I would assume that the AC means that Google is the only one not doing any bribing / campaign contributions at the appropriate local levels. Or writing state telecom law, etc.
Mostly unrelated: I am still amused by the phrase "waste deep" from your original comment. I don't know if that was intentional or a spelling/autocorrect error, but it shines.
Chances are, by not looking for or downloading images.
If it was my job, chosen or not, to investigate something like this, i would not be downloading file packages and would turn off image display if they are posted inline. Not difficult.
Individual citizens have actually done so to report something they were made aware of, or attempt to gather evidence when law enforcement was ignoring reports. People who actually go looking for exploited children will actually have to see at least part of an image occasionally, whether an LEO or a member of some organizations. Including orgs like MCMEC.
But one can investigate without seeing images when not necessary. Repeated viewing for distorted prurient interests - that's a problem. But none of this is to say how the law might be applied in any given circumstance. We all know how that can go in a variety of spaces, including reporting website or code vulnerabilities or exploits.
Re: Re: The entire FCC broadcast system violates the First Ammendment
And it isn't allocated to content providers like NBC (aka Comcast) except for the few broadcast stations they actually own.
Now if you want to talk about large interests hoarding unused spectrum (hardly all of it in the TV bands), there are some other industries and players one could look at.
Re: 1) "during its February sweeps" -- is a limited data set
We all know that people who violate the law are criminal by definition. However, it is clearly the point that xenophobes like teh Prez and his ilk are always trying to hold up these people as dangerous thugs, murderers, rapists, drug smugglers, whatever. The results here are twofold: They are not finding many of these people as having any other criminal records or tendencies whatsoever, and neither is this policy helping to catch dangerous criminals (as if immigration status has anything to do with that). This program is not going to be shoving any more MS-13 members into cruisers roughly, causing contusions to the head. That would be normal police work, which the police have failed to do since forever, as they are too busy looking for work-free ways to accomplish "investigations", and too busy violating everyone else's rights.
One may be for more freedom of movement, or one can be anti-immigration, or simply be mad about illegal border crossing. However, that isn't the point here. Everyone gets it, you aren't saying anything revolutionary. You are simply being a poor apologist for a bullshit program. Good for you that you like the result anyway.
Of course, if ICE and friends would get the fuck off their asses and check where immigrants (and contraband) actually enter the country - in the back of tractor trailers - well then you would have less illegal crossings and imports, and probably less dead people. But no, it's more fun to unreasonably harass individuals in cars or dick around with helicopters in the desert. What ever will they do for kicks when they build their environmental disaster wall?
What governments really need are better farce recognition systems. Fortunately, there is a large pool of experts available for this, should they be interested.
Anyone simply saying "cease and desist" to anything does not make it a valid or remotely legally binding utterance. It takes idiots to misapply laws to rule that a) the c&d is valid, and b) it constitutes criminal behavior under a ridiculously stretched interpretation of an already bad law.
So, say, when someone tells you to shove off, but you keep showing up anyway, does that mean you should end up in prison?
That's another thing: These people in charge of law enforcement and spying are no longer public servants or bureaucrats, they are effectively politicians also.
And evidence from actual crimes is destroyed all the time, purposely or not. Just because i have a warrant to search for a gun or a stack of documents or proceeds of a crime does not mean they will be where i am looking for them. Things could be burned or in a landfill or in the bottom of the ocean or sold five times and long gone. But somehow fishing expeditions for internet communications are different because i said so.
Encryption backdoors are the equivalent of the good old rubber hose. Whether or not they get evidence using it, they get what they want.
On the post: Google Fiber Gives Up On Traditional TV, And Won't Be The Last Company To Do So
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would assume that the AC means that Google is the only one not doing any bribing / campaign contributions at the appropriate local levels. Or writing state telecom law, etc.
Mostly unrelated: I am still amused by the phrase "waste deep" from your original comment. I don't know if that was intentional or a spelling/autocorrect error, but it shines.
On the post: Accenture The Latest To Leave Sensitive Customer Data Sitting Unprotected In The Amazon Cloud
Re:
On the post: Australian Police Ran A Dark Web Child Porn Site For Eleven Months
Re:
If it was my job, chosen or not, to investigate something like this, i would not be downloading file packages and would turn off image display if they are posted inline. Not difficult.
