Re: Re: Lose 1 million, or risk losing 100 million...
I understand the sentiment, but let's discuss things that are realistically going to happen.
Every great achievement the human race has made, every leap forward that has made things better for mankind, has started with someone courageous enough to ignore exactly that idea.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The EU is losing all legitimacy and cred
The EU is only doing what is best for the remaining 27 member states
Seems to me most of what they do, particularly since the establishment of the Euro, is what's best for Germany. This may or may not also be good for any other given member state at any given point in time.
Probably my elitism is showing, but I don't think it's wise to have people who need the $7500/month making policy.
Yes, it really is. To a rather disgusting degree.
People who can't afford to do that are not necessarily incompetent - they may just be young and inexperienced. But they haven't, yet, proven minimal competence.
Or, y'know, maybe they could have simply had other expenses that prevented them from saving up enough to afford to live unpaid in one of the priciest cities in the world? Just maybe?
No, you are completely mixing up two very different things. It is one thing to change the law retroactively. We agree that's bad and wrong. But it's entirely different to argue that things that used to be kept secret should now be made public. Or are you arguing that documents the government improperly classified should always be deemed classified as it would violate "retroactivity" to declassify them?
Because if that's the case, you're... going to have to make one hell of an argument to support that sort of nonsense.
You know, with as much as you talk about nuanced arguments, it's a bit disappointing how often you seem to assume that people who disagree with your position don't have any of their own.
There are policies in place that say that classified documents will be declassified at some future point. The people creating these documents are (or reasonably ought to be) aware of this; they know that what they're creating will eventually be for public consumption, and in many cases this understanding can influence their choices in writing it. This is a well-understood phenomenon; among other things it's the reason the deliberative process privilege exists as an exception to public records laws.
When you have something that was written without that understanding, its content is likely to be different in style and substance, and changing the rules out from under the author is unfair to them and to the people the records are about. (Which in this case includes not only the police, but also the people they interact with.)
If history is any guide, maybe in a few centuries, though that's an optimistic prediction. The Middle East has literally always been a place full of barbarism, bloodshed, tyranny, and the worst of humanity. As far back as we've got records, no matter what nations or races or religions were involved, whoever was there were being horrible to everyone around them. Why expect it to change now, just because the rest of the world is improving? (Especially when they have enough oil to make the rest of the world not care all that much?)
I don't see any specific evidence of anyone in this discussion being aware of the existence of cellos, either, but I don't look at that and say "no one here knows what a cello is!" Rather, I interpret the lack of cello-related discussion as a sign that they are not relevant to the discussion at hand.
Fellows will be paid a stipend of $7,500/month for 2 months to defray their living costs in the Bay Area
7500 * 12 = 90,000. From what I've heard, while that's a decent income in most other places, in the Bay Area that may as well be below the poverty line due to excessive housing costs. How much does that actually defray?
What part of "it's important to stick to principles even when they lead to an outcome you don't like, because if they get eroded, next time it could be used to stop an outcome you do like" don't you understand?
It's not very big, (yet!), but there's a real movement out there to lower the age of consent in the USA. If this were to happen, depending on how it gets implemented, one of the effects could well be to lower the legal age threshold for participating in pornography. In such a case, would you support the release of child pornographers who knew that what they were doing was extremely illegal when they did it? (And if not, how is this any different?)
That's the point I was making: a retroactive law is a retroactive law, and trying to artificially partition it into "bad retroactive (criminalizing stuff)" and "acceptable retroactive (everything else)" is a bad idea. The court cases that established that were badly decided, and a principled view would reject the entire thing. Anything that gives legitimacy to the notion of laws that can reach back in time and change the rules of the game out from under you--even if that change is one that happens to be a positive one from your point of view--should be opposed, if for no other reason than because it sets a bad precedent that can be used against you in the future.
Incredibly, the article that the government claims is libelous... was written four months before the law they claim it violated actually became law.
This is why a principled stand against any and all retroactive laws is important, because if not, stuff like this happens. Stuff like retroactive copyright term extensions, or even well-intentioned things like the recent police records law in California, need to be opposed just as much as "big things" like this, otherwise they become the proverbial camel's nose that ends up leading to big things like this.
