Like anything, a little password sharing wouldn't be the end of the world, sort of on par with mix tapes.
Widespread sharing and "account splitting" (where people share the cost of an account and each get an access code) can have a negative effect.
Netflix has ignored it in the same manner that they ignored VPNs from overseas for an incredibly long time. There are simple reasons.
Netflix needs critical mass, every company does. They want to get the most eyeballs and to create value in their product. It means that they can reach the point where their home made series (Netflix originals) are as popular as other entertainment sources.
Literally, get people hooked, and then work on getting them to actually pay for it.
The problem in giving away this type of product tends to harm others. Netflix benefits, but their suppliers aren't happy (because this fudges the viewership down, which may lower their income if they have a payment per user deal). It also absorbs up eyeballs that might be on other media, lowering their ratings.
Netflix has done well with this sort of thing, but it's borderline sneaky.
First and foremost, one of the biggest problems that plagues internet service for the consumer is that it is provided by companies who have other interests and other uses for the line. Internet was built as a sort of "over the top" service to get people off of making dialup phone calls and instead paying for a new "extra", the internet.
Evolution has shown that the internet, the "extra" is now the most valuable part of the deal, and the original services that it's offered on top of (cable, POTS) are waning.
As a result, the big internet companies are often also big cable or big IPTV guys or big wireless guys (someimes all three). They are torn between making the internet better and killing those services, or locking down the internet and boosting things that they are uniquely able to deliver in their areas.
The problem of ownership will not go away any time soon.
Instead, what is needed is some basics, in legislation and not just regulation. The very basics of the internet business need to be defined in legal terms that protect the consumer and force the companies to meet minimum service levels. That would mean regulating things like the ratios between consumer connection, internet network structure, and external connections. Mandate a 10:1 or 20:1 ratio all down the line, and force the providers to have that level of interconnection outside. Don't let private deals count towards it at all. So they would need to have reasonable levels of public interconnect.
Moreover, they should be required to use public exchanges, where all of the carriers meet and trade equally. That would mean that an ISP couldn't take connectivity only from Level3 but not from HE, as an example. Make private peering essentially illegal. Problem resolves itself.
Once you force minimum levels of connectivity, most of the other problems go away. It's net neutrality without tears, just the facts.
"Except it's not that simple. there are procedures that must be followed (ie: public consultation) and the current head must prove that the changes are justified. Which the current FCC failed spectacularly to do and still went ahead and voted to repeal it despite plenty of evidence of fraud and general opposition against the move in the comments. This will be reversed by the courts. "
Doubtful, see your following comment (the FCC can regulate).
"Legislation IS regulation. And the law EXPLICITLY allows the FCC to regulate."
You are correct. That gives whoever is running the FCC the power to make these decisions and to publish the regulations - and the next person who occupies that chair has the same power to get rid of the rules or to change them.
Legislation can define certain things are not being able to be changed by regulation. Define a title for internet services in law, and boom, no more wiggle room. Define it in regulation, and it wiggles away next time around.
The EU courts got it. They nailed it. They got it in the way that almost everyone else has been trying to avoid.
If you take money from customers and provide a service, you are in that business. You are not a "technology company" providing an app to an industry, you are the industry.
Uber sets the rules. They set the prices. They collect the money, and they pay the money out.
They are a taxi company.
If Uber was selling their software (even as a service) to taxi companies, they would be a technology company. They aren't. They are running a taxi company that uses technology.
" The German competition authority is not worried about Facebook's use of personal data gathered directly on its own sites"
Actually they are, in the sense of matching that personal data with personal data from other companies they own / have bought to complete tracking for their ad system.
it's all about the money. FB isn't about social media, it's about making money off your data.
One of the things I learned over the years (and even before the internet) is that racists (on all sides) are generally pretty good at not quite saying enough to get themselves in trouble.
The KKK, as an example uses that "It's okay to be White" thing to full effect. It's hard to actually argue the concept, as it's not really any different from "Black lives Matter" or "Black Olives matter" or whatever. It's a positive statement of self re-affirmation, and very specifically nothing more.
