You're right, and come to think of it, the purported purpose of the surveillance was trafficking. How did they intend to go about proving trafficking by video taping relatively stationary people? Wouldn't proving trafficking take people crossing a border (even a state line, or between cities) or something? In other words, some travel. Then they would have to prove the intent of the travel was for the nefarious purpose of sex. Then, the sex traffickers aren't the ones performing the sex act, but the ones that induced the travel (presumably under duress).
So the supposed purpose of the surveillance and the activities surveilled had nothing to do with trafficking.
The Appeals Court in this case was a three judge panel. While a different three judge panel might obtain a different decision, or the appeal Samuel mentions could get bumped up to an en banc hearing (ten of the 29 Ninth Circuit judges). Then it may or may not become eligible for appeal to the Supreme Court.
But somehow it seems like the frosting on the cake is made from dung. AT&T loses, their customers lose, AT&T's investors lose, and whomever winds up with Direct TV will probably also lose. The inevitable outcome of hubris.
And let us not forget how programming distributors will take advantage, in every way they can.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 29 Aug 2020 @ 7:26am
Re: Long ago.
ECA there are two buttons underneath the area where you type your comments, under the title Comment Options. One says 'Use markdown' and the other says 'Use plain text'. For a long time, after the switch to the markdown system, the use plain text was the default. Many of us lobbied for the switch to use markdown being the default as we, at times, did not stop to check the correct button when we used markdown, giving some strange looking comments. After a while, Techdirt listened, and Use markdown is now the default.
I am not sure it is possible, and might be a significant amount of work, but if this choice was made in our profiles for registered users, and only part of the Comment Options for unregistered users, we could all get our way. But I do think that there are few who find the default Use markdown an impediment, as you do.
So, either take the time to push the 'Use plain text' button, or stop using those signals that markdown uses for formatting, a list of which you can find here.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 29 Aug 2020 @ 7:13am
Trust is a difficult thing.
And possibly an error by including it in the name of your organization. Trust and professional might be in conflict.
We have been burned by trusting supposedly 'trusted' entities in the past. I seem to remember some 'certificates' that made their way into the stream not too long ago that made 'trusted' sites untrustworthy (as well as 'trusted certificates' untrustworthy). Then there are the Bernie Madoff types, and he is not alone. How many times have trustees made off with the trust funds?
I know of Eric Goldman because of his mentions and participation with this website. I could give him some trust, and maybe to the two of you as well. But I learned a lesson a long, long time ago. One can start with a presumption of trust, but one also needs to verify. Trust but verity. I ran into this dilemma often in the employee/employer relationship, for example. From either position I could do a certain amount of research into the other entity and make some determination. But that determination assumes that if the relationship continued, so does the verify part. Trust until there is a reason to not trust, which one finds by checking. One group I worked for who did extensive pre-employment screening (physiological testing, PI's doing background checks, primary and secondary reference checking (the secondary being people who were there at the same time and in related positions but were not listed as references)) and they stated that in their best year they got the hiring thing right only about 50% of the time. Then again, in the long run, it turned out that they had some issues of their own. So it can go both ways.
I am not trying to denigrate you or your organization. I am trying to point out that there is, and will be, some difficulty with the concept of trust. It is not out of the realm of possibilities that some unknown soon to be black hat hacker joins your group to learn not just your methods, but ways around them. How would you know? How would we know? Since you seem to be a fairly open organization (as you should be) how are you going to go about defending against someone using your openness against you (or more importantly us)?
I am not bringing these questions to light to put you or your organization down, but to emphasize the potential problems and to get you to think about mitigation (not that you haven't already, but I did not see it mentioned the the article above). It is important, for you, and for us. I wish you well in your endeavors and hope that in time some good comes from the efforts, it is both needed and important. I don't think it is possible to be 'secure', it is only possible to become 'more secure', and that is a worthy cause. And likely, an unending one.
Please think more about trustworthiness and how to not only be trustworthy (and check that you are), but how to go about selling that trustworthiness to the entities that will both directly (say online banks) and indirectly (say their customers) benefit from your goals.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Aug 2020 @ 5:34pm
Re:
To the above three comments:
Really? Got anything relevant to add? Or maybe a better question would be, got anything coherent to add? Oh, and we do really like verifiable facts, as accusations do nothing to support your positions.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Aug 2020 @ 7:31am
Re: Re:
I think those happen in the event of a mistrial, or for some other reason for a trial not being completed. Sometimes there is more than one mistrial in the same case.
