I am not at all familiar with the history of this new proposal, beyond what is in this article, but somehow the term "constructive compromises" sounds a lot like a euphemism to me, particularly given the source. Maybe they meant "enormous concessions" or "giant loopholes" instead?
Time for this link again, an article in which Radley Balko explains just how bad an idea State / Federal task forces are to begin with. Eliminate the State / Federal Joint Task Forces and the issue of BWCs on TFOs assigned to JTFs goes away.
We still have the problem with TLAs, though, particularly the DOJ, DHS, FBI, NSA, CIA, NRO, DEA, CBP, ICE, BOP ... oh, hell, just go look here. The sheer length of the list just screams Police State! But I digress.
I think not. I do not believe you can reasonably apply Hanlon's Razor here. I think these people, in Europe, in the US, and elsewhere, know exactly what they are proposing. I think they are completely willing to sacrifice our rights, the security of the financial and commercial networks, and anything else that might stand between them and complete authoritarian control. There exist evil people, and many of them find the allure of unlimited power via government to be irresistible.
According to court documents, on Nov. 2, the Supreme Court ruled that the guards who were working at the Montford Unit in Lubbock could be sued for mistreatment of Trent Taylor while he was at the psychiatric prison during the fall of 2013.
and
Prior to Taylor's arrival at the Montford Unit, he was located at the Robertson Unit in Abilene. While in Abilene he took fourteen Lortab tablets and was admitted into the local hospital for suicide treatment.
Following his hospital visit, Taylor was moved to the Montford Unit on September 6, 2013. The Montford Unit is a state jail facility used mainly to treat psychiatric patients.
I also found this, but I could not verify that this is the same Trent Taylor. The date makes it a possibility, and while Tarrant County (Ft. Worth) is a long way from Lubbock, so is Abilene.
Re: Re: Re: I remember this being a problem with Google
You are correct about some forms of anonymization. VPNs with appropriate browser security / anonymization extensions and Tor both can be fairly effective. I was thinking more in terms of the comment's subject matter: anonymization of large amounts of personally identifiable data that has already been collected while retaining the usefulness of said data for trend and other analysis. From what I understand, to effectively anonymize such data you must also destroy most, if not all, of the data's usefulness for analysis.
Cheers on this! The mindset difference between the two terms is important. Citizens have rights that need to be respected, "civilians" are just collateral damage waiting to happen. I have long railed against using the term "civilians" to refer to non- law enforcement / non-government citizens. Unfortunately, as an AC said, with the police becoming the private standing domestic army of the government/President, effectively making an end run around the Posse Comitatus Act, the term "civilian" is becoming more appropriate. However, I am not ready to go that route just yet. That mindset leads to insurgencies. So let's continue to try to use "citizens" when it is correct.
Thanks to Base Rate neglect aka Base Rate Fallacy it has probably happened many hundreds, possibly thousands, of times. Thanks to Parallel Construction aka Evidence Laundering, we will likely never know just how many times.
It's not that minors are never forced into sex work by traffickers. It's that it happens far less frequently than irresponsible headlines (and irresponsible statements by law enforcement officials) would have you believe.
It is this kind of consistent dishonesty by government, in this case by the increasingly pre-eminent law enforcement arm of government, that contributes to the well-deserved erosion of faith in government. It is clearly time for a change. Did I mention that you should vote Libertarian, and not for the status-quo?
If you look at the many security issues Karl has mentioned in the context of being harmful to the rights of individuals, they are flagrant, inexcusable derelictions of duty by the people in a position to fix the problems.
But if they are viewed in the context of unregulated assets to the authoritarian state, they are just that, and there is no incentive for government to remove them.
Classification of documents is now being done more to cover up evidence of government wrongdoing and to avoid FOIA requests than to further national security interests. Anyone revealing "classified" evidence of government wrongdoing is no longer just someone leaking embarrassing, or possibly incriminating, information, but is now someone who can be prosecuted for treason. The "national security" rationale is typically just a line of boilerplate BS.
