Ah! I forgot that one, also a very common strawman you fail to get right.
Nobody here said that all regulations are good. TD is a site where bad laws are criticized and guys laws are praised, everyday, all year long, regardless of which party pushed it forward.
In the end, nobody said getting it right is easy. There is a balance to reach and there is much resistance.
You're acting pretty much like Trump is: pretending there is an easy way to complex problems, and people other than you - enlightened one - are just blind to the truth. I'm not sure if that's what you truly believe (learn more) or a role your playing (stop trolling), but you really look obnoxious in both cases.
And you, sir, sure are delusional. You quote big historical figures, but don't seem to learn from history.
First, you (and maybe a few others, hard to say with you AC bunch) often argue in favor of absolute free market. When pointing out that a true "free market" always tends towards monopoly (or at best oligopoly) you fall on the sophism of "no true Scotsman": we just need antitrust rules. There goes your "absolute free market".
Next is the simple fact that you basically argue for anarchy, but deny it when confronted. You pretend to be in favor of democracy or capitalism in their purest form, but fail to admit that none of these systems is as absolute as you pretend they are, or that such "pure" systems are not realistic. Reality needs balance and compromise because of human nature. A chaotic mix of greed, altruism, apathy, fanatism (not just the religious kind) and much, much more.
(I'll pass on pointing out the number of strawman arguments and other sophistry you use abundantly.)
I do like contradicting viewpoints when properly argued. Just don't barge in the conversation with misplaced quotes and bad logic and expect to be taken seriously.
Someone here should read the whole article. It starts with publicly available information. In theory, it should stop there until an actual investigation is opened. In practice, it goes way beyond just public information.
It's a US-EU agreement being challenged, so I'd say they have a good reason getting involved. Particularly since it's being challenged because of its behavior.
That's one if the rare cases where I find it legitimate for the USA to get involved.
The problem is somewhere else. By unlocking the phone, you unlock it's content. As long as it's encrypted, the police doesn't know what's in there. Therefore, unlocking is providing the data. So the "testimony" you're offering is not that you can unlock the phone, but the content itself.
You don't need GPS to late someone's mobile phone to an already accurate degree. Cell towers can estimate the distance to the phone, then you can triangulate actual position from three towers or more. Not quite as accurate as GPS, but good enough for most needs. That's why the only way not to be located is to completely turn it off.
Seeing Trump's definition of a "blind trust", I think it's obvious he has trouble with the English language. Case in point here: "draining the swamp".
Hint: this is not done by adding alligators and industrial waste in the water.
I don't think even Verizon, Comcast et al even try to explain that "net neutrality" is promoting your own content over others. They're just trying to say either that doing so isn't a violation of net neutrality, or that net neutrality is just an absolutist way of thinking and that we shouldn't pay that concept any attention.
However, there are different definition circulating amongst politicians.
A strawman version is that "net neutrality" means that everyone must have the exact same access to Internet, forbidding price differentiation based on bandwidth or quality.
Another is that anyone must be allowed to do anything, like a "free speech" law on steroids, preventing enforcement of real-life laws.
Finally, the most crazy one I've heard is that net neutrality is giving edge providers free access to internet and customers. (That's purposefully ignoring that those services pay for their own infrastructure, including access to Internet, but no sophistry is below them.)
Of course, given those kind of definition, most people will disagree with net neutrality or, at the very least, agree that it's too extreme. The fact that nobody actually advocating for net neutrality ever asked for anything close to those is what makes them "strawman" definitions.
Bad massive deals made in secret negotiations are bad. However, small scale ones would be even worse as they would encourage venue shopping. Worst case scenario would be small scale deals, each with "corporate sovereignty clauses".
The only proper solution is a large scale deal discussed openly and voted democratically. Without "corporate sovereignty", obviously. Not like there's any chance of that happening soon.
Wrong. ContentID is not a legal tool, it's the product of a private initiative. It's used to show good faith in the framework of the DMCA, but that still doesn't make it a legal option for courts.