What you (and others) read into the statement is the rest of the KKK doctrine, with good reason. That would be as much your bias as anything they particularly said.
I have seen a few people banned or given "time outs" by Twitter recently. Going back and looking at the sorts of things they were posting, I can't say that I have found anything particularly wrong.
Now, the Egyptian guy, I can see how this happens. His work is important, vital, but also can be a gore fest and filled with angry comments and unsupported accusations. It's part of a bigger issue of a frothy civil war. Twitter is in a no win position on this one.
Nobody is asking social media to do more than any other form of media or distribution system. You want them to be able to ignore the content they help to distribute. At some point, that isn't going to work well.
Actually they are doing it right. They are setting very minimum regulation and stopping the states from piling on a bunch of stuff that would likely be widely different from state to state and hard for companies to work with.
Strong, simple, clear federal legislation (not just regulation) can resolve most of the problems here. Letting the states do whatever in an area that is really federal jurisdiction would be a very bad idea.
It's bad enough with Europe (especially France) trying to tell everyone else what to do. Imagine 50 states with different privacy rules, telling companies that they can and cannot store emails or what have you. It would be nutty.
"when the available evidence (and the courts) made it clear that you can't have effective net neutrality rules without classifying ISPs as common carriers until Title II of the Communications Act, that's exactly what Wheeler did. "
nothing like re-writing history, at least a little bit. The court thing was "available evidence", it was that the courts had shut every other avenue down. They stated without a doubt that unless you classify under Title II, you cannot apply this type of regulation.
Title II was the last, and only way for the FCC to try to impose regulation without legislation.
However, he forget (or ignored) one basic thing, which is the moment he is out of office, the next person can just do what Pai is doing now and remove the Title II status, which kills off NN.
The true evidence pointed to the need for legislation and not regulation. but Wheeler didn't do it right - and now you are paying for it.
"Statistics say most of the time the cops misbehaving. But yes, there are researches showing that the public behaves better as well. Win-win situation."
Citation if possible. With such a high percentage of the complaints being dismissed, you have to think that it's not quite as obvious.
"Non issue. Really. Even if it's not needed in a trial it's records from police work. You know, accountability."
One thing I have learned from Techdirt is how, when, where, and for how long records are retained is pretty important. With 2600 officers working (say) 40 hours per week, they would be generating close to 500,000 hours of video per week - plus all of the in car video. That is a lot of datapoints, and quite a bit of it shot inside private residences or on private property. The risk that it gets out, well...
"Another non-issue. Police abuse and general complaints about cops have decreased, money is being saved, people are being respected."
If everyone is "being respected" but the crime rate goes up and convictions go down, then you have a problem. Vegas area has a huge crime problem and it's only getting worse. Bottom line, do cameras help, hinder, or just make everyone fake smile at each other?
The Obamaphone thing was a blind hand out, more of a "no poor person without a quad core phone" than anything else. It didn't build infrastructure or anything, it just gave poor people a nice new toy to play with.
500 internal investigations, and police cleared on 462.
Let's reverse that for a moment: 500 complaints from the public strong enough to merit internal investigation, and over 90% of the are dismissed.
"Among those wearing cameras, the study showed a 37 percent reduction in the number of officers involved in at least one use-of-force incident and a 30 percent reduction in the number of officers with at least one complaint filed against them."
Another great stat. The question unanswered is about how things moved along to use of force. Were police suddenly being less violent, or was the public suddenly being good little boys and girls because they knew they were being recorded and their resisting (arrest, inquiries, traffic stops, etc) would be record and used against them?
The other big question, unanswered, is the longer term privacy issues. How long is all the video kept? How much of it has been summoned into trials? How much of it has made trials longer or required more time from lawyers (both sides) to deal with?
Most importantly - is Vegas conviction rate up, dismissal rate up, or are things all even?
Astroturfing as you call it is popular on both sides of almost every discussion. It also comes in plenty of different flavors, not just made up community groups.
Look, Mike started the Copia institute. Let's be fair here, there is no institution, just another plaque next to the mailbox at the Floor64 offices. The requirement to go from "Mike Masnick from Techdirt" to "Mike Masnick from the Copia Institute" appears to be registering a domain and perhaps a DBA. So when Mike sends out one thing in his own name, one thing as Techdirt, and then releases a study or brief from Copia, he has taken three bites at the apple.
