Why can't we simply have secure systems that are insecure?
And why can't we have insecure systems that are secure?
But in typical government fashion, why can't black be white while still being black?
And up can be down, but still be up.
When you're up, you're up. When you're down, you're down. When you're only halfway up [_] You're neither up nor down [_] You need a different pull up resistor [_] Your flip-flop is broken [_] You're using base 3 [_] Is a superposition of two states [_] You haven't had enough to drink [_] Viagra or Cialis [_] Is a topic of ongoing study and research not yet sufficiently explored [x] You're like an orange clown
When you're neither up nor down is when your winnings equal the amount you've spent betting so far.
I only said it was useful. I left it as an exercise for the reader to decide who it was useful for.
In certain repressive regimes it is legally sanctioned for police to steal people's money, without any criminal charges, and call it "asset forfeiture". So legally sanctioned does not necessarily mean it passes the "moral" sniff test.
They never come right out and say "the end justifies the means", but they actually believe it does. I doubt they can even quite admit that to themselves internally.
Under the guise of "Think Of The Children", someone gets to have control points where they can monitor, record, edit, censor, or even outright block internet traffic.
It's legally sanctioned. And it has a high moral sounding justification.
Waste of money? I would say they call it "cheap at that price".
So now we make government agents beyond the reach of any kind of accountability or consequences. What could possibly go wrong?
We should be outraged and calling our congress critters to do something about this! Why should an activist court be allowed to limit such protections only to TSA agents while leaving other government officials vulnerable to accountability, lawsuits and consequences?
This fits perfectly with the earlier TD article about Ajit Pai's "middle finger" to the "digital divide".
Poor people are going to be the worst served. The most likely to complain. This seems like a great way to silence their voices in the truest spirit of free speech. Free speech -- which is that ISPs can "edit" the internet. Wow, it all seems to come together under this administration.
If people can't pay their court fines, the last thing you would want to do is let them keep their driver license so that they can hold a steady job and pay their court fines.
Our government CLEARLY no longer respects a number of constitutional amendments. So why should ANY of them still be respected?
The court should at least require consistency in how the government treats the constitution and its amendments. Thus NONE of the constitution or its amendments should be respected.
Advantages: * it would make the system more fair * more consistent * Easier for people to understand that they have no rights * It would make all levels of law enforcement more streamlined and efficient * No more pesky warrants * Asset forfeiture any time anywhere * No more limitations on punishments * Saves huge amounts of taxpayer money because police work is MUCH easier in a police state
What possible counter arguments could there be? The duty of the court seems clear.
The government is not trying to obstruct justice, they merely want to bring an end to it. They're not stealing your liberty, because your liberty isn't copyrighted. When liberty was first invented, they should have had the foresight to patent and copyright it, along with a suitable trademark and custom printed T-shirts.
Give me Liberty or give me something of lesser or equal value! Or a coupon for it! As long as it is entertaining and amusing. Oh, look! A shiny! Liberty Version 3.0! And it's on sale!
If someone steals and downloads their pound of butter, I could email them a replacement pound of butter. Especially if their butter is copyrighted. But they would need to be patient for a minute because the pizza I ordered is being faxed to me right now.
Not only do we need Internet Drivers Licenses, we need all computers to have the equivalent of a VIN, and a license plate. A wonderful way to raise revenue would be property taxes on computers like on cars, where you pay to renew your computer's registration.
The Record Labels not only under value Technology, they are outright against it and only get dragged kicking, screaming and suing into each modern age.
Weren't these people sure that player pianos would somehow destroy music?
The radio would destroy music? But . . . payola!
Tape recorders would destroy music.
Home taping of records would destroy music.
(Videotape would destroy the motion picture industry, but that is a different cesspool.)
Walkman type cassette players would destroy music, and encouraged people to make illegal copies of records.
CD ripping would destroy music.
Making Mix CDs would destroy music.
The RIAA sued Diamond Rio for making the first personal mp3 player -- because it would destroy music.
The RIAA went insane over Napster, Gnutella, Bittorrent and every technology that could distribute files.
In 2006, Universal Music told Apple that iPods were repositories for stolen music.
And then streaming music services.
And gradually, the record labels discover that there is money to be made by reluctantly letting people buy your licenses.
Undervaluing Technology is just the tip of the lawsuit with the record labels.
