Honestly, when did the US switch to an economy built out of graft, bad faith and conmanship?
Right about the time that we graduated from school more lawyers than we needed to defend the accused in courts of the land. The "overstock" became corporate lawyers, and I think you can guess where this is going.....
WHEREAS, the state has a compelling interest to compel the press to promote the objective truth for the sake of the viability of democracy... for keeping with the spirit of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment....
'Sfunny, every time I read 14A, I somehow fail to see anything about reporting, in any form, as being a part of 'due process'. I'm pretty sure that the Founding Fathers used the term 'due process' to mean that the government itself cannot simply run roughshod over an individual's rights, particularly those granted by the Constitution and it's several amendments.
In the legal sense, due process has nothing to do with any non-government entity, period.
On a different note, were I a news agency of some substance in Tennessee, I'd rally the troops to support this legislation. Why? Because I'd then send a bill to the Legislature every time I had to print something that was not newsworthy, or had to broadcast it over the air, or onto the internet. My claim would be that the non-newsworthy material was forced upon me, and by extension, onto my readers/viewers. Not only was that was a waste of resources that could've been better spent serving the community, but other newsworthy stories were perforce shunted aside. By definition, that was not serving the community's best interests.
And all of this is before we even get to the fact that my advertisers won't pay for having their ads run next to non-newsworthy items, for obvious reasons. Which needs compensation to offset that loss....
State law cannot affect constitutional protections.
In some cases, that's true, but what this is really doing is setting up a "super case" for testing, and hopefully finalizing, State's Rights.
In the main, I agree that states should be in charge of their citizenry, that in fact the country was formed for only two things - to allow a cohesive effort in protecting the several states from outside interference (colloquially known as 'war'), and to keep any one state from overpowering another, less well provisioned state. Those two ideas are THE central tenet behind the preample to the Constitution that goes "We the People, in order to form a more perfect Union.... We've certainly come a long way down the pike from those ideas, haven't we.
But this business about 'basic civil rights', that's gotten just about everybody's dander all up in arms, that's for sure. So here's the problem: Courts have long held that cops DON"T need to know the law in order to make citizens obey it. And now Iowa wants to codify that idea. My question at that point would be: "If they aren't expected to know even a greater portion of the laws on the books, how do you even come close to expecting them to know anything about civil rights???" If anything, civil rights are constantly being refined in the courts, and the Statutes are only "good starting points". As seen in the recent decade, the very LAST thing the comes to a cop's mind when "contacting a citizen" is wondering if he or she is about to violate that citizen's rights. Rightly or wrongly, that's something that always comes up during CYA time, which is way too late for George Floyd, MIchael Brown, ect.
The "proper" solution is to put the shoe on the other foot: "Any officer of the law who disrespects a citizen's civil rights is automatically deemed to be unfit for service, and shall be subject to discipline by a court of competent jurisdiction, with or without the testimony of any aggrieved citizen."
All of that set aside for the moment, we get these kinds of laws because Iowan farmers* don't want change. They are extremely pissed off at "big city liberals" because a 76 square mile area of the state has more voters than the remaining 55,800 square miles, and they're doing their best to see to it that change doesn't come any faster than absolutely necessary. IOW, what was good enough for their great-grandfathers should be good enough for their great-grandchildren. I personally don't think that's gonna play to well in Peoria, but then again, I won't be here to see for myself what happens, I'm just tossing out a conjecture or two....
I twistedly interpreted this to mean that AC wants someone to sue him/herself for abusing the DMCA process. But I'll bet that AC actually meant to say "I just wish that you could be sued for false DMCA notices....."