If they get a password reset, they don't get the old password--at least not if it's developed with any competence at all--but instead a mechanism to change the password. So now they can change the password, but without knowing what it was before, how can they reset it back to what it was before? (And if it was actually developed so incompetently that it sends out the original password, why do they need to change it and then change it back in the first place?)
This app just gave women in Saudi Arabia a breath of freedom. Its only a breath, but it makes getting through the airport and onto a plane. or driving through a border crossing, easier for them. Its a tiny step, but its definitely a step forward.
How? Aside from the assertion that it
will be vulnerable to hacking
which is probably true to some degree--but who can say how much?--I don't see anything at all to support this conclusion, and certainly not enough to balance the opposing viewpoint, that it allows for more (and more sophisticated) oppression.
When I first started dating the woman who later became my wife, I Googled her, as any reasonable person would do these days. Between her rather distinctive name and the area where she lived, it was pretty easy to find a bunch of stuff on her... and none of it was any information she didn't freely tell me within the first 3-4 dates at the most.
People today understand that public means not private. It might have taken a bit for society to come to terms with the ramifications of that, but by and large we're past the tipping point there.
On the post: Utter Bullshit: Reporter Maria Ressa Arrested Over Bogus Charges For Her Critical Reporting
Re: This fall
Zoom in! Enhance!
On the post: EU Moves Forward With Agreement To Fundamentally Change The Internet From Open To Closed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lose 1 million, or risk losing 100 million...
Depends on how important the point is.
On the post: Someone Impersonated New Jersey's Attorney General To Demand Cloudflare Takedown 3d Printed Gun Instructions
Is it too much to hope that this might lead to a doctrine of legal recourse with real teeth against fraudulent takedown requests?
On the post: EU Moves Forward With Agreement To Fundamentally Change The Internet From Open To Closed
Re: Re: Lose 1 million, or risk losing 100 million...
Every great achievement the human race has made, every leap forward that has made things better for mankind, has started with someone courageous enough to ignore exactly that idea.
On the post: EU Moves Forward With Agreement To Fundamentally Change The Internet From Open To Closed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The EU is losing all legitimacy and cred
Seems to me most of what they do, particularly since the establishment of the Euro, is what's best for Germany. This may or may not also be good for any other given member state at any given point in time.
On the post: Interested In Helping Advance Tech Policy In The Right Direction? Here's An Amazing Opportunity
Re: Re: How much does that actually defray?
Yes, it really is. To a rather disgusting degree.
Or, y'know, maybe they could have simply had other expenses that prevented them from saving up enough to afford to live unpaid in one of the priciest cities in the world? Just maybe?
On the post: Utter Bullshit: Reporter Maria Ressa Arrested Over Bogus Charges For Her Critical Reporting
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know, with as much as you talk about nuanced arguments, it's a bit disappointing how often you seem to assume that people who disagree with your position don't have any of their own.
There are policies in place that say that classified documents will be declassified at some future point. The people creating these documents are (or reasonably ought to be) aware of this; they know that what they're creating will eventually be for public consumption, and in many cases this understanding can influence their choices in writing it. This is a well-understood phenomenon; among other things it's the reason the deliberative process privilege exists as an exception to public records laws.
When you have something that was written without that understanding, its content is likely to be different in style and substance, and changing the rules out from under the author is unfair to them and to the people the records are about. (Which in this case includes not only the police, but also the people they interact with.)
On the post: Google, Apple Called Out For Hosting Saudi Government App That Allows Men To Track Their Spouses' Movements
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait, what is "it" that our side is doing? There's some context missing here...
On the post: Google, Apple Called Out For Hosting Saudi Government App That Allows Men To Track Their Spouses' Movements
Re: Re:
If history is any guide, maybe in a few centuries, though that's an optimistic prediction. The Middle East has literally always been a place full of barbarism, bloodshed, tyranny, and the worst of humanity. As far back as we've got records, no matter what nations or races or religions were involved, whoever was there were being horrible to everyone around them. Why expect it to change now, just because the rest of the world is improving? (Especially when they have enough oil to make the rest of the world not care all that much?)
