Gotcha. I haven't seen anyone address the 'self incrimination by revealing anything known' issue in a long time - the old 'you have to surrender a key to a lockbox, but not the combination to a safe' thing. I used to see comparisons drawn between that example and the difference between passwords and biometrics.
By chance, does anyone know what happened with that argument?
I was wondering if I was oversimplifying things in my mental model... it seems like streaming is conceptually equivalent to radio broadcasting where this licensing issue is concerned. The only difference is 1's & 0's instead of peaks & troughs. If playing a song on the radio isn't distribution, neither is streaming.
Sadly enough, I've gotten so pessimistic that having anything come even this close to making a clear, definitive statement made me positively giddy. At least they mentioned that someone might want to do something about the elephant standing in the middle of the room. Y'know. Eventually.
Re: This decision is not an unreasonable compromise; the key is different from the data
the data is no more privileged than the contents of a file cabinet seized under warrant.
I think that's kinda what Riley addressed: an arrest warrant lets 'em search your wallet, purse, or backpack, but a smartphone can contain so much information that it's like searching a house - and therefore requires its own separate warrant.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't be part of the problem.
That was hyperbole, and there's no discussing things with an absolutist (as is made obvious in the threads above). I think the only problem, however, is that you lack a few tools; I'd be happy to loan you some extras outta my bag if you'd ever like to be constructive ;)
(The terminal emoticon is generally accepted to mean 'but take your meds first, please'.)
You sound like the kind of guy who's eventually going to get people to 'take responsibility for their actions' by climbing to the top of a clock-tower with a rifle.
The problem is the desire to assign a singular entity as the over arching monster.
I don't think most TD readers take the naive view that Pai is the Alpha and the Omega of the assault on NN.
Why a story like this is interesting is that it shows Pai being called out (even if quietly and gently) by some of those who, in theory, want exactly what he's trying to achieve. When your own allies are heard saying 'dude, tone it town,' it draws media attention, and this attention can bring the issue to the notice of a larger audience than it would normally have.
Yes, a lot of them may just jump on the bandwagon to have the satisfaction of chanting 'Pai sucks!' along with the crowd, and this might only help in the short term. However, at least a few will find themselves chanting, and then start thinking 'Wait... what is it about Pai's behavior that demonstrates his suckitude?' At this point, maybe they start to learn more about Net Neutrality and become a long term defender and advocate for it.
(OK, maybe it isn't usually a massive-scale 'John Oliver Effect' sort of thing, but every little bit helps.)
The Fourth Circuit Appeals Court has just struck down previous rulings allowing the government to seize untainted property pre-trial.
So if you told the prosecutor to 'snort my taint,' could the government then legitimately seize your assets as 'fruit of the tainted tree'? Sounds like an admission of taint to me...
On the post: Military Appeals Court Says Demands To Unlock Phones May Violate The Fifth Amendment
Re: Re: I certainly support a warrant being required
On the post: Military Appeals Court Says Demands To Unlock Phones May Violate The Fifth Amendment
Re: I certainly support a warrant being required
Gotcha. I haven't seen anyone address the 'self incrimination by revealing anything known' issue in a long time - the old 'you have to surrender a key to a lockbox, but not the combination to a safe' thing. I used to see comparisons drawn between that example and the difference between passwords and biometrics.
By chance, does anyone know what happened with that argument?
On the post: Spotify Finally Realizes That Streaming Isn't Reproduction Or Distribution
Re: Re: Terminology doesn't fit...
On the post: Case Dismissed: Judge Throws Out Shiva Ayyadurai's Defamation Lawsuit Against Techdirt
On the post: Multiple Legislators Looking To Neutralize AG Sessions' Rollback Of Federal Forfeiture Reforms
Re:
On the post: Military Appeals Court Says Demands To Unlock Phones May Violate The Fifth Amendment
Re: Half Assed...again
Sadly enough, I've gotten so pessimistic that having anything come even this close to making a clear, definitive statement made me positively giddy. At least they mentioned that someone might want to do something about the elephant standing in the middle of the room. Y'know. Eventually.
On the post: Military Appeals Court Says Demands To Unlock Phones May Violate The Fifth Amendment
Re: This decision is not an unreasonable compromise; the key is different from the data
the data is no more privileged than the contents of a file cabinet seized under warrant.
