I would really like to see something like that to shift your search/ads results to a different profile. But with an ad-block I have no idea what kind of ad was tailored for me.
Re: Re: Re: Where are the devices that fight back?
This can work if they are just looking for some specific apps/chat logs.
But, it is not that simple to create a fake benign container.
You must consider the metadata that leaks from your devices and create something to match it.
A VPN might reduce the complexity of the content creation, but it might not be enough if they still have access from other sources to compare the data.
As mentioned in the article the biggest problem is that the government can easily force people to provide their password (or biometric information).
If I'm not mistaken there were some laws in UK that forced people to provide their passwords or face a punishment for hindering the investigation.
If you were stop-and-frisked, damaging their devices or refusing to "cooperate" would only add more leverage for them prosecute you.
It might work if your house were searched after a warrant and they took them to analyze it somewhere else.
But I guess that after the first uses of such kind of device, they would produce a specific protection against those current spikes.
Amazon is not leaving AU, it has established a new store there. The store has a reduced number of offerings, which is natural considering they will not be selling imported items.
My mistake for not being clear enough.
I still think that amazon.com will still cover Australia after July.
If not, they are just shooting themselves in the foot.
The first two paragraphs have no relation at all with the new tax.
It is just some random rant.
This new tax just recognizes that it is much more simple to anyone import goods from overseas.
And now it is just being applied the same tax to everyone.
Amazon is probably just threatening to leave, while hoping that the backlash will be enough for revert those changes.
I bet it won't, and they will just comply with the new law in July.
It would be more expensive for the government to handle this tax collection.
If I remember correctly, eBay already collect the import taxes on the purchase.
While it is an extra cost for the companies (although probably insignificant), it makes a better buying experience.
Charging the customer when the package arrives would delay their arrival and make the customer upset that they have to still pay an extra.
Putting the tax on the beginning makes it easier for the customers compare if it's is worth import or buy locally.
I'm not American, and have only a small knowledge of its Constitutions (Does the 3rd really exists? I have never heard about it.)
Government can, and do, interfere with private companies. A judge might force it to change its behavior to comply with the law. Or, the legislative can regulate how companies can or cannot act it some areas.
As in the case of apple, it might need a more broad and generic approach, for example by requiring that all encryption should have a master key for the government fight evil terrorists.
If the judge should not compel the Executive into acting, but just indicate how it should act, why not serve an injunction to Twitter, which they can do.
As it is considered a government tool, wouldn't it be easier to force Twitter to disable the block function for the accounts related to government officials?
I do not even have to wait for them to speak something controversial. Knowing that the moderation is understaffed and will mostly overshoot, you can just dump a ton of complaints in bad faith until some of them stick.
You probably won't be able to take down any politician. But as your goal is to cause an impact to change the law, just target small innocent organizations, and wait for the backlash.
There's still a possible future outrage: if Mad Decent and/or Baauer actually sue over it, which hopefully any reasonable lawyer will talk them out of doing.
Hell, no.
Can't you imagine a beautiful scene where Ajit Pai has to defend himself using the fair-use argument against those copyright abusers?
What an amazing would be the world if we could call him Ajit Pai, destroyer of net-neutrality and protector of fair use.
If they are entitled any money, it should come from the general profit, because their part is artificially made to obtain no revenue. It is similar to the big Hollywood studios saying that an AA movie did not profit because they spent millions buying cocaine from themselves and in the end they "lost" money.
If you want to say they should get a cut from Google then they should get a cut of only the profits from the service 'their' content is showing up on. If that service doesn't actually make money directly why should they get a cut from other parts of the company?
I've never say they should get money from google, which they never will. But you cannot say that google doesn't profit from google news, it is just not direct as receiving from ads on those pages. They want to keep their position as the only alternative for searching things on the internet (Does bing still exist?) so they can monetize it more efficiently. It is the same as facebook trying to maintain its users from exiting the site to increase their revenue. It is obvious that they do not profit directly from every operation, but those are investments to build a better market position.
Because if you/they want to go down the road of 'Google is using our stuff.
It is, but as it was already said that those companies are also better with this than without it. If they are so shortsighted to think they are being exploited, let them take their content off and then keep their business as usual (and then shut down).
Sure, that's what I was referring to. But, that makes it much harder to claim money back for the newspapers. They can't account for any direct traffic, so they have to quantify some proportion of search and other traffic that would not be there if Google weren't using news as a loss leader. That will never be anything more than a wild guess.
It make it impossible to calculate it directly, but I don't think that those previous estimates (~3.7 cent of revenue and 0.5 of profit) are that far. Better data would help to reduce some distortions, like a value by country and not an aggregate of the whole world. If the news sector want to claim that there is a hidden revenue and profit on google news, this looks enough. Will they get any of that money? Of course not.
Which, to be honest, speaks a lot to how newspapers have devolved into repackaging AP feeds and clickbaiting (meaning that there's nothing of additional value past the headline) than anything Google's doing. I will click through, personally, but I'll be giving resulting ad revenue to UK newspapers rather than the ones in Spain where I'm located as Spain decided to get them to remove Spanish publishers.
