Re: Re: Re: Doesn't anybody call bullshit on this tidbit?
I feel I should correct that: Arpaio was not pardoned for racial profiling. He was pardoned for criminal contempt, for ignoring a federal judge's order to stop violating people's Rights. (Wikipedia: "On May 24, 2013, Judge Snow issued a decision finding the policies and practices of Arpaio and his office discriminatory, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.")
Arpaio failed to comply with the court's orders, leading to the contempt charge. The short short version is that he told the court that he would violate Rights as he pleased and got busted for it.
So what are we to make of the pardon? That violating people's Rights is okay?
Well, hell, that's all this Sheriff did. Why shouldn't he get the same pardon?
What is the deal this year? You can't turn on the news without hearing about another data breach. Have all these IT companies simply said, "It can't happen to us," and buried their head in the sand, with an anvil on top?
I work in IT. I can't take a breath in my company, without having a security expert check my breath for telltale fumes. What did these other companies do, hire The Three Stooges?
"We must protect the little kiddies," from which grew the grand conception of Zero Tolerance. But the twisted purpose of the policy wasn't primarily to protect kiddies, it was to justify depriving kiddies of their Civil Rights at the door of the school. So as to indoctrinate them to a police state.
As a result we have officers of the law who do things like this and believe they are justified.
But that aside, don't you think that having a couple of FBI agents drop by to ask you (and your neighbors, and your boss) about your visit to, say, the Breitbart website, might make you feel a bit politically intimidated?
Oh I suppose you might counter that Breitbart didn't do anything illegal, but I'm sure we can find someone associated with it that did. And then we'll need to make sure that no one who visited the site participated in the crime.
Re: I dislike being "law'n'order conservative", but you kids are WAY out there.
I know, it's like no one understands Gestapo Law & Order anymore. This would be such a useful tool for law enforcement.
Take Stephen Paddock for example: I don't know if he's a member of the NRA, but law enforcement needs to get a warrant to search the communications of everyone who's an NRA member, and everyone who visited the NRA website. After all there might be another member somewhere who participated in planning this crime.
Gotta to stop that crime. What's wrong with intimidating a few million innocents, when you're trying to stop crime?
Unfortunately, I'm sure that these guys that made this patent will be perfectly willing to make a deal with Skynet. By the time it goes live, it will own the patent. If it matters.
You are mistaken; I understood him perfectly. He is trying to make a point that there is a huge difference between private email (perhaps Gmail) and private email on a privately owned server.
This is the wrong perspective. Let me emphasize the relevant points...
The major point of contention in the Clinton scandal was that she made top secret communications that were NOT ON A SECURE GOVERNMENT SERVER. But if any top secret communications were made by the Trump team via, say, Gmail, then those were NOT ON A SECURE GOVERNMENT SERVER.
The other concern for government communications is grouped under the category of "Sunshine provisions"; the public right to review what its government is doing in its name. In the case of Clinton, those communications are out of the public eye because they were NOT ON A GOVERNMENT SERVER. Likewise, the Trump team emails are out of the public eye, because they are NOT ON A GOVERNMENT SERVER.
So, you see, there are two main public policy reasons why private email should not be used by government officials. From the public policy perspective, whether that is on Clinton's private server--or on Google's/AOL's/Facebook's/etc.--is actually completely irrelevant.
Re: Re: The FCC is acting as if it is the controlled by the ISPs
I came to suspect that as well. Perhaps the reason the FCC doesn't want to pursue this is because the FCC, itself, is generating all these bogus comments.
That would explain the resistance to investigative inquiry.
On the post: ICE Now Calling Aiding Unaccompanied Minors 'Human Trafficking' To Bypass Sanctuary City Laws
Re: Re: Re:
If there is anything that is clear, it is that you have no clue about "equal protection."
On the post: Chicago Alderman's Plan On City Budget Crisis: Let's Just Charge Uber And Lyft More To Fix It
The vice tax
On the post: Sheriff, Deputies Indicted After Subjecting Entire High School To Invasive Pat Downs
Re: Re: Re: Doesn't anybody call bullshit on this tidbit?
Arpaio failed to comply with the court's orders, leading to the contempt charge. The short short version is that he told the court that he would violate Rights as he pleased and got busted for it.
So what are we to make of the pardon? That violating people's Rights is okay?
Well, hell, that's all this Sheriff did. Why shouldn't he get the same pardon?
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: October 8th - 14th
Sixty years ago, October 14, 1957, the British Computer Society was founded.
