" Facebook worth $50 billion ... because the 'well educated Harvard/Stanford/Wharton MBAs' from Goldman Sachs valued it that way.
Would these be the same guys who have been hawking mortgaged backed security bundles and derivatives to pension fund managers with the express purpose of using these tools to hide their extreme risk.
Just because some smart Ivy-leaguer is selling doesn't mean you're getting your money's worth.
Huh??? Rose, You complain that your letters to your rep get a non-useful response which neither promise to consider your comments or even state that your comments matter. I've just told you the process by which that happens. You have gotten the form letter which is sent out with pleasing language of which the chief attribute is that it says nothing specific. Their staff can send the same letter to countless other people, and the rep doesn't even bother with it.
Terry Hart has staked his financial future on convincing all of us that he is right.
He has no other choice.
So be prepared to watch him keep flailing away.
Re: Re: Re: Free speech does not shield criminal websites for criminal conduct
Until you give a cogent argument and specifics how COICA and ACTA will not have a 4th amendment significance, you are not convincing. A contradictory "Is not". style of argument unsupported by facts won't score you a win in very many debates. If you think this isn't a concern, then give us specific facts.
What I understand about proposed legislation is that it would provide incentive (and legal protection from lawsuits) for private entities (ISP's) to monitor traffic using whatever methodology necessary including deep packet inspection. If the ISP finds what it judges to be illegal activity then the ISP is empowered to cut off service. This puts the ISP in the position of being policeman, judge, jury, and executioner. There is no due process. No trial. No examination of the facts through a public process. No right to a defense. If this is not legal for the government to do, then how is it possible for the government to authorize a private entity to do for it that which is not constitutional for it to do on it's own. In short. Please explain how this does not run afoul of the 4th amendment.
BTW -- don't think that I just got all of this from TD. Just last week I heard a member of Congressman Adam Schiff's staff imply in a panel discussion that Representative Schiff was in favor of empowering ISP's to do exactly this.
What makes me skeptical about this story is -- If it really worked as advertised, why would you allow anyone to know what was done? Software glitches can be very difficult to trace. Wouldn't you want to keep it that way? There is no reason to think that pulling this off one time has permanently shut down the Iranian's program. If the perpetrators just kept their mouths shut then perhaps some variation on this could have been used again after Iran got back up and running. Now Iran is forewarned.
So... did it really happen as we have been told, or is this just well-designed rumor intended to help sell the idea that there is an ongoing cyberwar?
"they don't imply or state that they're going to consider the matter or that my comments matter
The fact is, your letters very likely didn't make it as far as the rep's desk. Staffers go through the letters, pick out the ones they think are most interesting and forward those on to the rep. The rest get the form-letter treatment.
On the post: US Customs & Border Patrol Protecting America From Chocolate Toy Eggs (And Charging You For The Privilege)
Re: Re: You must have heard about this one
On the post: How Facebook Used White Space To Crush Myspace
Re:
Just because some smart Ivy-leaguer is selling doesn't mean you're getting your money's worth.
On the post: Patrick Leahy Says TSA Scanners Are Invasive; Will Investigate Them
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Senators Response
On the post: The Companies Who Support Censoring The Internet
Re: Re:
He has no other choice.
So be prepared to watch him keep flailing away.
On the post: Bulgarian Security/Cybercrime Researcher Missing For Months
Update 17 Jan
On the post: Senator Wyden Calls Out Content Companies For Wanting To Censor The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Free speech does not shield criminal websites for criminal conduct
A contradictory "Is not". style of argument unsupported by facts won't score you a win in very many debates.
If you think this isn't a concern, then give us specific facts.
What I understand about proposed legislation is that it would provide incentive (and legal protection from lawsuits) for private entities (ISP's) to monitor traffic using whatever methodology necessary including deep packet inspection. If the ISP finds what it judges to be illegal activity then the ISP is empowered to cut off service. This puts the ISP in the position of being policeman, judge, jury, and executioner. There is no due process. No trial. No examination of the facts through a public process. No right to a defense. If this is not legal for the government to do, then how is it possible for the government to authorize a private entity to do for it that which is not constitutional for it to do on it's own.
In short. Please explain how this does not run afoul of the 4th amendment.
BTW -- don't think that I just got all of this from TD. Just last week I heard a member of Congressman Adam Schiff's staff imply in a panel discussion that Representative Schiff was in favor of empowering ISP's to do exactly this.
On the post: Stuxnet Increasingly Sounding Like A Movie Plot
Fascinating story, but ...
There is no reason to think that pulling this off one time has permanently shut down the Iranian's program. If the perpetrators just kept their mouths shut then perhaps some variation on this could have been used again after Iran got back up and running. Now Iran is forewarned.
So... did it really happen as we have been told, or is this just well-designed rumor intended to help sell the idea that there is an ongoing cyberwar?
On the post: Patrick Leahy Says TSA Scanners Are Invasive; Will Investigate Them
Re: Re: Re: Re: Senators Response
Next >>