P.S. IANAL but . . . never say anything to a cop (or anyone else in the greater law enforcement community) or otherwise give any information to them beyond basics like name, possibly address, and, if you are driving, driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of vehicle insurance, without your lawyer (either one you have hired or one that has been appointed to you) present. If you think you may be arrested, like at a protest or similar, use a permanent marker to write the phone number(s) of a lawyer or some friends on your arm or leg or elsewhere. They can take pieces of paper away from you.
Sergeant Adam Lepinski of the Minneapolis Police Department (“MPD”), who is assigned as a Task Force Officer (“TFO”) to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”)
So who is Lepinsky actually working for? What rules is he supposed to abide by? Minneapolis PD rules? Minnesota state laws? Federal laws?
The answer will depend on the particular question being asked, and who is doing the asking. The answer will then be whichever set of rules or laws happens to be most favorable to Lepinsky and the Task Force.
Like geographical borders, written laws are a "take it or leave it" formality to governments wishing to exert their power to imprison, torture, or kill people. Whether or not there is a written law is also of little importance to those who are imprisoned, tortured, or killed.
China is not unique in this. All the big governments do it. It is almost like a rite of passage, indicating that you have "arrived" on the world stage. Geographical boundaries are for silly little developing nations.
There comes a point when nominally unintended, but completely predictable, consequences must be considered to be plausibly deniable intended consequences, intended to create problems or provoke backlash, which are in turn intended to create conditions favorable to passing future authoritarian laws. We must be constantly vigilant for the early signs of the long con.
Facial recognition software is so full of nonsense as to be farcical. The inherent, often racial, biases built into the systems are widely known. And while Detroit Police Chief James Craig admits the software is junk, most do not, particularly the companies selling the software (I'm especially looking at you, Clearview and Hoan Ton-That). One of the many holes in their bogus claims of facial recognition software's accuracy is a logical fallacy called base rate neglect. It is counter-intuitive, and involves some math, but you can find some good explanations of it here and here. Bottom line;tl;dr While the apparently high numbers claimed for facial recognition software's accuracy may be technically true, they mask just how horrible the stuff really is. It's one of those "lying with statistics" things.
My favorite response to the 'corporate personhood' thing is: "I will believe corporations are people when Texas executes one." I don't know where this originated, but it is one of the best examples of hitting two birds hard with one stone that I have heard.
giving consumers any control over their own data violates the First Amendment rights of the broadband providers to market goods and services.
<John Belishi coughing Bullshit!> That is stretching the 1A way beyond its admittedly elastic limits, which would result in permanent distortion. As the authors point out, the cascade effect of setting the wrong precedent here could be catastrophic.
Essentially all sharing of data should be strictly opt-in, and nothing should be contingent on opting-in.
Good point. And let's take another moment to ponder just how rare a double unicorn this is: both the cops and the city were denied QI. It is vanishingly rare for the courts to allow a claim to proceed against a city because they, the courts, make it nearly impossible to show a "pattern and practice" of bad behavior, even when that pattern and practice is blindingly obvious to everyone except the courts. We have all seen how the cops have apparently made it their mission to demonstrate just what murderous, sadistic, lying thugs they really are. We should also pay close attention to the court system that has aided and abetted the cops, first by creating QI, then by expanding it to cover essentially everything. The courts have been largely successful in hiding their complicity. That needs to end. ACAB can be an abbreviation for more than one thing.
And virtually all of the things that have gone wrong were completely predictable. One of your countrymen, Eric Arthur Blair, aka George Orwell, gave us all a preview over 70 years ago.
Much of my impressions of the advanced English Surveillance Nanny State comes from Charles Oliver's Brickbats feature in Reason Magazine. It never ceases to amaze and terrify me. While the UK appears to have a commanding lead in the race to dystopian hell, at least among non-authoritarian Western nations, the US is trying desperately to catch up. Separation of State and school would be a good place to start, for all of us. Non-proprietary, open-source software requirements might also help. At least then the various apps and algorithms could be examined, and their functioning (or lack thereof) and biases could be exposed, and maybe even corrected. And, as always, strong data and privacy protection laws, along with pervasive default encryption, need to be the order of the day. This is an area where "For the children!" is a legitimate rallying cry.