In point of fact, a false filer can be sued, but the law is written to automatically give that filer a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. "Good faith effort" and all that jizz-jazz works a treat for DMCA abusers, effectively neutering the intent of that section of the law. Thanks, Congressional Hollywood lovers. :(
I had to think for a moment on what you said about logins, and I realized that I did a dis-service to ACs. But I don't believe that an account would be required insomuch as Karma points will quite likely encourage the creation of an account. This is because as soon as someone posts under AC, he/she will accrue all of the negative points thus far assigned, properly deserved or not. Mike would have no incentive to keep setting AC back to zero Karma.... or perhaps he would, I can't really say for sure. I do know that at least two different persons are posting here under the AC moniker whom I think post wisely, and I agree that it would be a sad day for the comments section to see them leave because they simply don't want to acquire an account. (I myself used a fictitious name to sign up, why can't others do the same?)
So there is no absolute "best way to do it", but I'm pretty happy with the way things are setup at this point in time. I didn't originally espouse that Mike should change to a different system, I was only using that as an example of how the Troll-button should be considered, namely as a "teaching device, to improve one's ability to discuss topics of interest with other community members without giving giving offense, inadvertently or otherwise".
I trust we're on the same page here. Thanks for the note.
Here's your problems bunky, in a nutshell. You babble on about something that simply isn't true, and the rest of us don't buy into your conspiracy theory.
The point of the Hide/Show button is not to censor you in any manner, it's to teach you that you've overstepped your bounds, said boundaries being to be somewhat polite, recognize that others also have opinions, agendas, and their own conspiracy theories, the latter which might not match up to yours 100%.
Think of it this way: If Mike wanted to, he could institute a "reputation points" or a "Karma points" system, whereby your post would still be fully visible, but your Karma score would also be visible. If you don't earn Karma, then it doesn't come your way, pure and simple. And readers can see that a Karma score of some negative number probably indicates a non-productive posting, and can be safely skipped over.
I couldn't care less whichever way Mike wants to to it, I'm just glad that he lets the rest of us chime in with our opinions of some posters, good or bad. But that word "productive" is your indicator - if you aren't contributing something worthwhile to the conversation, then you're probably going to be Troll-buttoned, just that simple.
tl;dr:
Instead of jumping to the conclusion that you've been censored, you should think to yourself "Why did these people think that my post had something wrong with it?".
Re: Re: Re: Site that CENSORS and advocates MORE corporate contr
And has it occurred to you that TD didn't do it, I did. Or more properly, I helped to do it. As a community-moderated forum, it takes more than one person to actually trigger the "Hide/Show" action, each person can only state his/her opinion via the Troll button.
And while opinions can be hypocritical, more than a few people expressing the same opinion starts to look less like hypocrisy, and more like a majority opinion. It shouldn't have to be said, but I strongly doubt you'll find any long-timers in this comment area that endorses, or loves, or even just tolerates spam, trollishness, or even just plain old ordinary bullshit, no matter the source. (Perhaps excepting scatological references, we're sometimes a weird bunch here.)
But thanks for playing, better luck next time. Next contestant, please!
No, the real problem here is not Gawker, but the fact that a very rich person didn't like what Gawker said about him, way back in the dim past. But said rich person knew that he couldn't sue for it, so he bided his time, and waited a case to come along that had potential for damaging Gawker. We call this the Al Capone case of the digital era.
Recall that Capone was imprisoned not for being a mob boss and thus responsible for hundreds of murders as well as other crimes against society, but for tax evasion. That was provable in court, even thought it was the least of his transgressions, and thus the Feds put an end to his illegal activities.
Gawker stepped over the line on the Hulk Hogan piece, to be sure, but they didn't deserve to have someone come after them who was carrying a years-long grudge, and holding a Treasury MInt-sized bag of cash with nowhere better to spend it than on his personal desire for revenge. The "I invented email" kid had no case, and yet he put Gawker's dick in the dirt, and Gawker had done nothing more than tell the truth (in that particular instance) - he didn't invent email, simple as that. Just like Al Capone, only this time it wasn't even a small petty offense, it was Truth that suffered the most harm.
