The TISA benefits to nations and the world might be negligible, it might even be detrimental. But the benefits will be huge for corporations. Therefore TISA will be ratified. It is inevitable given that the corporations are in control.
The right usually gets waived. Depending on jurisdiction, the prosecutor has 60 to 120 days to bring a defendant to trial. So the way it usually works, is on day 58 (of 60) the prosecution dumps a truckload of evidence on the defense. ("Sorry for the delay.") That gives the defense too little time to prepare, and to ask for a continuance, they have to waive the right. Isn't it clever how that works?
Once the right has been waived (use it or lose it) then the prosecution can take as long as it wants. So you have trials that drag out for years, while the defendant rots on remand.
This should be no problem for the prosecutors. Pick one document they know he accessed, retroactively classify it, and presto convicto. It has worked before.
A voluntary rating system? I can just see it now, a game company rating its new game:
"Well, yes, it does have a lot of violence. Blood spraying everywhere, amputated limbs, even an amputated head. But we cut out the part about the arrow through the eye sockets, so we feel the game deserves a voluntary G rating."
"Terrorists will figure out how to sneak stuff past the filters while innocent users pay the price for algorithmic proxy censorship."
Not hardly. Why would a terrorist bother to work around it?
The "theory" was that the terrorists were using these uploads to recruit, but that was always a crock of s**t. Because of the criminal aspects, they've always needed to get their recruits face-to-face...and always will.
No, this is just a censorship end run. A way for those in power to crush their idea of "extremism"; AKA "any political statement we don't like."
Copyright protects our right to profit from our original dramatic work, and unflattering reviews like this one sure as f*** will kill our profits. Of course it's a copyright violation!
Encryption is only evil if used by the criminal element, AKA the great unwashed. Of course that does not include their majesties in law enforcement or federal government.
Ajit Pai's FCC has repeatedly and comically claimed the contrary in the apparent belief that repetition forges reality (or at the very least fools the gullible.)
Ever hear of effective frequency? Pai figures he just needs to repeat this a few more times, and everyone will believe it.
And yet, those legacy players continue to push to make the internet into more of a broadcast medium -- to restrict that competition, to limit the supply of creators and to push things back through their gates under their control.
There is nothing that capitalists hate more than competition. Especially competition that operates on a shoestring, so that monopolists can't under-cut the price.
It occurs to me that someone should experiment with defamation by claim of defamation.
According to the Wikipedia article:
Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and must have been made to someone other than the person defamed.
Okay so let's propose an example. Joe publishes a Blog article. Bob doesn't like the article so he makes a false complaint to the blog host that it is defamatory.
Per the above, Bob has defamed Joe. He has made a claim that is false and he has made it to someone other than Joe. So Joe should be able to sue Bob for defamation.
If a few of these idiots pursued the falsely claiming defamation, maybe other idiots would think twice before doing that.
I cannot figure why governments bother pussyfooting around with Google. Get on with it. Confiscate their stock, confiscate all their money, jail their management, burn down their infrastructure, distribute all the money to other companies, and get it done with.
Stop pretending that isn't what they really, really want to do.
On the post: Analysis Finds TISA's Benefits Are 'Insignificant', Points Out That Costs Of Deregulation Are Completely Ignored
Who's in charge here?
On the post: Five Years After His Arrest, Prosecutors Try To Push Back Justin Carter's 'Terroristic Threat' Trial
Re:
The right usually gets waived. Depending on jurisdiction, the prosecutor has 60 to 120 days to bring a defendant to trial. So the way it usually works, is on day 58 (of 60) the prosecution dumps a truckload of evidence on the defense. ("Sorry for the delay.") That gives the defense too little time to prepare, and to ask for a continuance, they have to waive the right. Isn't it clever how that works?
Once the right has been waived (use it or lose it) then the prosecution can take as long as it wants. So you have trials that drag out for years, while the defendant rots on remand.
On the post: Judge Tells Prosecutors They Need To Prove Contractor Knew He Had Classified Docs In His 50-Terabyte Stash
Retroactive classification
This should be no problem for the prosecutors. Pick one document they know he accessed, retroactively classify it, and presto convicto. It has worked before.