This point needs to be driven home like a wooden stake into a vampire's heart. As the top level employer, the people, the public, should have complete access to all personnel and disciplinary records, going back to the beginning of time, for all government employees, including cops. In fact, we should have access to all government documents of any kind, with very narrow exceptions for actual military secrets, and actual ongoing law enforcement investigations. The very fact that we have to have things like the FOIA, sunshine laws, and the like, and that we frequently have to use the courts to enforce these laws (usually with very limited success) is a direct indication of the level of corruption in government. It is also a clear indicator of just how far away our government has gotten from those old ideas about "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" and "consent of the governed."
Keep in mind, this is the same Barr DOJ many journalists and "experts" somehow believe will not only conduct a fair inquiry into giants like Google, but will deliver valid, good faith remedies for the very real problems Google helped create (as opposed to say problematic remedies focused on aiding aspiring Google ad competitors like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon).
Gell - Mann Amnesia is a far more common disorder than is generally recognized.
Biased programmers, using biased data sets, will create biased programs, which will then yield biased results. It is just a variation on the old 'garbage in, garbage out' (GIGO) problem. You must cure the root of this problem before the flowers will be non-poisonous.
Nothing should be allowed to be contingent on a 'we can violate your privacy' policy, lest everything be contingent on one.
Maybe getting hacked should constitute prima facie evidence that 'reasonable cybersecurity features' were not in place? Maybe it should at least shift the burden to the hackee to demonstrate that proper, and reasonably effective, measures were in place. Of course, as time goes by, what is considered proper and reasonable will be constantly evolving. Anyone holding PII should be expected to keep up.
While I believe the right to privacy is a natural human right, any specific notions put forth by upper-class white males (or anyone else, for that matter), that they want applied to themselves and their own privacy, should also be broadly applicable to everyone.
Encryption, currently under heavy attack, should be the default, and should be required, everywhere, for everything, whenever possible. Are there even any situations where data encryption would not be possible?
(BlueKai says it strips identifiable info before handing it over to its ad-serving customers.)
Is there any reason we should believe this?
TechCrunch reviewed the data shared by Sen and found names, home addresses, email addresses and other identifiable data in the database. The data also revealed sensitive users’ web browsing activity — from purchases to newsletter unsubscribes.
And we all know that even meta-data can be personally identifiable, and can be used to create an extremely detailed individual profile / database / dossier. Encryption as the default, end-to-end, everywhere, for everything, (DNS too) with a good dose of 'trash' thrown in to inhibit traffic pattern analysis, really needs to become standard procedure.
ATT: It's OK to be sleazy if people know we are sleazy.
This is disgusting, and this is why this stuff keeps happening:
AGs and the FTC keep doling out flimsy wrist slaps years after the fact, and telecom lawyers spend years tap dancing around anything even vaguely resembling accountability.
And it will keep happening unless and until we get a lot more of this.
On the post: Federal Case Shows Cops Still Have Plenty Of Options When Dealing With Device Encryption
Re:
P.S. IANAL but . . . never say anything to a cop (or anyone else in the greater law enforcement community) or otherwise give any information to them beyond basics like name, possibly address, and, if you are driving, driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of vehicle insurance, without your lawyer (either one you have hired or one that has been appointed to you) present. If you think you may be arrested, like at a protest or similar, use a permanent marker to write the phone number(s) of a lawyer or some friends on your arm or leg or elsewhere. They can take pieces of paper away from you.
Oh, and NEVER TRUST OR BELIEVE COPS
On the post: Federal Case Shows Cops Still Have Plenty Of Options When Dealing With Device Encryption
Another problem not addressed
So who is Lepinsky actually working for? What rules is he supposed to abide by? Minneapolis PD rules? Minnesota state laws? Federal laws?
The answer will depend on the particular question being asked, and who is doing the asking. The answer will then be whichever set of rules or laws happens to be most favorable to Lepinsky and the Task Force.