And your problem is not making the difference between someone evaluating the legal basis of a lawsuit (which you seem to do) and someone criticizing the rational and moral basis of the law itself (which Techdirt often does, as I think is the case here).
Not to mention that the author here is Tim, not Mike.
You people don't need hard enough. Of course there is no problem with his idea, considering the following two points: - the jammer would only jam bad guys wifi; - the jammer would also jam wired wifi. There you are, problems solved.
Re: It's kind of off the subject but I have a question...
The balance is there: you are allowed to have a paid lawyer and to pay him as much as the prosecutor is.
Of course, your being able to is another matter.
The way I see it, but I might be wrong, is that the intelligence corps were the product of an era when they had trust and authority. They knew, they were the good guys. They said someone did something wrong and we (mostly) believed them.
Today everything changed. Saddam's WMD, Snowden, and widespread fact checking... They lost a lot of that trust they had, but old habits die hard. They didn't need to display too much evidence then... and, although they clearly need to in order to rebuild that trust, they are still going out of their way to deny as much information as possible.
Maybe things will change once all the cold war era politicians and intelligence officers retire? When a generation that grew up with Internet and its overabundant knowledge actually gets its turn? Either that, or the "power corrupts" trope is inevitable.
Actually, I wouldn't really blame the unions for defending cops, even bad ones. That is their job, although I agree they should show some restraint in some of their speech. They sometimes seem to blame the victims, which is terribly wrong.
However, I definitely do blame internal investigators, high ranking officers, prosecutors and judges for not sanctioning misconduct properly. That would be their job.
On the post: The Biggest Advocates For An Imperial Executive Branch Are Suddenly Freaking Out Over Trump
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is why...
Nobody here said that all regulations are good. TD is a site where bad laws are criticized and guys laws are praised, everyday, all year long, regardless of which party pushed it forward.
In the end, nobody said getting it right is easy. There is a balance to reach and there is much resistance.
You're acting pretty much like Trump is: pretending there is an easy way to complex problems, and people other than you - enlightened one - are just blind to the truth.
I'm not sure if that's what you truly believe (learn more) or a role your playing (stop trolling), but you really look obnoxious in both cases.
On the post: The Biggest Advocates For An Imperial Executive Branch Are Suddenly Freaking Out Over Trump
Re: This is why...
First, you (and maybe a few others, hard to say with you AC bunch) often argue in favor of absolute free market. When pointing out that a true "free market" always tends towards monopoly (or at best oligopoly) you fall on the sophism of "no true Scotsman": we just need antitrust rules. There goes your "absolute free market".
Next is the simple fact that you basically argue for anarchy, but deny it when confronted. You pretend to be in favor of democracy or capitalism in their purest form, but fail to admit that none of these systems is as absolute as you pretend they are, or that such "pure" systems are not realistic. Reality needs balance and compromise because of human nature. A chaotic mix of greed, altruism, apathy, fanatism (not just the religious kind) and much, much more.
(I'll pass on pointing out the number of strawman arguments and other sophistry you use abundantly.)
I do like contradicting viewpoints when properly argued. Just don't barge in the conversation with misplaced quotes and bad logic and expect to be taken seriously.
On the post: The Biggest Advocates For An Imperial Executive Branch Are Suddenly Freaking Out Over Trump
Re: Re: The reaction will be telling...
@orbitalinsertion: "never. American politicians in particular believe that the solution to a problem is more of the problem."
On the post: The FBI Can Engage In All Sorts Of Surveillance And Snooping Without Actually Placing Someone Under Investigation
Re:
It starts with publicly available information. In theory, it should stop there until an actual investigation is opened. In practice, it goes way beyond just public information.
On the post: The Codification Of Web DRM As A Censorship Tool
Re: "No really, trust us."
"Everything gets complicated when you try to prove 2+2=5."
On the post: FBI Routinely Hides Payments To Informants, Gives Them A Cut Of Asset Forfeiture Proceeds
Huge income, no effort.
All you need is a phone and a few vaguely suspicious neighbors.
Truth is optional.
On the post: Already Under Attack In Top EU Court, Privacy Shield Framework For Transatlantic Data Flows Further Undermined By Trump
Re: And another thing
That's one if the rare cases where I find it legitimate for the USA to get involved.