One lone asshat comes into Mike's Place and spouts off with his view on things, some of them being of a personal nature. The vast majority of regular contributors respond, but not in kind - they are addressing the asshat's off-topic topic, and not bringing their own personal agendas into the matter.
Said asshat doubles down so often that Mike himself has to step in call the asshat out.... and it just gets even worse after that.
TomT, I tried at the beginning to give you a valid demonstration of where you went wrong, and I thought I was being friendly about it. But at more than a hundred(!!) posts, you still act like an asshat.... And then have the gall to call the rest of us wrong..... And you wonder why we're labeling you as a Troll slash asshat???
Take it for what it's worth, but from now on I will hit the Troll button automatically upon seeing your screen-name, as you have earned your way to the bottom of my Respect List.
And they put time into this finely crafted piece of shit....
Remind me again.... Wasn't it those same fine, upstanding, fair-haired Republicans who said that Liberal Democrats are convinced that they can pick up a turd by the clean end?
Stephen, I think you've missed the point TomT alluded to earlier. To quote:
As the owner of a mall in the 9th circuit I would like to say that the guy gathering signatures for a ballot initiative, yadda yadda, etc.
The point that TomT is missing is that signature gatherers are protected in this instance because they are espousing a political cause, not just disturbing the peace. So long as the gatherers are themselves not doing anything more than standing very near to the approachway to a building's door, they are considered peaceful, and thus they cannot be told to leave just because they have a particular political value that is at odds with the management/ownership of the building.
Now, TomT.... the point Stephen makes is that you have conflated your personal situation with the greater point of this discussion - Section 230 does nothing for you, or any other owners of private property such as malls, plazas, shopping centers, parking lots, etc. The very term that is often appreviated CDA should be a clue - Computer Decency Act... not "Mall Peacefulness In The Eyes Of The Owner Act". Section 230 does only one thing, and it does very, very well - to wit: If one is offended by a post, then one must seek redress from the actual offender, not from the carrier of that post.
Can you image, just for a moment, if your paperboy (do we even still have those?) were to be liable for bringing you bad news every morning? And that's the logical extension of what these anti-230 bills would come down to, attaching blame onto the nearest target, not the proper one, i.e. the original author of the offensive words. Of course, in today's crazily over-lawyered society we have the "sue 'em all and let the judge sort it out" mindset, so the paperboy won't be the only one the hot seat. Still, none of those intermediaries should've ever been subjected to a court proceeding in the first place, and that's where S230 comes in. At least in the online world.
As to the world of your mall? Sorry, can't help you with that one.
Prosecutors have no say in bail approval or denial - that's up to the judge. A simple thing called an arraignment takes place at the next opportunity after the arrest, and thereat the prosecutor can make his case (or hers), and the judge will decide the risk factor. (I can't speak for Washington D.C., but in some jurisdictions, the judge might rely on other sources for info before making that determination.) If the prosecutor doesn't like the judge's order, he or she can appeal to a higher court, but he or she can't simply ignore it and keep the alleged perpetrator incarcerated.... in the name of public safety, of course. Doing so tends to earn some one-on-one time with the judge, and not of the fun-and-games variety.
Your personal security is your business, not anyone else's, period. If you rely even on others, even at just 1%, for your security needs/desires, then you are at fault when the fan becomes shitfaced - no one else can be blamed but you.
Whyzzat? Simple - you have no recourse when your personal life becomes fubar, all because your computer/phone/smartTV/etc. was compromised. Do you honestly believe that Norton, McAfee, any of the others, can be sued for you're identity being stolen via malware? Guess again, bunky. Every one of those suppliers have a disclaimer to the effect that they accept no responsibility for your actions, and the way you use your computer. Can't blame them, can you. It'd be a courtroom's worst nightmare to have a couple hundred million users all trying to sue Norton just because they failed to detect (and exterminate) some new kind of virus/trojan/worm/phage/what-have-you/flavor of the week malware.
