Comey engages in the fallacy of "false middle ground".
He pretends that between his view that we can safely break encryption for "good guys only" and experts' view that "backdoors will break computer security", there must be a middle ground somewhere, and pretending otherwise is childish. He then pretends that he's ready to compromise on his view, provided the experts also compromise with theirs.
There are two techniques there: - the middle ground is a fallacy in itself. It's not a case where the two sides of the argument have equivalent value, so it's not "adult" to compromise here when reality doesn't compromise. Encryption is either reasonably secure (no backdoor, though there can be flaws that we try to close as best as possible) or basically useless (with backdoor that "bad guys" would eventually find and exploit as much as "good guys" would from the start). - the other - implicit - lie is that he will compromise on anything. His strategy is basically to make people accept that his view is as valid as the experts', force a discussion about a "compromise", then make people accept his opinion fully when the "compromise" turns out to be impossible. (see previous point) At that point, people will already debate on the assumption that his view is valid, and he will probably use connections and arguments of authority to settle things in his favor.
In a way, he's right. He wants to settle things the "adult" way: using fallacies, forcing his views on others, manipulating the system. Basic politics. Very adult. That's not reasonable, but it's definitely the way adults settle things.
I agree with you up to a certain point: ESPN is acting as a douche, however, being a douche is immoral, not illegal. They can double- or triple-douche, that makes them look bad, but it's still not illegal.
If that's the extent of your argument, remember that the law is there to punish criminal activity, not "things you don't like" in general. If we went that way, remember that there is anyways someone somewhere who will think you're a douche too.
Sorry if I wasn't clear but you got it right. That's what too many people misunderstand about this concept, and yes it runs directly counter to what it really means
Actually, note that I think of it, the parallel with the US first amendment can be pushed further: people misunderstand Laïcité in the same way that some people think that the first amendment should prevent people from saying anything that annoys or upsets someone else.
"Laïcité is the hardest for people outside France to understand"
Actually, it's a concept most French people also fail to understand.
What it actually means is basically that the government must stay away from religious matters: no state religion, no government subsidies to any religion (save from a regional exception), no discrimination against a reliving, etc. Basically the equivalent of a first amendment limited to religion.
What people understand too often is that the government should eliminate "visible" signs of (mostly Islamic) religious choices. So Muslims shouldn't wear burka or niqab... Or those burkinis mentioned in the article. Since everyone has equal rights, but some are more equal than others, it's obvious that signs of catholic religion are tolerated.
So yes, I can easily believe that foreigners have a hard time understand the concept.
That reasoning could apply to VCR too. The fact that the set top box is connected doesn't change the applicable law: is a hardware that enable the customer some fair uses that are not intended by the copyright holder, but are still legal. If a third party set top box manufacturer uses the box to collect copyrighted content illegally, then you can sure the individual manufacturer. Otherwise using a third party hardware doesn't constitute infringement.
Actually, if we're to extend copyright indefinitely, maybe we should just go all the way through: - make all copyrights retroactively infinite in duration. - make companies who have built their works on public domain art retroactively pay back the copyright owner for their works (with compound interests). - bankrupt Disney!
For those who don't get it, that's sarcasm. Not that I wouldn't like to see that happening to Disney, but that would mess up with a lot more people than them.
Let's amend this proposition: make it apply only to Disney. After all, they're some of the most active advocates of repeated/indefinite copyright extension. They should be all for being the first to experience it.
Oh wait, that's an easy one: it's the exact same reason that make news companies complain that Google "pirate" their content, ask lawmakers to make Google pay them for the "stolen content"... and have an explicit rule in their robots.txt that allow Google in.
"As discussed above, it is not the Fourth Amendment. The constitutional rule applies only when its deterrence benefits outweigh its heavy social costs, and that is not the case here."
Let's sum this up: "4th amendment only apply when we say it does." Which goes quite well with the more general rule of "your rights apply only when we say they do".
