Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Mar 2020 @ 3:52pm
Re:
This may not be the same bill as the one you are referring to, but it seems at least the House of Representatives is not in a constituent friendly mood.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Mar 2020 @ 2:44pm
Re: 'Her fault for not sitting in the back.'
To be fair, the 'resource officers' were probably placed in schools by school boards, and not the teachers or principles. It likely wouldn't have mattered if principles or teachers actually objected or not. Those school boards...elected, aren't they?
I do like your characterization to historical atrocities. The Puritans and how they dealt with witches as well as the various Inquisitions propagated by the Catholic church come immediately to mind, though I am certain there are others.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Mar 2020 @ 1:56pm
Re: Re: Pay option
So we make data brokers illegal in the US and they move overseas and continue brokering. Oh, I guess they would need to stay out of the EU, but there are plenty more places they could go.
However, I don't see any way to stop the collection, without seriously changing the way the Internet works, if that is even possible. The EU made it so one should be able to stop it, and look at the problems they are having with that.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Mar 2020 @ 11:55am
Re: Re: My addiction
I have never seen an autoplay ad on Techdirt. It might be because of some of the controls I use. Brave Browser (with autoplay and third party actions turned off in the settings), ScriptBlock, Umatrix, Ublock Origin, Ghostery are the most likely candidates, though there are a few others.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Mar 2020 @ 11:21am
My addiction
I am only addicted to Techdirt, but I don't look at their advertising (which I allow (we do have a choice here) in order to help fund them even though I already pay). I also have a certain amount of browser controls that keep third parties out of the mix. Then there is my VPN which not only encrypts my connection (even from my ISP) but disguises my location (except from my ISP). Then I also clear my browsing data, cookies and other browser collectibles regularly and change my passwords (complex via a password manager) several times per year.
The problems as I see it has several aspects. First, getting several billion people to follow some or all of the above practices. The second is similar to the roadblock the entertainment silos are going to face. Just how many Internet sites (that are currently free) will any one individual fund? And, as pointed out in the article above, will people in less economically advantaged situations be able to afford whatever the asking prices will be? In addition, one of the features of a site like Facebook (which I do not use) is that it give one access to many countries and many cultures around the world (which is a good thing and not the reason I don't and won't use Facebook), and silos won't let that happen.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Mar 2020 @ 11:05am
It won't stop them
There are likely multiple companies, overseas, who are keeping their fingers crossed and hoping and wishing that this bill passes. The profile of these companies are those that have encryption products in existence or in the pipeline, or will start designing their version as soon as the bill passes.
As has been said many time here (and elsewhere) by many people, the bad guys will get their encryption from someone who isn't under the thumb of the US government. There is probably also a large cadre of people who you and I wouldn't classify as bad, but wish to keep their communications private. Journalists, diplomats, negotiators, strategists, and business executives come immediately to mind. The military has already said that this is a really big mistake.
The next step will be for the government to claim these offshore products are munitions and therefore illegal. The fact that many of those 'not bad' users are also ones who fund political campaigns will become painfully clear to politicians when that happens.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Mar 2020 @ 6:05am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Constitutional
The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The police make the accusation, the prosecutors make the case in court. If were going to give things rights, then innocent until proven guilty should be one of them.
Still, in thinking about this I realized that things already have protection because they belong to us.
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So maybe Cdaragorn is right, but then if the law enforcement establishment follows the operating instructions properly, they can seize property, following a conviction. But I maintain that in order for the 'properly part' they need to show a nexus between the asset and the convicted crime. They should not be able to point and say 'ummm bad' and take it.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Mar 2020 @ 3:19pm
Re: Re: Re: Wrong title
I wouldn't know, I don't intend on finding myself in the need to know either. At the same time I think there would be serious (expensive) IP complaints from Philips if one tried it.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Mar 2020 @ 1:48pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Constitutional
I don't disagree with that, but if I understand your point correctly, then asset forfeitures for money or things that can be attributed to illegal activities would be OK? That is, provided that that attribution can be proven in a court (beyond a reasonable doubt one presumes). It is not only the failing to charge someone, but the failure to prove the asset is in fact the proceed of something illegal.
