There cannot be pardon of a person who was not sentenced.
Please square that with this:
And there's a Supreme Court ruling that makes this abundantly clear. 150 years ago, in the ruling on Ex Parte Garland, the Supreme Court stated:
The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. The power is not subject to legislative control.
Re: Are any of the ad tracking methods you talked about fooled by a VPN?
Although a static IP aids data aggregation, the main tracking technologies for advertisers are based on being able to uniquely identify your computer and/or browser and associate it with a login or other information you've given to other sites. The methods include traditional cookies, flash cookies and other persistent identifiers, all of which pass right through a VPN and also allow the VPN IP to be associated with the target.
There are many technologies that are used for tracking. IP's being one of them. They are all used because if, for example, you delete all your cookies, but they have your IP on record from when you had their cookies, when we re-connect with the same IP but no cookies, they can deduce that you are that person because you are using the same IP .
It's the combination of information that they use. IPs, cookies, logins, tracking 'gifs', browser user-agent strings, what software you have installed on your computer (yes, some browser scripts can pull information directly from your computer, check out ThreatMetrix), hardware serial numbers, and more. They collect it all, so if a few elements go missing from your next session, say cookies deleted, or IP changed, or using a different username, they can use the remaining info that you haven't changed to fill in the gaps and still know who you are.
Therefore it requires defense in depth. Changing IPs regualrly, using VPNs, ad-blocking, script blocking, URL blocking, plugins such as Ghostery, Ad-Block, uMatrix, uBlock Origin, Policeman, NoScript, and others.
And also note, that in many ways the biggest threat to general online tracking is your own ISP. Look what the various ISP's have tried - putting unique identifiers on all your outbound packets, and so on. A VPN (as long as they are independent and not in cahoots with your ISP) will strip that (if it's at TCP/IP level) from your packets so the destination won't have that tracking information.
This is a blog, not a news site. I expect a lot more personal opinions, emotion, and a more conversational style on a blog site. In a conversation, people drop the occasional 'light' curse word, damn, shit, bugger, bloody hell, bullshit. Well, everyone except maybe the Queen. And, depending on the audience (e.g. not in a conversation with my mum), and how passionate one feels about the topic, the odd f-bomb or other stronger curses may be used.
If I want the dry, sanitized news, I'll go to a news site with their army of editors. Style editors, newsworthiness editors, fact checkers, topic-specific editors (sports, entertainment, et al.), editors-in-chief. All answering to corporate masters (CIOs, Boards, owners of the conglomerates that owns the company that owns the news site).
How do you do such tests? Are there sites you can hit (via the VPN) that display detailed information of the TCP/IP and HTTP/S (or other protocol, FTP, etc.) information being exchanged?
Or have you created your own site you can bounce back to to extract the information from logs etc.?
Not only is that comment misleading but it's also self serving, coming from Mike Masnick. First, Techdirt directly benefits financially.
You really need to pickup your level of reading comprehension from kindergarten to at least high-school level.
For example, if you include the sentence directly following what you quoted:
That's why we have this ongoing partnership with Private Internet Access, the popular and excellent VPN service that helps stop companies from tracking you so carefully. And that's why we'll do things like make money off of affiliate fees from helping protect your privacy, instead of selling out any good will and trust by treating you "as the product" (as the slightly ridiculous saying goes).
From that second sentence, they are acknowledging that they take a kickback ('affiliate fees') from referring purchasers to PIA.
And further down in the article, again an acknowledgement that they make money from PIA and their own Insider Shop:
And, again, picking up your Private Internet Access VPN from us is one great way to support Techdirt (and help you protect your privacy). You can also buy stuff from our Deals Store or support us directly via our Insider Shop.
This is true...well except for the remote phone exploits that allow phones (both mobile and landline) mic's to be surreptitiously turned on to turn the phone into a bug even tho it's not being actively used.
Or maybe you've got Siri or hello google on, which means the mic's has to always be on (to detect the spoken keywords) therefore available for eavesdropping.
Or smart TV's or games consoles with embedded cameras and mic's also potentially always on by design listening in (or watching) any conversation in their pickup range. Tablets and laptops the same.
Or hell, maybe they'll start putting mic's into smart light bulbs or toasters so you can voice control even more.
