The Omniballot system lets states deliver ballots electronically to voters as a pdf, letting users vote via email, fax or mail.
This has to be the most insane e-voting systems I have heard of yet, and that is saying a lot. Email? Really? Pure Internet voting system? You've got to be out of your frickin' mind! As Karl says in the "dept." line
e-voting-can't-be-secured.-Full-Stop.
What is so hard about that? encryption-can't-have-backdoors.-Full-Stop. What is so hard about that, too? These things have been said so loudly by so many highly-qualified people for so long that the only possibile reason I can see for people continuing to try to implement e-voting and encryption backdoors is malicious, criminal intent. Neither ignorance nor incompetence can be used as an excuse.
She also pointed out there needs to be a change in culture if any reforms are going to take hold. That's a key element that sometimes gets overlooked.
This ^. A change in culture usually requires broad, principled, sustained pressure, from a variety of sources, over a considerable period of time. Most politicians have a "sound bite / photo op / check which way the wind blows" mentality, which is good for getting elected, but not for changing a culture.
This is a small, but important, step in the right direction. like government in general, the more things police are involved in / responsible for (schools, traffic, parking, stray dogs, mental crisis, etc) the more power they have. The more they can be made to stay in their lane, the better off we will all be.
"for monetary or other valuable consideration" is the key part of this definition. I think this has also been a key concept in contract / business law ever since there was such a thing. I don't see anything "overly broad" about it.
I hope they do have a conscience at the very least.
But they clearly do not. A person with a conscience would not have written such policies, would not have taught such policies, would not have taken a job where such policies existed, would have actively opposed such policies if they had proposed after the person had the job, would have resigned if those policies were adopted, etc.
This is a key distinction between these people and sociopaths: sociopaths actually have a (weak) conscience.
This is, of course, a glaring hole in the system. And to think that most of the people involved in writing such laws are lawyers. You don't suppose they might have been influenced to leave this hole open, do you? Naw! Couldn't be!
I was disappointed at the very end when Mike said his editorial was "mythical, theoretical." I was looking forward to it. From the teaser "Why James Bennet Is An Incompetent Dweeb," I figured it was going to have some good entertainment value, in addition to being a severe skewering.
...just say "No!" to any form of cootie cops. Both the government and corporations have long track records of not respecting (read "abusing") our privacy, and we are all going to pay the price for it in the form of less effective pandemic control because many of us will not trust either of them to handle tracking properly.
“It’s naive to think as public safety folks that we can keep doing our work the same as we have for years and years,” he said.
If only this meant something vastly different from what he intended.
Turning public entities into tools of corporations is seldom a good idea
And turning corporations into tools of public entities, which is also happening, sometimes concurrently, is also a very bad idea. It turns them both into tools, in the worst colloquial sense of the word.
In the terms of Nextdoor’s NDA, advisory council members are not allowed to release public statements about the partnership without the consent of Nextdoor, nor are they able to follow a court order to disclose any information deemed confidential by Nextdoor without alerting the company first.
Another of many examples of NDAs and contract clauses attempting to usurp or circumvent the law. This is a dangerous trend.
An anecdotal datapoint: A few years ago I got an invitation to Nextdoor, in the form of a flyer hung on my mailbox. I had not heard of Nextdoor, so I did some cursory Internet research. I was quickly overwhelmed by the bad reviews, some of the worst reviews of anything I have ever read. Not that I read all that many reviews of anything, but the anti-Nextdoor sentiment was very strong. The reviews gave me the impression that Nextdoor was a cesspool that made the worst of Facebook smell like an aromatherapy candle. YMMV, but I doubt it.
It would be interesting to find out about the money and impetus behind Michael Passoff and his company Proxy Impact, who apparently created this anti-encryption proposal and got a bunch of shareholders to sign on. Somehow I doubt they did this of their own initiative.
Very true. The only difference is that the Congress, SCOTUS, and White House have pens with which to sign bad laws and bully pulpits from which to spout damaging BS, whereas the military has weapons with which to kill people.
Interesting, and more than a little scary, article from last October. It is worth clicking on the author's link to see her background.
tldr; There are a lot of Trumpistas in the military, and "a significant portion" of them might do whatever Trump tells them, rather than uphold the military oath to ". . . support and defend the Constitution. . ."
The mission of the military is to kill and destroy. The mission of the police is supposed to be to protect and serve. The protests exist because the latter has been largely replaced by the former. And Trump seems to think it will help to make it official? Tim has definitely got this one filed in the right department.
On the post: Study Shows Major E-Voting System Open To Numerous Hacking Attacks
This has to be the most insane e-voting systems I have heard of yet, and that is saying a lot. Email? Really? Pure Internet voting system? You've got to be out of your frickin' mind! As Karl says in the "dept." line
What is so hard about that? encryption-can't-have-backdoors.-Full-Stop. What is so hard about that, too? These things have been said so loudly by so many highly-qualified people for so long that the only possibile reason I can see for people continuing to try to implement e-voting and encryption backdoors is malicious, criminal intent. Neither ignorance nor incompetence can be used as an excuse.
On the post: Study Shows Major E-Voting System Open To Numerous Hacking Attacks
Re:
You are correct. See comment here.
On the post: Chicago Mayor Says City's Police Officers Will Be 'Stripped Of Their Powers' If They Turn Off Their Cameras
This ^. A change in culture usually requires broad, principled, sustained pressure, from a variety of sources, over a considerable period of time. Most politicians have a "sound bite / photo op / check which way the wind blows" mentality, which is good for getting elected, but not for changing a culture.