With the single exception of DNA analysis, all of the areas of forensic evidence were developed by people in, or associated with, the law enforcement community, with the explicit goal of enhancing conviction rates. These include all of the “expert” opinion-based comparative pattern matching areas such as bite mark, hair, fiber, shoe print, tire track, paint, chemical, blood spatter, bullet mark, cartridge case mark, tool mark, and others. None of these have any more basis in science that reading tea leaves or tarot cards. While there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence that good, clear, and complete fingerprints may be matched with a fair amount of reliability, that is all there is. To my knowledge there has never been an actual scientific analysis of the validity of fingerprint matching. A sound scientific analysis would include re-producible statistical data regarding the rates of false positives and false negatives. To make matters worse, most fingerprints used as forensic “evidence” are not good, or clear, or complete. When there is only part of a fingerprint available for comparison, the reliability of that comparison drops dramatically. And, even given the best case, do we really want to use a very subjective “fair amount of reliability” as the basis upon which to convict someone of a crime? Most of arson investigation, such as burn pattern, point of origin, time of origin, ignition source, and trace evidence of accelerant residue is also purely subjective and has no basis in science.
These areas of forensics were never intended to reveal the truth, they were intended to help secure convictions. To make matters worse, the “evidence” is almost universally processed by people who are also associated with law enforcement. These people at the very least are subject to confirmation bias, and at worst are highly motivated to produce false results that will please their associates and superiors in the law enforcement community.
The fact that most forensic “evidence” is hogwash is not really a new discovery. However, it is only recently, since the advent of the only scientific forensic discipline, DNA analysis, that we have been able to definitively prove just what hogwash the rest of forensic “evidence” really is. Despite this having been proven, to an extremely high degree of scientific certainty, dozens of times, this hogwash “evidence” continues to be accepted without question by virtually every court in the nation. It is often presented in court by charlatan “experts” who routinely lie, under oath, about their own qualifications and the reliability of the “evidence.” Countless people have spent untold decades in prison, and at least several have been executed, based purely on this hogwash. It is truly a very disturbing situation, and with the current administration, there is no end in sight.
Re: Makes perfect sense if you treat a liar as a liar
^ This. Context is everything.
Whether something make sense or not is completely dependent on the context in which it is viewed. All to often, particularly with government, if you view a given thing in the context of the way things are supposed to be, the thing will not make any sense at all. But when viewed in the context of how things actually are, the thing makes perfect sense.
A good example is the new military fighter jet, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. If viewed in the context of a state-of-the-art weapons system procurement program, there is absolutely nothing about the development process or the final product that makes any sense at all. But when viewed in the context of a Congressional vote-buying program, as well as a massive welfare and subsidy program for the crony capitalist military-industrial complex, it all makes perfect sense.
But I guess I missed something. I thought the SCOTUS had basically determined that a passcode or safe combination (something you know) could not be compelled for 5th Amendment reasons, but a fingerprint or physical key (something you possess) could be compelled without any 5th Amendment implications.
Is this just Florida being Florida and wandering back into the weeds hoping for a favorable ruling?
On the post: Surprise: Latest Draft Of The EU's Next Big Privacy Law Includes Some Improvements
Just askin'
I am not at all familiar with the history of this new proposal, beyond what is in this article, but somehow the term "constructive compromises" sounds a lot like a euphemism to me, particularly given the source. Maybe they meant "enormous concessions" or "giant loopholes" instead?
On the post: Netflix Gets Cute Using DMCA Notices To Take Down Tweets Critical Of 'Cuties'
Re: Re:
Sounds like what happens to whistle-blowers who reveal the misdeeds of the US government.
On the post: The DOJ Will Finally Allow Local Cops To Wear Body Cameras When Working With Federal Agencies
Time for this link again, an article in which Radley Balko explains just how bad an idea State / Federal task forces are to begin with. Eliminate the State / Federal Joint Task Forces and the issue of BWCs on TFOs assigned to JTFs goes away.
We still have the problem with TLAs, though, particularly the DOJ, DHS, FBI, NSA, CIA, NRO, DEA, CBP, ICE, BOP ... oh, hell, just go look here. The sheer length of the list just screams Police State! But I digress.
On the post: Portland's Facial Recognition Ban Won't Stop Private Citizens From Rolling Their Own Tech To ID Cops
Re:
But where's the fun in that?
Cops don't do much that isn't fun or profitable. Obeying laws, serving the public, and protecting the public don't fit into either category.