That would mean taking the concept of innocent until proven guilty from the realm of only people to include things as well. Again, I don't disagree, but can the Constitution actually give rights to things?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Mar 2020 @ 1:28pm
Re: Simple Solution to most Internet defamation
That is not Yelp's job. If true defamation took place, then the defamed can ask Yelp for Mr. Smith's contact information so they can sue Mr. Smith. It might take filing the suit against a John Doe and then getting the court to order Yelp to give up the contact info, but that is the way it should work.
Also, that process is already in place, so no correction is needed to get it done. If there was no actual defamation then there could be no law suit and Dr. Jones can get some salve for his butt hurt. It is not Yelp's, or any other platforms' job to determine if actual defamation took place, that belongs in a court of law. Someone claiming they were defamed doesn't cut the mustard.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Mar 2020 @ 7:50am
Re: Don't settle for anything less than a million times the amou
You do realize that it would be the taxpayers that pay that fine. It would not hurt anyone at the DEA at all. Money would just be moved from someplace else, that is until the DEA could steal enough to keep themselves in business on their own.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Mar 2020 @ 8:51am
Re: Waiting
I am going to bet that 1) there will be a non-disclosure agreement that prevents anyone from telling anyone that their system exists, let alone gets used, and 2) there will be a black box component to the system that cannot be violated due to state...um...industrial secrets, which will prevent anyone from placing blame anywhere...other than the person killed (they must have deserved it, even if it was the wrong person). For the above reasons the blame will be placed on no-one, and Mr. No-one will have left the jurisdiction to a country without an extradition agreement with anyone.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 9 Mar 2020 @ 12:24pm
Re: Ah good old fractal wrongness...
Then there is the concept that if false statements are not protected speech then everything a politician says is not protected? They should be careful or they might find themselves accountable for campaign promises.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 9 Mar 2020 @ 12:21pm
Prognosticating stenographer?
Maybe a better way to relate the relationship between the current administration and Fox News is 'mouthpiece to the admin' (with apologies to lawyers who used to be known as mouthpieces, they don't deserve the denigration).
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 6 Mar 2020 @ 1:07pm
Re: 'Paint on my walls? You get sued.'
And...if the government can stop you from painting over that graffiti, then they have 'taken' your rights to your own property. If I remember correctly the Constitution has a takings clause whereby the government needs to compensate the property owner at some form of fair market value for 'taking' that property.
The government can then let anyone who cares to deface 'their' building. Of course then when a second graffiti artist comes along and defaces the first graffiti artists work, they can just duke it out...erm sue the government for not protecting their VERA protected works.
On the post: Senators Pretend That EARN IT Act Wouldn't Be Used To Undermine Encryption; They're Wrong
Re:
This may not be the same bill as the one you are referring to, but it seems at least the House of Representatives is not in a constituent friendly mood.
https://reason.com/2020/03/12/over-objections-from-privacy-advocates-tame-surveillance-bill-sa ils-through-the-house/
On the post: Arrests R Us: Six-Year-Old Cuffed And Tossed Into A Cop Car For 'Throwing A Tantrum' At School
Re: 'Her fault for not sitting in the back.'
To be fair, the 'resource officers' were probably placed in schools by school boards, and not the teachers or principles. It likely wouldn't have mattered if principles or teachers actually objected or not. Those school boards...elected, aren't they?
I do like your characterization to historical atrocities. The Puritans and how they dealt with witches as well as the various Inquisitions propagated by the Catholic church come immediately to mind, though I am certain there are others.
On the post: Why Tech Might Actually Be The Solution To Capitalism's Addiction Problem
Re: Re: Pay option
So we make data brokers illegal in the US and they move overseas and continue brokering. Oh, I guess they would need to stay out of the EU, but there are plenty more places they could go.
