It's a great story as long as you ignore the obvious: It only works because the victims are already trapped and making money for their abusers.
Here's the thing: these ads are run to find customers, because without them, there isn't enough business. So they run ads to try to entice guys who otherwise might not do this to actually give it a try.
Remove the ads, remove a source of income, and it would seem likely that fewer girls would end up in this situation to start with.
Finding the victims after they are victimized is "good"... taking away the financial incentives to abuse them to start with, "better".
I didn't think it needed to be repeated. I got to this story first scrolling down. Had I seen the other story first, I would have added "just like that other dead on arrival bill".
EFF engages in some wishful thinking when it comes to hate speech:
"There is absolutely nothing true about this statement. A.B. 375 specifically said that an ISP can disclose information without customer approval for any “fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful use of the service.” More importantly, it also included what is often referred to as a “catchall provision” by allowing ISPs to disclose information “as otherwise required or authorized by law.”"
Here's the rub: Define unlawful. Careful now, because unless convicted of something, are you really SURE that it's unlawful? Fraudulent? Same question, at what point is something legally fraudulent? Only when it's actually proven?
The plain reading of the terms they point to suggests that in every case, the ISP can provide the information is and when a case is proven, and not just because they think there might be. That means that if, as an example, Google thinks that someone is planning a crime using their system, or is distributing hate speech, they would not be able to talk to authorities about it until (at bare minimum) charges had been laid. Otherwise, it doesn't meet the plain reading of the rules.
It's a big like the SESTA thing: Techdirt has read the rules to their strongest and most extreme application, and EFF is trying to read the rules to their softest and most forgiving level. EFF is expecting the law to somehow magically give a pass to ISPs and services when the rules say otherwise, and Mike and crew are expecting SESTA to interfere with everything and to cause major headaches for everyone.
Yet, both readings are honest but a bit wishful. Google and Facebook seemed concerned about getting their hands tied for no good reason, based on legislation that might not have had the desired effect. They took the extreme sort of reading that Mike has done with SESTA. Is that wrong? If it's wrong for Google, is it not also wrong on Techdirt?
It is a very interesting article but it points out not so much problems with ISPs, but how much people will harp on anything that comes up for a decade or longer. More than that, the points raised are mostly not directly relevant to net neutrality.
The "packet forgery" thing is a good example. You don't need net neutrality to resolve this issue, and more than that, it's something that came up a DECADE ago. This was something tried when the technology first allowed it, and it was shut down pretty quickly. The issue was resolved WITHOUT net neutrality.
Things like bans on tethering or excessive sharing of WiFi are also issues that can be dealt with without net neutrality - and in fact neither has anything to do with it. Why bring it up?
The reality here is simple: Net Neutrality was created by the FCC without any true legal basis (it's not law, it's only department rules, as it were) and if the current FCC wants to change them or remove them, the bar shouldn't be any higher than it was to create the rule to start with, which was a simple majority of the sitting FCC members.
If you want Net Neutrality for real, get your congress critters to pass it into law.
"We are arguing that he doesn't have the *evidence* to support his position"
There is no need - as there is no particular evidence on the other side either. In fact, as would be standard on Techdirt, we look at the previous 20 years that the internet ran on without NN rules, and say "gee, that grew up fast!".
NN is essentially the "netflix" rule. Writing the rules to satisfy one big player isn't any better than rolling them back for another.
Ask your critters to get to work, that is of course if they aren't tied up writing DOA 702 amendments!
"the Senate Intelligence Committee isn't going to do much to ensure this bill moves forward intact, if it moves forward at all."
It's not a bi-partisan, widely acclaim piece of proposed legislation, it's just another one of those "made for press conference" pieces of draft legislation that shows nothing more than where a couple of outlier critters happen to sit. All it takes is two to agree, and you can write up almost anything you like.
The truth is much more along the lines that most of the critters don't see the need for dramatic changes, so it's unlikely that anything other than extension comes along. I know it's not the story you want to tell, but a huge story revealing a piece of legislation that is already dying on the order paper isn't really making a difference.
