Revenge implies motive and intent. Consent is now being tested in courts all around so "nonconsensual" isn't so cut and dry.
Rape is nonconsensual. Sexual relations with a subordinate who feels powerless to say no is nonconsensual. Sexual relations with a subordinate who is flattered by the attention of such a powerful figure... sure it's wrong, but is it nonconsensual?
Pictures of any of the above could be "art", and could be "porn" and could be just plain "ew we didn't want to see that."
If someone later publicly provides them, do we need MOTIVE or INTENT or CONSENT or is this just yet another law anyone who takes selfies at private moments just violated?
Truly Vermont, you've outdone yourself. The ruling is twisted and sick.
Ten year old phone, so you bought a flip-phone (Nokia 6162?) in 2008.
That is entirely irrelevant to the subject at hand, but THANK YOU for playing! Also did you happen to buy an antique chair at that time, because the Forum Of Irrelevant Has-Beens is calling your name.
Yes, while it appears there's a 6 minute difference between your answer and mine I suspect that's composition time while I was thinking about what I was writing. You and I did suggest essentially the same thing... although I'm a fan not only of LoS but also of AOPK, Resurrection, and others.
My own personal phone is a 4 year old Moto-G4. It runs Android 8.1.0 reliably, quickly, and solidy. The stock Moto [Lenovo] ROM is at 8.0 with security fixes from last year.
I don't know what Ms. Gellis is using for hardware, but if it's able to be upgraded, there's probably something there for it.
I agree as well that when purchasing a phone one of the PRIMARY CRITERION should be "can I put an FOSS version of Android on this?" If it's locked down, just pass on the phone. It may be the "best performer" today, but just like Ms. Gellis discovered, years later the lack of upgrades will leave it as an expensive monthly-billing doorstop.
Cathy, please reach out offline and let me know your phone model and type. Likely there are FOSS upgrades to your Android version that will get you to where the UAL app runs again.
I understand this doesn't address the meat of the editorial, but it will as an end-result remove the immediate source of frustration.
Google is free to use. So is Facebook. To us, the end-users.
Both are large public corporations who have shareholders who expect their stock value to increase. For that to happen, generally, the corporation must do something, and usually the easy button is "growth" and "profit". Sometimes that's shared in the form of dividends, splits, buybacks, and sometimes not.
G+FB give away everything and still make a profit through their selling of advertising space. They also convince 3rd parties to advertise with them because their advertising mechanisms are superior in tracking user behavior.
It's not "the Internet" that's tracking anyone, and one can certainly use "the Internet" without being tracked. However, that takes a lot of work. Bad OPSEC kills.
Hey that's great that you guys on the small side of the pond are proud of it. Thanks also for making up cute little laws (GDPR) and claiming it applies to the rest of the world.
News flash: It doesn't. Right now some companies are giving it lip service but soon it will be Yet Another European Effort to upend laws and justice. Like all other gnats it annoys everyone but we let it live until it bites. Then we swat it to death.
Your justice court is a joke, a plaything for politicians, and you're about to pass the most draconian copyright crap this world has seen -- worse than anything even Trump and his leftenant USTR can come up with.
I think it's great that you have continental pride (like national pride but when your nation sucks so all you have left is boasting you're on a continent) and good luck with that.
There's a reason nobody ever wrote a song called "Europe rocks" or "We love Europe" or "Europeans are really really polite, like Canadians" or anything like that. I'm can see your attitude embodies that lack of meaning as well.
Thank you for the early morning laugh. Why don't you put on your daddy's tie and grab his briefcase and pretend you go to work. That's just as real.
E P.S. Take off the tie before daddy gets Euro-Mad at you. That's like angry only meaningless and hilarious at the same time.
1. Google "us colocation" and find a vendor who's never heard of you and doesn't care about you. 2. Buy a CCR1009 ($400) and configure it to be your VPN endpoint. (PPTP here, and L2TP and IPsec also available https://www.bgocloud.com/knowledgebase/32/mikrotik-chr-how-to-setup-pptp-vpn-server.html) 3. Contract with #1 to give your #2 a home in their shared colocation space, with immortal power, cooling, and an Internet spigot (also called DIA or Dedicated Internet Access). 4. Configure #2 with the IP info given you via #3 and ship it to #1 and wait for it to be online. 5. Buy an RB750 ($40) and place it between your LAN and your ISP's demarcation ("demarc") device. Configure it to ship all traffic via the PPTP/L2TP/IPsec tunnel to #2
That's it. At this point your ISP sees nothing other than encrypted traffic to the colo you picked. The only entity that can see your traffic is the colo provider who knew nothing about you and doesn't care.
