Re: Re: isn't "representative" government somewhat obsolete?
It is a solution to a problem we no longer have
How do we not still have this problem? Please explain.
Last time I checked, the only way all "voting citizens could have their opinions weighed" was by voting. This can be done either conventionally with paper ballots, or electronically. Conventional voting and the counting of the ballots is still a huge, expensive, time-consuming hassle, and, while it does preserve anonymity, it is prohibitively difficult for routine use whenever the "business of legislation requires attention." Electronic voting, while much quicker, easier, and cheaper, can only be authenticated and verified by means of a version of public key cryptography, and the anonymity is unavoidably lost in the process, so this is not a viable option, either.
That leaves us with . . . representative government.
Corruption in Congress has been SOP forever, but this example is a bit more blatant than the usual pork barrel style. I think the telling part is that the Congress-critters no longer feel the need to keep up even the slightest pretense of legitimacy. The odd $$ limit is really quite transparent. The only way it could be clearer is if they actually exempted their home state companies by name.
. . . that are the problem. It's their trainers / handlers that are the problem. And they are a very big problem.
Detection dogs can range from very good to astoundingly excellent in their abilities, see here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Here is a quote from the last linked article:
"The problem with drug-sniffing dogs is not that dogs aren’t capable of sniffing out drugs; it’s that we’ve bred into domestic dogs a trait that trumps that ability — a desire to read us and to please us. If a drug dog isn’t specifically trained to compensate for this, it will merely read its handler’s body language and confirm its handler’s suspicions about who is and isn’t hiding drugs."
The bottom line is that the weak link is either the training or the handler, whether through incompetence or ill-intent. Trained and handled properly, the dogs do quite well.
rising inequality over the last decade has been a fundamental driver of political instability in the US and beyond
Somewhere I read that 40 or 50 or so years ago the top X% of the US population (I don't remember the numbers exactly) made about 39 times what the bottom X% made. Now it is over 900 times as much.
All of this coalesced into Chaudhry's arrest for the crime of pretending to be a terrorist. Chaudry was charged with violating the "terrorism hoax" law, which is a real thing, even though it's rarely used.
This kind of reminds me of the laws in the US against simulated controlled substances. Apparently when the cops and legislators don't have enough actual crimes to worry about, they turn to non-crimes*, and then to simulated non-crimes.
If NSO weren't an identifiable company located in a friendly nation, but rather "shadowy hackers" in China or Russia, wouldn't they be considered international criminals, or maybe even "terrorists?" I don't see them as any different from the people selling dangerous ransomware and other malware on the dark web.
I know that these kind of double standards are SOP for unprincipled, corrupt governments, but it is still hard to get used to.
Maybe the Alabama SC is trying to compete with the Louisiana SC for the "Worst and Most Absurd State Supreme Court Decision in Favor of Law Enforcement" award?
Exactly. Until these criminals with badges get prosecuted and imprisoned for their crimes they will keep on committing them. This DA who "declined" to do the right thing should be considered an accomplice after the fact.
The same applies to encryption of all types (chat, email, etc). If everyone does it, if encryption and privacy are the norm rather than the exception, there is no way that using encryption or other privacy-enhancing features can attract extra scrutiny.
At the risk of clouding or distracting from the point of the article, here is an analogy.
There is a fundamental difference in companies that use the roads, like:
UPS
Fedex
J. B. Hunt
and companies that build and maintain the roads, like:
APAC Inc
Bob’s Barricades
State DOTs
even though all of them drive lots of trucks on the roads as an integral part of their operations.
The distinctions that are fairly obvious between these two types of road-related organizations may not be quite so obvious when it comes to Internet companies and their operations, but they are the kinds of distinctions that need to be made in order to have fruitful discussions of the topic.
This is an issue that really needs to get more attention, particularly amidst all the calls for and against regulation, censorship (or the opposite: requiring content be allowed), anti-trust action, etc.
Anywhere you attempt to draw a line in the Internet, the blurring and exceptions quickly become apparent. The heavy hand of government regulation has never been good at dealing with such nuances.
And, as Mike correctly points out, with technology and the Internet, change happens very quickly. Government and it's regulations are famous for lagging far behind, even when it comes things that change much more slowly.
We can never have an intelligent discussion about anything unless the terms involved are clearly defined, and those definitions are well-understood by everyone involved in the discussion.