And the context will change things a lot: - If you are white and rich, we will grant you rights broadly. - If you're non-white and rich, you will have only the exact rights as written in law, no less, but definitely not more. - If you have a badge, you not only have rights as written in the law (interpreted broadly in your favor already), but we're even willing to cut you some slack on rights you definitely do not have (perjury, theft, rape, murder). - If you can afford a lawyer, you have a chance that we will examine your case properly. (YMMV though.) - If can't afford a lawyer, "we will grant you the most overworked one we can find who will urge you to plead guilty." (Thanks to John Oliver for this one.) - You get bonus points if you can get newspapers and internet to focus on your case for a few days. That will definitely make us examine the case with more attention than it deserves. We're busy and important people after all, we can't more than a few seconds to judge little people like you.
---
Sarcasm aside, this kind of statement is exactly what erodes trust in law, law enforcement and "justice". If LEOs and judges don't follow proper laws and procedures, how can we expect them to judge people fairly? If they're willing to suspend rights because "the end justifies the means", how is any right guaranteed at all?
My question there is the same for all those "stings". Hope much time, effort and resources are spent on manufacturing imaginary drug stashes, dreamed-up weapon caches and fantasy terrorists? How many real threats could be caught early by chasing after actual drugs, weapons and terrorists instead? The numbers would be lower, but the return on investment much higher.
This is not making any more safe than running after unicorns. (Nasty critters.)
That reminds me of France, some years back: they passed a law for the sole purpose of changing in all existing laws any instance of the word "videosurveillance" into "videoprotection". Not changing anything to make it fit to a "protection" purpose, just changing the word so they can pretend that any new law on videosurveillance is about "protecting the public".
That is not anything new, just the most obvious case of "changing the words, not the actions" I've ever seen. Subtle as a 30-ton truck driving through your garden.
First, is this "good faith exception" even a law? If not, it's only a bad precedent established years ago that should be rescinded ASAP.
Second, to make it clear, an actual law should be passed to codify it. Something - at federal level so it applies to anyone, that states something in the line of: - misstatement of law shall lead to the actions taken based on it (warrant, search, arrest, etc.) to be considered invalid. (Reparations might be in order in at least some cases.) - the agent (cop, federal investigator, judge, etc.) Who originated the misstatement can be prosecuted into an indefinite leave without pay. - the agent can argue "good faith" as a defense. - the agent can undergo training to resume his functions.
With this, in no case would "good faith" save illegally obtained evidence. It would only be a way for agents of the law to defend themselves, period.
This fix should encourage everyone involved to learn enough of the law - the very law they are "enforcing" - to keep their cases alive.
Your analogy is way off. The closest thing to your example here would be to hold the landlord of the liquor store accountable rather than the owner of the store. Nobody here is saying that renting regulations shouldn't apply. It's about who you're holding responsible for violations. It's obviously not difficult to go after each individual poster when you could just target the platform they're posting their ads on. That doesn't make suing and dining the platform more legal... or even "right" in any way. So, enforcing regulations means you go after the ones who post the illegal content, not the owner of the place they choose to do so.
And you're missing the point entirely, although it was stated in the article: you're always someone else's villain. If that someone happens to be rich, he can use this scheme to bury you under mountains of lawsuits. Only way to make this impossible is to make access to justice (both accusing and defending) free (as in free beer). Not realistic you'll say. Justice had a cost that someone has to pay... but this still makes the rich more "just" than the poor.
On the post: James Comey Claims He Wants An 'Adult Conversation' About Encryption; Apparently 'Adults' Ignore Experts
Sophistry
He pretends that between his view that we can safely break encryption for "good guys only" and experts' view that "backdoors will break computer security", there must be a middle ground somewhere, and pretending otherwise is childish.
He then pretends that he's ready to compromise on his view, provided the experts also compromise with theirs.
There are two techniques there:
- the middle ground is a fallacy in itself. It's not a case where the two sides of the argument have equivalent value, so it's not "adult" to compromise here when reality doesn't compromise. Encryption is either reasonably secure (no backdoor, though there can be flaws that we try to close as best as possible) or basically useless (with backdoor that "bad guys" would eventually find and exploit as much as "good guys" would from the start).