Unless you consciously take steps to ensure there are no mic's in the vicinity, it can be pretty hard to actually have a completely private conversation these days even if you aren't specifically under surveillance (in which case there are bugs and shotgun/laser mic's to also content with...tho the latter are pretty easy to defeat if you are paranoid to be concerned about them).
Considering that the most intrusive mass surveillance is done under direct personal presedential authorisation, e.g. EO 12333 amongst others, then there are no impediements, such as the legislature, or committees, or the cabinet, in the way at all. It has mostly been authorised via direct personal presedential decree, therefore can be removed by the presedent personally withdrawing that decree (Executive Order).
Purchasing BOTs are such a ciritical issue. I'm glad they fixed the financial bots, known as High Frequency Traders (HFC), the ones that distort the entire market and can cause hundreds of millions of dollars damages to the market in minutes, first before moving onto entertainement ticket purchasing bots...oh wait, never mind.
sigh sorry, should have been extra spaces between those paragraphs - the preview showed an extra line between, but they are not appearing after the submit.
Some level of corporate personhood is necessary to be able to hold them liable.
I believe that other paths could have been taken to be able to hold corporations liable than the shortcut, or the legal fiction, of declaring corporations as persons.
As I understand it, the legal fiction of saying that corporations were people arose out of contract law, where only people could enter into, and be bound by/liable for contracts. Which worked fine when the only business types of the era were individuals, families where you had a head of a family (e.g. Venetian trading families, noble families, etc.) who could enter into contracts, or partnerships where the partners can take personal liability for contracts. However, when this new business type, the limited liability corporation, arose, there was no person, no owner, who could or would take personal liability, personal responsibility, for contracts. Therefore, technically under the law, these corporations could not enter into nor be held liable for contracts. Which means no loans (lending or borrowing), no investors, no insurance, no trading agreements, no supply agreements, no land ownership, no ownership of anything that required a contract to implement, pretty much entirely hobbled.
To get around this, and to allow the business construct of the corporation function, the courts of the day, not the legislature's, adopted the legal fiction that a corporation was a person. From that point on, as they were now legally people, corporations could enter into and be held liable for contracts.
Now, I think this was a fine, short-term common law fix to the problem. However, the legislature's got lazy and just went with this common law fix. In IT we'd call this a temporary work-around while the bug was properly fixed in code (legislation). But there never was a proper fix, the work-around was allowed to become the norm.
Legislation could have been enacted that allowed for corporations to enter contracts without them being granted personhood. Or could have been enacted that allowed them limited personhood, only applicable to contract law and for no other purposes. But since we were relyng on the common law definition that a corporation was a person, that then led to the perverse issues we have today around whether legislation, constitutions, and other existing or new laws apply or do not apply to corporations as they are people.
I mean, rather than what I think should be the de-facto situation where unless specifically included a corporation is included (opt-in), we have a situation where legislation has to be crafted to specifically exclude corporations (opt-out) if the drafters don't want to include corporations. And this is typically done by using phrasing such as natural person rather than just saying person.
based on the number of exclamations and all caps words, I think you're insurance would be screwed if this plan by insurance companies is allowed to go ahead.
Correct, but since that us not relevant to the calls of 'perjury" being made about these lawyers, I did not think it relevant on the point that the lawyers presenting a case are not committing perjury.
Nope they built OS/2 and took what they learned in the process. See Also: Video of Young Bill Gates 'We here at Microsoft believe that 0S/2 is the operating system of the 90's' (paraphrased from memory)
Windows existed long before OS/2, and GUIs long before that.
After windows 1 and 2, MS and IBM entered a partnership to make OS/2. OS/2 was basically supposed to replace the Windows line. But while OS/2 was under development and it's initial releases, Windows 3 (unlike 1 and 2) became wildly popular, especially 3.11 (aka Windows for Workgroups). Whereupon MS basically renegged on all it's OS/2 agreements (well, found legal loop-holes to leave), dumped OS/2 development and re-directed it all to Windows, leaving IBM to continue developing and supporting OS/2 alone. And did the usual MS practice of doing it's best to extinguish OS/2 (an OS it co-developed).