Net Neutrality as it is was not created by law, but rather by agency regulation. The lack of an act of Congress means that the rules can be modified, updated, and even removed by the FCC - the same agency that created them to start with.
All it takes is a simple vote. It's the same manner that Wheeler created the rules. So if your argument is that Pai should not have the power to roll the rules back, you have to accept that Wheeler didn't have the power to create them.
The truth is this is that this is an empty fight. Not matter what happens, the rules are likely to either be suspended or ignored and argued in court for the forseeable future. The way to resolve the issue is through congress. What you get from congress will be a compromise that you likely will not want.
The internet lasted 20 years as a commercial entity without any need for regulation. If there is a need for regulation, let those who write the laws create the framework, and the FCC can then color in between the lines.
Google (and most of the other big players) have products and services in almost every country that has significant value to them. With almost 50 million people, Spain is a larger market than Canada, as an example. Google wouldn't want to risk their rest of their business in order to support a separatist faction.
Google has little choice but to follow the law here. The Spanish courts could have easily moved to have the play store blocked at the ISP level. or perhaps moved on Google's offices in Spain with an injunction or restraining order that may have even shut them down until they complied.
Also, let's be clear here: Google has played fast and loose when it comes to tax avoidance for the last decade. Pissing off the Spanish government would lead to further scrutiny, and that could lead to a billion dollar tax bill. I doubt Google wants to take the chance of rocking anyones boat.
It's not Google's fight to fight. If the separatists want their app re-instated, they need to go to the court and complain. It's their fight. In the same way you can't buy certain products at a Wal-Mart, it's not the retailer to argue the case, it's the maker.
Google has it's own interests, and those aren't risking it's business to help a few seperatists - no matter how good or noble the cause.
You are unlocking your phone. As you hit the first finger, someone jiggles your hand, you almost drop your phone, and you catch it at the last second, with another finger resting on the unlock.
In many ways the case is very simple. Remove the "touchID" button and there wouldn't be a problem compelling everyone in the house to provide finger prints. It's actually fairly common to do when trying to do a sort of elimination to look for non-resident finger prints.
Adding the technology doesn't change a lot. If they had intended to lock their phones in a meaningful way, they would have used a password or gesture.
I feel for you, but I have little doubt that you have left a bunch of the story out. I doubt on the basis of a single post and not a single other piece of evidence of doctor's recommendations that your child was taken away.
Perhaps your standing as a "fundamentalist Christian" who has had problems with the state in regards to your church and your daughter might be part of the story? Perhaps choices made in the name of your religion (like not feeding her all food groups, or what have you) may have played a part in it?
Google will never admit it, but even they figured out that trying to catch up to the incumbent players is a lost cause. The return on investment is too small - and that was with cherry picking only higher density areas and not serving the "one house every 5 miles" rural parts of America.
Remember too, wireless is (and will always be) supply limited. There is only so much bandwidth to work with, you can only fit so many towers, and they can only handle so much throughput. Wireline is better, but still limited by distance and cost per mile.
Supply will always be at least somewhat limited, especially outside of the densest population centers. Thus, demand pushes prices up.
A very small amount in theory, but given to the right people in the right places, it gets plenty of value. Many of these groups operate for nothing or next to nothing, so even $1000 would be a huge windfall for them to work with.
Politicians spend hundreds of millions, but it's mostly the firehose of shit flung against random walls. Most of it doesn't stick, and much of it sticks in the wrong places.
2.3 million of targeted motivation of groups is really a big way to start echos in the chamber.
"The scope of what they could target is enormous: tweets warning about plain-clothed ICE agents at courthouses, search engine results for articles indicating whether evacuation centers will be checking immigration status, online ads for DACA enrollment assistance, or even discussion about sanctuary cities and the protections they afford generally."
Let's be fair here, it's all discussions about breaking the law in one form or another. These children are with people who are not their legal guardians, and they could be in peril.
They are paranoid because they know they are breaking the law. It's incredibly sad that they are in this sort of postition, but really blame Obama for DACA, which has lead to people literally pushing their children over the wall into the US illegally knowing they will be "safe".