If you want to add more redundancy do steps 1-3 for multiple locations; place multiple endpoints; use them either as round-robin destinations for your traffic OR daisy-chain them so your traffic goes through multiple locations.
This gets you protection from peeping eyes, until the traffic exits the encryption path. That makes it almost like TOR, except that a determined party (think "feds") can backtrack to find you from the output traffic.
If you're using Windows you already have no expectation of privacy, security, secure authentication, or anything of any value. Until next Patch Tuesday where they'll bring your security level up to last month's revealed exploits. If you ever think your Windows box is secure you have not been paying attention these last twenty three years.
Other than Windows, real systems don't ignore the HOSTS file.
Begging the question of why you'd use a system where you can't edit a file...
The HOSTS file is not a kludge. It's not legacy ARPAnet stuff either. It's for a name to number and number to name mapping that is outside of DNS. The topic under discussion [has changed to be] some form of not giving away info. So if you want to have a host named my-secret-home-security-camera-system.com you probably don't want that in DNS. Using HOSTS files is perfectly appropriate.
You want to block stuff? Use an IPS/IDS/FW.
VPNs don't block or hide anything. They merely obfuscate it from some people for some time.
Title II isn't what you think it is, most importantly because it isn't concerned with CONTENT but rather ACCESS to pipelines of connecitivity (UNI, UNI-P, etc.)
The FD is often confused (by you and by Trump) with the Equal Time rule, which are different.
At any rate, the SCOTUS held the FD only made sense in a limited information environment. We no longer have that. The ETR was never held legal. Today's 1AM rules supercede all those.
That's how Fox gets to have their "news" "babes" "spew" whatever they want without regard for "truth" "reality" or having to provide a fair or balance or equal time rebuttal.
The FCC and Title II have nothing to do with content.
I think if you want the original doc posted you could get someone to sanitize it, and someone else to verify it (Chinese Wall process). This does seem to be the kind of document that should be made public... unedited except for the santizing.
And here you are blaming the victim because they innocently enough thought they could take pictures in public. They are not the problem. Thuggish government agents are the problem.
We need to stop thuggish government agents, not tell people how to work around the thuggery, although that's important too. Solving the problem is better than technologizing around it -- all that causes is the "growing dark problem" and government working to remove even those technological workarounds.
In Arizona we have lots of "temporary checkpoints", some of which have been "temporary" for over fifteen years. The actions of the CBP staffers there, including waving some people through seemingly at random, asking others seemingly random questions, and asking some questions that are inappropriate are common and frequent.
With the exception of a few fighting citizens with video cameras all over their car, a notice that "I won't answer any questions" and a youtube channel most people and *ALL* truckers *submit* to this practice daily.
If you try and take pictures or video (except for the special people who make a living out of this as above) they will intimidate you, send you to "secondary" (timeout for 20-30 minutes while they ignore you), etc.
It's about time the judicial branch stepped in to put a stop to what already should never have been there. But then, the problems with the executive start at the top.
On the post: Vermont's Revenge Porn Law Ruled Constitutional... With An Incredibly Confused Ruling
Defining porn? Screw that. Define "Revenge".
Rape is nonconsensual.
Sexual relations with a subordinate who feels powerless to say no is nonconsensual.
Sexual relations with a subordinate who is flattered by the attention of such a powerful figure... sure it's wrong, but is it nonconsensual?
Pictures of any of the above could be "art", and could be "porn" and could be just plain "ew we didn't want to see that."
If someone later publicly provides them, do we need MOTIVE or INTENT or CONSENT or is this just yet another law anyone who takes selfies at private moments just violated?
Truly Vermont, you've outdone yourself. The ruling is twisted and sick.
Ehud
On the post: United Airlines Made Its App Stop Working On My Phone, And What This Says About How Broken The Mobile Tech Space Is
Re: Oddly enough...
That is entirely irrelevant to the subject at hand, but THANK YOU for playing! Also did you happen to buy an antique chair at that time, because the Forum Of Irrelevant Has-Beens is calling your name.
