicions or its methodology, it merely proves its belief it is not keeping enough data. As a result it must always, always, always keep more data AND keep it all forever. The ultimate in circular reasoning and confirmation bias.
Stop being surprised they keep everything and keep it forever. It's what all the intelligence agencies do. NYPD, FBI, or NSA, they're all cut from the same coal-tarred cloth.
On the post: Why Is Congress Trying To Pass An Obviously Unconstitutional Bill That Would Criminalize Boycotts Of Israel?
The loudest moneybags PAC
Would you want to vote against it and be called "anti-Semitic"? Have the wind of their voices blow your campaign chest empty?
(Gee, wouldn't it be nice to have a congress that represented the people instead of the loudest moneybags PAC?)
On the post: Why Is Congress Trying To Pass An Obviously Unconstitutional Bill That Would Criminalize Boycotts Of Israel?
Re:
On the post: Kansas Supreme Court Says Cops Can Search A House Without A Warrant As Long As They Claim They Smelled Marijuana
It's right on the tip of my tongue...
On the post: Federal Court Says Massachusetts' Wiretap Law Can't Be Used To Arrest People For Recording Public Officials
I hate to disillusion anyone, but section 99 is not done yet. The new memo will just say something like, "public and open recording of police officers by a civilian is not a violation unless the officer reasonably believes the time or place or manner of recording makes it a violation."
Still a "license to kill."
Next >>