Individual citizens have actually done so to report something they were made aware of, or attempt to gather evidence when law enforcement was ignoring reports. People who actually go looking for exploited children will actually have to see at least part of an image occasionally, whether an LEO or a member of some organizations. Including orgs like MCMEC.
But one can investigate without seeing images when not necessary. Repeated viewing for distorted prurient interests - that's a problem. But none of this is to say how the law might be applied in any given circumstance. We all know how that can go in a variety of spaces, including reporting website or code vulnerabilities or exploits.
On the post: Australian Police Ran A Dark Web Child Porn Site For Eleven Months
Re:
On the post: Real Life Soccer Player Besieged By Requests To Play For Foreign Team Due To Video Game Error
Re: "even a passport"
On the post: Real Life Soccer Player Besieged By Requests To Play For Foreign Team Due To Video Game Error
Re:
On the post: Trump May Not Be Serious About His NBC Threats... But He May Have Violated The First Amendment
Re: Re: The entire FCC broadcast system violates the First Ammendment
Now if you want to talk about large interests hoarding unused spectrum (hardly all of it in the TV bands), there are some other industries and players one could look at.
On the post: Another Ridiculous Lawsuit Hopes To Hold Social Media Companies Responsible For Terrorist Attacks
Also: Banks, landlords, shops... and the governments claiming to protect us pave roads for them. Deliver mail!
Sue them all.
On the post: New 'Coalition For Responsible Sharing' About To Send Millions Of Take-Down Notices To Stop Researchers Sharing Their Own Papers
Re: 'Coalition For Responsible Sharing'
On the post: New 'Coalition For Responsible Sharing' About To Send Millions Of Take-Down Notices To Stop Researchers Sharing Their Own Papers
Re: Re:
On the post: New 'Coalition For Responsible Sharing' About To Send Millions Of Take-Down Notices To Stop Researchers Sharing Their Own Papers
Re: Re:
On the post: New 'Coalition For Responsible Sharing' About To Send Millions Of Take-Down Notices To Stop Researchers Sharing Their Own Papers
Re: Re: Re: Its their paper
On the post: Court To Guy Who Sued News Stations Over His Facebook Live Video: Pay Their Legal Fees... And Maybe Sue Your Lawyers
I am more wondering about the threats the attorney will make if Kanongataa makes noises about taking the court's apparent advice.
On the post: Emails Show ICE Couldn't Find Enough Dangerous Immigrants To Fulfill The Adminstration's Fantasies
Re: 1) "during its February sweeps" -- is a limited data set
One may be for more freedom of movement, or one can be anti-immigration, or simply be mad about illegal border crossing. However, that isn't the point here. Everyone gets it, you aren't saying anything revolutionary. You are simply being a poor apologist for a bullshit program. Good for you that you like the result anyway.
Of course, if ICE and friends would get the fuck off their asses and check where immigrants (and contraband) actually enter the country - in the back of tractor trailers - well then you would have less illegal crossings and imports, and probably less dead people. But no, it's more fun to unreasonably harass individuals in cars or dick around with helicopters in the desert. What ever will they do for kicks when they build their environmental disaster wall?
On the post: Australian Government Claims That Facial Recognition Systems Increase Privacy...
On the post: Supreme Court Leaves Troubling CFAA Rulings In Place: Sharing Passwords Can Be Criminal Hacking
Re: Troubling?
So, say, when someone tells you to shove off, but you keep showing up anyway, does that mean you should end up in prison?
On the post: New 'Coalition For Responsible Sharing' About To Send Millions Of Take-Down Notices To Stop Researchers Sharing Their Own Papers
On the post: Analysts Predict Sprint, T-Mobile Merger Will Be A Massive Job Killer
Re: Won't be a problem much longer
On the post: Deputy AG Pitches New Form Of Backdoor: 'Responsible Encryption'
Re: Let us imagine the impossible...
On the post: Deputy AG Pitches New Form Of Backdoor: 'Responsible Encryption'
Re:
Encryption backdoors are the equivalent of the good old rubber hose. Whether or not they get evidence using it, they get what they want.
Next >>