In short, let me once again blurt out the old saw that goes: Practice Safe Hex. Do it like your digital life depends on it, because it does. (Side note: or more properly, a "side brag" - I've gone 22 years now without so much as seeing, let alone succumbing to, any kind of malware. That's right, 1999 was the last time I was "hit" with a browser hijack attack. Since then, I think first about everything I do online, before I do it. Works a treat, I assure you.)
Sounds to me like England is getting ready for it's Second Great Wave of Emigration. You know, where the first one was to escape sovereign corruption, back in the 1600 and 1700s? Well, this time it'll be to escape Home Office corruption, and like the last time, it won't be pretty.
And why is it that all this talk about government secrecy keeps hitting my BS detector, sounding more than a little bit like our government's Stingray fuckfest.
This. What I'll never understand is why a perfectly good phone, working as intended, needs to be updated in the first place. The very idea of "phoning home" is based on this exact scenario - get updates to make sure that the phone can still be compromised by outsiders be they the authorities (and why would they need to do such a thing in the first place??), hackers who have penetrated the servers without permission, or the very manufacturers themselves, for whatever ulterior motive they might have up their sleeves.
Oh, wait a moment, I recall now.... It's all in the name of "protecting the customer/user". Of course, how could I forget.
He or she is angry because of the disparity between the two examples. His/Her only question is, why is the kid not afforded the same rights to post bail as the #45 lovers, or to meet some other condition as mentioned by the Court?
.... and that is for the citizenry to submit an Initiative (or the equivalent in NYC) for a popular vote to have the CCRB become the Police Defense Against Citizen Complaints Board. In summary, any citizen complaint is grounds for automatic termination, no union interjection allowed. You can bet your sweet bippy that a lot of documentation will be forthcoming for that defense, make no mistake. I'd give it a 21 day time limit to present credible evidence, and after that, it's all over but the shouting.
Yes, this does mean that an officer is presumed guilty and must prove his innocence within a reasonable doubt, said reasonableness being that found in the common man-on-the-street, not a legal wise-guy. But we have a sure-fire example of that already at hand, and have had for the last 19.5 years - the TSA and their "prove you're not a terrorist" behavior model.
This is just for starters. But the real problem isn't that the police have become perpetually self-corrupting, it's that this shit didn't just show up out of nowhere - it was brought in by a few who were already of a corrupt mindset, and they simply expanded their field of influence until we have the crap we are seeing today. These kinds of malcontents need to be weeded out at the beginning, not found out 5 or 6, or 8, or even 10 to 15 years later. If and when appropriate, I can lay out some details on how to fix that, but just now that would be a little too off-topic.
On the post: Cable Giant Charter Fined $19 Million For Lying About Competitors Going Out Of Business
Re: I swear, the more I hear...
Right about the time that we graduated from school more lawyers than we needed to defend the accused in courts of the land. The "overstock" became corporate lawyers, and I think you can guess where this is going.....
On the post: Tennessee Lawmakers Decide Chris Sevier Has Good Ideas, Push His Bill To Compel Speech From Media Outlets
'Sfunny, every time I read 14A, I somehow fail to see anything about reporting, in any form, as being a part of 'due process'. I'm pretty sure that the Founding Fathers used the term 'due process' to mean that the government itself cannot simply run roughshod over an individual's rights, particularly those granted by the Constitution and it's several amendments.
In the legal sense, due process has nothing to do with any non-government entity, period.
On a different note, were I a news agency of some substance in Tennessee, I'd rally the troops to support this legislation. Why? Because I'd then send a bill to the Legislature every time I had to print something that was not newsworthy, or had to broadcast it over the air, or onto the internet. My claim would be that the non-newsworthy material was forced upon me, and by extension, onto my readers/viewers. Not only was that was a waste of resources that could've been better spent serving the community, but other newsworthy stories were perforce shunted aside. By definition, that was not serving the community's best interests.
