This comment really feels like it was written to engage the headline, rather than the article's substance.
It starts off with a solid note about various ways obtaining the information is illegal (rather than the doxxing itself), or limited ways in which doxxing might be illegal for protected individuals in connection relating to national security (of which whistle blowers are not actually a protected class in this fashion). Then it ends with a point that seems to refrence nothing in the article, as the doxxing presented as good could indeed be considered operating as journalism. So i'm really not sure what the takeaway of that point is meant to be.
I think its a reasonable sanction. His grandfather did die, the court is going to adjudicate his claims of a need of time to grieve. The court was sanctioning the lies, and particularly repeating and octupoling down on the lies. But hes been sanctioned at least $8000.00 already. Additional Jail time might not play well.
By discussing content possibly owned by a 3rd party, and that ads would run next to the content in the same paragraph, they imply that the ads are connected to the ownership. That Ownership of audiovisial content is known as copyright. A reasonable person can infer that copyright is involved.
This appears to be a content ID style claim, which does not require a proactive claim. Its very automated. But its still about the rights to use material, the copyrights.
Voting records indicate Anna Eschoo (my Congresswoman) votes in favor of consumer privacy. Past statements also indicate concern over regulators turning a blind eye to the industries they should regulate. Voting records and consistency in message are often seen as the way to judge the motive of politicians. (the rest aren't my representatives, so I am less familiar with their work.)
Their are a number of issues with your framing, which is to suggest you aren't making this partisan while ignoring the substance of the claims to question the motives of the politicians, which is a classic partisan game. When you make an accusation of partisanship to dismiss a claim, there is an inherent assertion that the substance is actually invalid. When techdirt argues about partisan framing, they are highlighting that the partisan framing is intended to dismiss the claims rather than address the substance.
Its not wrong to mistrust motives. But the issue with unauthentic motives is when bad motives generate outcomes that negatively impacts the consumer/voter. Particularly when those outcomes benefit the politician outside of voter goodwill.
Rep. Eschoo might be cynically voting pro-consumer-privacy to maintain voter happiness and her own position. But in so far as this letter is concerned, I don't see her pushing an anti consumer position, and isn't pushing lies or going into business for herself.
Every last hong kong citizen knew full well, a generation in advance, the exact date at which point they would lose most of their human rights and last vestiges of democracy.
Yep. Very True. In 2047 the seperate governance in Hong Kong was supposed to end. China only abandoned the provisions of the Sino-British Joint Declaration 33 years early in 2014. I mean, why would people be upset that the basic system of governance was changed 33 years earlier than expected? /s
When we talk privacy we often discuss the trade of a person's private information for benefits, most often financial. This information is almost always gathered as part of a transaction as well. As this information is almost always digital and these trades are most likely to involve transactions that are a mix of intra- and inter-state that are likely impossible to fully untangle, this could quite easily fall under the existing constitutional and common law authority to regulate interstate commerce.
Yes, it is true that your 4th amendment right doesn't protect the genetic information of your distant cousin, but their 4th amendment right does. Assuming that the distant cousin has not committed the crime they matched your DNA to, this can negatively associate an innocent relative who may not even know you well or if at all. They may not be in your geographical region. I know there is a large contingent of my family in Michigan, but I haven't seen them since I was like 3. If I had done an ancestory.com test and suddenly Detroit PD was trying to get a hold of me about a distant relation, I'd find my getting involved and becoming a person of interest in a criminal investigation a serious concern to the violation of my forth amendment rights.
There are serious questions about how these searches are conducted, and what information is retained by law enforcement that is not in connection
Like Techdirt notes with IP Lawyers, as an FBI lawyer Baker was seeped daily in the language and rhetoric of the FBI and encryption. This naturally leads to a human's opinions to slowly adapt to reflect the most vocal opinions of their colleges. So when he leaves, his reception of contrary positions changes.
As well, as a lawyer, Baker's job was to argue his client's position, even when that position is bad or unfounded. (this is why some of the arguments coming out of the President's lawyers in court are so off the wall - the facts and law are so against the arguments being made, but the president is insisting on fighting anyway). So even if he disagreed, his job relied on him arguing a case he didn't necessarily agree with.