I think that's kinda what Riley addressed: an arrest warrant lets 'em search your wallet, purse, or backpack, but a smartphone can contain so much information that it's like searching a house - and therefore requires its own separate warrant.
On the post: UK's Terrorism Law Reviewer Says Tech Companies Shouldn't Offer Encryption To Anonymous Users
Mr Hill conceded that experts were divided as to whether such checks were feasible but that it was a debate “worth having”.
I hope they televise that debate:
Tonight's Topic: Bypassing Online Anonymity Safely and Securely
Max Hill - 'De-anonymized anonymity makes sense and is feasible to implement.'
Everyone Else - 'Max Hill is a fucking idiot.'
On the post: AT&T Blatantly Lies, Claims Most Consumers Want Net Neutrality Killed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't be part of the problem.
That was hyperbole, and there's no discussing things with an absolutist (as is made obvious in the threads above). I think the only problem, however, is that you lack a few tools; I'd be happy to loan you some extras outta my bag if you'd ever like to be constructive ;)
(The terminal emoticon is generally accepted to mean 'but take your meds first, please'.)
On the post: AT&T Blatantly Lies, Claims Most Consumers Want Net Neutrality Killed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't be part of the problem.
On the post: AT&T Blatantly Lies, Claims Most Consumers Want Net Neutrality Killed
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: California Case Against Backpage Moves Forward Over Money Laundering Claims
Re: Re:
Surely you must be joking, Professor Goldman: "deserve's" got nothin' to do with government.
On the post: Attorney General Jeff Sessions: Hurricane Harvey Is Proof We Need To Militarize Our Police Forces
Re: Re:
President Reagan - Mastermind (SNL)
http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/lists/20-best-saturday-night-live-political-sketches-w481607/pr esident-reagan-mastermind-12686-w481639
On the post: No Immunity For Cops Who Arrested Man Recording Them For Obstruction
McMenomy asserts that his mind raced in fear of an ambush
Ladies and gentlemen: may I introduce the new 'furtive movement near his waistband.'
On the post: Judge Tosses Sarah Palin's Defamation Suit Against The New York Times, Says No Actual Malice
Re: Stylised Crosshairs ?
Kinda like saying that giving somebody the middle finger is a threat because you've got a stylised gun.
Apparently you're not familiar with the US school system's 'zero tolerance' policy,
On the post: California Case Against Backpage Moves Forward Over Money Laundering Claims
Re: Re: "Crushing" Backpage with current law is okay, but...
It'll see a squirrel soon enough and wander off. Won't make the squirrel very happy, but hey: it's a squirrel.
On the post: Even Many ISP-Backed Allies Think Ajit Pai's Attack On Net Neutrality Is Too Extreme
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem is the desire to assign a singular entity as the over arching monster.
I don't think most TD readers take the naive view that Pai is the Alpha and the Omega of the assault on NN.
Why a story like this is interesting is that it shows Pai being called out (even if quietly and gently) by some of those who, in theory, want exactly what he's trying to achieve. When your own allies are heard saying 'dude, tone it town,' it draws media attention, and this attention can bring the issue to the notice of a larger audience than it would normally have.
Yes, a lot of them may just jump on the bandwagon to have the satisfaction of chanting 'Pai sucks!' along with the crowd, and this might only help in the short term. However, at least a few will find themselves chanting, and then start thinking 'Wait... what is it about Pai's behavior that demonstrates his suckitude?' At this point, maybe they start to learn more about Net Neutrality and become a long term defender and advocate for it.
(OK, maybe it isn't usually a massive-scale 'John Oliver Effect' sort of thing, but every little bit helps.)
On the post: California Case Against Backpage Moves Forward Over Money Laundering Claims
Re:
Once that rhetorical shift occurs, I think we deserve clear answers about who else the proponents expect will be affected by the bills–and how.
I torn between making a bad Feynman joke and making a bad 'Unforgiven' joke.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Gov't Can't Seize Untainted Assets Ahead Of Trial
The Fourth Circuit Appeals Court has just struck down previous rulings allowing the government to seize untainted property pre-trial.
So if you told the prosecutor to 'snort my taint,' could the government then legitimately seize your assets as 'fruit of the tainted tree'? Sounds like an admission of taint to me...
On the post: CCTV + Lip-Reading Software = Even Less Privacy, Even More Surveillance
Next >>