Also, Christopher Howell is my new hero!
On the post: EU Takes Another Small Step Towards Trying To Ban Encryption; New Paper Argues Tech Can Nerd Harder To Backdoor Encryption
A darker view
I think not. I do not believe you can reasonably apply Hanlon's Razor here. I think these people, in Europe, in the US, and elsewhere, know exactly what they are proposing. I think they are completely willing to sacrifice our rights, the security of the financial and commercial networks, and anything else that might stand between them and complete authoritarian control. There exist evil people, and many of them find the allure of unlimited power via government to be irresistible.
On the post: Supreme Court Reverses Decision Granting Qualified Immunity To Guards Who Threw An Inmate Into A 'Feces-Covered' Cell
Just wondering?
Does anyone know why Trent Taylor was arrested and jailed to begin with?
I found this about Trent Taylor:
and
I also found this, but I could not verify that this is the same Trent Taylor. The date makes it a possibility, and while Tarrant County (Ft. Worth) is a long way from Lubbock, so is Abilene.
On the post: Facial Recognition Company's Employees Abused Tech To Sexually Harass Coworkers
Re: Re: Re: I remember this being a problem with Google
You are correct about some forms of anonymization. VPNs with appropriate browser security / anonymization extensions and Tor both can be fairly effective. I was thinking more in terms of the comment's subject matter: anonymization of large amounts of personally identifiable data that has already been collected while retaining the usefulness of said data for trend and other analysis. From what I understand, to effectively anonymize such data you must also destroy most, if not all, of the data's usefulness for analysis.
On the post: Facial Recognition Company's Employees Abused Tech To Sexually Harass Coworkers
Trying not to be repititious, but...
see comment under It Took Just 5 Minutes Of Movement Data To Identify 'Anonymous' VR Users
On the post: It Took Just 5 Minutes Of Movement Data To Identify 'Anonymous' VR Users
Don't hold your breath
This may never happen because:
On the post: Lawsuit Says NYPD Is Still Engaging In Unconstitutional Stops Of New York Residents
Who's the boss?
There is a reason it's called a police state and not a court state or law state.
On the post: Law Enforcement Agencies That Acquire Military Gear Are More Likely To Kill People
Mindset matters!
Cheers on this! The mindset difference between the two terms is important. Citizens have rights that need to be respected, "civilians" are just collateral damage waiting to happen. I have long railed against using the term "civilians" to refer to non- law enforcement / non-government citizens. Unfortunately, as an AC said, with the police becoming the private standing domestic army of the government/President, effectively making an end run around the Posse Comitatus Act, the term "civilian" is becoming more appropriate. However, I am not ready to go that route just yet. That mindset leads to insurgencies. So let's continue to try to use "citizens" when it is correct.
On the post: After Years Of Claiming It Doesn't Use Facial Recognition Software, The LAPD Admits It Has Used It 30,000 Times Since 2009
Re: NEW law/Old law
Thanks to Base Rate neglect aka Base Rate Fallacy it has probably happened many hundreds, possibly thousands, of times. Thanks to Parallel Construction aka Evidence Laundering, we will likely never know just how many times.
On the post: Actual Facts Undercut Media's Narrative That Law Enforcement Task Force Broke Up A Multi-State Sex Trafficking Operation
It is this kind of consistent dishonesty by government, in this case by the increasingly pre-eminent law enforcement arm of government, that contributes to the well-deserved erosion of faith in government. It is clearly time for a change. Did I mention that you should vote Libertarian, and not for the status-quo?
On the post: French Government To Make Insulting Mayors A Criminal Offense
History, anyone?
Doesn't France have a particularly notorious precedent for what happens when those in power become a bit too uppity?
On the post: If We're So Worried About TikTok, Why Aren't We Just As Worried About AdTech And Location Data Sales?
Again, context counts
If you look at the many security issues Karl has mentioned in the context of being harmful to the rights of individuals, they are flagrant, inexcusable derelictions of duty by the people in a position to fix the problems.
But if they are viewed in the context of unregulated assets to the authoritarian state, they are just that, and there is no incentive for government to remove them.
On the post: The Government Has Been Binging On Classification. Senators Say It's Time To Start Purging.
