Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 28 May 2020 @ 12:14pm
Brick, mortar, and Governments as well
As I mentioned here we shouldn't leave out grocery stores with their 'rewards' programs, DMV's selling legally required very private information, doctors and the many others who collect an sell information.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 28 May 2020 @ 8:36am
Re: Uhm…
U.S. Constitution - Amendment 25 - Presidential Disability and Succession
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
While Article 25 exists, the politics involved are massively complex. Given the number of boneheaded to batshit crazy things expounded by the current Chief Executive ample opportunity for implementation has already occurred, yet we see no action in this regard, and while I might think it appropriate I seriously doubt those in a position to act would think it a politically savvy move.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 28 May 2020 @ 8:25am
Re: Re: Speech, free, but what if lies?
Good point. In the end however whether someone believes (for example) drinking bleach will kill the coronavirus (which is true) it will also probably kill the drinker (also true) and reasonable people can differentiate between whether the statement is a lie or just substantially false or harmful. Then the TOS would need to make those points.
As you point out, who is to be the decider of lie, false, harmful is filled with potential for ideology to creep in, and that in some instances the reality might take some time to be discovered. That doesn't mean we should let things go. There is a degree of blatancy that is impervious to some statements while others might need some time and research to unravel, which in some cases will still contain a certain amount of subjectivity.
Just because perfection is difficult or even impossible does not mean we should not try to make things better.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 28 May 2020 @ 8:04am
Re: Not just what data, but who gets it
Oh, I almost forgot, that trend for companies to 'sell' you something but then require you to log onto their servers in order to be able to use it, so they can continue to monetize their products after the sale is a specific category that should be looked at. If the server provides something that couldn't be replicated by running a server instance on a home computer, then fine, but put limits on what data might be retained, and put severe restrictions on the company being able to shut that server down making the sale pointless. I realize that only part of this is privacy related, but the two concepts go hand in hand and one behavior leads to the potential for the other, and neither should be allowed.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 28 May 2020 @ 7:57am
Not just what data, but who gets it
It seems to me that making third party data brokers illegal would be a positive step in putting controls on data abuse. Given the way the Internet/WWW and websites and browsers work, there is going to be information collected and without major changes in the network difficult if not impossible to stop.
As has been pointed out elsewhere trying to anonymize that information is next to impossible. So while making third party information the property of the generator rather than the collector is good (and necessary), removing the set of actors who's sole purpose is to sell information that should be private would be very important, and also a tool for the FTC. Any company that deals with data brokers (and/or the brokers themselves) steps into actionable territory.
Additionally, we should probably also consider this with regard to brick and mortar entities as well, as data privacy is not just an Internet thing. DMV's should not be able to sell data (especially when they get directly identifiable personal information by law or you don't get your license or registration). Grocery stores should not be able to sell data. Doctors should not be able to sell data. And the whole plethora of organizations that collect and sell data to bolster their incomes.
Collecting and using observable data (by which I mean collective behavior, but not associated with an individual) is probably not all that awful. Splitting such observable behavior from identifiable individuals will not be easy though.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 May 2020 @ 6:33pm
Re: Re:
Well, obviously you are responding to the smartest person in the world, as they have all the answers. You also know that they are a medical professional, you can tell by the MD appended to their username. So, no worries, they have stated that no cure or vaccine is possible as our current understanding of biology is lacking. BTW, we can take that as a serious prediction that 'we are all gonna die'.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 May 2020 @ 6:02pm
Money talks, bullshit walks, the right way not even considered
While I endorse the concept of openness in this type of research there is still the problem of regulatory agencies sticking their noses into the process before any viable results emerge. And with a plethora of profit oriented entities vying to be 'the one' the chances that an open sourced (hopefully patented but not monetized), non profit oriented result to win has little or no chance.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 May 2020 @ 5:46pm
Speech, free, but what if lies?
"The problem is that the President of the United States is of such poisoned character that he uses his time in office to spread corrosive garbage."
While I think Trump spending time on corrosive garbage to be a boon (it keeps him from doing other horrible things) the fact that all of our politicians are co-opted to some degree or another by some faction or another is a big problem. Blaming the platform(s) is the politicians way of deflecting the issue(s) away from themselves.