And all of this is before we even get to the fact that my advertisers won't pay for having their ads run next to non-newsworthy items, for obvious reasons. Which needs compensation to offset that loss....
On the post: Iowa Senate Approves Bill That Would Add Qualified Immunity To The State Law Books
In some cases, that's true, but what this is really doing is setting up a "super case" for testing, and hopefully finalizing, State's Rights.
In the main, I agree that states should be in charge of their citizenry, that in fact the country was formed for only two things - to allow a cohesive effort in protecting the several states from outside interference (colloquially known as 'war'), and to keep any one state from overpowering another, less well provisioned state. Those two ideas are THE central tenet behind the preample to the Constitution that goes "We the People, in order to form a more perfect Union.... We've certainly come a long way down the pike from those ideas, haven't we.
But this business about 'basic civil rights', that's gotten just about everybody's dander all up in arms, that's for sure. So here's the problem: Courts have long held that cops DON"T need to know the law in order to make citizens obey it. And now Iowa wants to codify that idea. My question at that point would be: "If they aren't expected to know even a greater portion of the laws on the books, how do you even come close to expecting them to know anything about civil rights???" If anything, civil rights are constantly being refined in the courts, and the Statutes are only "good starting points". As seen in the recent decade, the very LAST thing the comes to a cop's mind when "contacting a citizen" is wondering if he or she is about to violate that citizen's rights. Rightly or wrongly, that's something that always comes up during CYA time, which is way too late for George Floyd, MIchael Brown, ect.
The "proper" solution is to put the shoe on the other foot: "Any officer of the law who disrespects a citizen's civil rights is automatically deemed to be unfit for service, and shall be subject to discipline by a court of competent jurisdiction, with or without the testimony of any aggrieved citizen."
All of that set aside for the moment, we get these kinds of laws because Iowan farmers* don't want change. They are extremely pissed off at "big city liberals" because a 76 square mile area of the state has more voters than the remaining 55,800 square miles, and they're doing their best to see to it that change doesn't come any faster than absolutely necessary. IOW, what was good enough for their great-grandfathers should be good enough for their great-grandchildren. I personally don't think that's gonna play to well in Peoria, but then again, I won't be here to see for myself what happens, I'm just tossing out a conjecture or two....
On the post: Khloe Kardashian Streisands A Photo She Wanted Taken Down By Issuing Takedowns
Re:
I twistedly interpreted this to mean that AC wants someone to sue him/herself for abusing the DMCA process. But I'll bet that AC actually meant to say "I just wish that you could be sued for false DMCA notices....."
In point of fact, a false filer can be sued, but the law is written to automatically give that filer a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. "Good faith effort" and all that jizz-jazz works a treat for DMCA abusers, effectively neutering the intent of that section of the law. Thanks, Congressional Hollywood lovers. :(
On the post: Russia Ramps Up Censorship Beef With Twitter Using Deep Packet Inspection Tech
Re: Re: Re: Back after blocked!
SDM,
I had to think for a moment on what you said about logins, and I realized that I did a dis-service to ACs. But I don't believe that an account would be required insomuch as Karma points will quite likely encourage the creation of an account. This is because as soon as someone posts under AC, he/she will accrue all of the negative points thus far assigned, properly deserved or not. Mike would have no incentive to keep setting AC back to zero Karma.... or perhaps he would, I can't really say for sure. I do know that at least two different persons are posting here under the AC moniker whom I think post wisely, and I agree that it would be a sad day for the comments section to see them leave because they simply don't want to acquire an account. (I myself used a fictitious name to sign up, why can't others do the same?)
So there is no absolute "best way to do it", but I'm pretty happy with the way things are setup at this point in time. I didn't originally espouse that Mike should change to a different system, I was only using that as an example of how the Troll-button should be considered, namely as a "teaching device, to improve one's ability to discuss topics of interest with other community members without giving giving offense, inadvertently or otherwise".
I trust we're on the same page here. Thanks for the note.