Heads they win, tails we lose.
On the post: New 'National Security' Law Threatens Hong Kong Pro-Democracy Protesters With Life In Prison
Re: Re: granting itself extraterritorial reach
Like geographical borders, written laws are a "take it or leave it" formality to governments wishing to exert their power to imprison, torture, or kill people. Whether or not there is a written law is also of little importance to those who are imprisoned, tortured, or killed.
On the post: New 'National Security' Law Threatens Hong Kong Pro-Democracy Protesters With Life In Prison
granting itself extraterritorial reach
China is not unique in this. All the big governments do it. It is almost like a rite of passage, indicating that you have "arrived" on the world stage. Geographical boundaries are for silly little developing nations.
On the post: New 'National Security' Law Threatens Hong Kong Pro-Democracy Protesters With Life In Prison
Re: '1984 eh? Well that's handy, a guide to governance in one bo
I often wish karma was real, too.
On the post: Researcher Buys Axon Cameras On eBay, Finds They're Still Filled With Recordings
By now we should all know that . . .
. . . is an extra large boatload of it. That should be as clear to everyone as the old "few bad apples" lie.
On the post: New EARN IT Act Creates An Insane New Dilemma: Either Encrypt All Or Spy On All
Unintended consequences
There comes a point when nominally unintended, but completely predictable, consequences must be considered to be plausibly deniable intended consequences, intended to create problems or provoke backlash, which are in turn intended to create conditions favorable to passing future authoritarian laws. We must be constantly vigilant for the early signs of the long con.
On the post: Facebook Follows Twitter In Recognizing A 'More Speech' Approach Is Best For Newsworthy Liars
Re: 'Only I am allowed to call people wrong, me!'
Isn't fact-checking Trump treasonous yet?
On the post: Detroit Police Chief Says Facial Recognition Software Involved In Bogus Arrest Is Wrong '96 Percent Of The Time'
Facial recognition software is garbage!
Facial recognition software is so full of nonsense as to be farcical. The inherent, often racial, biases built into the systems are widely known. And while Detroit Police Chief James Craig admits the software is junk, most do not, particularly the companies selling the software (I'm especially looking at you, Clearview and Hoan Ton-That). One of the many holes in their bogus claims of facial recognition software's accuracy is a logical fallacy called base rate neglect. It is counter-intuitive, and involves some math, but you can find some good explanations of it here and here. Bottom line;tl;dr While the apparently high numbers claimed for facial recognition software's accuracy may be technically true, they mask just how horrible the stuff really is. It's one of those "lying with statistics" things.
On the post: The Most Important Privacy Case You've Never Heard Of
Re:
When SCOTUS does things like this, yes, that is a concern.
On the post: The Most Important Privacy Case You've Never Heard Of
Re: Re: Privacy is paramount, not pointless.
My favorite response to the 'corporate personhood' thing is: "I will believe corporations are people when Texas executes one." I don't know where this originated, but it is one of the best examples of hitting two birds hard with one stone that I have heard.
On the post: The Most Important Privacy Case You've Never Heard Of
Privacy is paramount, not pointless.
<John Belishi coughing Bullshit!> That is stretching the 1A way beyond its admittedly elastic limits, which would result in permanent distortion. As the authors point out, the cascade effect of setting the wrong precedent here could be catastrophic.
Essentially all sharing of data should be strictly opt-in, and nothing should be contingent on opting-in.
On the post: Appeals Court Strips Immunity From Abusive Cops Who Assaulted A Compliant Black Man... And The City That Allowed This To Happen
Re: Obvious, isn't it?
Good point. And let's take another moment to ponder just how rare a double unicorn this is: both the cops and the city were denied QI. It is vanishingly rare for the courts to allow a claim to proceed against a city because they, the courts, make it nearly impossible to show a "pattern and practice" of bad behavior, even when that pattern and practice is blindingly obvious to everyone except the courts. We have all seen how the cops have apparently made it their mission to demonstrate just what murderous, sadistic, lying thugs they really are. We should also pay close attention to the court system that has aided and abetted the cops, first by creating QI, then by expanding it to cover essentially everything. The courts have been largely successful in hiding their complicity. That needs to end. ACAB can be an abbreviation for more than one thing.
