I can't believe Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates is so short-sighted. Don't they know the point of interrogation is convictions? (Who cares about innocence?) What PD will use them now that they have gone all limp on crime?
It's annoying, but it seems solution does raise its head. Get an injunction against staties following these non-recommendations of the FBI. After all according to the FBI, they didn't make a recommendation, so if the state is acting upon these as recommendations, then it has no grounds to fight an injunction.
Oh come on, think about what you're saying. If Ryunouske were to actually "channel Seuss", and be in metre, the Seuss estate would file an infringement suit.
If the city returns to court with nothing more than its unearned dismay, the judge will probably start issuing sanctions.
Thank you, but I'll not be holding my breath. I can't recall any judge ever sanctioning NYPD. Certainly never any sanctions that caused NYPD to actually stop sticking its tongue out at the judge in question.
Why would you think the FTC would step in? Are you gullible enough to think #SwampThingInChief and his SwampMinions would never intentionally leave an industry totally and completely unregulated?
At this moment in history, 50% of the people will vote for a candidate of either major political party, either because they have forgotten the candidate ate a baby 2 months ago or because they hate the other party.
A 50/50 split, right down to the tenth of a percent. That's the vote. So either party that can keep a tenth of a percent of the opposition voters from voting, wins. The parties would have to be stupid to not be concerned.
Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you've consumed a lethal dose of the Kool-Aid. Diagnosis based on your continued ability to hope Trump might possibly drain the swamp.
But just not having a big enough pipe isn't by itself a NN violation.
It is if the pipe between your network and your competitors is used to interfere in the service between your customers and your competitors.
This is one of the most common motifs that we have seen. For example, an ISP starves the pipe between Netflix and the ISP's customers, causing the Netflix service to be slow and unreliable (but, oddly, the ISP's own video service works just fine). Not only does that interfere in Netflix service delivery, but it actually damages Netflix's reputation. (By generating bad word-of-mouth such as: "Don't get Nexflix, their service sucks.")
The ISP then demands that Netflix pay for a pipe to access customers that signed up for Netflix's service--and for Netflix to save its reputation. Which is both anti-competitive and extortionate.
Prioritization implies insufficient resource. In the case of the two packets argument, if there is sufficient bandwidth then prioritization isn't needed.
The problem for ISP lobbyists is that we're entering an election season, and countless politicians are going to be tripping over themselves to distance themselves from the unpopular policies of the current administration.
Why? Most American voters have the attention span of a gnat. A candidate could cook and eat a baby on stage in September and most of the voters would have forgotten it by November.
And that doesn't even account for the those voters who might remember the baby eating, but would vote for the candidate anyway because, "A baby eater is better than a Democrat."
I think we should be ready for history to repeat itself.
No, no, no, Comcast. Way too wordy. You should have kept it to the standard lie: 'The elimination of net neutrality rules will allow us to serve you betterI ."
The definition of BIE is right there, at the bottom of page 2 of the attached document, the executive summary page:
The FBI defines black identity extremists as individuals who seek, wholly or in part, through unlawful acts of force or violence, in response to perceived racism and injustice in American society and some do so in furtherance of establishing a separate black homeland or autonomous black social institutions, communities, or governing organizations within the United States. This desire for physical or psychological separation is typically based on either a religious or political belief system, which is sometimes form around or includes a belief in racial superiority or supremacy. The mere advocacy of political or social conditions, political activism, use of strong rhetoric, or generalized philosophic embrace of violent tactics may not constitute extremism, and may be constitutionally-protected.
Most of that is BS word salad, so focus on the bold text at the end. There's a subtext which I will mark in bold, and insert my interpretation in brackets:
The mere advocacy of political or social conditions, political activism, use of strong rhetoric, or generalized philosophic embrace of violent tactics may not constitute extremism [but probably does] and may be constitutionally-protected [but probably isn't].
See, the word "may", used as it is in this context, means "possible but unlikely". The FBI helpfully explained what "unlikely" means, on page 8, so we know that "may" means 20%. A 20% chance that advocacy does not constitute extremism, and a 20% chance that advocacy may be constitutionally protected. (Yes, yes, 45% is the upper end of the range but you notice it is still more likely than not that the individual is BIE.)
I may be stretching it a bit here, but I think it's safe to translate this document, for effect, as, "If you encounter a black individual who insists on his rights, he is a BIE. Shoot to kill."
Re: Re: Re: Supporters of Google love surveillance too!
The simple thing is that there are quite a number of companies over a large number of fields that have had the boost of "strange" money for the express purpose of benefiting the donations of that "strange" money. Government funds through the various security and military channels is one such area. Funding through criminal organisations is another.
Ummm... yeah, that "strange money" you mentioned, that's usually called "investment capital". Which is, yes, usually "given" for the benefit of the "donor". I don't think anyone would deny that it is often from very strange sources indeed.
It seems like rewarding bad behavior to give them a tax cut to do the right thing. Let's try the stick this time: an 80% tax on net income from underpowered service. Bet they'd upgrade right quick.