You see it most strongly in politics with PACs and Super PACs which are often just name fronts for wealthy people to force their opinions on others. It also gives candidates the ability to have hot button issues pushed without having to do it themselves. It gives them a certain air gap between themselves and a divisive issue.
Groups like the NAACP are in theory driven by issues, but in reality driven by the noisy 1% of their members and the people actually writing the checks. When the tone of one or the other changes, generally groups like this change sides.
Now, for what it's worth, the NAACP may in fact just be getting in line behind the Comcast "we need net neutrality" move. They stake out a position just past Comcast, and then boom, you can "negotiate" in public down to something everyone likes - everyone who is on the same side.
Then Copia institute can issue an Amicus brief to the courts in regards to NN, which will be considered and ignored in due course!
ISPs (and pretty much everyone else) ignores poverty stricken or low income areas because (obviously) there is little or no income to be had in providing service. In a world of a totally free market, they go where they can get paid, and avoid where they cannot.
Forcing them into those areas isn't a good solution either. The costs associated with it end up being borne by the middle class, who pay more for their service because the ISP has to hire more people to provide service that often goes unpaid.
Want to get the companies lining up at the doors to offer service? Start "net stamps", a program that provides money for under privileged (what a nice way to say poor) to obtain internet service. Then the ISPs will gladly show up knowing that they will get paid (most of the time).
When NN was the rule and it was threatened, everyone said "ISPs will do all this bad stuff like this".
Now that NN is gone, ISPs are saying "let's pass into law that we can't do this bad shit" - and Karl says it doesn't matter, they wouldn't do it anyway.
What I said is that during the whole "ZOMG NN!" deal for the last month or so, there are any number of instances where the specter of ISPs blocking sites and slowing stuff down on purpose has been raised.
Now that they are proposing rules that include specifying that they wouldn't be allowed to do such things, it's dismissed as "they wouldn't have done that anyway".
Huh?
I have be repeated over and and over again that ISPs aren't stupid enough to do things that would invite FTC scrutiny. Overt blocked, intentional slowing (beyond reasonable network management) or otherwise making certain sites inaccessible would be suicidal. I knew that, and pointed it out often.
I got shouted down for it.
I seem to remember even someone like you pulling out a list of all the bad things that ISPs have done all over the world (I think you got to 10 in 20 years). It included the dreaded blocking and slowing down points.
So no, I am not talking about Facebook or Twitter or Google, sorry.
Re: Re: Re: ANY search warrant "might result in evidence the government can use against the suspect".
It's like anything - if you cannot produce something, then you get to sit in jail in contempt of court.
Remember, this isn't like an 256 bit password - this is the guys unlock code on his phone that he unlocked hundreds or thousands of times before. Suddenly forgetting it would be, umm, a little too convenient.
You may have a more compelling argument for having forgotten a 256 or 1024 character random code, but your lock code, well... you know it. Saying you don't is just obstructing justice.
There is often a different in things like warranty and other benefits between private and commercial use cars.
Since the chargers are (a) owned by Tesla, and not the consumers and (b) represent a benefit of ownership provided at the cost of Tesla alone it's pretty much up to them to make the rules.
As someone else pointed out, there is also no benefit for Tesla to be paying the power to run Uber cars, especially considering all the legal wrangling going on. Why would one side feed the other side?
I think in this a case where Techdirt is in such a rush to damn a company for something that the real story is entirely and completely missed.
Yes, and those are the same actions that NN supports have been ragging on the whole time. The mongered fear is that they would slow things down and block content, and yet...
Suddenly it's a given and they aren't giving anything back?
On the post: Charter, Disney Execs Pledge To Crack Down On Streaming Password Sharing 'Piracy'
Widespread sharing and "account splitting" (where people share the cost of an account and each get an access code) can have a negative effect.
Netflix has ignored it in the same manner that they ignored VPNs from overseas for an incredibly long time. There are simple reasons.