Where it gets iffy (at least for me) is when a state court, for example, finds a defendant innocent and federal prosecutors step in and try the person for the same actions, though the charging documents might hit on a different aspect such as a rights violation rather than a murder charge. They claim different sovereignty's so there is no problem with the defendant being tried twice by the same sovereign.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Aug 2020 @ 2:35pm
Qualified Immunity is unqualified
I cannot figure out how the courts can reason that proscriptions elucidated in our national operations manual (a.k.a. The Constitution) where certain actions by the government (and police are a part of the government) which are prohibited are then sanctioned by the courts just because the particular circumstances never came up in a previous court case. The rights violation happened, and violate our most basic laws. There is only reason to investigate the rights violations first and the predicate is The Constitution, not some previous court case. If there is some mitigating circumstance, it should impact the offenders sanction, but only impact it, not eliminate it.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Aug 2020 @ 11:08am
Re:
No, they can't, that is unless they are found to be a state actor. On the other hand, the government asking them for continued information should be bound by the 4th Amendment, and they might well be making those corporations state actors. Time and citizen oriented courts (one hopes they still exist) will tell.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Aug 2020 @ 2:43pm
Re:
Unfortunately 'we' don't hire new cops. They do. Worse, 'we' don't get to choose which to get rid of. They do, at least when they get permission from the unions, or get a prosecutor who doesn't always follow the 'blue lives matter more than others' rules.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Aug 2020 @ 11:29am
Special means they wear helmets in the sandbox during recess
Isn't it poignant that police officers are being trained to recognize a behavioral psychological condition that isn't recognized by any competent medical authority? Further, that psychological condition has the ability to kill the possessor in a very non psychological manner?
They must have some super natural cognition ability like that that lets them recognize the difference between furtiveness and nervousness, and/or diagnose a psychological condition, in seconds, on the fly, possibly while tackling the subject, or restraining them from behind.
Is that a part of the law enforcement entrance exam? I wonder how they score it (did the subject die)?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Aug 2020 @ 8:44am
Re: That's uh, not helping
I am not so sure genuine supporters is the question. I think the question is what surreptitious concepts are being imposed (indoctrination) upon the boys and girls who attend their facilities? To be so blatantly stupid in what was surely to become a very public matter puts some question to the not so public (what do the kids know, can they recognize indoctrination?) but still stupid activities and lessons being taught. I have no evidence of such (I got my life saving certification at a boys club (the forerunners of the boys and girls clubs) and I don't think I got such indoctrinated, or it didn't take) but these days one has to wonder.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 24 Aug 2020 @ 4:17pm
Now tell the person on the street, and Joe sixpack as well
Consumer reports is a good start, but it is limited to subscribers. The rest of the consumer market needs to know as well, and Techdirt doesn't have enough readers to make a big enough dent. Mainstream press needs to cover this loudly and clearly.
Manufacturers of IoT devices need to be shamed (not buying their products would be a good start, but reviews* that include security issues would help as well) into better business practices (secure your equipment before you sell it, update it regularly, don't depend upon servers you might not be able to maintain down the road) and explain to potential customers what the cost entails, including the extra money spent on securing those devices.
*Reviews from users are not helpful as they rarely have sufficient skill to be knowledgeable about hidden issues, like security. Most commercial reviews are tainted as well, as they seem to be more like marketing brochures. 40 years in the hospitality field and I never found a reviewer that I trusted. They lacked the knowledge, the experience, or the integrity to give an honest review.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 24 Aug 2020 @ 2:50pm
Re: Oversight?
"...give money (that would be OUR tax money)..."
It is just as likely to be asset forfeiture money, rather than tax money, which may or may not have the same kind of approval scheme (not a part of the budget approval process). Still wrong, not only that it was spent, but also the crapola it was spent upon.
On the post: Court Tosses Surreptitious Video Recordings Holding Together Sketchy 'Human Trafficking' Investigation
Re: Law enforcement for fun and profit
You're right, and come to think of it, the purported purpose of the surveillance was trafficking. How did they intend to go about proving trafficking by video taping relatively stationary people? Wouldn't proving trafficking take people crossing a border (even a state line, or between cities) or something? In other words, some travel. Then they would have to prove the intent of the travel was for the nefarious purpose of sex. Then, the sex traffickers aren't the ones performing the sex act, but the ones that induced the travel (presumably under duress).
So the supposed purpose of the surveillance and the activities surveilled had nothing to do with trafficking.
On the post: Court Tosses Surreptitious Video Recordings Holding Together Sketchy 'Human Trafficking' Investigation
But, they had 'permission'
I bet that magistrate judge who authorized the warrant spoken of in the article is really embarrassed now, that is if they still hold their job.
On the post: Supreme Court To Courts And Federal Agencies Trying To Rewrite Section 230: Knock It Off
Re: Re: Do as we say, not as we do
The Supreme Courts own rulings (at the least so they look less two faced). But you are right, who could push that button?
Congress could certainly take care of the Qualified Immunity issue, but they haven't.