Combined, its not surprising that those leaving the FBI echo chamber change their mind years later.
As the AC noted in response to Samuel, randomized audits and testing could establish trust, but in many areas the audits aren't actually done.
And election officials disliked paper balloting given that failures in optical scanning hole punch ballots are what lead to the Hanging chad debacle.
San Jose ballots are effectively giant scantrons, with an arrow being filled in. And I fully agree that system is great with easy manual counts and easy machine counts. Audits should be easy.
But you always get some chucklefuck who insists the only way to be sure they aren't Emissionsgateing the scanner is manual counting, while discounting that if they are that dedicated to screwing the election, they could just pay off the counters (who generally get paid poorly for low skill work.
The point you make is true in principle, but in reality doesn't really say what you think it does.
We have never had a significant level of faithless among the electoral college. No election has been decided by faithless electors.
The electoral college has gone against the popular vote, true. But the college has gone with the weighted average of state-level popular votes in every case. What does this mean? Well, most states give 100% of electors to the winner of the state level popular vote, with the number of electors 'weighting' the value of that state vote. Other states send a number of electors based on a percentage of votes for a candidate, with the total number of electors representing the weight a given state has based on population.
While it is true the electoral college is an archaic way to collect these weighted results, it has been faithful to the outcome of the weighted state results, even if individual electors have been faithless.
Why does this matter? because as it turns out our votes do matter, unless your assertion is that the electoral college has just happened to vote in accordance with the results of the individual state races 58 times in a row.
The system was not designed as a pure popular vote system. Issues with weighting would have been mitigated if we had not capped the electoral college and congress decades ago, but otherwise the system is working as intended, with faithless electors being the exception, not the rule.
I support abolishing the electoral college in so far as we abolish electors, but I am not convinced elimination of the weighting is the right choice. Elimination of the electors removes the faithless elector boogeyman, and electors are unnecessary in an age of widespread communication. But I feel weighting might still serve a positive purpose, particularly if we keep first-past-the-post 2-party electoral assignment.
You state that there is a criminal defamation law to protect banks, which your source agrees with, but you state a motive that is not in evidence.
The issue when you deal with a bank run is not that the reputation of the bank is harmed generally, but that it undermines public confidence in the banks in general - you don't just harm one bank, you harm the reputation of the entire financial system. I can potentially support efforts to criminalize such attempts if narrowly tailored. But defamation law is not the vehicle for such a crime, and the bank defamation law is not narrowly tailored to fight the undermining of the financial system, and would target protected speech in the public interest about the services provided by a Bank, for instance. And under that circumstance I can't see how it would pass constitutional muster.
Side note, the great depression was not the result of a run on the banks. It was the result of reckless investment and lending practices that fell apart when economic indicators drove high-profile investors to sell off stocks as spending slowed, triggering a mass liquidation of stocks. No amount of defamation law would have fixed that situation. A run on the banks did occur in the wake of the market crash, but it was because investors (those with large balances that effectively funded bank lending) were concerned that with the crash and reckless lending of the past decade, banks wouldn't be fully solvent. That was a genuine concern given the number of bank failures in the preceding decades. Defamation law would not have fixed issues with a depositor's opinion of the future solvency of a bank. (Indeed, we don't have runs on the bank now primarily because of the FDIC, not a bar on talking bad about banks).
No, not all AC comments are you, but that icon next to your name reveals you to be the same person who posted the 'test' comment as the first post on this article.
So, The ukrainian immigrant who attempted to shut down the investigation that would in theory clear the Russian government of wrongdoing for which they are under sanction and in favor of the release of military aid to the ukraine to fight Russia....is actually a Russian immigrant working for Putin to undermine Russian intrests?
Loss of 230 protections for Techdirt would be both minor and significant. The content Techdirt provides is not affected by CDA 230 in any way, as CDA 230 only applies to User Generated Content.
However, they have been clear that without CDA 230 comments would be almost certainly nixed. Under the Prodigy ruling, any level of moderation puts Techdirt on the hook for everything posted. And recent laws also hold websites responsible if they fail to moderate certain content (FOSTA in the US as a good example). The only way to avoid responsibility for User content is to not have any, and Techdirt has made clear that is the likely response to the repeal of CDA 230.