But if the people are allowed to LISTEN to music, they will steal it!!!
Why would I want to PAY for ESPN, which is about sports, which I find mildly offensive, highly uninteresting. I wish ESPN had to PAY ME to even have it take up space in my programming lineup - - - IF I still had cable tv. But I got rid of cable tv a few years ago. And haven't looked back. So worrying about ESPN is a purely hypothetical exercise for me. Being FORCED to pay for it is long gone.
Because Optimists are full of blue sky daydreaming. Unicorns and rainbows.
People were called paranoid before the 2013 Snowden revelations. Then everyone realized that things were already far worse than the paranoid people said.
Others raises the point about putting mega corporation devices into your private spaces that can listen in on you all the time. And so called "Smart TVs" that can spy on your with a webcam built into the TV. (Didn't TD already cover that one.)
But people will dismiss it as a fluke. An anomaly. One more in a long, long, long pattern of anomalies. People will go back to sleep because the sweet addictive toys are just too wonderful to put down. IoT everywhere! An app for every private part of your life.
Give me liberty or give me something of lesser or equal value. Or a coupon for it. As long as it is entertaining and amusing. Oh, look! A shiny! Version 3.0! And it's on sale!
On the post: FBI Boss Chris Wray: We Put A Man On The Moon So Why Not Encryption Backdoors?
It seems so simple
And why can't we have insecure systems that are secure?
But in typical government fashion, why can't black be white while still being black?
And up can be down, but still be up.
When you're up, you're up.
When you're down, you're down.
When you're only halfway up
[_] You're neither up nor down
[_] You need a different pull up resistor
[_] Your flip-flop is broken
[_] You're using base 3
[_] Is a superposition of two states
[_] You haven't had enough to drink
[_] Viagra or Cialis
[_] Is a topic of ongoing study and research not yet sufficiently explored
[x] You're like an orange clown
When you're neither up nor down is when your winnings equal the amount you've spent betting so far.
On the post: Texas Judges Continue To Turn Expungement Orders Into 'Right To Be Forgotten' Requests
Bu, bu, but . . .
Oh, wait.
Nevermind.
On the post: India Embraces Full Net Neutrality As The U.S. Runs The Opposite Direction
There is a lesson to be learned here
Under the same conditions Facebook promised to India.
That would make the congress critters bring back network neutrality to protect everyone!!!
Oh, wait. No, it wouldn't. They don't care. That is the lesson.
On the post: Research Confirms The Anecdotal Evidence: Internet Content Filters Are A Waste Of Money
Re: Re: Not a waste of money
In certain repressive regimes it is legally sanctioned for police to steal people's money, without any criminal charges, and call it "asset forfeiture". So legally sanctioned does not necessarily mean it passes the "moral" sniff test.
They never come right out and say "the end justifies the means", but they actually believe it does. I doubt they can even quite admit that to themselves internally.
On the post: Research Confirms The Anecdotal Evidence: Internet Content Filters Are A Waste Of Money
Not a waste of money
Under the guise of "Think Of The Children", someone gets to have control points where they can monitor, record, edit, censor, or even outright block internet traffic.
It's legally sanctioned. And it has a high moral sounding justification.
Waste of money? I would say they call it "cheap at that price".
On the post: Appeals Court Says TSA Agents Are Beyond The Reach Of Federal Lawsuits
Something must be done about this!
We should be outraged and calling our congress critters to do something about this! Why should an activist court be allowed to limit such protections only to TSA agents while leaving other government officials vulnerable to accountability, lawsuits and consequences?
On the post: The FCC's Sneaky Plan To Make It Easier To Ignore ISP Complaints
Pay to Play (or complain)
Poor people are going to be the worst served. The most likely to complain. This seems like a great way to silence their voices in the truest spirit of free speech. Free speech -- which is that ISPs can "edit" the internet. Wow, it all seems to come together under this administration.
On the post: Federal Court Says Taking People's Drivers Licenses Away For Failure To Pay Court Fees Is Unconstitutional
It makes sense
On the post: Post-Carpenter Ruling Says Call Records Aren't Content Or Cell Site Location Info; Thus, No 4th Amendment Protection
The danger of call records
https://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/
shows how dangerous metadata can be. That traitorous Paul Revere could be discovered using call records.