On the post: ACLU Sues Federal Officers Over Excessive Force Deployed Against Portland Protesters
Re: Re: I'm pessimistic
The Appeals Court in this case was a three judge panel. While a different three judge panel might obtain a different decision, or the appeal Samuel mentions could get bumped up to an en banc hearing (ten of the 29 Ninth Circuit judges). Then it may or may not become eligible for appeal to the Supreme Court.
On the post: Supreme Court To Courts And Federal Agencies Trying To Rewrite Section 230: Knock It Off
Do as we say, not as we do
Given the Bostock decision, should the Supreme Court be required to listen to itself and overturn its Qualified Immunity fabrication?
On the post: AT&T Now Trying To Ditch DirecTV After Bungled Merger Spree
Not unexpected
But somehow it seems like the frosting on the cake is made from dung. AT&T loses, their customers lose, AT&T's investors lose, and whomever winds up with Direct TV will probably also lose. The inevitable outcome of hubris.
And let us not forget how programming distributors will take advantage, in every way they can.
On the post: As Speakers At The RNC Whined About Big Tech Bias, You Could Only Watch The Full Convention Because Of 'Big Tech'
Re: Long ago.
ECA there are two buttons underneath the area where you type your comments, under the title Comment Options. One says 'Use markdown' and the other says 'Use plain text'. For a long time, after the switch to the markdown system, the use plain text was the default. Many of us lobbied for the switch to use markdown being the default as we, at times, did not stop to check the correct button when we used markdown, giving some strange looking comments. After a while, Techdirt listened, and Use markdown is now the default.
I am not sure it is possible, and might be a significant amount of work, but if this choice was made in our profiles for registered users, and only part of the Comment Options for unregistered users, we could all get our way. But I do think that there are few who find the default Use markdown an impediment, as you do.
So, either take the time to push the 'Use plain text' button, or stop using those signals that markdown uses for formatting, a list of which you can find here.
On the post: The Trust & Safety Professional Association: Advancing The Trust And Safety Profession Through A Shared Community Of Practice
Trust is a difficult thing.
And possibly an error by including it in the name of your organization. Trust and professional might be in conflict.
We have been burned by trusting supposedly 'trusted' entities in the past. I seem to remember some 'certificates' that made their way into the stream not too long ago that made 'trusted' sites untrustworthy (as well as 'trusted certificates' untrustworthy). Then there are the Bernie Madoff types, and he is not alone. How many times have trustees made off with the trust funds?
I know of Eric Goldman because of his mentions and participation with this website. I could give him some trust, and maybe to the two of you as well. But I learned a lesson a long, long time ago. One can start with a presumption of trust, but one also needs to verify. Trust but verity. I ran into this dilemma often in the employee/employer relationship, for example. From either position I could do a certain amount of research into the other entity and make some determination. But that determination assumes that if the relationship continued, so does the verify part. Trust until there is a reason to not trust, which one finds by checking. One group I worked for who did extensive pre-employment screening (physiological testing, PI's doing background checks, primary and secondary reference checking (the secondary being people who were there at the same time and in related positions but were not listed as references)) and they stated that in their best year they got the hiring thing right only about 50% of the time. Then again, in the long run, it turned out that they had some issues of their own. So it can go both ways.
I am not trying to denigrate you or your organization. I am trying to point out that there is, and will be, some difficulty with the concept of trust. It is not out of the realm of possibilities that some unknown soon to be black hat hacker joins your group to learn not just your methods, but ways around them. How would you know? How would we know? Since you seem to be a fairly open organization (as you should be) how are you going to go about defending against someone using your openness against you (or more importantly us)?
I am not bringing these questions to light to put you or your organization down, but to emphasize the potential problems and to get you to think about mitigation (not that you haven't already, but I did not see it mentioned the the article above). It is important, for you, and for us. I wish you well in your endeavors and hope that in time some good comes from the efforts, it is both needed and important. I don't think it is possible to be 'secure', it is only possible to become 'more secure', and that is a worthy cause. And likely, an unending one.
Please think more about trustworthiness and how to not only be trustworthy (and check that you are), but how to go about selling that trustworthiness to the entities that will both directly (say online banks) and indirectly (say their customers) benefit from your goals.
On the post: It's Time To Start Dismantling One Of The Nation's Oldest Racist Institutions: Law Enforcement
Re:
You left out holding police accountable and eliminating concepts like qualified immunity and good faith exception, but otherwise a good start.
On the post: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Insanely Stupid Lawsuit Against Facebook
Re:
To the above three comments:
Really? Got anything relevant to add? Or maybe a better question would be, got anything coherent to add? Oh, and we do really like verifiable facts, as accusations do nothing to support your positions.
On the post: On Appeal, 'Star Trek Discovery' Still Doesn't Infringe On Video Game's Copyright
Re: Re:
I think those happen in the event of a mistrial, or for some other reason for a trial not being completed. Sometimes there is more than one mistrial in the same case.