It's the lies, the deception, the I have problems with. People tell me that we can control their speech, each election cycle. But the propaganda machine runs for the entire election cycle that drills those, and other, lies into the electorates heads creating the 'believablity' the politicians (and their co-opters) so desire.
So what happens when platform(s) adds to their TOS that they do not accept lying, and when lies are provable the posts will be deleted, and that that rule applies to all users, no matter what position or entity or power the liar holds. Then applies that rule evenly, around the world. There might be some economic downfall, initially, but I think in the long rung integrity might win out, even economically.
Yeah, that will seriously piss some people off. I would think that the heads of state in Thailand and Turkey would lead the list of those angered by such policies, and might even get the platform(s) banned in their country. No matter how much he cries, that is not an option for any politician in the US, not even the President.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 May 2020 @ 4:25pm
Re: Re: Reintroduce the fairness doctrine?
The FCC is an independent agency and does not 'report' to the president, but its members are appointed by the president. That could, or maybe does, create the potential for influence from the Executive branch, there is no formal reporting relationship.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 May 2020 @ 4:17pm
Privacy
I see privacy as a multi-threaded thing. If the lookers can identify me, as in my name, address, phone number, bank accounts, employment, social security number (which shouldn't be a problem, but is) current location, and probably a few more things, then I have a problem.
If, however, the lookers are cataloging my interests and viewing habits (when I let them, private browsing should not be accessible) and use that information to target ads at me (that I will never look at) then I find it less problematic. Where it becomes a problem is when the former is conflated with the latter by whatever methodology, then there is no difference.
If things can be kept to the latter without the conflation to the former then the difference between privacy and private becomes less important.
So far as the privacy vs free expression conundrum is concerned, there was a time when one went to the public square and expounded on their point of view. In those instances, the speaker was in no way private, and was in fact freely expressing themselves. The difference today is that when one speaks in the 'public square' so to speak, they aren't in the village square, the tend to be on the Internet (leaving the are platforms public squares argument for another time), and have many, many, many more listeners. Which also means many, many, many more potential detractors. Herein lies the problems.
The first problem is that of the mob. Please see this Simple Justice article and comments about mob justice. If the mob thinks it has things right then the speaker is taken down, and usually without remorse or for that matter actual understanding, or correctness.
The second problem comes from trolls. Techdirt had a recent article go to 349 comments (as of this writing) many of which were from a troll (aka provocateur) who kept making claims, claimed to have proof, but never pointed to the proof, and managed to take a subject entirely off course, and despite the don't feed the trolls mantra sucked many people (including me) into their subterfuge. A single troll can be as destructive as a mob in some cases and just as deleterious, and as in the case above, not actually have anything to say.
So when someone makes statements, the proverbial free expression, on the Internet and use their real name they have to be prepared for the fallout. Not everyone is. While I use an 'identifying handle' on this website, no one knows my real name (well, Mike does as he gets my payments, but he wouldn't if I didn't trust him) and since I don't consider myself to be in the position (fiscally) of taking on detractors who might want to SLAPP me for whatever reason, I maintain my privacy, even though anyone can find my speech in my profile and can respond to my posts. The point is free expression can have consequences, and if done without privacy being compromised, less dangerous.
On the other hand, our politicians have free expression, and give up their privacy so that they may achieve public office (aka power positions), the problem there being the veracity of their free expression. Office seekers tend to lie to voters in order to get elected, and then continue to lie to constituents in order to maintain their power. In these cases, the 'free' expression isn't actually free, though our 1st Amendment and Citizens United tell us they (and their supporters) have every right to do so, that 'free expression' is not without serious consequences. I am however unsure how to rectify that situation without creating some kind of Constitutional double standard, which in the case of lying politicians I wouldn't necessarily mind.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 May 2020 @ 3:27pm
Re: The *real* lede
While that might be important, maybe even suppressed by the government point, it wasn't the point of the press conferences mentioned in the article. That the DoJ and FBI are working on getting back doors to encryption, a subject Techdirt cares about and is reporting on, it doesn't mean Techdirt doesn't care about the fact you mention.