Netflix needs critical mass, every company does. They want to get the most eyeballs and to create value in their product. It means that they can reach the point where their home made series (Netflix originals) are as popular as other entertainment sources.
Literally, get people hooked, and then work on getting them to actually pay for it.
The problem in giving away this type of product tends to harm others. Netflix benefits, but their suppliers aren't happy (because this fudges the viewership down, which may lower their income if they have a payment per user deal). It also absorbs up eyeballs that might be on other media, lowering their ratings.
Netflix has done well with this sort of thing, but it's borderline sneaky.
On the post: CenturyLink Pushed For Net Neutrality Repeal, Now Adorably Calls For FCC To Police Interconnection
Re: Interconnection regulations here we come.
First and foremost, one of the biggest problems that plagues internet service for the consumer is that it is provided by companies who have other interests and other uses for the line. Internet was built as a sort of "over the top" service to get people off of making dialup phone calls and instead paying for a new "extra", the internet.
Evolution has shown that the internet, the "extra" is now the most valuable part of the deal, and the original services that it's offered on top of (cable, POTS) are waning.
As a result, the big internet companies are often also big cable or big IPTV guys or big wireless guys (someimes all three). They are torn between making the internet better and killing those services, or locking down the internet and boosting things that they are uniquely able to deliver in their areas.
The problem of ownership will not go away any time soon.
Instead, what is needed is some basics, in legislation and not just regulation. The very basics of the internet business need to be defined in legal terms that protect the consumer and force the companies to meet minimum service levels. That would mean regulating things like the ratios between consumer connection, internet network structure, and external connections. Mandate a 10:1 or 20:1 ratio all down the line, and force the providers to have that level of interconnection outside. Don't let private deals count towards it at all. So they would need to have reasonable levels of public interconnect.
Moreover, they should be required to use public exchanges, where all of the carriers meet and trade equally. That would mean that an ISP couldn't take connectivity only from Level3 but not from HE, as an example. Make private peering essentially illegal. Problem resolves itself.
Once you force minimum levels of connectivity, most of the other problems go away. It's net neutrality without tears, just the facts.
On the post: Good News: Trump Protestors Accused Of 'Hiding Behind The First Amendment' Acquitted
Re:
On the post: Shocker: FOIA Request Shows Yet Another Core Justification For Repealing Net Neutrality Was Bullshit
Re: Re: re-writing history?
"
Doubtful, see your following comment (the FCC can regulate).
"Legislation IS regulation. And the law EXPLICITLY allows the FCC to regulate."
You are correct. That gives whoever is running the FCC the power to make these decisions and to publish the regulations - and the next person who occupies that chair has the same power to get rid of the rules or to change them.
Legislation can define certain things are not being able to be changed by regulation. Define a title for internet services in law, and boom, no more wiggle room. Define it in regulation, and it wiggles away next time around.
On the post: Top EU Court Says Uber Is A Transport Service That Can Be Regulated Like Traditional Taxis
If you take money from customers and provide a service, you are in that business. You are not a "technology company" providing an app to an industry, you are the industry.
Uber sets the rules. They set the prices. They collect the money, and they pay the money out.
They are a taxi company.
If Uber was selling their software (even as a service) to taxi companies, they would be a technology company. They aren't. They are running a taxi company that uses technology.
Ding. Nailed it. NEXT!
On the post: Facebook's Collection And Use Of Data From Third-Party Sources Is 'Abusive', Says Germany's Competition Authority
Actually they are, in the sense of matching that personal data with personal data from other companies they own / have bought to complete tracking for their ad system.
it's all about the money. FB isn't about social media, it's about making money off your data.
On the post: Once Again: Expecting Social Media Companies To Police 'Bad' Stuff Is A Bad Idea
It's easy to drag out the KKK
The KKK, as an example uses that "It's okay to be White" thing to full effect. It's hard to actually argue the concept, as it's not really any different from "Black lives Matter" or "Black Olives matter" or whatever. It's a positive statement of self re-affirmation, and very specifically nothing more.
What you (and others) read into the statement is the rest of the KKK doctrine, with good reason. That would be as much your bias as anything they particularly said.