Which is actually very sad. Sure, they made a lot of "stupid" moves (that sometimes were their only option), but there was no possible solution for the problem.
Yes, it is a problem for the newspapers to address, but it also something bigger as news is not only a market product but also a public service.
I do not know in detail how do they produce their original news (not the bullshit that everyone rewrites a little fact and call it news), but its quality and volume is much higher than the average blogger. I think we will miss it more than we think when they start closing doors.
Now that I saw your comment I noticed mine was not clear enough. When I said "address" I was thinking about address something in the discussion only, not a more broad implication such as regulation.
For Google, it's a sticky feature to keep people coming to them for other searches.
It makes everything more complex, but then you have to consider that google is choosing not to monetize it (probably to avoid claims such as they are promoting a specific view or a conflict of interests), but they are still extracting value from it by making people keep using google for other stuff.
For newspapers, I'm not sure what they want a cut of (other than the implicit "everything".
Apart for being fooled by the wrong math about how much money is involved, I would guess it might have something related to those researches showing that people don't read the news anymore, but just look at the headlines and move on. They perceive it as making them lose some potential money and then when they notice their revenue is getting lower, they just attribute it to "google is stealing our money".
I think because of that, it is not so simple as just say to them that they are actually getting more money thanks to google news, but you also have to address the bigger issue of the changes on the news sector caused by the internet.
It doesn't matter if they are proprietary or even encrypted.
It is not necessary to decrypt the lists, since it is not difficult to test and discover that a specific domain is being blocked, and then sue for DRM circumvention.
Those companies are risk averse and would not include any of those domains in their lists.
Then they could ignore US laws, and continue to sell to US Customers. SuperScout, if it still existed, would not be subject to prosecution in the United States, for not complying with US laws.
Of course they can ignore the US laws, those pirate sites also do that. Unfortunately, some evil yankee companies (like visa and paypal) won't help them receive the money from Americans customers (and probably also from everybody else).
In other words, they could sell it US Customers, if they were still around, and would not be subject to prosecution in the United States.
Every time someone believes that, Kim Dotcom sentence is increased by one day.
On the post: Chinese Surveillance State Is Basically The US Surveillance Apparatus Minus The Constitutional Rights
Re: Re: Where are the devices that fight back?
It is called 'Scroogled'.
https://craphound.com/stories/2007/09/14/scroogled/
I would really like to see something like that to shift your search/ads results to a different profile.
But with an ad-block I have no idea what kind of ad was tailored for me.
On the post: Chinese Surveillance State Is Basically The US Surveillance Apparatus Minus The Constitutional Rights
Re: Re: Re: Where are the devices that fight back?
This can work if they are just looking for some specific apps/chat logs.
But, it is not that simple to create a fake benign container. You must consider the metadata that leaks from your devices and create something to match it. A VPN might reduce the complexity of the content creation, but it might not be enough if they still have access from other sources to compare the data.
On the post: Chinese Surveillance State Is Basically The US Surveillance Apparatus Minus The Constitutional Rights
Re: Where are the devices that fight back?
And then what?
As mentioned in the article the biggest problem is that the government can easily force people to provide their password (or biometric information). If I'm not mistaken there were some laws in UK that forced people to provide their passwords or face a punishment for hindering the investigation. If you were stop-and-frisked, damaging their devices or refusing to "cooperate" would only add more leverage for them prosecute you.
It might work if your house were searched after a warrant and they took them to analyze it somewhere else. But I guess that after the first uses of such kind of device, they would produce a specific protection against those current spikes.
On the post: China's Latest Censorship Crackdown Target: Videos Of Women Rubbing, Kissing And Licking Binaural Microphones
Re: China two child policy
It looks like those Russian in the beginning just post some nonsense on any news related to Russia.
On the post: China's Latest Censorship Crackdown Target: Videos Of Women Rubbing, Kissing And Licking Binaural Microphones
The new I-Doser?
But with a more human component.
Does the Chinese cracked those too?
On the post: Amazon Disconnects From Australia After Government Hits It With 10% Tax On All Imported Items
Re: Re:
My mistake for not being clear enough.
I still think that amazon.com will still cover Australia after July. If not, they are just shooting themselves in the foot.
On the post: Amazon Disconnects From Australia After Government Hits It With 10% Tax On All Imported Items
The first two paragraphs have no relation at all with the new tax. It is just some random rant.
This new tax just recognizes that it is much more simple to anyone import goods from overseas. And now it is just being applied the same tax to everyone.
Amazon is probably just threatening to leave, while hoping that the backlash will be enough for revert those changes. I bet it won't, and they will just comply with the new law in July.
It would be more expensive for the government to handle this tax collection. If I remember correctly, eBay already collect the import taxes on the purchase. While it is an extra cost for the companies (although probably insignificant), it makes a better buying experience. Charging the customer when the package arrives would delay their arrival and make the customer upset that they have to still pay an extra. Putting the tax on the beginning makes it easier for the customers compare if it's is worth import or buy locally.