E
On the post: United Airlines Made Its App Stop Working On My Phone, And What This Says About How Broken The Mobile Tech Space Is
Re: Re: Open source is the answer
My own personal phone is a 4 year old Moto-G4. It runs Android 8.1.0 reliably, quickly, and solidy. The stock Moto [Lenovo] ROM is at 8.0 with security fixes from last year.
I don't know what Ms. Gellis is using for hardware, but if it's able to be upgraded, there's probably something there for it.
I agree as well that when purchasing a phone one of the PRIMARY CRITERION should be "can I put an FOSS version of Android on this?" If it's locked down, just pass on the phone. It may be the "best performer" today, but just like Ms. Gellis discovered, years later the lack of upgrades will leave it as an expensive monthly-billing doorstop.
Respectfully,
Ehud
On the post: United Airlines Made Its App Stop Working On My Phone, And What This Says About How Broken The Mobile Tech Space Is
Open source is the answer
I understand this doesn't address the meat of the editorial, but it will as an end-result remove the immediate source of frustration.
Thanks for all you do.
Ehud
On the post: That Time Telco Lobbyists Sent Me All Their Talking Points About Trying To Shift The Blame To Internet Companies
Free isn't free
Both are large public corporations who have shareholders who expect their stock value to increase. For that to happen, generally, the corporation must do something, and usually the easy button is "growth" and "profit". Sometimes that's shared in the form of dividends, splits, buybacks, and sometimes not.
G+FB give away everything and still make a profit through their selling of advertising space. They also convince 3rd parties to advertise with them because their advertising mechanisms are superior in tracking user behavior.
It's not "the Internet" that's tracking anyone, and one can certainly use "the Internet" without being tracked. However, that takes a lot of work. Bad OPSEC kills.
Ehud
On the post: That Time Telco Lobbyists Sent Me All Their Talking Points About Trying To Shift The Blame To Internet Companies
Edge Providers
On the post: That Time Telco Lobbyists Sent Me All Their Talking Points About Trying To Shift The Blame To Internet Companies
Europe rocks ... mmm... nothing
News flash: It doesn't. Right now some companies are giving it lip service but soon it will be Yet Another European Effort to upend laws and justice. Like all other gnats it annoys everyone but we let it live until it bites. Then we swat it to death.
Your justice court is a joke, a plaything for politicians, and you're about to pass the most draconian copyright crap this world has seen -- worse than anything even Trump and his leftenant USTR can come up with.
I think it's great that you have continental pride (like national pride but when your nation sucks so all you have left is boasting you're on a continent) and good luck with that.
There's a reason nobody ever wrote a song called "Europe rocks" or "We love Europe" or "Europeans are really really polite, like Canadians" or anything like that. I'm can see your attitude embodies that lack of meaning as well.
Thank you for the early morning laugh. Why don't you put on your daddy's tie and grab his briefcase and pretend you go to work. That's just as real.
E
P.S. Take off the tie before daddy gets Euro-Mad at you. That's like angry only meaningless and hilarious at the same time.
On the post: That Time Telco Lobbyists Sent Me All Their Talking Points About Trying To Shift The Blame To Internet Companies
Blocking your ISP
2. Buy a CCR1009 ($400) and configure it to be your VPN endpoint. (PPTP here, and L2TP and IPsec also available https://www.bgocloud.com/knowledgebase/32/mikrotik-chr-how-to-setup-pptp-vpn-server.html)
3. Contract with #1 to give your #2 a home in their shared colocation space, with immortal power, cooling, and an Internet spigot (also called DIA or Dedicated Internet Access).
4. Configure #2 with the IP info given you via #3 and ship it to #1 and wait for it to be online.
5. Buy an RB750 ($40) and place it between your LAN and your ISP's demarcation ("demarc") device. Configure it to ship all traffic via the PPTP/L2TP/IPsec tunnel to #2
That's it. At this point your ISP sees nothing other than encrypted traffic to the colo you picked. The only entity that can see your traffic is the colo provider who knew nothing about you and doesn't care.
If you want to add more redundancy do steps 1-3 for multiple locations; place multiple endpoints; use them either as round-robin destinations for your traffic OR daisy-chain them so your traffic goes through multiple locations.