However, I don't see any way to stop the collection, without seriously changing the way the Internet works, if that is even possible. The EU made it so one should be able to stop it, and look at the problems they are having with that.
On the post: Why Tech Might Actually Be The Solution To Capitalism's Addiction Problem
Re: jeezeus - Only made it to 2nd paragraph Atlantic article
Well, if they have free lunches on the moon, can you book me a reservation? I'm in the mood for French provincial or Italian cuisine.
On the post: Why Tech Might Actually Be The Solution To Capitalism's Addiction Problem
Re: Re: My addiction
I have never seen an autoplay ad on Techdirt. It might be because of some of the controls I use. Brave Browser (with autoplay and third party actions turned off in the settings), ScriptBlock, Umatrix, Ublock Origin, Ghostery are the most likely candidates, though there are a few others.
On the post: Why Tech Might Actually Be The Solution To Capitalism's Addiction Problem
My addiction
I am only addicted to Techdirt, but I don't look at their advertising (which I allow (we do have a choice here) in order to help fund them even though I already pay). I also have a certain amount of browser controls that keep third parties out of the mix. Then there is my VPN which not only encrypts my connection (even from my ISP) but disguises my location (except from my ISP). Then I also clear my browsing data, cookies and other browser collectibles regularly and change my passwords (complex via a password manager) several times per year.
The problems as I see it has several aspects. First, getting several billion people to follow some or all of the above practices. The second is similar to the roadblock the entertainment silos are going to face. Just how many Internet sites (that are currently free) will any one individual fund? And, as pointed out in the article above, will people in less economically advantaged situations be able to afford whatever the asking prices will be? In addition, one of the features of a site like Facebook (which I do not use) is that it give one access to many countries and many cultures around the world (which is a good thing and not the reason I don't and won't use Facebook), and silos won't let that happen.
On the post: Senators Pretend That EARN IT Act Wouldn't Be Used To Undermine Encryption; They're Wrong
It won't stop them
There are likely multiple companies, overseas, who are keeping their fingers crossed and hoping and wishing that this bill passes. The profile of these companies are those that have encryption products in existence or in the pipeline, or will start designing their version as soon as the bill passes.
As has been said many time here (and elsewhere) by many people, the bad guys will get their encryption from someone who isn't under the thumb of the US government. There is probably also a large cadre of people who you and I wouldn't classify as bad, but wish to keep their communications private. Journalists, diplomats, negotiators, strategists, and business executives come immediately to mind. The military has already said that this is a really big mistake.
The next step will be for the government to claim these offshore products are munitions and therefore illegal. The fact that many of those 'not bad' users are also ones who fund political campaigns will become painfully clear to politicians when that happens.
On the post: Five Weeks After Being Sued, DEA Agrees To Return $82,000 It Stole From A Retiree
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Constitutional
The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The police make the accusation, the prosecutors make the case in court. If were going to give things rights, then innocent until proven guilty should be one of them.
Still, in thinking about this I realized that things already have protection because they belong to us.
So maybe Cdaragorn is right, but then if the law enforcement establishment follows the operating instructions properly, they can seize property, following a conviction. But I maintain that in order for the 'properly part' they need to show a nexus between the asset and the convicted crime. They should not be able to point and say 'ummm bad' and take it.
On the post: Fighting For Better Anti-SLAPP Laws: I'm Joining The Board Of The Public Participation Project
Re:
Did your canary die?
On the post: You Don't Own What You Buy Episode 9,000: Philips' Light Bulbs Lose Functionality
Re: Re: Re: Wrong title
I wouldn't know, I don't intend on finding myself in the need to know either. At the same time I think there would be serious (expensive) IP complaints from Philips if one tried it.
On the post: You Don't Own What You Buy Episode 9,000: Philips' Light Bulbs Lose Functionality
Re: Wrong title
That would depend upon what functionality connection to the online services provided.