On the post: State Appeals Court Says Unlocking A Phone With A Fingerprint Doesn't Violate The Fifth Amendment
Re: Search, not testimony
By unlocking the phone, you unlock it's content. As long as it's encrypted, the police doesn't know what's in there. Therefore, unlocking is providing the data.
So the "testimony" you're offering is not that you can unlock the phone, but the content itself.
On the post: New Mexico Legislators Looking To Add Warrants To The Stingray Mix, Curb Electronic Surveillance
Re:
On the post: Chinese Officials With Government Access To Every Kind Of Personal Data Are Selling It Online
Re: GPS location sharing
That's why the only way not to be located is to completely turn it off.
On the post: Trump's Plan Is To Gut All FCC Consumer Protection Powers
Seeing Trump's definition of a "blind trust", I think it's obvious he has trouble with the English language. Case in point here: "draining the swamp". Hint: this is not done by adding alligators and industrial waste in the water.
On the post: Dear Lawmakers: Five Years Ago The Internet Rose Up In Protest & We're Still Watching
Re: Elastic Definition of Net Neutrality
I don't think even Verizon, Comcast et al even try to explain that "net neutrality" is promoting your own content over others. They're just trying to say either that doing so isn't a violation of net neutrality, or that net neutrality is just an absolutist way of thinking and that we shouldn't pay that concept any attention.
However, there are different definition circulating amongst politicians.
Of course, given those kind of definition, most people will disagree with net neutrality or, at the very least, agree that it's too extreme. The fact that nobody actually advocating for net neutrality ever asked for anything close to those is what makes them "strawman" definitions.
On the post: Despite Trump's Pledge To Kill It, Some Still Hope TPP Will Live Again, As Rival RCEP Stumbles Too
However, small scale ones would be even worse as they would encourage venue shopping. Worst case scenario would be small scale deals, each with "corporate sovereignty clauses".
The only proper solution is a large scale deal discussed openly and voted democratically. Without "corporate sovereignty", obviously.
Not like there's any chance of that happening soon.
On the post: Microsoft Sort Of Addresses Windows 10 Privacy Complaints With New Privacy Dashboard
On the post: Syrian Migrant Says He's Tired Of Being The Subject Of 'Fake News,' Sues Facebook For Posts Linking Him To Terrorism
Re:
ContentID is not a legal tool, it's the product of a private initiative. It's used to show good faith in the framework of the DMCA, but that still doesn't make it a legal option for courts.
On the post: UK Company Sues Disney Over Its Use Of The Same Public Domain Book Title
Re:
Not to mention that the author here is Tim, not Mike.
On the post: Top UK Cop Says Hackers Should Be Punished Not With Prison, But With Jammed WiFi Connections
- the jammer would only jam bad guys wifi;
- the jammer would also jam wired wifi.
There you are, problems solved.
On the post: Prosecutors Looking Into $2 Field Drug Tests After Investigation, Figure Defense Attorneys Should Do All The Work
Re: It's kind of off the subject but I have a question...
The balance is there: you are allowed to have a paid lawyer and to pay him as much as the prosecutor is. Of course, your being able to is another matter.
On the post: What The US Intelligence 'Russia Hacked Our Election' Report Could Have Said... But Didn't
Today everything changed. Saddam's WMD, Snowden, and widespread fact checking... They lost a lot of that trust they had, but old habits die hard. They didn't need to display too much evidence then... and, although they clearly need to in order to rebuild that trust, they are still going out of their way to deny as much information as possible.
Maybe things will change once all the cold war era politicians and intelligence officers retire? When a generation that grew up with Internet and its overabundant knowledge actually gets its turn?
Either that, or the "power corrupts" trope is inevitable.
On the post: Congressman Appoints Himself Censor, Removes Painting Critical Of Cops From Congressional Halls
Re: Head, meet desk
However, I definitely do blame internal investigators, high ranking officers, prosecutors and judges for not sanctioning misconduct properly. That would be their job.
Next >>