The FCC only has authority to regulate under the laws which govern the FCC. So the answer to your question is that the limits are defined by the myriad Telecommunications Acts passed over the years. Under 10th amendment jurisprudence, if the FCC doesn't have congressionally-granted authority to regulate a market, it also doesn't have the authority to preempt state authority.
The Title II debate was about the classification of broadband, and existed because a court decision ruled the FCC could not implement the first set of Net Neutrality rules under Title I.
Local loop unbundling provisions of Title II could serve to fix competition issues by separating the potentially competitive service layer and the naturally uncompetitive infrastructure layer.
However, local loop unbundling took decades to finally pay out with POTS, due to limp regulations regarding licencing use of that infrastructure. I know it did successfully pay out in a number of areas, including in the bay area, which lead to the elimination of metered local service and the eventual end of long distance charges on fixed telephone service. But a watchful eye needs to be held by regulators to ensure punative licencing costs don't strangle broadband local loop unbundling in the cradle.
These two facts are both true, and without context mutually exclusive:
Illegal Immigrants are all criminals.
Illegal immigrants commit crimes far less often than the native-born population.
I have to spend time to discuss that the first fact includes the crime of illegal immigration, but the second fact starts counting after entry. Then to determine which statistic to use, I should assess other contextual factors like the history of legal immigration or the wider context of those pushing the first fact have sought to also repeatedly restrict legal immigration on the basis of the first fact, and that the second fact is generally cited by those seeking to increase immigration.
Which of those two facts I cite carries implied opinions, despite just citing a fact.
If I cite a statistic about how many crimes are committed by immigrants in absolute numbers, it tells one story. If I instead talk about how many crimes are committed by immgrants in comparison to the immgrant population and compare those numbers to the native-born population, it tells a different story.
And then there are issues of who is counting, who pays them, how rigorous the fact verification is.
How deep do you go establishing the bonafides of "known facts"? How deep do I dive? Misuse of statistical data uses known facts without context to tell a bad narrative. Framing known facts of history with a modern contexst can be used to tell a bad narrative. By sserting known facts (Nazis called themselves solcialists) and making blind assertions (Socialists are Nazis) without context (The German National socialist workers party was founded by indiviudals seeking to use populist language, and while still very authoritarian discussed the implementation of some minor socialist concepts. These ideas were thrown out when Hitler's faction took control of the Nazi Party, and were never implemented in Hitler's Germany) they can tell lies with known facts.
Just the facts journalism on evolving controversies would drop context that helps us actually understand what we are seeing.
On the post: Should Doxxing Be Illegal?
Re: risky business
This comment really feels like it was written to engage the headline, rather than the article's substance.
It starts off with a solid note about various ways obtaining the information is illegal (rather than the doxxing itself), or limited ways in which doxxing might be illegal for protected individuals in connection relating to national security (of which whistle blowers are not actually a protected class in this fashion). Then it ends with a point that seems to refrence nothing in the article, as the doxxing presented as good could indeed be considered operating as journalism. So i'm really not sure what the takeaway of that point is meant to be.
On the post: Troll Lawyer Shows Up In Court To Explain His 'Dead Grandfather' Excuse, Gets His 'Fitness To Practice' Questioned By The Judge
Re: Much disappointment...
I think its a reasonable sanction. His grandfather did die, the court is going to adjudicate his claims of a need of time to grieve. The court was sanctioning the lies, and particularly repeating and octupoling down on the lies. But hes been sanctioned at least $8000.00 already. Additional Jail time might not play well.
On the post: Universal Music Claims Copyright Over Newly Public Domain 'Yes! We Have No Bananas'
Re: Re:
By discussing content possibly owned by a 3rd party, and that ads would run next to the content in the same paragraph, they imply that the ads are connected to the ownership. That Ownership of audiovisial content is known as copyright. A reasonable person can infer that copyright is involved.
This appears to be a content ID style claim, which does not require a proactive claim. Its very automated. But its still about the rights to use material, the copyrights.