This gets you protection from peeping eyes, until the traffic exits the encryption path. That makes it almost like TOR, except that a determined party (think "feds") can backtrack to find you from the output traffic.
Ehud
On the post: That Time Telco Lobbyists Sent Me All Their Talking Points About Trying To Shift The Blame To Internet Companies
Windows, the defender of freedoms. Not.
Other than Windows, real systems don't ignore the HOSTS file.
Best wishes to Windows Sysadmin Dunsel.
E
On the post: That Time Telco Lobbyists Sent Me All Their Talking Points About Trying To Shift The Blame To Internet Companies
system calls to bind
I did answer your question -- would you mind explaining its relevance to anything being discussed?
E
On the post: That Time Telco Lobbyists Sent Me All Their Talking Points About Trying To Shift The Blame To Internet Companies
hosts file
The HOSTS file is not a kludge. It's not legacy ARPAnet stuff either. It's for a name to number and number to name mapping that is outside of DNS. The topic under discussion [has changed to be] some form of not giving away info. So if you want to have a host named my-secret-home-security-camera-system.com you probably don't want that in DNS. Using HOSTS files is perfectly appropriate.
You want to block stuff? Use an IPS/IDS/FW.
VPNs don't block or hide anything. They merely obfuscate it from some people for some time.
E
On the post: That Time Telco Lobbyists Sent Me All Their Talking Points About Trying To Shift The Blame To Internet Companies
Re:
The FD is often confused (by you and by Trump) with the Equal Time rule, which are different.
At any rate, the SCOTUS held the FD only made sense in a limited information environment. We no longer have that. The ETR was never held legal. Today's 1AM rules supercede all those.
That's how Fox gets to have their "news" "babes" "spew" whatever they want without regard for "truth" "reality" or having to provide a fair or balance or equal time rebuttal.
The FCC and Title II have nothing to do with content.
E
On the post: That Time Telco Lobbyists Sent Me All Their Talking Points About Trying To Shift The Blame To Internet Companies
The /. effect
What is obvious is that ./. readers weren't all invigorated by the topic and rush here to read TOS and comment.
Probably could have used more "trump sucks" and then we'd be bombarded with them...
E
On the post: That Time Telco Lobbyists Sent Me All Their Talking Points About Trying To Shift The Blame To Internet Companies
Slashdot, and posting the original, and stuff
Congrats on making it to slashdot, where people are debating the very premises of telco ****it. https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/08/30/1916255/in-an-accidental-email-to-techdirt-editor-telco-lob byists-outline-how-they-intend-to-shift-the-blame-for-privacy-net-neutrality-and-more-to-internet-co mpanies
Ehud
On the post: Court Says CBP Likely Violating First Amendment By Forbidding Photography Of Publicly-Viewable Border Crossings
MAGA = Godwin's Law
E
On the post: Court Says CBP Likely Violating First Amendment By Forbidding Photography Of Publicly-Viewable Border Crossings
The "don't wear a short skirt problem"
We need to stop thuggish government agents, not tell people how to work around the thuggery, although that's important too. Solving the problem is better than technologizing around it -- all that causes is the "growing dark problem" and government working to remove even those technological workarounds.
Ehud
On the post: Court Says CBP Likely Violating First Amendment By Forbidding Photography Of Publicly-Viewable Border Crossings
Awesome first step!
With the exception of a few fighting citizens with video cameras all over their car, a notice that "I won't answer any questions" and a youtube channel most people and *ALL* truckers *submit* to this practice daily.
If you try and take pictures or video (except for the special people who make a living out of this as above) they will intimidate you, send you to "secondary" (timeout for 20-30 minutes while they ignore you), etc.
It's about time the judicial branch stepped in to put a stop to what already should never have been there. But then, the problems with the executive start at the top.
Ehud Gavron
Tucson, AZ
On the post: DOJ Seizes And Shuts Down Backpage.com (Before SESTA Has Even Been Signed)
Re: adposta
Unfortunately it also has an extradition treaty with the United States.
E
On the post: Ajit Pai Throws His Employees Under The Bus After Investigation Proves FCC Made Up DDOS Attack
typo
te --> the
E
On the post: SESTA, FOSTA, And How To Make Sense Of The Acronym Soup
Calling a turd a turd
E
(Nodding My Head Vigorously In Real Life)
Next >>