I have seen a few people banned or given "time outs" by Twitter recently. Going back and looking at the sorts of things they were posting, I can't say that I have found anything particularly wrong.
Now, the Egyptian guy, I can see how this happens. His work is important, vital, but also can be a gore fest and filled with angry comments and unsupported accusations. It's part of a bigger issue of a frothy civil war. Twitter is in a no win position on this one.
Nobody is asking social media to do more than any other form of media or distribution system. You want them to be able to ignore the content they help to distribute. At some point, that isn't going to work well.
On the post: Right On Cue, Marsha Blackburn Introduces A Fake Net Neutrality Bill To Make The FCC's Idiotic Decision Permanent
Re:
Strong, simple, clear federal legislation (not just regulation) can resolve most of the problems here. Letting the states do whatever in an area that is really federal jurisdiction would be a very bad idea.
It's bad enough with Europe (especially France) trying to tell everyone else what to do. Imagine 50 states with different privacy rules, telling companies that they can and cannot store emails or what have you. It would be nutty.
On the post: Right On Cue, Marsha Blackburn Introduces A Fake Net Neutrality Bill To Make The FCC's Idiotic Decision Permanent
On the post: Shocker: FOIA Request Shows Yet Another Core Justification For Repealing Net Neutrality Was Bullshit
re-writing history?
nothing like re-writing history, at least a little bit. The court thing was "available evidence", it was that the courts had shut every other avenue down. They stated without a doubt that unless you classify under Title II, you cannot apply this type of regulation.
Title II was the last, and only way for the FCC to try to impose regulation without legislation.
However, he forget (or ignored) one basic thing, which is the moment he is out of office, the next person can just do what Pai is doing now and remove the Title II status, which kills off NN.
The true evidence pointed to the need for legislation and not regulation. but Wheeler didn't do it right - and now you are paying for it.
On the post: Study Of Las Vegas PD Body Cameras Shows Reductions In Complaints, Use Of Force
Re: Re:
Citation if possible. With such a high percentage of the complaints being dismissed, you have to think that it's not quite as obvious.
"Non issue. Really. Even if it's not needed in a trial it's records from police work. You know, accountability."
One thing I have learned from Techdirt is how, when, where, and for how long records are retained is pretty important. With 2600 officers working (say) 40 hours per week, they would be generating close to 500,000 hours of video per week - plus all of the in car video. That is a lot of datapoints, and quite a bit of it shot inside private residences or on private property. The risk that it gets out, well...
"Another non-issue. Police abuse and general complaints about cops have decreased, money is being saved, people are being respected."
If everyone is "being respected" but the crime rate goes up and convictions go down, then you have a problem. Vegas area has a huge crime problem and it's only getting worse. Bottom line, do cameras help, hinder, or just make everyone fake smile at each other?
On the post: NAACP Fought Net Neutrality Until Last Week, Now Suddenly Supports The Idea
Re: Re:
On the post: Study Of Las Vegas PD Body Cameras Shows Reductions In Complaints, Use Of Force
500 internal investigations, and police cleared on 462.
Let's reverse that for a moment: 500 complaints from the public strong enough to merit internal investigation, and over 90% of the are dismissed.
"Among those wearing cameras, the study showed a 37 percent reduction in the number of officers involved in at least one use-of-force incident and a 30 percent reduction in the number of officers with at least one complaint filed against them."
Another great stat. The question unanswered is about how things moved along to use of force. Were police suddenly being less violent, or was the public suddenly being good little boys and girls because they knew they were being recorded and their resisting (arrest, inquiries, traffic stops, etc) would be record and used against them?
The other big question, unanswered, is the longer term privacy issues. How long is all the video kept? How much of it has been summoned into trials? How much of it has made trials longer or required more time from lawyers (both sides) to deal with?
Most importantly - is Vegas conviction rate up, dismissal rate up, or are things all even?
On the post: NAACP Fought Net Neutrality Until Last Week, Now Suddenly Supports The Idea
Re:
Look, Mike started the Copia institute. Let's be fair here, there is no institution, just another plaque next to the mailbox at the Floor64 offices. The requirement to go from "Mike Masnick from Techdirt" to "Mike Masnick from the Copia Institute" appears to be registering a domain and perhaps a DBA. So when Mike sends out one thing in his own name, one thing as Techdirt, and then releases a study or brief from Copia, he has taken three bites at the apple.