Oops, kind heared liberal concept leads to pain. Who would have thought it?
"They're offering "live" data to anybody who fucking comes in over the Internet."
The two sites in question were (a) demos, and (b) appear to be showing only your own data to yourself. There was no indication that the data was widely available without having access to the AT&T API, which has restricted access.
"even letting it outside of a closed billing system into a larger corporate system would be grounds for damages."
Not sure that is entirely true, especially not pre-2017, when these were developed.
"And "partners" are third parties. That's just what pieces of shit like to call the particular third parties they happen to be working with that week, as part of the various cons they're running."
It depends on the structure of the deal. It would also depend on if the data was actually stored by third parties, or only requested and used during a single transaction. Since we don't have a completed product with a final consumer facing view, we may never know.
It would appear to mostly be two demo systems that were never turned off. At best, AT&T appears to perhaps be a bit lax is turning off access to their API.
"pieces of shit"
Indeed. Cussing and calling names sums up your post nicely!
It is, however, a simplistic way to explain things. Disney isn't that concerned with fans being fans. They are concerned with people trying to make a buck off or make their own names on the back of Disney stuff.
While nobody around here would ever like to admit it, Disney is pretty tolerant of many uses of their works, they don't chase after fans (a few video game companies could stand to learn from that). Disney has created a very powerful portfolio of characters and has purchased perhaps one of the few other big portfolios (Star Wars) in part because they are really good at minding their business carefully.
Love them or hate them (and I know you hate them) Disney isn't in the wrong here. They are actually being pretty reasonable and calm about it, but they are taking care of business.
On the post: Study On Craigslist Shutting 'Erotic Services' Shows SESTA May Hurt Those It Purports To Help
Here's the thing: these ads are run to find customers, because without them, there isn't enough business. So they run ads to try to entice guys who otherwise might not do this to actually give it a try.
Remove the ads, remove a source of income, and it would seem likely that fewer girls would end up in this situation to start with.
Finding the victims after they are victimized is "good"... taking away the financial incentives to abuse them to start with, "better".
On the post: Senator Wyden's 702 Reform Bill Would Limit Backdoor Searches, Permanently Kill 'About' Collection
Re: Re: A long way to get to this:
I don't think either of them are really helping.
On the post: Google, Facebook & Comcast Jointly Lied to California Lawmakers To Scuttle Broadband Privacy Bill
Narrowly?
"There is absolutely nothing true about this statement. A.B. 375 specifically said that an ISP can disclose information without customer approval for any “fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful use of the service.” More importantly, it also included what is often referred to as a “catchall provision” by allowing ISPs to disclose information “as otherwise required or authorized by law.”"
Here's the rub: Define unlawful. Careful now, because unless convicted of something, are you really SURE that it's unlawful? Fraudulent? Same question, at what point is something legally fraudulent? Only when it's actually proven?
The plain reading of the terms they point to suggests that in every case, the ISP can provide the information is and when a case is proven, and not just because they think there might be. That means that if, as an example, Google thinks that someone is planning a crime using their system, or is distributing hate speech, they would not be able to talk to authorities about it until (at bare minimum) charges had been laid. Otherwise, it doesn't meet the plain reading of the rules.
It's a big like the SESTA thing: Techdirt has read the rules to their strongest and most extreme application, and EFF is trying to read the rules to their softest and most forgiving level. EFF is expecting the law to somehow magically give a pass to ISPs and services when the rules say otherwise, and Mike and crew are expecting SESTA to interfere with everything and to cause major headaches for everyone.
Yet, both readings are honest but a bit wishful. Google and Facebook seemed concerned about getting their hands tied for no good reason, based on legislation that might not have had the desired effect. They took the extreme sort of reading that Mike has done with SESTA. Is that wrong? If it's wrong for Google, is it not also wrong on Techdirt?
On the post: A Public Focused Approach To Net Neutrality
The "packet forgery" thing is a good example. You don't need net neutrality to resolve this issue, and more than that, it's something that came up a DECADE ago. This was something tried when the technology first allowed it, and it was shut down pretty quickly. The issue was resolved WITHOUT net neutrality.