On the post: Russia Ramps Up Censorship Beef With Twitter Using Deep Packet Inspection Tech
Re: Back after blocked!
Here's your problems bunky, in a nutshell. You babble on about something that simply isn't true, and the rest of us don't buy into your conspiracy theory.
The point of the Hide/Show button is not to censor you in any manner, it's to teach you that you've overstepped your bounds, said boundaries being to be somewhat polite, recognize that others also have opinions, agendas, and their own conspiracy theories, the latter which might not match up to yours 100%.
Think of it this way: If Mike wanted to, he could institute a "reputation points" or a "Karma points" system, whereby your post would still be fully visible, but your Karma score would also be visible. If you don't earn Karma, then it doesn't come your way, pure and simple. And readers can see that a Karma score of some negative number probably indicates a non-productive posting, and can be safely skipped over.
I couldn't care less whichever way Mike wants to to it, I'm just glad that he lets the rest of us chime in with our opinions of some posters, good or bad. But that word "productive" is your indicator - if you aren't contributing something worthwhile to the conversation, then you're probably going to be Troll-buttoned, just that simple.
tl;dr:
Instead of jumping to the conclusion that you've been censored, you should think to yourself "Why did these people think that my post had something wrong with it?".
On the post: Russia Ramps Up Censorship Beef With Twitter Using Deep Packet Inspection Tech
Re: Re: Re: Site that CENSORS and advocates MORE corporate contr
And has it occurred to you that TD didn't do it, I did. Or more properly, I helped to do it. As a community-moderated forum, it takes more than one person to actually trigger the "Hide/Show" action, each person can only state his/her opinion via the Troll button.
And while opinions can be hypocritical, more than a few people expressing the same opinion starts to look less like hypocrisy, and more like a majority opinion. It shouldn't have to be said, but I strongly doubt you'll find any long-timers in this comment area that endorses, or loves, or even just tolerates spam, trollishness, or even just plain old ordinary bullshit, no matter the source. (Perhaps excepting scatological references, we're sometimes a weird bunch here.)
But thanks for playing, better luck next time. Next contestant, please!
On the post: Lawyer Whose Main Claim To Fame Is Suing A News Org To Get It Shut Down, Now Complains About 'Cancel Culture'
Re: Re: Gawker destroyed itself.
No, the real problem here is not Gawker, but the fact that a very rich person didn't like what Gawker said about him, way back in the dim past. But said rich person knew that he couldn't sue for it, so he bided his time, and waited a case to come along that had potential for damaging Gawker. We call this the Al Capone case of the digital era.
Recall that Capone was imprisoned not for being a mob boss and thus responsible for hundreds of murders as well as other crimes against society, but for tax evasion. That was provable in court, even thought it was the least of his transgressions, and thus the Feds put an end to his illegal activities.
Gawker stepped over the line on the Hulk Hogan piece, to be sure, but they didn't deserve to have someone come after them who was carrying a years-long grudge, and holding a Treasury MInt-sized bag of cash with nowhere better to spend it than on his personal desire for revenge. The "I invented email" kid had no case, and yet he put Gawker's dick in the dirt, and Gawker had done nothing more than tell the truth (in that particular instance) - he didn't invent email, simple as that. Just like Al Capone, only this time it wasn't even a small petty offense, it was Truth that suffered the most harm.
On the post: Russia Ramps Up Censorship Beef With Twitter Using Deep Packet Inspection Tech
Re: Site that CENSORS and advocates MORE corporate control sez:
Troll-buttoned, as it contributed nothing of value to the conversation, just accusations and innuendo.
It is too fookin' bad that ignorance isn't painful.
On the post: North Carolina State Senators Read Section 230 Completely Backwards, Introduces Laughably Confused Bill In Response
Re:
Let's see here....
One lone asshat comes into Mike's Place and spouts off with his view on things, some of them being of a personal nature. The vast majority of regular contributors respond, but not in kind - they are addressing the asshat's off-topic topic, and not bringing their own personal agendas into the matter.