From Philips:
On the post: Five Weeks After Being Sued, DEA Agrees To Return $82,000 It Stole From A Retiree
Re: Re: Re: Re: Constitutional
I don't disagree with that, but if I understand your point correctly, then asset forfeitures for money or things that can be attributed to illegal activities would be OK? That is, provided that that attribution can be proven in a court (beyond a reasonable doubt one presumes). It is not only the failing to charge someone, but the failure to prove the asset is in fact the proceed of something illegal.
That would mean taking the concept of innocent until proven guilty from the realm of only people to include things as well. Again, I don't disagree, but can the Constitution actually give rights to things?
On the post: DOJ's Latest Ideas For Section 230 Reform Dumber Than Even I Expected
Re: Simple Solution to most Internet defamation
That is not Yelp's job. If true defamation took place, then the defamed can ask Yelp for Mr. Smith's contact information so they can sue Mr. Smith. It might take filing the suit against a John Doe and then getting the court to order Yelp to give up the contact info, but that is the way it should work.
Also, that process is already in place, so no correction is needed to get it done. If there was no actual defamation then there could be no law suit and Dr. Jones can get some salve for his butt hurt. It is not Yelp's, or any other platforms' job to determine if actual defamation took place, that belongs in a court of law. Someone claiming they were defamed doesn't cut the mustard.
On the post: Five Weeks After Being Sued, DEA Agrees To Return $82,000 It Stole From A Retiree
Re: Re: Constitutional
Maybe you meant asset forfeiture without a felony conviction of the asset owner is unconstitutional.
On the post: Five Weeks After Being Sued, DEA Agrees To Return $82,000 It Stole From A Retiree
Re: Don't settle for anything less than a million times the amou
You do realize that it would be the taxpayers that pay that fine. It would not hurt anyone at the DEA at all. Money would just be moved from someplace else, that is until the DEA could steal enough to keep themselves in business on their own.
On the post: Wolfcom Decides It Wants To Be The First US Body Cam Company To Add Facial Recognition Tech To Its Products
Re: Waiting
I am going to bet that 1) there will be a non-disclosure agreement that prevents anyone from telling anyone that their system exists, let alone gets used, and 2) there will be a black box component to the system that cannot be violated due to state...um...industrial secrets, which will prevent anyone from placing blame anywhere...other than the person killed (they must have deserved it, even if it was the wrong person). For the above reasons the blame will be placed on no-one, and Mr. No-one will have left the jurisdiction to a country without an extradition agreement with anyone.
On the post: Why Is Fox News Acting As State Media, Announcing Trump's Lawsuits Before They're Filed And Failing To Point Out How Frivolous They Are?
Re: Ah good old fractal wrongness...
Then there is the concept that if false statements are not protected speech then everything a politician says is not protected? They should be careful or they might find themselves accountable for campaign promises.
On the post: Why Is Fox News Acting As State Media, Announcing Trump's Lawsuits Before They're Filed And Failing To Point Out How Frivolous They Are?
Prognosticating stenographer?
Maybe a better way to relate the relationship between the current administration and Fox News is 'mouthpiece to the admin' (with apologies to lawyers who used to be known as mouthpieces, they don't deserve the denigration).
On the post: Wireless Carriers Are Training Consumers To Equate "5G" With Bluster And Empty Promises
Re: Don't panic!
Their performance with 5G makes one wonder what they are smoking down there. Are they in a recreational state?
On the post: In New 5Pointz Decision, Second Circuit Concludes That VARA Trumps The Constitution
Re: 'Paint on my walls? You get sued.'
And...if the government can stop you from painting over that graffiti, then they have 'taken' your rights to your own property. If I remember correctly the Constitution has a takings clause whereby the government needs to compensate the property owner at some form of fair market value for 'taking' that property.
The government can then let anyone who cares to deface 'their' building. Of course then when a second graffiti artist comes along and defaces the first graffiti artists work, they can just duke it out...erm sue the government for not protecting their VERA protected works.
Next >>