- the other - implicit - lie is that he will compromise on anything. His strategy is basically to make people accept that his view is as valid as the experts', force a discussion about a "compromise", then make people accept his opinion fully when the "compromise" turns out to be impossible. (see previous point) At that point, people will already debate on the assumption that his view is valid, and he will probably use connections and arguments of authority to settle things in his favor.
In a way, he's right. He wants to settle things the "adult" way: using fallacies, forcing his views on others, manipulating the system. Basic politics. Very adult.
That's not reasonable, but it's definitely the way adults settle things.
On the post: Court: Okay For Trial To Move Forward Against ESPN For Tweeting JPP's Medical Chart
Re: Sympathy
If that's the extent of your argument, remember that the law is there to punish criminal activity, not "things you don't like" in general. If we went that way, remember that there is anyways someone somewhere who will think you're a douche too.
On the post: Nice Officials Say They'll Sue Internet Users Who Share Photos Of French Fashion Police Fining Women In Burkinis
Re: Re: Laïcité
That's what too many people misunderstand about this concept, and yes it runs directly counter to what it really means
On the post: Nice Officials Say They'll Sue Internet Users Who Share Photos Of French Fashion Police Fining Women In Burkinis
Re: Laïcité
On the post: Nice Officials Say They'll Sue Internet Users Who Share Photos Of French Fashion Police Fining Women In Burkinis
Laïcité
Actually, it's a concept most French people also fail to understand.
What it actually means is basically that the government must stay away from religious matters: no state religion, no government subsidies to any religion (save from a regional exception), no discrimination against a reliving, etc. Basically the equivalent of a first amendment limited to religion.
What people understand too often is that the government should eliminate "visible" signs of (mostly Islamic) religious choices. So Muslims shouldn't wear burka or niqab... Or those burkinis mentioned in the article. Since everyone has equal rights, but some are more equal than others, it's obvious that signs of catholic religion are tolerated.
So yes, I can easily believe that foreigners have a hard time understand the concept.
On the post: Copyright Group, In Arguing Against FCC's Set Top Box Proposal, Appears To Argue That VCRs & DVRs Are Also Illegal
If a third party set top box manufacturer uses the box to collect copyrighted content illegally, then you can sure the individual manufacturer. Otherwise using a third party hardware doesn't constitute infringement.
On the post: Recording Industry Whines That It's Too Costly To Keep Copyright Terms At Life Plus 50, Instead Of Life Plus 70
- make all copyrights retroactively infinite in duration.
- make companies who have built their works on public domain art retroactively pay back the copyright owner for their works (with compound interests).
- bankrupt Disney!
For those who don't get it, that's sarcasm.
Not that I wouldn't like to see that happening to Disney, but that would mess up with a lot more people than them.
Let's amend this proposition: make it apply only to Disney. After all, they're some of the most active advocates of repeated/indefinite copyright extension. They should be all for being the first to experience it.
On the post: Woman Sues After Police Destroy Her Home During 10-Hour Standoff With The Family Dog
On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog...
On the post: The Ridiculous Concept Of The 'Value Gap' In Music Services... And How It Could Harm Both The Tech Industry And The Music Industry
Re: Complaining about a Choice...
it's the exact same reason that make news companies complain that Google "pirate" their content, ask lawmakers to make Google pay them for the "stolen content"... and have an explicit rule in their robots.txt that allow Google in.
On the post: Court Says There's No Remedy For Person Whose Vehicle Was Subjected To Civil Forfeiture After An Illegal Search
Let's sum this up: "4th amendment only apply when we say it does."
Which goes quite well with the more general rule of "your rights apply only when we say they do".
And the context will change things a lot:
- If you are white and rich, we will grant you rights broadly.
- If you're non-white and rich, you will have only the exact rights as written in law, no less, but definitely not more.
- If you have a badge, you not only have rights as written in the law (interpreted broadly in your favor already), but we're even willing to cut you some slack on rights you definitely do not have (perjury, theft, rape, murder).
- If you can afford a lawyer, you have a chance that we will examine your case properly. (YMMV though.)