But it wasn't the focus of the post, and just because you think your point is more important than the elimination of security for not just phone calls but banking and e-commerce and private communications and many other things important to many people, doesn't mean that Techdirt should ignore this important subject to accommodate your perspective.
Let me suggest https://www.blogger.com/home as an inexpensive starting place where you can dictate what should be talked about.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 May 2020 @ 1:59pm
Re:
I am not so sure handing financial account information to every website I visit is a good idea. There is a whole lot of information exposed by careless companies and to trust the majority of them would be insane.
Now, if we first made the Internet secure, it might be a different story. But I have been told that because security was not a part of the original design that it is impossible now.
We could suggest that a new Internet/World Wide Web be started that is secure, and over time migrate from what we have now to the secure one. While I believe that is feasible, it probably isn't practical, and getting everyone to agree to do this would be a major, major chore.l
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 May 2020 @ 11:28am
Work it, work it hard
I am glad the fact check happened, and am not at all surprised at Trump's response. With any luck, Trump will spend copious amounts of time diddling about what he will do to Twitter.
Think about how much less other damage he might accomplish.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 May 2020 @ 4:18pm
Judge Dredd cometh
When the government abolishes the need for warrants, without amending the Constitutions 4th Amendment, the next wrung on the ladder will be the courts. Don't need warrants, don't need courts. Every LEO will then be given execution powers.
On the post: 'Big Tech' Blinders Let Other Privacy Violators Off The Hook
Brick, mortar, and Governments as well
As I mentioned here we shouldn't leave out grocery stores with their 'rewards' programs, DMV's selling legally required very private information, doctors and the many others who collect an sell information.
On the post: When The Problem Isn't Twitter But President Trump
Re: That is…
Wait a minute, under what circumstances could that be considered insider trading?
On the post: When The Problem Isn't Twitter But President Trump
Re: Uhm…
While Article 25 exists, the politics involved are massively complex. Given the number of boneheaded to batshit crazy things expounded by the current Chief Executive ample opportunity for implementation has already occurred, yet we see no action in this regard, and while I might think it appropriate I seriously doubt those in a position to act would think it a politically savvy move.
On the post: When The Problem Isn't Twitter But President Trump
Re: Re: Speech, free, but what if lies?
Good point. In the end however whether someone believes (for example) drinking bleach will kill the coronavirus (which is true) it will also probably kill the drinker (also true) and reasonable people can differentiate between whether the statement is a lie or just substantially false or harmful. Then the TOS would need to make those points.
As you point out, who is to be the decider of lie, false, harmful is filled with potential for ideology to creep in, and that in some instances the reality might take some time to be discovered. That doesn't mean we should let things go. There is a degree of blatancy that is impervious to some statements while others might need some time and research to unravel, which in some cases will still contain a certain amount of subjectivity.
Just because perfection is difficult or even impossible does not mean we should not try to make things better.
On the post: Ron Wyden: It's Time Congress Helped Americans Protect Their Privacy
Re: Not just what data, but who gets it
Oh, I almost forgot, that trend for companies to 'sell' you something but then require you to log onto their servers in order to be able to use it, so they can continue to monetize their products after the sale is a specific category that should be looked at. If the server provides something that couldn't be replicated by running a server instance on a home computer, then fine, but put limits on what data might be retained, and put severe restrictions on the company being able to shut that server down making the sale pointless. I realize that only part of this is privacy related, but the two concepts go hand in hand and one behavior leads to the potential for the other, and neither should be allowed.
On the post: Ron Wyden: It's Time Congress Helped Americans Protect Their Privacy
Not just what data, but who gets it
It seems to me that making third party data brokers illegal would be a positive step in putting controls on data abuse. Given the way the Internet/WWW and websites and browsers work, there is going to be information collected and without major changes in the network difficult if not impossible to stop.
As has been pointed out elsewhere trying to anonymize that information is next to impossible. So while making third party information the property of the generator rather than the collector is good (and necessary), removing the set of actors who's sole purpose is to sell information that should be private would be very important, and also a tool for the FTC. Any company that deals with data brokers (and/or the brokers themselves) steps into actionable territory.