On the post: Post-Carpenter Ruling Says Call Records Aren't Content Or Cell Site Location Info; Thus, No 4th Amendment Protection
The danger of call records
On the post: Appeals Court Says You Can Copyright A Collection Of Facts... If You Leave Out A Few
FoxNews will be delighted to hear it
What if you add non-facts to the collection of facts? That would seem to indicate creativity that makes it copyrightable.
On the post: Supreme Court Agrees To Take Petition Asking Whether Eighth Amendment Protections Apply To Asset Forfeiture
Why would Amendments still apply?
The court should at least require consistency in how the government treats the constitution and its amendments. Thus NONE of the constitution or its amendments should be respected.
Advantages:
* it would make the system more fair
* more consistent
* Easier for people to understand that they have no rights
* It would make all levels of law enforcement more streamlined and efficient
* No more pesky warrants
* Asset forfeiture any time anywhere
* No more limitations on punishments
* Saves huge amounts of taxpayer money because police work is MUCH easier in a police state
What possible counter arguments could there be? The duty of the court seems clear.
On the post: Broadcasters Hope To Counter Ad Skipping By Replacing Ads With Short 'Inspirational Videos'
Re: Well that should work just fine
I will pay for streaming without commercials. But I will no longer tolerate commercials.
On the post: Ajit Pai Now Trying To Pretend That Everybody Supported Net Neutrality Repeal
An Internet free of Net Neutrality
Unlimited data plans
Unlimited throttling
Unlimited price hikes
Unlimited mergers (there can be only one)
Monopolies with unlimited (and unchecked) power!
Get rid of Net Neutrality today so that the intarweb tubes can be FREE!
Free of competition!
Free of oversight!
Free of regulation!
Free of low prices!
On the post: Top German Publisher Says: 'You Wouldn't Steal A Pound Of Butter... So We Need A Snippet Tax'
Re: Dear government
Give me Liberty or give me something of lesser or equal value! Or a coupon for it! As long as it is entertaining and amusing. Oh, look! A shiny! Liberty Version 3.0! And it's on sale!
On the post: Top German Publisher Says: 'You Wouldn't Steal A Pound Of Butter... So We Need A Snippet Tax'
Re: Re: Pound?
On the post: UK Security Minister Says Only A Drivers Licence For The Internet Can Bring Back Online Civility
The REAL solution
Think of the Children!
On the post: Vevo Flop Shows, Once Again, How Badly The Record Labels Underestimate Technology
Record Labels and Technology
The Record Labels not only under value Technology, they are outright against it and only get dragged kicking, screaming and suing into each modern age.
Weren't these people sure that player pianos would somehow destroy music?
The radio would destroy music? But . . . payola!
Tape recorders would destroy music.
Home taping of records would destroy music.
(Videotape would destroy the motion picture industry, but that is a different cesspool.)
Walkman type cassette players would destroy music, and encouraged people to make illegal copies of records.
CD ripping would destroy music.
Making Mix CDs would destroy music.
The RIAA sued Diamond Rio for making the first personal mp3 player -- because it would destroy music.
The RIAA went insane over Napster, Gnutella, Bittorrent and every technology that could distribute files.
In 2006, Universal Music told Apple that iPods were repositories for stolen music.
And then streaming music services.
And gradually, the record labels discover that there is money to be made by reluctantly letting people buy your licenses.
Undervaluing Technology is just the tip of the lawsuit with the record labels.
But if the people are allowed to LISTEN to music, they will steal it!!!
On the post: ESPN Analysts Routinely Told Execs Not To Worry About Cord Cutting
Why pay for ESPN?
On the post: Amazon Alexa Instantaneously Justifies Years Of Surveillance Paranoia
The Pessimists are ALWAYS right
People were called paranoid before the 2013 Snowden revelations. Then everyone realized that things were already far worse than the paranoid people said.
Others raises the point about putting mega corporation devices into your private spaces that can listen in on you all the time. And so called "Smart TVs" that can spy on your with a webcam built into the TV. (Didn't TD already cover that one.)
But people will dismiss it as a fluke. An anomaly. One more in a long, long, long pattern of anomalies. People will go back to sleep because the sweet addictive toys are just too wonderful to put down. IoT everywhere! An app for every private part of your life.
Give me liberty or give me something of lesser or equal value. Or a coupon for it.
As long as it is entertaining and amusing.
Oh, look! A shiny! Version 3.0! And it's on sale!
Next >>