- If can't afford a lawyer, "we will grant you the most overworked one we can find who will urge you to plead guilty." (Thanks to John Oliver for this one.)
- You get bonus points if you can get newspapers and internet to focus on your case for a few days. That will definitely make us examine the case with more attention than it deserves. We're busy and important people after all, we can't more than a few seconds to judge little people like you.
---
Sarcasm aside, this kind of statement is exactly what erodes trust in law, law enforcement and "justice".
If LEOs and judges don't follow proper laws and procedures, how can we expect them to judge people fairly? If they're willing to suspend rights because "the end justifies the means", how is any right guaranteed at all?
On the post: The FBI Says Its Homegrown Terrorist Stings Are Nothing More Than A Proactive Fight Against 'Going Dark'
Hope much time, effort and resources are spent on manufacturing imaginary drug stashes, dreamed-up weapon caches and fantasy terrorists?
How many real threats could be caught early by chasing after actual drugs, weapons and terrorists instead?
The numbers would be lower, but the return on investment much higher.
This is not making any more safe than running after unicorns. (Nasty critters.)
On the post: California Still Looking To Copyright All Sorts Of Government Works, Despite Protests
Re: ever more, ever more
The best solution to the problem is MORE of the problem.
On the post: Latest Absurd Moral Panic: Parents Complain Amazon Echo Is Creating Rude Children
Re:
Blame Canada!
On the post: Oklahoma Cops Debut Tool That Allows Them To Drain Pre-Paid Cards During Traffic Stops
Re:
Both are wanted in the US despite never having been there.
Kim's arrest was particularly spectacular, a raid worthy of Hollywood movies. (And probably just as costly too.)
On the post: Snowden Docs Show GCHQ, MI5 To Be All Haystack, No Needle
Re: These programs were never about terrorism.
Not changing anything to make it fit to a "protection" purpose, just changing the word so they can pretend that any new law on videosurveillance is about "protecting the public".
That is not anything new, just the most obvious case of "changing the words, not the actions" I've ever seen. Subtle as a 30-ton truck driving through your garden.
On the post: Another Court Says Law Enforcement Officers Don't Really Need To Know The Laws They're Enforcing
Proposed fix...
Second, to make it clear, an actual law should be passed to codify it. Something - at federal level so it applies to anyone, that states something in the line of:
- misstatement of law shall lead to the actions taken based on it (warrant, search, arrest, etc.) to be considered invalid. (Reparations might be in order in at least some cases.)
- the agent (cop, federal investigator, judge, etc.) Who originated the misstatement can be prosecuted into an indefinite leave without pay.
- the agent can argue "good faith" as a defense.
- the agent can undergo training to resume his functions.
With this, in no case would "good faith" save illegally obtained evidence. It would only be a way for agents of the law to defend themselves, period.
This fix should encourage everyone involved to learn enough of the law - the very law they are "enforcing" - to keep their cases alive.
On the post: Cities Rushing To Restrict Airbnb Are About To Discover That They're Violating Key Internet Law
Re: Re:
On the post: Cities Rushing To Restrict Airbnb Are About To Discover That They're Violating Key Internet Law
Re:
The closest thing to your example here would be to hold the landlord of the liquor store accountable rather than the owner of the store.
Nobody here is saying that renting regulations shouldn't apply. It's about who you're holding responsible for violations. It's obviously not difficult to go after each individual poster when you could just target the platform they're posting their ads on. That doesn't make suing and dining the platform more legal... or even "right" in any way.
So, enforcing regulations means you go after the ones who post the illegal content, not the owner of the place they choose to do so.
On the post: House Budget Bill Guts Net Neutrality, Kills FCC Authority -- All Because The FCC Dared To Stand Up To Comcast & AT&T
On the post: Yes, A Billionaire Looking To Destroy A Media Organization Through Lawsuits Is A Big Deal Even If You Don't Like The Media Organization
Re:
Only way to make this impossible is to make access to justice (both accusing and defending) free (as in free beer).
Not realistic you'll say. Justice had a cost that someone has to pay... but this still makes the rich more "just" than the poor.
Next >>