On the post: In Response To George Floyd Killing, Minnesota Schools Dump Contracts With Minneapolis PD
This is a small, but important, step in the right direction. like government in general, the more things police are involved in / responsible for (schools, traffic, parking, stray dogs, mental crisis, etc) the more power they have. The more they can be made to stay in their lane, the better off we will all be.
On the post: John Oliver Says What Needs To Be Said About Why Defunding The Police Is The Right Thing Right Now
Re: I was a skeptic...
ftfy
On the post: Protecting Privacy While Promoting Innovation And Competition
the law's overly broad definition of "sale,"
"for monetary or other valuable consideration" is the key part of this definition. I think this has also been a key concept in contract / business law ever since there was such a thing. I don't see anything "overly broad" about it.
On the post: Sheriff Goes All In On Violating The First Amendment After Assaulting A Protester For Carrying A 'F*CK TRUMP' Sign
It's OK to want things.
On the post: No, California Law Review, Food Plating Does Not Deserve Copyright Protection
Lawyers are famous for looking at trees and not seeing forests.
And some other stuff lawyers are also famous for.
On the post: New Study Finds No Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias In Facebook Moderation (If Anything, It's The Opposite)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good point.
On the post: Let. The Motherfucker. Burn.
Re:
But they clearly do not. A person with a conscience would not have written such policies, would not have taught such policies, would not have taken a job where such policies existed, would have actively opposed such policies if they had proposed after the person had the job, would have resigned if those policies were adopted, etc.
This is a key distinction between these people and sociopaths: sociopaths actually have a (weak) conscience.
On the post: Twitter Taking Down Trump Campaign Video Over Questionable Copyright Claim Demonstrates Why Trump Should Support Section 230
This is, of course, a glaring hole in the system. And to think that most of the people involved in writing such laws are lawyers. You don't suppose they might have been influenced to leave this hole open, do you? Naw! Couldn't be!
On the post: If The NY Times Doesn't Publish My OpEd On Why James Bennet Is An Incompetent Dweeb, It Must Hate Free Speech
I feel deprived!
I was disappointed at the very end when Mike said his editorial was "mythical, theoretical." I was looking forward to it. From the teaser "Why James Bennet Is An Incompetent Dweeb," I figured it was going to have some good entertainment value, in addition to being a severe skewering.
On the post: Coronavirus Surveillance Is Far Too Important, And Far Too Dangerous, To Be Left Up To The Private Sector
Whether public or private...
...just say "No!" to any form of cootie cops. Both the government and corporations have long track records of not respecting (read "abusing") our privacy, and we are all going to pay the price for it in the form of less effective pandemic control because many of us will not trust either of them to handle tracking properly.
On the post: Nextdoor Is Courting Cops And Public Officials Using All-Expenses-Paid Trips To Its Headquarters
If only this meant something vastly different from what he intended.
And turning corporations into tools of public entities, which is also happening, sometimes concurrently, is also a very bad idea. It turns them both into tools, in the worst colloquial sense of the word.
Another of many examples of NDAs and contract clauses attempting to usurp or circumvent the law. This is a dangerous trend.
An anecdotal datapoint: A few years ago I got an invitation to Nextdoor, in the form of a flyer hung on my mailbox. I had not heard of Nextdoor, so I did some cursory Internet research. I was quickly overwhelmed by the bad reviews, some of the worst reviews of anything I have ever read. Not that I read all that many reviews of anything, but the anti-Nextdoor sentiment was very strong. The reviews gave me the impression that Nextdoor was a cesspool that made the worst of Facebook smell like an aromatherapy candle. YMMV, but I doubt it.
On the post: Facebook Shareholders The Latest Group To Ask Facebook To Drop Its Encryption Plans
Re: Governmentr
Check out the video in the article above Think Of The Kitten: A Crash Course On Section 230 at 19:09. It addresses this issue. Actually, a lot of the video addresses this issue.
On the post: The Military Is Being Tapped To Handle Domestic Protests, Something It's Not Really Equipped To Handle
Re: Re: But if the military isn't equipped to handle civilians
Sometimes I find it easier to remember this way:
It's not a war on drugs...it's a war on your rights.
It's not a war on terror...it's a war on your rights.
It's not a war on encryption...it's a war on your rights.
It's not a . . .well, you get the idea.
On the post: Facebook Shareholders The Latest Group To Ask Facebook To Drop Its Encryption Plans
It would be interesting to find out about the money and impetus behind Michael Passoff and his company Proxy Impact, who apparently created this anti-encryption proposal and got a bunch of shareholders to sign on. Somehow I doubt they did this of their own initiative.
On the post: The Military Is Being Tapped To Handle Domestic Protests, Something It's Not Really Equipped To Handle
Re: Re: . . . support and defend the Constitution
Very true. The only difference is that the Congress, SCOTUS, and White House have pens with which to sign bad laws and bully pulpits from which to spout damaging BS, whereas the military has weapons with which to kill people.
Which really isn't much of a difference at all.
On the post: The Military Is Being Tapped To Handle Domestic Protests, Something It's Not Really Equipped To Handle
Interesting, and more than a little scary, article from last October. It is worth clicking on the author's link to see her background.
tldr; There are a lot of Trumpistas in the military, and "a significant portion" of them might do whatever Trump tells them, rather than uphold the military oath to ". . . support and defend the Constitution. . ."
On the post: The Military Is Being Tapped To Handle Domestic Protests, Something It's Not Really Equipped To Handle
The mission of the military is to kill and destroy. The mission of the police is supposed to be to protect and serve. The protests exist because the latter has been largely replaced by the former. And Trump seems to think it will help to make it official? Tim has definitely got this one filed in the right department.
Next >>