On the post: Congress Says The FCC Is Trying To Run Out The Clock On Wireless Location Data Scandals
Re:
Voting records indicate Anna Eschoo (my Congresswoman) votes in favor of consumer privacy. Past statements also indicate concern over regulators turning a blind eye to the industries they should regulate. Voting records and consistency in message are often seen as the way to judge the motive of politicians. (the rest aren't my representatives, so I am less familiar with their work.)
Their are a number of issues with your framing, which is to suggest you aren't making this partisan while ignoring the substance of the claims to question the motives of the politicians, which is a classic partisan game. When you make an accusation of partisanship to dismiss a claim, there is an inherent assertion that the substance is actually invalid. When techdirt argues about partisan framing, they are highlighting that the partisan framing is intended to dismiss the claims rather than address the substance.
Its not wrong to mistrust motives. But the issue with unauthentic motives is when bad motives generate outcomes that negatively impacts the consumer/voter. Particularly when those outcomes benefit the politician outside of voter goodwill.
Rep. Eschoo might be cynically voting pro-consumer-privacy to maintain voter happiness and her own position. But in so far as this letter is concerned, I don't see her pushing an anti consumer position, and isn't pushing lies or going into business for herself.
On the post: The Race Is On To Create A Federal Online Privacy Law: First Entry From Reps. Eshoo & Lofgren
Re: Re: Re:
That ruling would be covered under 'common law authority'.
On the post: Blizzcon: Blizzard Apologizes For Banning Blitzchung, Keeps Him Banned, More Fallout Ensues
Re: Re: Re: Hong Kong in general
Yep. Very True. In 2047 the seperate governance in Hong Kong was supposed to end. China only abandoned the provisions of the Sino-British Joint Declaration 33 years early in 2014. I mean, why would people be upset that the basic system of governance was changed 33 years earlier than expected? /s
On the post: The Race Is On To Create A Federal Online Privacy Law: First Entry From Reps. Eshoo & Lofgren
Re:
Ah! Pedantry!
When we talk privacy we often discuss the trade of a person's private information for benefits, most often financial. This information is almost always gathered as part of a transaction as well. As this information is almost always digital and these trades are most likely to involve transactions that are a mix of intra- and inter-state that are likely impossible to fully untangle, this could quite easily fall under the existing constitutional and common law authority to regulate interstate commerce.
On the post: Cops Now Using Warrants To Gain Access To DNA Services' Entire Databases
Re: DNA and warrants
Yes, it is true that your 4th amendment right doesn't protect the genetic information of your distant cousin, but their 4th amendment right does. Assuming that the distant cousin has not committed the crime they matched your DNA to, this can negatively associate an innocent relative who may not even know you well or if at all. They may not be in your geographical region. I know there is a large contingent of my family in Michigan, but I haven't seen them since I was like 3. If I had done an ancestory.com test and suddenly Detroit PD was trying to get a hold of me about a distant relation, I'd find my getting involved and becoming a person of interest in a criminal investigation a serious concern to the violation of my forth amendment rights.
There are serious questions about how these searches are conducted, and what information is retained by law enforcement that is not in connection
On the post: FBI's Top Lawyer From The Apple Encryption Fight Says Law Enforcement Needs To Suck It Up And Embrace Encryption
Re: Re: Re: Great but late
Very true. That is rolled into my second point that as a lawyer, in the end he was bound to advocate the positions he was detailed to advocate.
On the post: FBI's Top Lawyer From The Apple Encryption Fight Says Law Enforcement Needs To Suck It Up And Embrace Encryption
Re: Great but late
It makes sense, from a human perspective.
Like Techdirt notes with IP Lawyers, as an FBI lawyer Baker was seeped daily in the language and rhetoric of the FBI and encryption. This naturally leads to a human's opinions to slowly adapt to reflect the most vocal opinions of their colleges. So when he leaves, his reception of contrary positions changes.
As well, as a lawyer, Baker's job was to argue his client's position, even when that position is bad or unfounded. (this is why some of the arguments coming out of the President's lawyers in court are so off the wall - the facts and law are so against the arguments being made, but the president is insisting on fighting anyway). So even if he disagreed, his job relied on him arguing a case he didn't necessarily agree with.