While a new taxonomy (which tends to focus on categorizing things into groups or layers) might not be in order, maybe some new terminology, clearly defined and broadly understood, might be what is needed.
I have not been pulled over by a cop in a very long time, but in the event that should happen, I will try to get my registration and proof of insurance out of the glove compartment and put it in my lap or on the seat beside me in clear view before the cop even has a chance to get out of the cop car. Same for wallet w/ license.
To the poster who pointed out that they can look these things up on their computer: Of course they can. But that would deprive them of the pretext to shoot you, or maybe just to ticket you for not having useless pieces of paper in your possession.
On the post: The Corruption Is In Congress: When Your New Bill Exempts The Biggest Employers In Your State, Perhaps There's A Problem
Re: Re: isn't "representative" government somewhat obsolete?
How do we not still have this problem? Please explain.
Last time I checked, the only way all "voting citizens could have their opinions weighed" was by voting. This can be done either conventionally with paper ballots, or electronically. Conventional voting and the counting of the ballots is still a huge, expensive, time-consuming hassle, and, while it does preserve anonymity, it is prohibitively difficult for routine use whenever the "business of legislation requires attention." Electronic voting, while much quicker, easier, and cheaper, can only be authenticated and verified by means of a version of public key cryptography, and the anonymity is unavoidably lost in the process, so this is not a viable option, either.
That leaves us with . . . representative government.
On the post: The Corruption Is In Congress: When Your New Bill Exempts The Biggest Employers In Your State, Perhaps There's A Problem
Same old song, just louder
Corruption in Congress has been SOP forever, but this example is a bit more blatant than the usual pork barrel style. I think the telling part is that the Congress-critters no longer feel the need to keep up even the slightest pretense of legitimacy. The odd $$ limit is really quite transparent. The only way it could be clearer is if they actually exempted their home state companies by name.
On the post: Transparency Activists Dump 1.8 Terabytes Of Police Helicopter Surveillance Footage
Re: First rule of data transfer?
In the programming classes I took you got an automatic "F" if you used a GOTO.
On the post: New Investigation Shows A US Journalist Critical Of The Saudi Government Was Hit With NSO Spyware
Re: At what point...
At the same point NSO Group stops letting corrupt governments / corrupt government officials use their malware.
On the post: A Drug Dog's Nose Poking Through The Open Window Of A Car Is Unconstitutional, Says Idaho's Top Court
It's not the dogs . . .
. . . that are the problem. It's their trainers / handlers that are the problem. And they are a very big problem.
Detection dogs can range from very good to astoundingly excellent in their abilities, see here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Here is a quote from the last linked article:
The bottom line is that the weak link is either the training or the handler, whether through incompetence or ill-intent. Trained and handled properly, the dogs do quite well.
On the post: A Drug Dog's Nose Poking Through The Open Window Of A Car Is Unconstitutional, Says Idaho's Top Court
Re: It's not a search...
Snuffing your privacy.
FTFY. It's an easy typo to make.
On the post: Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim
Repeat after Mike:
You apparently do have to not be Missouri Governor Mike Parson.
On the post: Criminalizing Teens' Google Searches Is Just How The UK's Anti-Cybercrime Programs Roll
UK's National Crime Agency?
We have lots of criminal government agencies in the US but none are quite so bold as to self-identify as clearly as this.
Wow. They really said this?
And . . .
I wonder if that is anything like pre-crime?
There is just a whole lot to be disturbed about in this article.
On the post: New Research Shows Social Media Doesn't Turn People Into Assholes (They Already Were), And Everyone's Wrong About Echo Chambers
Somewhere I read that 40 or 50 or so years ago the top X% of the US population (I don't remember the numbers exactly) made about 39 times what the bottom X% made. Now it is over 900 times as much.
Here is a short (6+ min) video that illustrates this same idea a bit differently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
Yeah, I think this is a serious problem. It has recurred many times throughout history, and the end result has never been pretty.
On the post: University Of Hong Kong Wants To Remove A Sculpture Commemorating Tiananmen; To Preserve It, People Have Crowdsourced A Digital 3D Replica
Wrong bear
Xi Jinping hates being portrayed as Winnie the Pooh
On the post: Prosecutors Drop Criminal Charges Against Fake Terrorist Who Duped Canadian Gov't, NYT Podcasters
Not enough real crime, apparently.
