Re: 'They loved me... right until they learned about me.'
A hypothetical notice.
KIND OF WORK:
work? what's that?
DESCRIPTION:
I am a well respected person in the society that I come from, the US, and other parts of the world where I am known as a crook or highly experienced fraudster in bribery, corruption and misuse of public pension funds. However, recently, there are a number of websites that point out my misdeeds. But not those I victimized. We want google (but not other search engines) to remove such sites from the search. Whaaaaaaa! Waaaaah! (sniff).
Rarely does anyone consider that for China to build its great firewall, it purchased equipment from US manufacturers that was capable of implementing this on a large scale.
Maybe those manufacturers should be remembered for their role in the imprisoning and torturing of thoughtcrime in China -- in exchange for a quick buck.
Re: This is a reasonable interpretation of the 5th's text
The 5th amendment says that you cannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself.
Being tortured is not the same as being compelled. You still have a choice. You can always simply resist and refuse to testify against yourself to avoid conviction and punishment.
On a global scale, I would even say on a national scale, ads simply DO NOT and CAN NOT be tolerated. It is not scalable. Nor efficient. (just as the fish in efficient are not scalable)
Every advertiser wants to get their ad in front of every human's eyeballs. That is a many-to-many connection problem that simply is intolerable. It is why people object to SPAM. If it were only one or two emails per day it would be horrible. But in fact SPAM, were it not for technical measures to stop it, would make email entirely unusable.
The right model is to let me search for what I need. When I need house siding, or new windows, I will seek it out. I don't need irrelevant ads in front of my face.
A federal judge in North Carolina has decided compelling decryption of devices is only a small Fifth Amendment problem -- one that can be overlooked
With this precedent the government can engage in actions that are only a SMALL 1st amendment problem, a SMALL 2nd amendment problem, a SMALL 4th, and 14th amendment problem.
In fact, the government can do things that are a SMALL problem with anything in the entire constitution. Or all of our written laws and court precedents. After all, it's only a SMALL problem.
In fact, the president dissolving congress because it is inconvenient would only be a SMALL violation of the how our system of government works. While he's at it, just dissolve the Supreme Court as well.
And for efficiency's sake, put an end to these pesky elections every four years. It's only a SMALL problem.
Prescription narcotic pain killers will make you test positive on opiates. Even if you've refilled and taken them for occasional use for a decade. Even if you don't have a dependency, even a tolerance, let alone not having an addiction. And are responsible in the use of such drugs.
I would rather talk about the term false positive.
2.5% may not sound like much. Unless your test result happens to fall into the false positives and your life and career are destroyed by overzealous cops who were kind enough not to just shoot you on the spot -- uh, because of um, something.
We're talking about an extremely sensitive test here. What if you test positive because your fingerprint ridges have some illicit drug that you happened to pick up by merely handling currency.
Oh, wait. Only criminals use actual cash which is anonymous. Law abiding citizens have no need to be anonymous and would know that all good people do not use cash so that their entire life is open to inspection to the government. For their own good.
The leaders of tech companies don't see the darkness the FBI sees.
Comey has it backwards.
The leaders of the tech companies, and their customers, look at the FBI and see the darkness. As only one example I will point out Aaron Swartz.
And it has gone on a long time. And not just the FBI. Go back to the early 1990s, look on Wikipedia for: "Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service". This was partly responsible for the founding of the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation).
Even in the early 1990s there was an ongoing War On Encryption. Encryption was classified as a munition and could not be exported. People wondered if you bought a book at Borders Bookstore on Encryption, and carried such a book with you out of the country, if it would be seen as a munition. It was pointed out that this was perhaps the best way to "export" crypographic technology. Also, if the US was to mandate weakened encryption, or the famous "Clipper chip" (government escrow decryption keys) that the rest of the world would move on to secure encryption, and US companies would be at a competitive disadvantage. Eventually, the government came partly to its senses and simply limited exported encryption to use short weak keys.
But here we are again. It is the same issues. And for the same reasons. The government wants to be able to abuse power, snoop on anything, anywhere, without a warrant, or any kind of supervision. Comey's talk about judicial warrants is disingenuous at best.
On the post: Comcast Exposes Customer WiFi SSIDs and Passwords For Customers Paying To Rent A Comcast Router
Re: Re: Failure? This is a SERVICE!
On the post: Comcast Exposes Customer WiFi SSIDs and Passwords For Customers Paying To Rent A Comcast Router
Re:
When a guest asks "What's your WiFi password?" you can simply tell them you're on Comcast they can easily look up your WiFi password.
When the neighbor's kid wants to download copyright content, he can easily and conveniently use your WiFi password! That's convenience!
It's the kind of service you've come to expect from the Comcast name.
On the post: Comcast Exposes Customer WiFi SSIDs and Passwords For Customers Paying To Rent A Comcast Router
Re:
[x] rise
[_] fall
to the level we've come to expect from IoT devices!
On the post: Comcast Exposes Customer WiFi SSIDs and Passwords For Customers Paying To Rent A Comcast Router
Failure? This is a SERVICE!
On the post: Georgia Governor Vetoes Terrible Cybersecurity Law That Would Have Criminalized Security Research
Re:
Very sadly, the benefit some politician might hope to get out of it is simply to grandstand and say Look! I did something!
look mommy!, I did a something!
On the post: Give Me Liberty, Or Give Me Data Protection? A Troubling Implication Of The American Voter UK Data Protection Case
Give Me Liberty
On the post: Another Convicted Fraudster Attempts To Manage His Reputation With Bogus DMCA Takedown Notices
Re: 'They loved me... right until they learned about me.'