On the post: Google, Apple Called Out For Hosting Saudi Government App That Allows Men To Track Their Spouses' Movements
Re: Re: Re: It's called cultural relativism
I don't see any specific evidence of anyone in this discussion being aware of the existence of cellos, either, but I don't look at that and say "no one here knows what a cello is!" Rather, I interpret the lack of cello-related discussion as a sign that they are not relevant to the discussion at hand.
On the post: Federal Judge Thinks The Best Fix For An Accidentally Unsealed Court Doc Is Prior Restraint
Re:
Huh? Doesn't sound like the guy in question had much morality to threaten!
On the post: Interested In Helping Advance Tech Policy In The Right Direction? Here's An Amazing Opportunity
7500 * 12 = 90,000. From what I've heard, while that's a decent income in most other places, in the Bay Area that may as well be below the poverty line due to excessive housing costs. How much does that actually defray?
On the post: Utter Bullshit: Reporter Maria Ressa Arrested Over Bogus Charges For Her Critical Reporting
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What part of "it's important to stick to principles even when they lead to an outcome you don't like, because if they get eroded, next time it could be used to stop an outcome you do like" don't you understand?
It's not very big, (yet!), but there's a real movement out there to lower the age of consent in the USA. If this were to happen, depending on how it gets implemented, one of the effects could well be to lower the legal age threshold for participating in pornography. In such a case, would you support the release of child pornographers who knew that what they were doing was extremely illegal when they did it? (And if not, how is this any different?)
On the post: Google, Apple Called Out For Hosting Saudi Government App That Allows Men To Track Their Spouses' Movements
Re: It's called cultural relativism
Just because a concept exists doesn't mean it's legitimate.
On the post: Utter Bullshit: Reporter Maria Ressa Arrested Over Bogus Charges For Her Critical Reporting
Re: Re:
*sigh*
That's the point I was making: a retroactive law is a retroactive law, and trying to artificially partition it into "bad retroactive (criminalizing stuff)" and "acceptable retroactive (everything else)" is a bad idea. The court cases that established that were badly decided, and a principled view would reject the entire thing. Anything that gives legitimacy to the notion of laws that can reach back in time and change the rules of the game out from under you--even if that change is one that happens to be a positive one from your point of view--should be opposed, if for no other reason than because it sets a bad precedent that can be used against you in the future.
On the post: Utter Bullshit: Reporter Maria Ressa Arrested Over Bogus Charges For Her Critical Reporting
This is why a principled stand against any and all retroactive laws is important, because if not, stuff like this happens. Stuff like retroactive copyright term extensions, or even well-intentioned things like the recent police records law in California, need to be opposed just as much as "big things" like this, otherwise they become the proverbial camel's nose that ends up leading to big things like this.
On the post: Google, Apple Called Out For Hosting Saudi Government App That Allows Men To Track Their Spouses' Movements
Re: Re: Re:
Wait, how does that work?
If they get a password reset, they don't get the old password--at least not if it's developed with any competence at all--but instead a mechanism to change the password. So now they can change the password, but without knowing what it was before, how can they reset it back to what it was before? (And if it was actually developed so incompetently that it sends out the original password, why do they need to change it and then change it back in the first place?)
On the post: Google, Apple Called Out For Hosting Saudi Government App That Allows Men To Track Their Spouses' Movements
Re:
How? Aside from the assertion that it
which is probably true to some degree--but who can say how much?--I don't see anything at all to support this conclusion, and certainly not enough to balance the opposing viewpoint, that it allows for more (and more sophisticated) oppression.
On the post: Google, Apple Called Out For Hosting Saudi Government App That Allows Men To Track Their Spouses' Movements
Re: Re: Islamophobes
Poe wins again!
On the post: Google, Apple Called Out For Hosting Saudi Government App That Allows Men To Track Their Spouses' Movements
Re: Re: Re:
Really?
When I first started dating the woman who later became my wife, I Googled her, as any reasonable person would do these days. Between her rather distinctive name and the area where she lived, it was pretty easy to find a bunch of stuff on her... and none of it was any information she didn't freely tell me within the first 3-4 dates at the most.
People today understand that public means not private. It might have taken a bit for society to come to terms with the ramifications of that, but by and large we're past the tipping point there.
Next >>