Said asshat doubles down so often that Mike himself has to step in call the asshat out.... and it just gets even worse after that.
TomT, I tried at the beginning to give you a valid demonstration of where you went wrong, and I thought I was being friendly about it. But at more than a hundred(!!) posts, you still act like an asshat.... And then have the gall to call the rest of us wrong..... And you wonder why we're labeling you as a Troll slash asshat???
Take it for what it's worth, but from now on I will hit the Troll button automatically upon seeing your screen-name, as you have earned your way to the bottom of my Respect List.
On the post: North Carolina State Senators Read Section 230 Completely Backwards, Introduces Laughably Confused Bill In Response
Re:
Remind me again.... Wasn't it those same fine, upstanding, fair-haired Republicans who said that Liberal Democrats are convinced that they can pick up a turd by the clean end?
On the post: North Carolina State Senators Read Section 230 Completely Backwards, Introduces Laughably Confused Bill In Response
Re:
Stephen, I think you've missed the point TomT alluded to earlier. To quote:
The point that TomT is missing is that signature gatherers are protected in this instance because they are espousing a political cause, not just disturbing the peace. So long as the gatherers are themselves not doing anything more than standing very near to the approachway to a building's door, they are considered peaceful, and thus they cannot be told to leave just because they have a particular political value that is at odds with the management/ownership of the building.
Now, TomT.... the point Stephen makes is that you have conflated your personal situation with the greater point of this discussion - Section 230 does nothing for you, or any other owners of private property such as malls, plazas, shopping centers, parking lots, etc. The very term that is often appreviated CDA should be a clue - Computer Decency Act... not "Mall Peacefulness In The Eyes Of The Owner Act". Section 230 does only one thing, and it does very, very well - to wit: If one is offended by a post, then one must seek redress from the actual offender, not from the carrier of that post.
Can you image, just for a moment, if your paperboy (do we even still have those?) were to be liable for bringing you bad news every morning? And that's the logical extension of what these anti-230 bills would come down to, attaching blame onto the nearest target, not the proper one, i.e. the original author of the offensive words. Of course, in today's crazily over-lawyered society we have the "sue 'em all and let the judge sort it out" mindset, so the paperboy won't be the only one the hot seat. Still, none of those intermediaries should've ever been subjected to a court proceeding in the first place, and that's where S230 comes in. At least in the online world.
As to the world of your mall? Sorry, can't help you with that one.
On the post: California Supreme Court Says Keeping People Locked Up Just Because They Can't Make Bail Is Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Speaking of ignorance....
Prosecutors have no say in bail approval or denial - that's up to the judge. A simple thing called an arraignment takes place at the next opportunity after the arrest, and thereat the prosecutor can make his case (or hers), and the judge will decide the risk factor. (I can't speak for Washington D.C., but in some jurisdictions, the judge might rely on other sources for info before making that determination.) If the prosecutor doesn't like the judge's order, he or she can appeal to a higher court, but he or she can't simply ignore it and keep the alleged perpetrator incarcerated.... in the name of public safety, of course. Doing so tends to earn some one-on-one time with the judge, and not of the fun-and-games variety.
On the post: New Info About Encrypted Messaging Service Bust Shows Signal Protocol Is Still Secure, Law Enforcement Can Still Bypass Encryption
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry for the typos above, I "accidentally" hit the Submit button instead of the Preview button. Sigh.
On the post: New Info About Encrypted Messaging Service Bust Shows Signal Protocol Is Still Secure, Law Enforcement Can Still Bypass Encryption
Re: Re: Re:
Absolutely the wrongest thing you could've said.
Your personal security is your business, not anyone else's, period. If you rely even on others, even at just 1%, for your security needs/desires, then you are at fault when the fan becomes shitfaced - no one else can be blamed but you.