On the post: President Obama Claims He Cannot Pardon Snowden; He's Wrong
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: President Obama Claims He Cannot Pardon Snowden; He's Wrong
Re: Re:
Please square that with this:
On the post: Companies Keep Asking Us To Track You; We'd Rather You Be Protected From Tracking
Re: Are any of the ad tracking methods you talked about fooled by a VPN?
There are many technologies that are used for tracking. IP's being one of them. They are all used because if, for example, you delete all your cookies, but they have your IP on record from when you had their cookies, when we re-connect with the same IP but no cookies, they can deduce that you are that person because you are using the same IP .
It's the combination of information that they use. IPs, cookies, logins, tracking 'gifs', browser user-agent strings, what software you have installed on your computer (yes, some browser scripts can pull information directly from your computer, check out ThreatMetrix), hardware serial numbers, and more. They collect it all, so if a few elements go missing from your next session, say cookies deleted, or IP changed, or using a different username, they can use the remaining info that you haven't changed to fill in the gaps and still know who you are.
Therefore it requires defense in depth. Changing IPs regualrly, using VPNs, ad-blocking, script blocking, URL blocking, plugins such as Ghostery, Ad-Block, uMatrix, uBlock Origin, Policeman, NoScript, and others.
And also note, that in many ways the biggest threat to general online tracking is your own ISP. Look what the various ISP's have tried - putting unique identifiers on all your outbound packets, and so on. A VPN (as long as they are independent and not in cahoots with your ISP) will strip that (if it's at TCP/IP level) from your packets so the destination won't have that tracking information.
On the post: Companies Keep Asking Us To Track You; We'd Rather You Be Protected From Tracking
Re: Re:
Couldn't agree more.
This is a blog, not a news site. I expect a lot more personal opinions, emotion, and a more conversational style on a blog site. In a conversation, people drop the occasional 'light' curse word, damn, shit, bugger, bloody hell, bullshit. Well, everyone except maybe the Queen. And, depending on the audience (e.g. not in a conversation with my mum), and how passionate one feels about the topic, the odd f-bomb or other stronger curses may be used.
If I want the dry, sanitized news, I'll go to a news site with their army of editors. Style editors, newsworthiness editors, fact checkers, topic-specific editors (sports, entertainment, et al.), editors-in-chief. All answering to corporate masters (CIOs, Boards, owners of the conglomerates that owns the company that owns the news site).
On the post: Companies Keep Asking Us To Track You; We'd Rather You Be Protected From Tracking
Re: You still need to test your connection
Or have you created your own site you can bounce back to to extract the information from logs etc.?
On the post: Companies Keep Asking Us To Track You; We'd Rather You Be Protected From Tracking
Re:
You really need to pickup your level of reading comprehension from kindergarten to at least high-school level.
For example, if you include the sentence directly following what you quoted:
From that second sentence, they are acknowledging that they take a kickback ('affiliate fees') from referring purchasers to PIA.
And further down in the article, again an acknowledgement that they make money from PIA and their own Insider Shop:
On the post: Judge Leaning Strongly Towards Tossing Pimping Charges Against Backpage Executives
Re:
On the post: IMDb Sues The State Of California Over New 'Ageism' Law
I thought it was Film Actors Guild (at least according to Team America).
;)
On the post: Long Time Mass Surveillance Defenders Freak Out Now That Trump Will Have Control
Re: Re:
Or maybe you've got Siri or hello google on, which means the mic's has to always be on (to detect the spoken keywords) therefore available for eavesdropping.
Or smart TV's or games consoles with embedded cameras and mic's also potentially always on by design listening in (or watching) any conversation in their pickup range. Tablets and laptops the same.
Or hell, maybe they'll start putting mic's into smart light bulbs or toasters so you can voice control even more.
Unless you consciously take steps to ensure there are no mic's in the vicinity, it can be pretty hard to actually have a completely private conversation these days even if you aren't specifically under surveillance (in which case there are bugs and shotgun/laser mic's to also content with...tho the latter are pretty easy to defeat if you are paranoid to be concerned about them).