Things like bans on tethering or excessive sharing of WiFi are also issues that can be dealt with without net neutrality - and in fact neither has anything to do with it. Why bring it up?
The reality here is simple: Net Neutrality was created by the FCC without any true legal basis (it's not law, it's only department rules, as it were) and if the current FCC wants to change them or remove them, the bar shouldn't be any higher than it was to create the rule to start with, which was a simple majority of the sitting FCC members.
If you want Net Neutrality for real, get your congress critters to pass it into law.
On the post: FCC Likely To Use Thanksgiving Holiday To Hide Its Unpopular Plan To Kill Net Neutrality
Re: Re:
There is no need - as there is no particular evidence on the other side either. In fact, as would be standard on Techdirt, we look at the previous 20 years that the internet ran on without NN rules, and say "gee, that grew up fast!".
NN is essentially the "netflix" rule. Writing the rules to satisfy one big player isn't any better than rolling them back for another.
Ask your critters to get to work, that is of course if they aren't tied up writing DOA 702 amendments!
On the post: Senator Wyden's 702 Reform Bill Would Limit Backdoor Searches, Permanently Kill 'About' Collection
A long way to get to this:
"the Senate Intelligence Committee isn't going to do much to ensure this bill moves forward intact, if it moves forward at all."
It's not a bi-partisan, widely acclaim piece of proposed legislation, it's just another one of those "made for press conference" pieces of draft legislation that shows nothing more than where a couple of outlier critters happen to sit. All it takes is two to agree, and you can write up almost anything you like.
The truth is much more along the lines that most of the critters don't see the need for dramatic changes, so it's unlikely that anything other than extension comes along. I know it's not the story you want to tell, but a huge story revealing a piece of legislation that is already dying on the order paper isn't really making a difference.
On the post: FCC Likely To Use Thanksgiving Holiday To Hide Its Unpopular Plan To Kill Net Neutrality
All it takes is a simple vote. It's the same manner that Wheeler created the rules. So if your argument is that Pai should not have the power to roll the rules back, you have to accept that Wheeler didn't have the power to create them.
The truth is this is that this is an empty fight. Not matter what happens, the rules are likely to either be suspended or ignored and argued in court for the forseeable future. The way to resolve the issue is through congress. What you get from congress will be a compromise that you likely will not want.
The internet lasted 20 years as a commercial entity without any need for regulation. If there is a need for regulation, let those who write the laws create the framework, and the FCC can then color in between the lines.
On the post: Is Hollywood 'Exploiting' Anti-Trafficking Organization To Support SESTA?
Grassy Knowl
On the post: Google Removed Catalonian Referendum App Following Spanish Court Order
Risk v reward
Google has little choice but to follow the law here. The Spanish courts could have easily moved to have the play store blocked at the ISP level. or perhaps moved on Google's offices in Spain with an injunction or restraining order that may have even shut them down until they complied.
Also, let's be clear here: Google has played fast and loose when it comes to tax avoidance for the last decade. Pissing off the Spanish government would lead to further scrutiny, and that could lead to a billion dollar tax bill. I doubt Google wants to take the chance of rocking anyones boat.
It's not Google's fight to fight. If the separatists want their app re-instated, they need to go to the court and complain. It's their fight. In the same way you can't buy certain products at a Wal-Mart, it's not the retailer to argue the case, it's the maker.
Google has it's own interests, and those aren't risking it's business to help a few seperatists - no matter how good or noble the cause.
On the post: Court Has No Problem With All House Residents Being Forced To Hand Over Fingers To Law Enforcement
Re:
You are unlocking your phone. As you hit the first finger, someone jiggles your hand, you almost drop your phone, and you catch it at the last second, with another finger resting on the unlock.
Congrats, your phone is factory fresh!
On the post: Court Has No Problem With All House Residents Being Forced To Hand Over Fingers To Law Enforcement
Adding the technology doesn't change a lot. If they had intended to lock their phones in a meaningful way, they would have used a password or gesture.