On the post: Sheriff, Deputies Indicted After Subjecting Entire High School To Invasive Pat Downs
Re: Doesn't anybody call bullshit on this tidbit?
On the post: Accenture The Latest To Leave Sensitive Customer Data Sitting Unprotected In The Amazon Cloud
Is anyone paying attention?
I work in IT. I can't take a breath in my company, without having a security expert check my breath for telltale fumes. What did these other companies do, hire The Three Stooges?
On the post: Supreme Court Leaves Troubling CFAA Rulings In Place: Sharing Passwords Can Be Criminal Hacking
Re:
On the post: Proposed Bill Would Exempt Customs And Border Protection From FOIA Compliance [Updated]
Saw the trees, missed the forest
The forest is burning down and you're worried about whether your matches are wet.
On the post: Sheriff, Deputies Indicted After Subjecting Entire High School To Invasive Pat Downs
Re: Bullshit!!!
As a result we have officers of the law who do things like this and believe they are justified.
On the post: Auto Location Tracking Company Leaves Customer Data Exposed Online
Re: SHA-1
Are they saying the only thing we could see is the hash? Then there would be no problem, because the hash does not contain the data.
But they said the data was exposed, and if it was, SHA-1 does nothing, because it is not encryption; it conceals nothing.
On the post: DOJ's Facebook Warrants Target Thousands Of Users For Protesting Inauguration
Re: sellout lawyers
But that aside, don't you think that having a couple of FBI agents drop by to ask you (and your neighbors, and your boss) about your visit to, say, the Breitbart website, might make you feel a bit politically intimidated?
Oh I suppose you might counter that Breitbart didn't do anything illegal, but I'm sure we can find someone associated with it that did. And then we'll need to make sure that no one who visited the site participated in the crime.
On the post: DOJ's Facebook Warrants Target Thousands Of Users For Protesting Inauguration
Re: I dislike being "law'n'order conservative", but you kids are WAY out there.
Take Stephen Paddock for example: I don't know if he's a member of the NRA, but law enforcement needs to get a warrant to search the communications of everyone who's an NRA member, and everyone who visited the NRA website. After all there might be another member somewhere who participated in planning this crime.
Gotta to stop that crime. What's wrong with intimidating a few million innocents, when you're trying to stop crime?
On the post: Auto Location Tracking Company Leaves Customer Data Exposed Online
Kromtech notes that SVR tracking did at least store the data using a cryptographic hash function...
Excuse me? A cryptographic hash function is not encryption. That's like saying someone locked his house by taking a picture of all of his doors.
On the post: Stupid Patent Of The Month: Will Patents Slow Artificial Intelligence?
Re:
On the post: Members Of Trump's Admin Team Using Private Email Accounts Because Of Course They Are
Re: Re: Re:
This is the wrong perspective. Let me emphasize the relevant points...
The major point of contention in the Clinton scandal was that she made top secret communications that were NOT ON A SECURE GOVERNMENT SERVER. But if any top secret communications were made by the Trump team via, say, Gmail, then those were NOT ON A SECURE GOVERNMENT SERVER.
The other concern for government communications is grouped under the category of "Sunshine provisions"; the public right to review what its government is doing in its name. In the case of Clinton, those communications are out of the public eye because they were NOT ON A GOVERNMENT SERVER. Likewise, the Trump team emails are out of the public eye, because they are NOT ON A GOVERNMENT SERVER.
So, you see, there are two main public policy reasons why private email should not be used by government officials. From the public policy perspective, whether that is on Clinton's private server--or on Google's/AOL's/Facebook's/etc.--is actually completely irrelevant.
On the post: After Backlash, Verizon Will Give Rural Data Users A Bit More Time To Get The Hell Off Its Network
Mixup
On the post: Members Of Trump's Admin Team Using Private Email Accounts Because Of Course They Are
Re:
Oh, I see. It's okay to store government secrets on, say, Google's private server, but bad to store them on my personal private server. <eye-roll />
On the post: Scientific Publishers Want Upload Filter To Stop Academics Sharing Their Own Papers Without Permission
The Empire Strikes Back
On the post: Turkish President Claims Jailed Journalists Are Actually Terrorists
Re: Definition of terrorist
"A person, group, or organization that uses activism, or the threat of activism, to further political goals."
That definition is used even here in the United States to silence those terrible activists.
On the post: FCC Sued For Ignoring FOIA Request Investigating Fraudulent Net Neutrality Comments
Re: Re: The FCC is acting as if it is the controlled by the ISPs
That would explain the resistance to investigative inquiry.
Next >>