On the post: Police Training Firm Dumps Interrogation Technique Linked To Multiple False Confessions
Suicide
On the post: Appeals Court Dismisses Gang Designation Lawsuit Against The FBI Brought By Insane Clown Posse Fans
Enjoin non-reccomendations
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: "Seussian translation"
On the post: Suburban Express, Which Sued Over Online Reviews Claiming It Had Racist Drivers, Cheerfully Sends Out Racist Advertisement
In [blank] We Trust
On the post: Court Holds NYPD In Contempt For Refusing To Hand Over Documents Related To Black Live Matter Surveillance
Thank you, but I'll not be holding my breath. I can't recall any judge ever sanctioning NYPD. Certainly never any sanctions that caused NYPD to actually stop sticking its tongue out at the judge in question.
On the post: Ajit Pai Doesn't Want You Talking About Court Ruling That Undermines His Bogus Claim That The FTC Will Protect Consumers
Re:
You forget their Free Market aspirations.
On the post: FCC Releases Net Neutrality Killing Order, Hopes You're Too Busy Cooking Turkey To Read It
Re: Re: Election no problem
A 50/50 split, right down to the tenth of a percent. That's the vote. So either party that can keep a tenth of a percent of the opposition voters from voting, wins. The parties would have to be stupid to not be concerned.
On the post: Trump Tweet About Surveillance Undercuts FBI's Glomar Responses In FOIA Lawsuits
Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
On the post: ISPs Are Already Using The FCC's Planned Net Neutrality Repeal To Harm Consumers
Re: NN: The tail wagging the dog
It is if the pipe between your network and your competitors is used to interfere in the service between your customers and your competitors.
This is one of the most common motifs that we have seen. For example, an ISP starves the pipe between Netflix and the ISP's customers, causing the Netflix service to be slow and unreliable (but, oddly, the ISP's own video service works just fine). Not only does that interfere in Netflix service delivery, but it actually damages Netflix's reputation. (By generating bad word-of-mouth such as: "Don't get Nexflix, their service sucks.")
The ISP then demands that Netflix pay for a pipe to access customers that signed up for Netflix's service--and for Netflix to save its reputation. Which is both anti-competitive and extortionate.
That is precisely non-NN.
On the post: House Intelligence Committee Lobs Zero-Reform Section 702 Bill Into The Mix At The Last Possible Minute
All I can say
On the post: Comcast Spent Millions Repealing Net Neutrality, Now Wants You To Believe It Won't Take Full, Brutal Advantage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Treasury Department Report Shows ComputerCOP Used Bogus Endorsement Letter To Get Police To Distribute Keylogger
Re: Fraudulent letter
On the post: FCC Releases Net Neutrality Killing Order, Hopes You're Too Busy Cooking Turkey To Read It
Election no problem
Why? Most American voters have the attention span of a gnat. A candidate could cook and eat a baby on stage in September and most of the voters would have forgotten it by November.
And that doesn't even account for the those voters who might remember the baby eating, but would vote for the candidate anyway because, "A baby eater is better than a Democrat."
I think we should be ready for history to repeat itself.
On the post: As The FCC Guts Net Neutrality, Comcast Again Falsely Claims You Have Nothing To Worry About
No, no, no, Comcast. Way too wordy. You should have kept it to the standard lie: 'The elimination of net neutrality rules will allow us to serve you betterI ."
On the post: FBI Acts Like It's Still 1960 With Its Report On 'Black Identity Extremists'
Re:
The definition of BIE is right there, at the bottom of page 2 of the attached document, the executive summary page:
Most of that is BS word salad, so focus on the bold text at the end. There's a subtext which I will mark in bold, and insert my interpretation in brackets:
See, the word "may", used as it is in this context, means "possible but unlikely". The FBI helpfully explained what "unlikely" means, on page 8, so we know that "may" means 20%. A 20% chance that advocacy does not constitute extremism, and a 20% chance that advocacy may be constitutionally protected. (Yes, yes, 45% is the upper end of the range but you notice it is still more likely than not that the individual is BIE.)
I may be stretching it a bit here, but I think it's safe to translate this document, for effect, as, "If you encounter a black individual who insists on his rights, he is a BIE. Shoot to kill."
On the post: Surveillance Fans Angry Journalist Used Metadata, Contact Chaining To Out Comey's Secret Twitter Account
Re: Re: Re: Supporters of Google love surveillance too!
Ummm... yeah, that "strange money" you mentioned, that's usually called "investment capital". Which is, yes, usually "given" for the benefit of the "donor". I don't think anyone would deny that it is often from very strange sources indeed.
On the post: AT&T Lawyers Investigating Whether Trump Had Undue Influence On DOJ Merger Review
On the post: Russian Foreign Ministry Accuses America Of Supporting ISIS With Video Game Footage
Nah.
On the post: 'Tis The Season To Fail To Catch Contraband And Explosive Devices At TSA Checkpoints
Re:
It's the little things that count.
On the post: AT&T Promises Your Broadband Will Suck Less...But Only If It Gets Another Massive Tax Cut
Time for the stick
Next >>