Additionally, we should probably also consider this with regard to brick and mortar entities as well, as data privacy is not just an Internet thing. DMV's should not be able to sell data (especially when they get directly identifiable personal information by law or you don't get your license or registration). Grocery stores should not be able to sell data. Doctors should not be able to sell data. And the whole plethora of organizations that collect and sell data to bolster their incomes.
Collecting and using observable data (by which I mean collective behavior, but not associated with an individual) is probably not all that awful. Splitting such observable behavior from identifiable individuals will not be easy though.
On the post: Doctor With Rare Disease Crowdsourced His Own Cure, And Is Now Using That Network To Work On COVID-19
Re: Re:
Well, obviously you are responding to the smartest person in the world, as they have all the answers. You also know that they are a medical professional, you can tell by the MD appended to their username. So, no worries, they have stated that no cure or vaccine is possible as our current understanding of biology is lacking. BTW, we can take that as a serious prediction that 'we are all gonna die'.
/s
On the post: Doctor With Rare Disease Crowdsourced His Own Cure, And Is Now Using That Network To Work On COVID-19
Money talks, bullshit walks, the right way not even considered
While I endorse the concept of openness in this type of research there is still the problem of regulatory agencies sticking their noses into the process before any viable results emerge. And with a plethora of profit oriented entities vying to be 'the one' the chances that an open sourced (hopefully patented but not monetized), non profit oriented result to win has little or no chance.
On the post: When The Problem Isn't Twitter But President Trump
Speech, free, but what if lies?
While I think Trump spending time on corrosive garbage to be a boon (it keeps him from doing other horrible things) the fact that all of our politicians are co-opted to some degree or another by some faction or another is a big problem. Blaming the platform(s) is the politicians way of deflecting the issue(s) away from themselves.
It's the lies, the deception, the I have problems with. People tell me that we can control their speech, each election cycle. But the propaganda machine runs for the entire election cycle that drills those, and other, lies into the electorates heads creating the 'believablity' the politicians (and their co-opters) so desire.
So what happens when platform(s) adds to their TOS that they do not accept lying, and when lies are provable the posts will be deleted, and that that rule applies to all users, no matter what position or entity or power the liar holds. Then applies that rule evenly, around the world. There might be some economic downfall, initially, but I think in the long rung integrity might win out, even economically.
Yeah, that will seriously piss some people off. I would think that the heads of state in Thailand and Turkey would lead the list of those angered by such policies, and might even get the platform(s) banned in their country. No matter how much he cries, that is not an option for any politician in the US, not even the President.
On the post: Trump, Twitter, And Free Speech
Re: Re: Reintroduce the fairness doctrine?
The FCC is an independent agency and does not 'report' to the president, but its members are appointed by the president. That could, or maybe does, create the potential for influence from the Executive branch, there is no formal reporting relationship.
On the post: In Search Of A Grand Unified Theory Of Free Expression And Privacy
Privacy
I see privacy as a multi-threaded thing. If the lookers can identify me, as in my name, address, phone number, bank accounts, employment, social security number (which shouldn't be a problem, but is) current location, and probably a few more things, then I have a problem.
If, however, the lookers are cataloging my interests and viewing habits (when I let them, private browsing should not be accessible) and use that information to target ads at me (that I will never look at) then I find it less problematic. Where it becomes a problem is when the former is conflated with the latter by whatever methodology, then there is no difference.
If things can be kept to the latter without the conflation to the former then the difference between privacy and private becomes less important.
So far as the privacy vs free expression conundrum is concerned, there was a time when one went to the public square and expounded on their point of view. In those instances, the speaker was in no way private, and was in fact freely expressing themselves. The difference today is that when one speaks in the 'public square' so to speak, they aren't in the village square, the tend to be on the Internet (leaving the are platforms public squares argument for another time), and have many, many, many more listeners. Which also means many, many, many more potential detractors. Herein lies the problems.
The first problem is that of the mob. Please see this Simple Justice article and comments about mob justice. If the mob thinks it has things right then the speaker is taken down, and usually without remorse or for that matter actual understanding, or correctness.
The second problem comes from trolls. Techdirt had a recent article go to 349 comments (as of this writing) many of which were from a troll (aka provocateur) who kept making claims, claimed to have proof, but never pointed to the proof, and managed to take a subject entirely off course, and despite the don't feed the trolls mantra sucked many people (including me) into their subterfuge. A single troll can be as destructive as a mob in some cases and just as deleterious, and as in the case above, not actually have anything to say.