Where it gets iffy (at least for me) is when a state court, for example, finds a defendant innocent and federal prosecutors step in and try the person for the same actions, though the charging documents might hit on a different aspect such as a rights violation rather than a murder charge. They claim different sovereignty's so there is no problem with the defendant being tried twice by the same sovereign.
On the post: When It Comes To Qualified Immunity, Where Your Rights Were Violated Matters More Than The Fact Your Rights Were Violated
Qualified Immunity is unqualified
I cannot figure out how the courts can reason that proscriptions elucidated in our national operations manual (a.k.a. The Constitution) where certain actions by the government (and police are a part of the government) which are prohibited are then sanctioned by the courts just because the particular circumstances never came up in a previous court case. The rights violation happened, and violate our most basic laws. There is only reason to investigate the rights violations first and the predicate is The Constitution, not some previous court case. If there is some mitigating circumstance, it should impact the offenders sanction, but only impact it, not eliminate it.
On the post: CBP Is Still Buying Location Data From A Company Currently Being Investigated By Congress
Re:
No, they can't, that is unless they are found to be a state actor. On the other hand, the government asking them for continued information should be bound by the 4th Amendment, and they might well be making those corporations state actors. Time and citizen oriented courts (one hopes they still exist) will tell.
On the post: Law Enforcement Training: People Saying 'I Can't Breathe' Are Just Suffering From 'Excited Delirium'
Re:
Unfortunately 'we' don't hire new cops. They do. Worse, 'we' don't get to choose which to get rid of. They do, at least when they get permission from the unions, or get a prosecutor who doesn't always follow the 'blue lives matter more than others' rules.
On the post: Law Enforcement Training: People Saying 'I Can't Breathe' Are Just Suffering From 'Excited Delirium'
Re:
Thad, you might be right about that, though my intention was to slight the delicate police rather than people with disabilities.
My apologies to those with disabilities.
My disregard to the delicate police who seem to need to find excuses for for their indelicate behavior and the extreme excuses they develop.
On the post: Law Enforcement Training: People Saying 'I Can't Breathe' Are Just Suffering From 'Excited Delirium'
Special means they wear helmets in the sandbox during recess
Isn't it poignant that police officers are being trained to recognize a behavioral psychological condition that isn't recognized by any competent medical authority? Further, that psychological condition has the ability to kill the possessor in a very non psychological manner?
They must have some super natural cognition ability like that that lets them recognize the difference between furtiveness and nervousness, and/or diagnose a psychological condition, in seconds, on the fly, possibly while tackling the subject, or restraining them from behind.
Is that a part of the law enforcement entrance exam? I wonder how they score it (did the subject die)?
On the post: Boys And Girls Club Backtracks After Folks Ask Why It's Helping A Cable Monopoly Lobby The FCC
Re: That's uh, not helping
I am not so sure genuine supporters is the question. I think the question is what surreptitious concepts are being imposed (indoctrination) upon the boys and girls who attend their facilities? To be so blatantly stupid in what was surely to become a very public matter puts some question to the not so public (what do the kids know, can they recognize indoctrination?) but still stupid activities and lessons being taught. I have no evidence of such (I got my life saving certification at a boys club (the forerunners of the boys and girls clubs) and I don't think I got such indoctrinated, or it didn't take) but these days one has to wonder.
On the post: Consumer Reports Study Shows Many 'Smart' Doorbells Are Dumb, Lack Basic Security
Now tell the person on the street, and Joe sixpack as well
Consumer reports is a good start, but it is limited to subscribers. The rest of the consumer market needs to know as well, and Techdirt doesn't have enough readers to make a big enough dent. Mainstream press needs to cover this loudly and clearly.
Manufacturers of IoT devices need to be shamed (not buying their products would be a good start, but reviews* that include security issues would help as well) into better business practices (secure your equipment before you sell it, update it regularly, don't depend upon servers you might not be able to maintain down the road) and explain to potential customers what the cost entails, including the extra money spent on securing those devices.
*Reviews from users are not helpful as they rarely have sufficient skill to be knowledgeable about hidden issues, like security. Most commercial reviews are tainted as well, as they seem to be more like marketing brochures. 40 years in the hospitality field and I never found a reviewer that I trusted. They lacked the knowledge, the experience, or the integrity to give an honest review.
On the post: Documents Show Law Enforcement Agencies Are Still Throwing Tax Dollars At Junk Science
Re:
Muggle!
On the post: Documents Show Law Enforcement Agencies Are Still Throwing Tax Dollars At Junk Science
Re: Oversight?
It is just as likely to be asset forfeiture money, rather than tax money, which may or may not have the same kind of approval scheme (not a part of the budget approval process). Still wrong, not only that it was spent, but also the crapola it was spent upon.
Next >>