Combined, its not surprising that those leaving the FBI echo chamber change their mind years later.
On the post: John Oliver Takes On Fucked Up Voting Machines In The Way Only He Can
Re: Not good?
As the AC noted in response to Samuel, randomized audits and testing could establish trust, but in many areas the audits aren't actually done.
And election officials disliked paper balloting given that failures in optical scanning hole punch ballots are what lead to the Hanging chad debacle.
San Jose ballots are effectively giant scantrons, with an arrow being filled in. And I fully agree that system is great with easy manual counts and easy machine counts. Audits should be easy.
But you always get some chucklefuck who insists the only way to be sure they aren't Emissionsgateing the scanner is manual counting, while discounting that if they are that dedicated to screwing the election, they could just pay off the counters (who generally get paid poorly for low skill work.
On the post: John Oliver Takes On Fucked Up Voting Machines In The Way Only He Can
Re: Re: Re: gleefully mind dicked every 4 years
The point you make is true in principle, but in reality doesn't really say what you think it does.
We have never had a significant level of faithless among the electoral college. No election has been decided by faithless electors.
The electoral college has gone against the popular vote, true. But the college has gone with the weighted average of state-level popular votes in every case. What does this mean? Well, most states give 100% of electors to the winner of the state level popular vote, with the number of electors 'weighting' the value of that state vote. Other states send a number of electors based on a percentage of votes for a candidate, with the total number of electors representing the weight a given state has based on population.
While it is true the electoral college is an archaic way to collect these weighted results, it has been faithful to the outcome of the weighted state results, even if individual electors have been faithless.
Why does this matter? because as it turns out our votes do matter, unless your assertion is that the electoral college has just happened to vote in accordance with the results of the individual state races 58 times in a row.
The system was not designed as a pure popular vote system. Issues with weighting would have been mitigated if we had not capped the electoral college and congress decades ago, but otherwise the system is working as intended, with faithless electors being the exception, not the rule.
I support abolishing the electoral college in so far as we abolish electors, but I am not convinced elimination of the weighting is the right choice. Elimination of the electors removes the faithless elector boogeyman, and electors are unnecessary in an age of widespread communication. But I feel weighting might still serve a positive purpose, particularly if we keep first-past-the-post 2-party electoral assignment.
On the post: Appeals Court Says It's OK For Cops To Destroy Someone Else's House To Apprehend A Criminal Suspect
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because they don't understand how liability works, just as people file failed lawsuits against social media.
On the post: Georgia Woman Takes Home $100,000 Settlement After Bogus Criminal Defamation Arrest By Her Ex-Husband (And Current Deputy)
Re:
You state that there is a criminal defamation law to protect banks, which your source agrees with, but you state a motive that is not in evidence.
The issue when you deal with a bank run is not that the reputation of the bank is harmed generally, but that it undermines public confidence in the banks in general - you don't just harm one bank, you harm the reputation of the entire financial system. I can potentially support efforts to criminalize such attempts if narrowly tailored. But defamation law is not the vehicle for such a crime, and the bank defamation law is not narrowly tailored to fight the undermining of the financial system, and would target protected speech in the public interest about the services provided by a Bank, for instance. And under that circumstance I can't see how it would pass constitutional muster.
Side note, the great depression was not the result of a run on the banks. It was the result of reckless investment and lending practices that fell apart when economic indicators drove high-profile investors to sell off stocks as spending slowed, triggering a mass liquidation of stocks. No amount of defamation law would have fixed that situation. A run on the banks did occur in the wake of the market crash, but it was because investors (those with large balances that effectively funded bank lending) were concerned that with the crash and reckless lending of the past decade, banks wouldn't be fully solvent. That was a genuine concern given the number of bank failures in the preceding decades. Defamation law would not have fixed issues with a depositor's opinion of the future solvency of a bank. (Indeed, we don't have runs on the bank now primarily because of the FDIC, not a bar on talking bad about banks).
On the post: Report: Devin Nunes' Aide Going Around Leaking Ukraine Call Whistleblower's Name
Re: Not all AC comments...