On the post: Court Says It's Unconstitutional For Trump To Block People On Twitter, But Doesn't Actually Order Him To Stop
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Government can, and do, interfere with private companies.
A judge might force it to change its behavior to comply with the law.
Or, the legislative can regulate how companies can or cannot act it some areas.
As in the case of apple, it might need a more broad and generic approach, for example by requiring that all encryption should have a master key for the government fight evil terrorists.
On the post: Court Says It's Unconstitutional For Trump To Block People On Twitter, But Doesn't Actually Order Him To Stop
If the judge should not compel the Executive into acting, but just indicate how it should act, why not serve an injunction to Twitter, which they can do. As it is considered a government tool, wouldn't it be easier to force Twitter to disable the block function for the accounts related to government officials?
On the post: Facebook Moderation Ramps Up In Germany And Everything Keeps Getting Worse For Its Users
Re: Use it against them
Knowing that the moderation is understaffed and will mostly overshoot, you can just dump a ton of complaints in bad faith until some of them stick.
You probably won't be able to take down any politician.
But as your goal is to cause an impact to change the law, just target small innocent organizations, and wait for the backlash.
On the post: This Whole Mess With Ajit Pai, The Harlem Shake And Copyright Is Bad And Everyone's Wrong.
Let them sue!
Hell, no.
Can't you imagine a beautiful scene where Ajit Pai has to defend himself using the fair-use argument against those copyright abusers?
What an amazing would be the world if we could call him Ajit Pai, destroyer of net-neutrality and protector of fair use.
On the post: A Google Tax Isn't Going To Give Publishers The Payout They Think It Will
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
If they are entitled any money, it should come from the general profit, because their part is artificially made to obtain no revenue. It is similar to the big Hollywood studios saying that an AA movie did not profit because they spent millions buying cocaine from themselves and in the end they "lost" money.
On the post: A Google Tax Isn't Going To Give Publishers The Payout They Think It Will
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
I've never say they should get money from google, which they never will. But you cannot say that google doesn't profit from google news, it is just not direct as receiving from ads on those pages. They want to keep their position as the only alternative for searching things on the internet (Does bing still exist?) so they can monetize it more efficiently. It is the same as facebook trying to maintain its users from exiting the site to increase their revenue. It is obvious that they do not profit directly from every operation, but those are investments to build a better market position.
It is, but as it was already said that those companies are also better with this than without it. If they are so shortsighted to think they are being exploited, let them take their content off and then keep their business as usual (and then shut down).
On the post: A Google Tax Isn't Going To Give Publishers The Payout They Think It Will
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
It make it impossible to calculate it directly, but I don't think that those previous estimates (~3.7 cent of revenue and 0.5 of profit) are that far. Better data would help to reduce some distortions, like a value by country and not an aggregate of the whole world. If the news sector want to claim that there is a hidden revenue and profit on google news, this looks enough. Will they get any of that money? Of course not.
Which is actually very sad. Sure, they made a lot of "stupid" moves (that sometimes were their only option), but there was no possible solution for the problem.
On the post: A Google Tax Isn't Going To Give Publishers The Payout They Think It Will
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
Yes, it is a problem for the newspapers to address, but it also something bigger as news is not only a market product but also a public service.
I do not know in detail how do they produce their original news (not the bullshit that everyone rewrites a little fact and call it news), but its quality and volume is much higher than the average blogger. I think we will miss it more than we think when they start closing doors.
On the post: A Google Tax Isn't Going To Give Publishers The Payout They Think It Will
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
On the post: A Google Tax Isn't Going To Give Publishers The Payout They Think It Will
Re: Re: Question
It makes everything more complex, but then you have to consider that google is choosing not to monetize it (probably to avoid claims such as they are promoting a specific view or a conflict of interests), but they are still extracting value from it by making people keep using google for other stuff.
Apart for being fooled by the wrong math about how much money is involved, I would guess it might have something related to those researches showing that people don't read the news anymore, but just look at the headlines and move on. They perceive it as making them lose some potential money and then when they notice their revenue is getting lower, they just attribute it to "google is stealing our money".
I think because of that, it is not so simple as just say to them that they are actually getting more money thanks to google news, but you also have to address the bigger issue of the changes on the news sector caused by the internet.
On the post: How The DMCA's Digital Locks Provision Allowed A Company To Delete A URL From Adblock Lists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is not necessary to decrypt the lists, since it is not difficult to test and discover that a specific domain is being blocked, and then sue for DRM circumvention.
Those companies are risk averse and would not include any of those domains in their lists.
On the post: How The DMCA's Digital Locks Provision Allowed A Company To Delete A URL From Adblock Lists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one is stupid to leave those simple options open.
On the post: How The DMCA's Digital Locks Provision Allowed A Company To Delete A URL From Adblock Lists
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course they can ignore the US laws, those pirate sites also do that. Unfortunately, some evil yankee companies (like visa and paypal) won't help them receive the money from Americans customers (and probably also from everybody else).
Every time someone believes that, Kim Dotcom sentence is increased by one day.
Next >>