On the post: Privacy Questions Raised By Distance Learning
And virtually all of the things that have gone wrong were completely predictable. One of your countrymen, Eric Arthur Blair, aka George Orwell, gave us all a preview over 70 years ago.
Much of my impressions of the advanced English Surveillance Nanny State comes from Charles Oliver's Brickbats feature in Reason Magazine. It never ceases to amaze and terrify me. While the UK appears to have a commanding lead in the race to dystopian hell, at least among non-authoritarian Western nations, the US is trying desperately to catch up. Separation of State and school would be a good place to start, for all of us. Non-proprietary, open-source software requirements might also help. At least then the various apps and algorithms could be examined, and their functioning (or lack thereof) and biases could be exposed, and maybe even corrected. And, as always, strong data and privacy protection laws, along with pervasive default encryption, need to be the order of the day. This is an area where "For the children!" is a legitimate rallying cry.
On the post: NYPD, Health Department Decide Public Shouldn't Know How Many New Yorkers Are Killed By Cops Every Year
They work for us
This point needs to be driven home like a wooden stake into a vampire's heart. As the top level employer, the people, the public, should have complete access to all personnel and disciplinary records, going back to the beginning of time, for all government employees, including cops. In fact, we should have access to all government documents of any kind, with very narrow exceptions for actual military secrets, and actual ongoing law enforcement investigations. The very fact that we have to have things like the FOIA, sunshine laws, and the like, and that we frequently have to use the courts to enforce these laws (usually with very limited success) is a direct indication of the level of corruption in government. It is also a clear indicator of just how far away our government has gotten from those old ideas about "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" and "consent of the governed."
On the post: Barr DOJ Weaponized Antitrust To Launch Flimsy Inquiries Into Legal Weed Companies
Gell - Mann Amnesia is a far more common disorder than is generally recognized.
On the post: Is Data Privacy A Privilege? The Racial Implications Of Technology Based Tools In Government
Biased programmers, using biased data sets, will create biased programs, which will then yield biased results. It is just a variation on the old 'garbage in, garbage out' (GIGO) problem. You must cure the root of this problem before the flowers will be non-poisonous.
Nothing should be allowed to be contingent on a 'we can violate your privacy' policy, lest everything be contingent on one.
Maybe getting hacked should constitute prima facie evidence that 'reasonable cybersecurity features' were not in place? Maybe it should at least shift the burden to the hackee to demonstrate that proper, and reasonably effective, measures were in place. Of course, as time goes by, what is considered proper and reasonable will be constantly evolving. Anyone holding PII should be expected to keep up.
While I believe the right to privacy is a natural human right, any specific notions put forth by upper-class white males (or anyone else, for that matter), that they want applied to themselves and their own privacy, should also be broadly applicable to everyone.
Encryption, currently under heavy attack, should be the default, and should be required, everywhere, for everything, whenever possible. Are there even any situations where data encryption would not be possible?
On the post: One Of The World's Largest Web Tracking Companies Leaks Tons Of Personal Info From An Unsecured Server
Is there any reason we should believe this?
And we all know that even meta-data can be personally identifiable, and can be used to create an extremely detailed individual profile / database / dossier. Encryption as the default, end-to-end, everywhere, for everything, (DNS too) with a good dose of 'trash' thrown in to inhibit traffic pattern analysis, really needs to become standard procedure.
On the post: Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act
Good, concise reference
It is convenient to have essentially all the wrong assertions and their corresponding refutations in one easily accessible place!
On the post: AT&T Says Being Misleading About 'Unlimited' Data Plans Was Ok, Because Reporters Told Consumers It Was Being Misleading
ATT: It's OK to be sleazy if people know we are sleazy.
This is disgusting, and this is why this stuff keeps happening:
And it will keep happening unless and until we get a lot more of this.
Next >>