No, not all AC comments are you, but that icon next to your name reveals you to be the same person who posted the 'test' comment as the first post on this article.
On the post: Report: Devin Nunes' Aide Going Around Leaking Ukraine Call Whistleblower's Name
Re: Re: Smear
So, The ukrainian immigrant who attempted to shut down the investigation that would in theory clear the Russian government of wrongdoing for which they are under sanction and in favor of the release of military aid to the ukraine to fight Russia....is actually a Russian immigrant working for Putin to undermine Russian intrests?
On the post: No, Internet Companies Do Not Get A 'Free Pass' Thanks To CDA 230
Re:
Loss of 230 protections for Techdirt would be both minor and significant. The content Techdirt provides is not affected by CDA 230 in any way, as CDA 230 only applies to User Generated Content.
However, they have been clear that without CDA 230 comments would be almost certainly nixed. Under the Prodigy ruling, any level of moderation puts Techdirt on the hook for everything posted. And recent laws also hold websites responsible if they fail to moderate certain content (FOSTA in the US as a good example). The only way to avoid responsibility for User content is to not have any, and Techdirt has made clear that is the likely response to the repeal of CDA 230.
On the post: Ajit Pai Whines About The Numerous State-Level Net Neutrality Laws He Just Helped Create
Re: FCC Authority
The FCC only has authority to regulate under the laws which govern the FCC. So the answer to your question is that the limits are defined by the myriad Telecommunications Acts passed over the years. Under 10th amendment jurisprudence, if the FCC doesn't have congressionally-granted authority to regulate a market, it also doesn't have the authority to preempt state authority.
The Title II debate was about the classification of broadband, and existed because a court decision ruled the FCC could not implement the first set of Net Neutrality rules under Title I.
On the post: Ajit Pai Whines About The Numerous State-Level Net Neutrality Laws He Just Helped Create
Re:
Local loop unbundling provisions of Title II could serve to fix competition issues by separating the potentially competitive service layer and the naturally uncompetitive infrastructure layer.
However, local loop unbundling took decades to finally pay out with POTS, due to limp regulations regarding licencing use of that infrastructure. I know it did successfully pay out in a number of areas, including in the bay area, which lead to the elimination of metered local service and the eventual end of long distance charges on fixed telephone service. But a watchful eye needs to be held by regulators to ensure punative licencing costs don't strangle broadband local loop unbundling in the cradle.
On the post: Bringing Free Speech Back: Trump Promises To Sue CNN Over Its Biased Coverage Based On Dumbest Legal Theory Ever
Re: almost quit reading..
These two facts are both true, and without context mutually exclusive:
Illegal Immigrants are all criminals.
Illegal immigrants commit crimes far less often than the native-born population.
I have to spend time to discuss that the first fact includes the crime of illegal immigration, but the second fact starts counting after entry. Then to determine which statistic to use, I should assess other contextual factors like the history of legal immigration or the wider context of those pushing the first fact have sought to also repeatedly restrict legal immigration on the basis of the first fact, and that the second fact is generally cited by those seeking to increase immigration.
Which of those two facts I cite carries implied opinions, despite just citing a fact.
If I cite a statistic about how many crimes are committed by immigrants in absolute numbers, it tells one story. If I instead talk about how many crimes are committed by immgrants in comparison to the immgrant population and compare those numbers to the native-born population, it tells a different story.
And then there are issues of who is counting, who pays them, how rigorous the fact verification is.
How deep do you go establishing the bonafides of "known facts"? How deep do I dive? Misuse of statistical data uses known facts without context to tell a bad narrative. Framing known facts of history with a modern contexst can be used to tell a bad narrative. By sserting known facts (Nazis called themselves solcialists) and making blind assertions (Socialists are Nazis) without context (The German National socialist workers party was founded by indiviudals seeking to use populist language, and while still very authoritarian discussed the implementation of some minor socialist concepts. These ideas were thrown out when Hitler's faction took control of the Nazi Party, and were never implemented in Hitler's Germany) they can tell lies with known facts.
Just the facts journalism on evolving controversies would drop context that helps us actually understand what we are seeing.
Next >>