On the post: Five Years After His Arrest, Prosecutors Try To Push Back Justin Carter's 'Terroristic Threat' Trial
There isn't, but there is
...even as he continues the case to May 14.
On the post: Rhode Island Legislator Proposes A Tax On Video Games Based On Existing Entirely Voluntary Ratings System
Rating deflation coming up
A voluntary rating system? I can just see it now, a game company rating its new game:
"Well, yes, it does have a lot of violence. Blood spraying everywhere, amputated limbs, even an amputated head. But we cut out the part about the arrow through the eye sockets, so we feel the game deserves a voluntary G rating."
On the post: UK's New 'Extremist Content' Filter Will Probably Just End Up Clogged With Innocuous Content
Why would a terrorist bother?
Not hardly. Why would a terrorist bother to work around it?
The "theory" was that the terrorists were using these uploads to recruit, but that was always a crock of s**t. Because of the criminal aspects, they've always needed to get their recruits face-to-face...and always will.
No, this is just a censorship end run. A way for those in power to crush their idea of "extremism"; AKA "any political statement we don't like."
On the post: German Court Says Facebook's Real Names Policy Violates Users' Privacy
It's an everything ban
On the post: Inspector General For Intelligence Community Buried Report Showing Whistleblower Retaliation
Huh? In the backwoods where I come from, they call that "corruption!"
On the post: Nunes Demands Copies Of FISA Docs About Steele Dossier Warrants; Court Suggests Taking It Up With The FBI
Re: Nunes = If a Meme Became A Real Boy
On the post: NSA Exploit Now Powering Cryptocurrency Mining Malware
On the post: Nunes Demands Copies Of FISA Docs About Steele Dossier Warrants; Court Suggests Taking It Up With The FBI
Re: Reject a Congressional Request, What Could Happen?
Or not. We all know how slavishly Congress supports national security anything.
On the post: Facebook Takes Down Post Critical Of Indian Film For Copyright Violation, Even Though It Was An All-Text Post
The movie company explains
On the post: Will Cy Vance's Anti-Encryption Pitch Change Now That The NYPD's Using iPhones?
Depends who it is for, of course
Encryption is only evil if used by the criminal element, AKA the great unwashed. Of course that does not include their majesties in law enforcement or federal government.
On the post: FCC Report Falsely Claims Killing Net Neutrality Already Helping Broadband Competition
Effective frequency
Ever hear of effective frequency? Pai figures he just needs to repeat this a few more times, and everyone will believe it.
On the post: On The Internet, Everyone Is A Creator
The bane of capitalism
There is nothing that capitalists hate more than competition. Especially competition that operates on a shoestring, so that monopolists can't under-cut the price.
On the post: Single-Pixel Tracker Leads Paranoid Turkish Authorities To Wrongly Accuse Over 10,000 People Of Treason
We can do better
On the post: Why (Allegedly) Defamatory Content On WordPress.com Doesn't Come Down Without A Court Order
Defamation by claim of defamation
It occurs to me that someone should experiment with defamation by claim of defamation.
According to the Wikipedia article:
Okay so let's propose an example. Joe publishes a Blog article. Bob doesn't like the article so he makes a false complaint to the blog host that it is defamatory.
Per the above, Bob has defamed Joe. He has made a claim that is false and he has made it to someone other than Joe. So Joe should be able to sue Bob for defamation.
If a few of these idiots pursued the falsely claiming defamation, maybe other idiots would think twice before doing that.
On the post: Push Resumes For An EU Google Tax, With The Bulgarian Government Leading The Way
Re: Re: Get it over with
On the post: Push Resumes For An EU Google Tax, With The Bulgarian Government Leading The Way
Get it over with
Stop pretending that isn't what they really, really want to do.
On the post: Senators Demand Investigation Of Intelligence Community's Refusal To Implement Whistleblower Protections
Who you calling sooty?
(This pathetic hand wave involving the GAO sure isn't a whistleblower protection. It isn't even a good hand wave...)
Next >>