So when someone makes statements, the proverbial free expression, on the Internet and use their real name they have to be prepared for the fallout. Not everyone is. While I use an 'identifying handle' on this website, no one knows my real name (well, Mike does as he gets my payments, but he wouldn't if I didn't trust him) and since I don't consider myself to be in the position (fiscally) of taking on detractors who might want to SLAPP me for whatever reason, I maintain my privacy, even though anyone can find my speech in my profile and can respond to my posts. The point is free expression can have consequences, and if done without privacy being compromised, less dangerous.
On the other hand, our politicians have free expression, and give up their privacy so that they may achieve public office (aka power positions), the problem there being the veracity of their free expression. Office seekers tend to lie to voters in order to get elected, and then continue to lie to constituents in order to maintain their power. In these cases, the 'free' expression isn't actually free, though our 1st Amendment and Citizens United tell us they (and their supporters) have every right to do so, that 'free expression' is not without serious consequences. I am however unsure how to rectify that situation without creating some kind of Constitutional double standard, which in the case of lying politicians I wouldn't necessarily mind.
On the post: Hell Hath No Fury Like A Federal Law Enforcement Agency That Keeps Finding Some Way To Break Into IPhones
Re: The *real* lede
While that might be important, maybe even suppressed by the government point, it wasn't the point of the press conferences mentioned in the article. That the DoJ and FBI are working on getting back doors to encryption, a subject Techdirt cares about and is reporting on, it doesn't mean Techdirt doesn't care about the fact you mention.
But it wasn't the focus of the post, and just because you think your point is more important than the elimination of security for not just phone calls but banking and e-commerce and private communications and many other things important to many people, doesn't mean that Techdirt should ignore this important subject to accommodate your perspective.
Let me suggest https://www.blogger.com/home as an inexpensive starting place where you can dictate what should be talked about.
On the post: Our First Greenhouse Topic: Privacy
Re:
I am not so sure handing financial account information to every website I visit is a good idea. There is a whole lot of information exposed by careless companies and to trust the majority of them would be insane.
Now, if we first made the Internet secure, it might be a different story. But I have been told that because security was not a part of the original design that it is impossible now.
We could suggest that a new Internet/World Wide Web be started that is secure, and over time migrate from what we have now to the secure one. While I believe that is feasible, it probably isn't practical, and getting everyone to agree to do this would be a major, major chore.l
On the post: Trump, Twitter, And Free Speech
Work it, work it hard
I am glad the fact check happened, and am not at all surprised at Trump's response. With any luck, Trump will spend copious amounts of time diddling about what he will do to Twitter.
Think about how much less other damage he might accomplish.
On the post: Senate Talking Points Say Warrantless Collection Of Internet Use Data Keeps Terrorists From Killing Us
Re: Re:
They might not even need a hunch. I could be animosity or ideology.
On the post: So Wait, People Really Think The Barr DOJ's Investigation Into Google Is In Good Faith?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost me there.
So you have it, now show it. Otherwise your just a gasbag blowing noise out your ass, and then lying about it.
On the post: Judge Sends Devin Nunes' SLAPP Suits Against CNN And Washington Post Off To Their Proper Venues
Setting up the fail
Groovy. Two more courts lining up to admonish Bliss. When will they get around to admonishing Nunes?
On the post: Senate Talking Points Say Warrantless Collection Of Internet Use Data Keeps Terrorists From Killing Us
Judge Dredd cometh
When the government abolishes the need for warrants, without amending the Constitutions 4th Amendment, the next wrung on the ladder will be the courts. Don't need warrants, don't need courts. Every LEO will then be given execution powers.
On the post: So Wait, People Really Think The Barr DOJ's Investigation Into Google Is In Good Faith?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost me there.
Which means you can prove it. Where's the proof?
On the post: If You're Reporting On Trump's Supposed Plans For 'Anti-Conservative Bias' Panel, Shouldn't You Mention The 1st Amendment?
Re: Re: Re:
Spam is spam.
Non spam political messages would have been requested.
Next >>