On the post: It's Too Late For President Obama To 'Dismantle' The NSA's Mass Surveillance
Re: Re:
On the post: It's Too Late For President Obama To 'Dismantle' The NSA's Mass Surveillance
Re:
On the post: If You're Blaming Facebook For The Election Results, You're An Idiot
Re: Re:
So he does eat babies?
On the post: Are Robot Scalpers Ripping You Off? Do We Need Government To Stop It?
On the post: Actual Creators Of Email Not At All Happy The Fake Creator Of Email Got Paid For His Bogus Claim
Re: Re:
On the post: The Paradox Of Trump Threatening Documentary Filmmaker While Supporting Citizens United
Re: Re: Re: Re: Overturning Citizens United
On the post: The Paradox Of Trump Threatening Documentary Filmmaker While Supporting Citizens United
Re: Re: Re: Overturning Citizens United
I believe that other paths could have been taken to be able to hold corporations liable than the shortcut, or the legal fiction, of declaring corporations as persons.
As I understand it, the legal fiction of saying that corporations were people arose out of contract law, where only people could enter into, and be bound by/liable for contracts. Which worked fine when the only business types of the era were individuals, families where you had a head of a family (e.g. Venetian trading families, noble families, etc.) who could enter into contracts, or partnerships where the partners can take personal liability for contracts. However, when this new business type, the limited liability corporation, arose, there was no person, no owner, who could or would take personal liability, personal responsibility, for contracts. Therefore, technically under the law, these corporations could not enter into nor be held liable for contracts. Which means no loans (lending or borrowing), no investors, no insurance, no trading agreements, no supply agreements, no land ownership, no ownership of anything that required a contract to implement, pretty much entirely hobbled.
To get around this, and to allow the business construct of the corporation function, the courts of the day, not the legislature's, adopted the legal fiction that a corporation was a person. From that point on, as they were now legally people, corporations could enter into and be held liable for contracts.
Now, I think this was a fine, short-term common law fix to the problem. However, the legislature's got lazy and just went with this common law fix. In IT we'd call this a temporary work-around while the bug was properly fixed in code (legislation). But there never was a proper fix, the work-around was allowed to become the norm.
Legislation could have been enacted that allowed for corporations to enter contracts without them being granted personhood. Or could have been enacted that allowed them limited personhood, only applicable to contract law and for no other purposes. But since we were relyng on the common law definition that a corporation was a person, that then led to the perverse issues we have today around whether legislation, constitutions, and other existing or new laws apply or do not apply to corporations as they are people.
I mean, rather than what I think should be the de-facto situation where unless specifically included a corporation is included (opt-in), we have a situation where legislation has to be crafted to specifically exclude corporations (opt-out) if the drafters don't want to include corporations. And this is typically done by using phrasing such as natural person rather than just saying person.
On the post: Judge Refuses To Block NY No-Selfie Ballot Law Because It Would 'Create Havoc To Not Enforce It'
Re: Blinders firmly in-place along with rose colored galsses
This law hasn't yet been declared illegal in NY. This was for a preliminary (i.e. before the case has been heard) injunction.
On the post: Wall Street Journal Error Filled Editorial Buys Into Ridiculous Copyright Office Conspiracy Theory
Re: Re: Re: A CREEPY WEBSITE
Wow.
based on the number of exclamations and all caps words, I think you're insurance would be screwed if this plan by insurance companies is allowed to go ahead.
On the post: Pissed Consumer Sues Reputation Management Firms Over Their Bogus Lawsuit/Fake Defendant/Takedown Scams
Re: Re: Re: A little thing called Perjury
On the post: Here's The Truth: Shiva Ayyadurai Didn't Invent Email
Re:
Windows existed long before OS/2, and GUIs long before that.
After windows 1 and 2, MS and IBM entered a partnership to make OS/2. OS/2 was basically supposed to replace the Windows line. But while OS/2 was under development and it's initial releases, Windows 3 (unlike 1 and 2) became wildly popular, especially 3.11 (aka Windows for Workgroups). Whereupon MS basically renegged on all it's OS/2 agreements (well, found legal loop-holes to leave), dumped OS/2 development and re-directed it all to Windows, leaving IBM to continue developing and supporting OS/2 alone. And did the usual MS practice of doing it's best to extinguish OS/2 (an OS it co-developed).
Next >>