A hypothetical notice.
KIND OF WORK:
work? what's that?
DESCRIPTION:
I am a well respected person in the society that I come from, the US, and other parts of the world where I am known as a crook or highly experienced fraudster in bribery, corruption and misuse of public pension funds. However, recently, there are a number of websites that point out my misdeeds. But not those I victimized. We want google (but not other search engines) to remove such sites from the search. Whaaaaaaa! Waaaaah! (sniff).
On the post: China Outlaws Telling The Truth About Communist Party 'Heroes And Martyrs'
Re: Re: Re: Google, et al.
On the post: China Outlaws Telling The Truth About Communist Party 'Heroes And Martyrs'
Re: Google, et al.
Maybe those manufacturers should be remembered for their role in the imprisoning and torturing of thoughtcrime in China -- in exchange for a quick buck.
On the post: China Outlaws Telling The Truth About Communist Party 'Heroes And Martyrs'
Right to be forgotten
On the post: Another Federal Court Says Compelled Decryption Doesn't Raise Fifth Amendment Issues
Re: This is a reasonable interpretation of the 5th's text
Being tortured is not the same as being compelled. You still have a choice. You can always simply resist and refuse to testify against yourself to avoid conviction and punishment.
On the post: Germany's Supreme Court Confirms That Adblocking Is Legal, In Sixth Consecutive Defeat For Publishers
Re: Re: Another blast from the past...
There IS a problem with ads fundamentally.
On a global scale, I would even say on a national scale, ads simply DO NOT and CAN NOT be tolerated. It is not scalable. Nor efficient. (just as the fish in efficient are not scalable)
Every advertiser wants to get their ad in front of every human's eyeballs. That is a many-to-many connection problem that simply is intolerable. It is why people object to SPAM. If it were only one or two emails per day it would be horrible. But in fact SPAM, were it not for technical measures to stop it, would make email entirely unusable.
The right model is to let me search for what I need. When I need house siding, or new windows, I will seek it out. I don't need irrelevant ads in front of my face.
On the post: Princeton Project Aims To Secure The Internet Of Broken, Shitty Things
Remember the Prefix
On the post: Another Federal Court Says Compelled Decryption Doesn't Raise Fifth Amendment Issues
Only a s SMALL constitutional problem
With this precedent the government can engage in actions that are only a SMALL 1st amendment problem, a SMALL 2nd amendment problem, a SMALL 4th, and 14th amendment problem.
In fact, the government can do things that are a SMALL problem with anything in the entire constitution. Or all of our written laws and court precedents. After all, it's only a SMALL problem.
In fact, the president dissolving congress because it is inconvenient would only be a SMALL violation of the how our system of government works. While he's at it, just dissolve the Supreme Court as well.
And for efficiency's sake, put an end to these pesky elections every four years. It's only a SMALL problem.
On the post: Germany's Supreme Court Confirms That Adblocking Is Legal, In Sixth Consecutive Defeat For Publishers
Re: Another blast from the past...
I will get the message and I won't come back for at least one quarter of a galactic rotation.
On the post: Device Detects Drug Use Through Fingerprints, Raising A Host Of Constitutional Questions
Re: Re: Re:
It does NOT distinguish how the chemical got into the sample. Either through perspiration or adhesion from a surface you touched.
TFA gave me the impression the test is sensitive.
On the post: Device Detects Drug Use Through Fingerprints, Raising A Host Of Constitutional Questions
Re:
On the post: Device Detects Drug Use Through Fingerprints, Raising A Host Of Constitutional Questions
Re:
I would rather talk about the term false positive.
2.5% may not sound like much. Unless your test result happens to fall into the false positives and your life and career are destroyed by overzealous cops who were kind enough not to just shoot you on the spot -- uh, because of um, something.
We're talking about an extremely sensitive test here. What if you test positive because your fingerprint ridges have some illicit drug that you happened to pick up by merely handling currency.
Oh, wait. Only criminals use actual cash which is anonymous. Law abiding citizens have no need to be anonymous and would know that all good people do not use cash so that their entire life is open to inspection to the government. For their own good.
On the post: The FBI's War On Encryption Is Personal, According To Comey's New Book
Re: Re: The FBI and the darkness
However, I wasn't talking about censorship. Rather, about snooping, and other abuses that lead to distrust of government TLAs.
On the post: The FBI's War On Encryption Is Personal, According To Comey's New Book
The FBI and the darkness
Comey has it backwards.
The leaders of the tech companies, and their customers, look at the FBI and see the darkness. As only one example I will point out Aaron Swartz.
And it has gone on a long time. And not just the FBI. Go back to the early 1990s, look on Wikipedia for: "Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service". This was partly responsible for the founding of the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation).
Even in the early 1990s there was an ongoing War On Encryption. Encryption was classified as a munition and could not be exported. People wondered if you bought a book at Borders Bookstore on Encryption, and carried such a book with you out of the country, if it would be seen as a munition. It was pointed out that this was perhaps the best way to "export" crypographic technology. Also, if the US was to mandate weakened encryption, or the famous "Clipper chip" (government escrow decryption keys) that the rest of the world would move on to secure encryption, and US companies would be at a competitive disadvantage. Eventually, the government came partly to its senses and simply limited exported encryption to use short weak keys.
But here we are again. It is the same issues. And for the same reasons. The government wants to be able to abuse power, snoop on anything, anywhere, without a warrant, or any kind of supervision. Comey's talk about judicial warrants is disingenuous at best.
Next >>