This kind of reminds me of the laws in the US against simulated controlled substances. Apparently when the cops and legislators don't have enough actual crimes to worry about, they turn to non-crimes*, and then to simulated non-crimes.
*The controlled substances, not the terrorism.
On the post: In Latest Black Eye For NSO Group, Dubai's King Found To Have Used NSO Spyware To Hack His Ex-Wife's Phone
Different standards?
If NSO weren't an identifiable company located in a friendly nation, but rather "shadowy hackers" in China or Russia, wouldn't they be considered international criminals, or maybe even "terrorists?" I don't see them as any different from the people selling dangerous ransomware and other malware on the dark web.
I know that these kind of double standards are SOP for unprincipled, corrupt governments, but it is still hard to get used to.
On the post: Alabama Supreme Court Rules Law Enforcement Can Withhold Almost All Records Indefinitely
A competition?
Maybe the Alabama SC is trying to compete with the Louisiana SC for the "Worst and Most Absurd State Supreme Court Decision in Favor of Law Enforcement" award?
On the post: LA Sheriff's Handpicked 'Public Integrity Unit' Doing Little More Than Harassing And Intimidating The Department's Critics
Re: "we declined"
Exactly. Until these criminals with badges get prosecuted and imprisoned for their crimes they will keep on committing them. This DA who "declined" to do the right thing should be considered an accomplice after the fact.
On the post: Most People Probably Don't Need A VPN, Experts Now Advise
Re:
The same applies to encryption of all types (chat, email, etc). If everyone does it, if encryption and privacy are the norm rather than the exception, there is no way that using encryption or other privacy-enhancing features can attract extra scrutiny.
On the post: Facebook Banning & Threatening People For Making Facebook Better Is Everything That's Wrong With Facebook
And if you make a tool to remove the fangs from a viper...
the viper is sure to object.
On the post: Does An Internet Infrastructure Taxonomy Help Or Hurt?
Categories / Definitions
At the risk of clouding or distracting from the point of the article, here is an analogy.
There is a fundamental difference in companies that use the roads, like:
UPS
Fedex
J. B. Hunt
and companies that build and maintain the roads, like:
APAC Inc
Bob’s Barricades
State DOTs
even though all of them drive lots of trucks on the roads as an integral part of their operations.
The distinctions that are fairly obvious between these two types of road-related organizations may not be quite so obvious when it comes to Internet companies and their operations, but they are the kinds of distinctions that need to be made in order to have fruitful discussions of the topic.
On the post: If Your Takeaway From Facebook's Whistleblower Is That Section 230 Needs Reform, You Just Got Played By Facebook
Re: 'It's got a lock and heavy door, whatever shall I do?'
Bingo! If Facebook is in favor of it, it is the wrong answer . . . and probably just plain wrong . . . and probably full blown evil.
On the post: Does An Internet Infrastructure Taxonomy Help Or Hurt?
Good discussion
This is an issue that really needs to get more attention, particularly amidst all the calls for and against regulation, censorship (or the opposite: requiring content be allowed), anti-trust action, etc.
Anywhere you attempt to draw a line in the Internet, the blurring and exceptions quickly become apparent. The heavy hand of government regulation has never been good at dealing with such nuances.
And, as Mike correctly points out, with technology and the Internet, change happens very quickly. Government and it's regulations are famous for lagging far behind, even when it comes things that change much more slowly.
We can never have an intelligent discussion about anything unless the terms involved are clearly defined, and those definitions are well-understood by everyone involved in the discussion.
While a new taxonomy (which tends to focus on categorizing things into groups or layers) might not be in order, maybe some new terminology, clearly defined and broadly understood, might be what is needed.
On the post: Minnesota Dept. Of Public Safety Now Handing Out License/Insurance Carriers In Hopes Of Keeping Cops From Killing More Drivers
My plan
I have not been pulled over by a cop in a very long time, but in the event that should happen, I will try to get my registration and proof of insurance out of the glove compartment and put it in my lap or on the seat beside me in clear view before the cop even has a chance to get out of the cop car. Same for wallet w/ license.
To the poster who pointed out that they can look these things up on their computer: Of course they can. But that would deprive them of the pretext to shoot you, or maybe just to ticket you for not having useless pieces of paper in your possession.
Next >>