You see it most strongly in politics with PACs and Super PACs which are often just name fronts for wealthy people to force their opinions on others. It also gives candidates the ability to have hot button issues pushed without having to do it themselves. It gives them a certain air gap between themselves and a divisive issue.
Groups like the NAACP are in theory driven by issues, but in reality driven by the noisy 1% of their members and the people actually writing the checks. When the tone of one or the other changes, generally groups like this change sides.
Now, for what it's worth, the NAACP may in fact just be getting in line behind the Comcast "we need net neutrality" move. They stake out a position just past Comcast, and then boom, you can "negotiate" in public down to something everyone likes - everyone who is on the same side.
Then Copia institute can issue an Amicus brief to the courts in regards to NN, which will be considered and ignored in due course!
On the post: NAACP Fought Net Neutrality Until Last Week, Now Suddenly Supports The Idea
Forcing them into those areas isn't a good solution either. The costs associated with it end up being borne by the middle class, who pay more for their service because the ISP has to hire more people to provide service that often goes unpaid.
Want to get the companies lining up at the doors to offer service? Start "net stamps", a program that provides money for under privileged (what a nice way to say poor) to obtain internet service. Then the ISPs will gladly show up knowing that they will get paid (most of the time).
On the post: Comcast's Push For A Shitty New Net Neutrality Law Begins In Earnest
Re: Re: Re: Re: narrative?
When NN was the rule and it was threatened, everyone said "ISPs will do all this bad stuff like this".
Now that NN is gone, ISPs are saying "let's pass into law that we can't do this bad shit" - and Karl says it doesn't matter, they wouldn't do it anyway.
Last week they would do it. This week they won't.
Pick one. Stick with it.
On the post: Comcast's Push For A Shitty New Net Neutrality Law Begins In Earnest
Re: Re: narrative?
What I said is that during the whole "ZOMG NN!" deal for the last month or so, there are any number of instances where the specter of ISPs blocking sites and slowing stuff down on purpose has been raised.
Now that they are proposing rules that include specifying that they wouldn't be allowed to do such things, it's dismissed as "they wouldn't have done that anyway".
Huh?
I have be repeated over and and over again that ISPs aren't stupid enough to do things that would invite FTC scrutiny. Overt blocked, intentional slowing (beyond reasonable network management) or otherwise making certain sites inaccessible would be suicidal. I knew that, and pointed it out often.
I got shouted down for it.
I seem to remember even someone like you pulling out a list of all the bad things that ISPs have done all over the world (I think you got to 10 in 20 years). It included the dreaded blocking and slowing down points.
So no, I am not talking about Facebook or Twitter or Google, sorry.
On the post: Another Court Says Compelled Password Production Doesn't Violate The Fifth Amendment
Re: Re: Re: ANY search warrant "might result in evidence the government can use against the suspect".
Remember, this isn't like an 256 bit password - this is the guys unlock code on his phone that he unlocked hundreds or thousands of times before. Suddenly forgetting it would be, umm, a little too convenient.
You may have a more compelling argument for having forgotten a 256 or 1024 character random code, but your lock code, well... you know it. Saying you don't is just obstructing justice.
On the post: Bad Ideas: Tesla Bars Ride Sharing Drivers From Using Its Superchargers
Re: Who owns the Superchargers?
Since the chargers are (a) owned by Tesla, and not the consumers and (b) represent a benefit of ownership provided at the cost of Tesla alone it's pretty much up to them to make the rules.
As someone else pointed out, there is also no benefit for Tesla to be paying the power to run Uber cars, especially considering all the legal wrangling going on. Why would one side feed the other side?
I think in this a case where Techdirt is in such a rush to damn a company for something that the real story is entirely and completely missed.
On the post: Comcast's Push For A Shitty New Net Neutrality Law Begins In Earnest
Re: Re: narrative?
Suddenly it's a given and they aren't giving anything back?
Next >>