Whyzzat? Simple - you have no recourse when your personal life becomes fubar, all because your computer/phone/smartTV/etc. was compromised. Do you honestly believe that Norton, McAfee, any of the others, can be sued for you're identity being stolen via malware? Guess again, bunky. Every one of those suppliers have a disclaimer to the effect that they accept no responsibility for your actions, and the way you use your computer. Can't blame them, can you. It'd be a courtroom's worst nightmare to have a couple hundred million users all trying to sue Norton just because they failed to detect (and exterminate) some new kind of virus/trojan/worm/phage/what-have-you/flavor of the week malware.
In short, let me once again blurt out the old saw that goes: Practice Safe Hex. Do it like your digital life depends on it, because it does. (Side note: or more properly, a "side brag" - I've gone 22 years now without so much as seeing, let alone succumbing to, any kind of malware. That's right, 1999 was the last time I was "hit" with a browser hijack attack. Since then, I think first about everything I do online, before I do it. Works a treat, I assure you.)
On the post: UK Politicians Getting Serious About Ending End-To-End Encryption
Sounds to me like England is getting ready for it's Second Great Wave of Emigration. You know, where the first one was to escape sovereign corruption, back in the 1600 and 1700s? Well, this time it'll be to escape Home Office corruption, and like the last time, it won't be pretty.
And why is it that all this talk about government secrecy keeps hitting my BS detector, sounding more than a little bit like our government's Stingray fuckfest.
On the post: New Info About Encrypted Messaging Service Bust Shows Signal Protocol Is Still Secure, Law Enforcement Can Still Bypass Encryption
Re:
This. What I'll never understand is why a perfectly good phone, working as intended, needs to be updated in the first place. The very idea of "phoning home" is based on this exact scenario - get updates to make sure that the phone can still be compromised by outsiders be they the authorities (and why would they need to do such a thing in the first place??), hackers who have penetrated the servers without permission, or the very manufacturers themselves, for whatever ulterior motive they might have up their sleeves.
Oh, wait a moment, I recall now.... It's all in the name of "protecting the customer/user". Of course, how could I forget.
On the post: California Supreme Court Says Keeping People Locked Up Just Because They Can't Make Bail Is Unconstitutional
Re: Re:
He or she is angry because of the disparity between the two examples. His/Her only question is, why is the kid not afforded the same rights to post bail as the #45 lovers, or to meet some other condition as mentioned by the Court?
On the post: FCC Wants To Hear Your Thoughts On Crappy US Broadband
Re: About that Point Number 2....
Which number of a symmetrical pair is the lower of the two??
On the post: Months After Violent NYPD Responses To Protests Resulted In Hundreds Of Complaints, Only Two Officers Are Facing Serious Discipline
There is an easy solution
.... and that is for the citizenry to submit an Initiative (or the equivalent in NYC) for a popular vote to have the CCRB become the Police Defense Against Citizen Complaints Board. In summary, any citizen complaint is grounds for automatic termination, no union interjection allowed. You can bet your sweet bippy that a lot of documentation will be forthcoming for that defense, make no mistake. I'd give it a 21 day time limit to present credible evidence, and after that, it's all over but the shouting.
Yes, this does mean that an officer is presumed guilty and must prove his innocence within a reasonable doubt, said reasonableness being that found in the common man-on-the-street, not a legal wise-guy. But we have a sure-fire example of that already at hand, and have had for the last 19.5 years - the TSA and their "prove you're not a terrorist" behavior model.
This is just for starters. But the real problem isn't that the police have become perpetually self-corrupting, it's that this shit didn't just show up out of nowhere - it was brought in by a few who were already of a corrupt mindset, and they simply expanded their field of influence until we have the crap we are seeing today. These kinds of malcontents need to be weeded out at the beginning, not found out 5 or 6, or 8, or even 10 to 15 years later. If and when appropriate, I can lay out some details on how to fix that, but just now that would be a little too off-topic.
Next >>