Classification has been weaponized
Classification of documents is now being done more to cover up evidence of government wrongdoing and to avoid FOIA requests than to further national security interests. Anyone revealing "classified" evidence of government wrongdoing is no longer just someone leaking embarrassing, or possibly incriminating, information, but is now someone who can be prosecuted for treason. The "national security" rationale is typically just a line of boilerplate BS.
On the post: Prosecutor Who Used Bite Mark Analysis Even The Analyst Called 'Junk Science' Can Be Sued For Wrongful Jailing Of Innocent Woman
Forensic “Evidence” is Mostly Hogwash
With the single exception of DNA analysis, all of the areas of forensic evidence were developed by people in, or associated with, the law enforcement community, with the explicit goal of enhancing conviction rates. These include all of the “expert” opinion-based comparative pattern matching areas such as bite mark, hair, fiber, shoe print, tire track, paint, chemical, blood spatter, bullet mark, cartridge case mark, tool mark, and others. None of these have any more basis in science that reading tea leaves or tarot cards. While there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence that good, clear, and complete fingerprints may be matched with a fair amount of reliability, that is all there is. To my knowledge there has never been an actual scientific analysis of the validity of fingerprint matching. A sound scientific analysis would include re-producible statistical data regarding the rates of false positives and false negatives. To make matters worse, most fingerprints used as forensic “evidence” are not good, or clear, or complete. When there is only part of a fingerprint available for comparison, the reliability of that comparison drops dramatically. And, even given the best case, do we really want to use a very subjective “fair amount of reliability” as the basis upon which to convict someone of a crime? Most of arson investigation, such as burn pattern, point of origin, time of origin, ignition source, and trace evidence of accelerant residue is also purely subjective and has no basis in science.
These areas of forensics were never intended to reveal the truth, they were intended to help secure convictions. To make matters worse, the “evidence” is almost universally processed by people who are also associated with law enforcement. These people at the very least are subject to confirmation bias, and at worst are highly motivated to produce false results that will please their associates and superiors in the law enforcement community.
The fact that most forensic “evidence” is hogwash is not really a new discovery. However, it is only recently, since the advent of the only scientific forensic discipline, DNA analysis, that we have been able to definitively prove just what hogwash the rest of forensic “evidence” really is. Despite this having been proven, to an extremely high degree of scientific certainty, dozens of times, this hogwash “evidence” continues to be accepted without question by virtually every court in the nation. It is often presented in court by charlatan “experts” who routinely lie, under oath, about their own qualifications and the reliability of the “evidence.” Countless people have spent untold decades in prison, and at least several have been executed, based purely on this hogwash. It is truly a very disturbing situation, and with the current administration, there is no end in sight.
On the post: Government's 'Reverse' Warrant Rejected By Two Consecutive Federal Judges
Wow!
Abiding by the Constitution. What a concept! Many in government will likely find it difficult to navigate this largely uncharted territory.
On the post: White House Supposedly Blocked Walmart From Buying Tiktok Because It Would Prove Its Rationale For Forcing A Deal Was Bullshit
Re: Makes perfect sense if you treat a liar as a liar
^ This. Context is everything.
Whether something make sense or not is completely dependent on the context in which it is viewed. All to often, particularly with government, if you view a given thing in the context of the way things are supposed to be, the thing will not make any sense at all. But when viewed in the context of how things actually are, the thing makes perfect sense.
A good example is the new military fighter jet, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. If viewed in the context of a state-of-the-art weapons system procurement program, there is absolutely nothing about the development process or the final product that makes any sense at all. But when viewed in the context of a Congressional vote-buying program, as well as a massive welfare and subsidy program for the crony capitalist military-industrial complex, it all makes perfect sense.
On the post: Another Florida Appeals Court Says Compelled Passcode Production Violates The Fifth Amendment
I thought this issue was largely settled
But I guess I missed something. I thought the SCOTUS had basically determined that a passcode or safe combination (something you know) could not be compelled for 5th Amendment reasons, but a fingerprint or physical key (something you possess) could be compelled without any 5th Amendment implications.
Is this just Florida being Florida and wandering back into the weeds hoping for a favorable ruling?
Next >>