On the post: A Joke Tweet Leads To 'Child Trafficking' Investigation, Providing More Evidence Of Why SESTA Would Be Abused
Re: It's already this bad.
Perhaps your standing as a "fundamentalist Christian" who has had problems with the state in regards to your church and your daughter might be part of the story? Perhaps choices made in the name of your religion (like not feeding her all food groups, or what have you) may have played a part in it?
Just a thought.
On the post: A Joke Tweet Leads To 'Child Trafficking' Investigation, Providing More Evidence Of Why SESTA Would Be Abused
Re: Re:
On the post: The Cable Industry's Ingenious 'Solution' To TV Cord Cutting? Raise Broadband Rates
Re: Re:
Remember too, wireless is (and will always be) supply limited. There is only so much bandwidth to work with, you can only fit so many towers, and they can only handle so much throughput. Wireline is better, but still limited by distance and cost per mile.
Supply will always be at least somewhat limited, especially outside of the densest population centers. Thus, demand pushes prices up.
On the post: A Joke Tweet Leads To 'Child Trafficking' Investigation, Providing More Evidence Of Why SESTA Would Be Abused
"Hi Jack!"
You may have totally innnocent grounds to say it, but everyone else will completely freak out, with good reason.
Oh, and the story isn't SESTA related at all, except in your mind.
On the post: New Whistleblowers Highlight How Russia's Information War On U.S. Was Larger Than Initially Reported
Re:
Politicians spend hundreds of millions, but it's mostly the firehose of shit flung against random walls. Most of it doesn't stick, and much of it sticks in the wrong places.
2.3 million of targeted motivation of groups is really a big way to start echos in the chamber.
On the post: The Cable Industry's Ingenious 'Solution' To TV Cord Cutting? Raise Broadband Rates
It's pretty basic, Mike can explain it to you if you like.
On the post: Beyond ICE In Oakland: How SESTA Threatens To Chill Any Online Discussion About Immigration
Let's be fair here, it's all discussions about breaking the law in one form or another. These children are with people who are not their legal guardians, and they could be in peril.
They are paranoid because they know they are breaking the law. It's incredibly sad that they are in this sort of postition, but really blame Obama for DACA, which has lead to people literally pushing their children over the wall into the US illegally knowing they will be "safe".
Oops, kind heared liberal concept leads to pain. Who would have thought it?
On the post: Wireless Carriers Again Busted Collecting, Selling User Data Without Consent Or Opt Out Tools
Re: Re:
Ad homs, how nice!
"They're offering "live" data to anybody who fucking comes in over the Internet."
The two sites in question were (a) demos, and (b) appear to be showing only your own data to yourself. There was no indication that the data was widely available without having access to the AT&T API, which has restricted access.
"even letting it outside of a closed billing system into a larger corporate system would be grounds for damages."
Not sure that is entirely true, especially not pre-2017, when these were developed.
"And "partners" are third parties. That's just what pieces of shit like to call the particular third parties they happen to be working with that week, as part of the various cons they're running."
It depends on the structure of the deal. It would also depend on if the data was actually stored by third parties, or only requested and used during a single transaction. Since we don't have a completed product with a final consumer facing view, we may never know.
It would appear to mostly be two demo systems that were never turned off. At best, AT&T appears to perhaps be a bit lax is turning off access to their API.
"pieces of shit"
Indeed. Cussing and calling names sums up your post nicely!
On the post: Disney: The Only Fun Allowed At Children's Birthday Parties Is Properly Licensed Fun
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is, however, a simplistic way to explain things. Disney isn't that concerned with fans being fans. They are concerned with people trying to make a buck off or make their own names on the back of Disney stuff.
While nobody around here would ever like to admit it, Disney is pretty tolerant of many uses of their works, they don't chase after fans (a few video game companies could stand to learn from that). Disney has created a very powerful portfolio of characters and has purchased perhaps one of the few other big portfolios (Star Wars) in part because they are really good at minding their business carefully.
Love them or hate them (and I know you hate them) Disney isn't in the wrong here. They are actually being pretty reasonable and calm about it, but they are taking care of business.
Next >>